Only if there Admiralty had been willing to expend the financial and political capital to keep them relevant, unless there were major changes there then the Ports would have been more a dead weight in 1939.
Optimize the RN for WWII
- Thread starter Spencersj345.346
- Start date
was moreso thinking yards like jarrows than the treaty ports.
yeah if nothing else the RN would have needed a airfield or two per port or the utility would have been seriously reduced and they'd have been air raid bait
The problem there is you had other companies buying struggling yards just see they're shut down and reduce the competition to their own yards.
This is part of the Opening Post.
In that post I wrote that the average for the 14 financial years ending 31st March 1936 was £56,003,476 which with an increase of 10-15% is an average of £5,600,000 to £8,400,000 extra per annum.
However, I didn't say that the average for the 3 financial years starting on 1s April 1936 and ending on 31st March 1939 was £102,995,340 which with an increase of 10-15% is an average of £10,500,000 to 15,500,000 extra per annum when rounded to the nearest half million.
And I didn't say that the estimated expenditure for the financial year ending 31st March 1940 was £149,399,000 which with an increase of 10-15% £15,000,000 to £22,500,000 extra when rounded to the nearest half million.
To put that into perspective this is from a Cabinet Paper from October 1937 called "Defence Expenditure in Future Years" which I downloaded from the National Archives. The file reference is CAB.024.272 (0003).
This is the table from Post 37.
In that post I wrote that the average for the 14 financial years ending 31st March 1936 was £56,003,476 which with an increase of 10-15% is an average of £5,600,000 to £8,400,000 extra per annum.
However, I didn't say that the average for the 3 financial years starting on 1s April 1936 and ending on 31st March 1939 was £102,995,340 which with an increase of 10-15% is an average of £10,500,000 to 15,500,000 extra per annum when rounded to the nearest half million.
And I didn't say that the estimated expenditure for the financial year ending 31st March 1940 was £149,399,000 which with an increase of 10-15% £15,000,000 to £22,500,000 extra when rounded to the nearest half million.
To put that into perspective this is from a Cabinet Paper from October 1937 called "Defence Expenditure in Future Years" which I downloaded from the National Archives. The file reference is CAB.024.272 (0003).
Last edited:
Air fields, radar, AA batteries… Now technically the Treaty allowed for that type of expansion but there’s little practical way that’s likely to pass any government in Dublin (good thing nobody invited the RAF to the Treaty talks, if they had asked then the Irish delegation would have likely given it). Add in the loss of the labour force from WW1 and the Depression and the usefulness was seriously degraded by the late 30s. A RN with a larger budget might be willing to try and spend more on the ports (though historically they tried to avoid that even before Independence), but politics is another matter…
Establish an RN construction college for electricans and welding, offer the courses for free to commercial shipyards to increase the skill base available from the late 20s.
Next part of the jigsaw is to let all builders know that any ships ordered for the RN or UK government must be welded and establish a wiring standard for shipyards to work to.
Establish a set of RN standard of diesel generators and pumps, based on a Gardner or Perkins engine.
Next part of the jigsaw is to let all builders know that any ships ordered for the RN or UK government must be welded and establish a wiring standard for shipyards to work to.
Establish a set of RN standard of diesel generators and pumps, based on a Gardner or Perkins engine.
of course a lot of what we want to spend cash on is stuff like the RFA, more sloops, improved aircraft, refiting everything but the Rs if possible, keeping the turret and armor industry more intact, and more manpower among other things, but yeah this is a fair amount of cash that is available for higher end stuff
Could any of this money go towards Canada or Australia ? Maybe get them a few ships for Canada that could be used towards the war in the Atlantic and for Australia to maybe protect the Pacific etc better. I'm thinking a modern heavy cruiser each and a couple light cruisers and destroyers ?
Part of the Opening Post.
I'm asking because in addition to being a good thing in itself it might be easer for the Admiralty to regain control of naval aviation from the Air Ministry if the RAF is larger. The maritime portion of the RAF was not very large between 1923 and 1934 but it was still a significant percentage of the Service's total strength. The RAF might be willing to give it up if it was given enough money to complete the 52-Squadron Scheme by 1928. IOTL only 39 of the 52 squadrons had been formed by 31st March 1934 and at that time the planned completion date was 31st March 1938.
Do the Army and RAF have 10 to 15% more money from mid-1923 too?
I'm asking because in addition to being a good thing in itself it might be easer for the Admiralty to regain control of naval aviation from the Air Ministry if the RAF is larger. The maritime portion of the RAF was not very large between 1923 and 1934 but it was still a significant percentage of the Service's total strength. The RAF might be willing to give it up if it was given enough money to complete the 52-Squadron Scheme by 1928. IOTL only 39 of the 52 squadrons had been formed by 31st March 1934 and at that time the planned completion date was 31st March 1938.
iddt3
Donor
Is scrapping most of the battleships an option? Like can we just Carrier/Cruiser/Destroyer spam?
