The problem is that the layout of the Orion/KGV/Iron Dukes wasn't exactly what you could call great. They had all seen hard long service in the war, steamed a great many miles. Their Q turret had a limited arc, and it made a mess of the layouf internally (its why it wasn't repeated in later ships). Also their armour scheme was seen as being a bit obsolete and their torpedo defences was lacking. Without either ripping out the Q turret and then adding more machinery, you'd also have to lengthen their hulls as you can only do so much with raw horsepower. You've then got to beef up their deck armour, improve torpedo protection etc etc etc and it all gets very very expensive. Perhaps the RN could have built a 'cheap' battlecruiser using the 13.5 gun in say 3 triple mounts but basically the older 13.5-inch gunned ships were not worth the money needed to upgrade them. The only one that was, is the Tiger and she's a popular subject of WI's about her being retained.
Post WWII RN - Centaur and Malta class carriers.
- Thread starter Archibald
- Start date
The problem is that the layout of the Orion/KGV/Iron Dukes wasn't exactly what you could call great. They had all seen hard long service in the war, steamed a great many miles. Their Q turret had a limited arc, and it made a mess of the layouf internally (its why it wasn't repeated in later ships). Also their armour scheme was seen as being a bit obsolete and their torpedo defences was lacking. Without either ripping out the Q turret and then adding more machinery, you'd also have to lengthen their hulls as you can only do so much with raw horsepower. You've then got to beef up their deck armour, improve torpedo protection etc etc etc and it all gets very very expensive. Perhaps the RN could have built a 'cheap' battlecruiser using the 13.5 gun in say 3 triple mounts but basically the older 13.5-inch gunned ships were not worth the money needed to upgrade them. The only one that was, is the Tiger and she's a popular subject of WI's about her being retained.
A factoid that's often thrown out is that 1 years war service is equivalent in wear to four years peace service.
I'm not sure if that is accurate or just an exaggerated way of saying war service is harder on the engines than peace service.
Either way the engines were worn.
Then there's the speed issue. Any 13.5 inch ship retained (with the exception of the battlecruiser s which suffered from poor armour design) would be as effective as an R class convoy escort battleship in any world war 2.
I'm not sure if that is accurate or just an exaggerated way of saying war service is harder on the engines than peace service.
Either way the engines were worn.
Then there's the speed issue. Any 13.5 inch ship retained (with the exception of the battlecruiser s which suffered from poor armour design) would be as effective as an R class convoy escort battleship in any world war 2.
My point was that I think if an ASB had offered the RN more R classes or 13.5" ships unmodernised in 39 they would have happily accepted them, yes they are slow and not very good but can still do many of the much needed jobs for the first half of the war.
I would suggest that the 13.5" ships would have be sufficient to fight off a German or Italian CA or pocket battleship and even against the modernized Italian BBs or S&G they might well have resulted in a mission kill or made them retire unwilling to risk damage. Plenty of convoys in the early war had inadequate surface escort Jervis Bays crew might have preferred 13.5" guns....
Personally I would prefer no Centaur