*edit* oh, and containerization, better shipping, and improved port infrastructure. Basically we need to be able to pen up the KM and the IM, which really doesn't require that much, fight the uboats at sea (lots of destroyer's, jeep carriers) and be ready to fight the IJN in the Pacific (lots of carriers and cruisers, plus subs to strangle commerce). The only war the RN can actually "win" itself is the one against Japan. Against Germany and Italy it's just about not losing. Which likely doesn't need fancy new battleships.
*edit* oh, and containerization, better shipping, and improved port infrastructure. Basically we need to be able to pen up the KM and the IM, which really doesn't require that much, fight the uboats at sea (lots of destroyer's, jeep carriers) and be ready to fight the IJN in the Pacific (lots of carriers and cruisers, plus subs to strangle commerce). The only war the RN can actually "win" itself is the one against Japan. Against Germany and Italy it's just about not losing. Which likely doesn't need fancy new battleships.
Last edited:
The difference between 23,000 tons and 27,000 tons is 4,000 tons and to two decimal places 4,000 is 17.39% of 23,000 and 14.8% of 27,000.
IIRC the estimated cost of an Illustrious was around £4 million so "Six hundred and ninety five thousand six hundred and fifty two Pounds three Shillings and Thruppence" in old money or to three decimal places £695,652.174.
Except that it would have had the same fixed armament of sixteen 4.5-inch & forty eight 2pdr Pom-Poms and the same fire control equipment. The machinery might not be any more powerful. E.g. Implacable and Implacable had boilers producing 148,000 shp driving four shafts and the much larger Audacious class had boilers producing 152,000 shp driving four shafts. Therefore, the 27,000 ton ship might get get away with the boilers producing 111,000 ships and driving 3 shafts that Illustrious had.
"Steel is cheap and air is free!"
Last edited:
Yes, but it would be a very bad idea. For one, carriers and cruisers don’t cut it without wartime tech advances. For another, the government would want your head and the Navy would be inclined to give it.
Yes, provided that an engine in the 1,700hp class can be developed sooner.
Last edited:
That's made me think of something.
Frank Whittle joined the RAF in January 1923 IOTL. That's before the POD so he can't join the reformed RNAS instead. However, would the Third and Fifth Sea Lords be more interested in gas turbines than the relevant parts of the RAF because gas turbines used safer fuels than piston aero engines? They'd probably want turboprops rather than jet engines due to the formers lower fuel consumption.
Maybe, but I suspect that the Australian and Canadian government's would cut their naval spending accordingly in the period between the POD and the middle 1930s.
IOTL the Australians bought 2 County class cruisers. The seaplane carrier Albatross was swapped for the 3 Amphion class cruisers. The RAN transferred their O class submarines to the RN and the RN transferred 5 old destroyers to the RAN but that wasn't a swap.
IOTL the Canadians bought 2 A-I type destroyers and the RN transferred another 5 to the RCN. There was also a plan to swap British built Tribal class destroyers for Canadian built Flower class corvettes but it didn't come to fruition because they couldn't negotiate an exchange rate. Canada did order 4 Tribals from British yards though.
The Dido class had a displacement of 5,600 tons so no money was saved on them.
According to Morris in "Cruisers of the Royal and Commonwealth Navies" the Edinburgh class displaced 10,260 tons and the Fiji class displaced 8,525 tons. That's a difference of 1,735 tons. So a Fiji displaced 20.35% less than an Edinburgh and an Edinburgh displaced 16.91% more than a Fiji.
They carried nearly the same armament.
- 12 x 6in (4 x 3), 12 x 4in (6 x 2), 16 x 2pdr (2 x 8), 8 x 0.5 (2 x 4), 6 x 21in TT and 3 aircraft - Edinburgh class.
- 12 x 6in (4 x 3), 8 x 4in (4 x 2), 8 x 2pdr (2 x 4), 16 x 0.5 (4 x 4), 6 x 21in TT and 2 aircraft - Fiji class.
- 4-shaft Parsons SR geared turbines. 4 Admiralty 3-drum boilers. 80,000 SHP = 32.0 knots - Edinburgh class.
- 4-shaft Parsons SR geared turbines. 4 Admiralty 3-drum boilers. 72,500 SHP = 31.5 knots - Fiji class.
Last edited:
For the record, the Yorks were 1.8 million pounds to the 2 million pounds of the Counties.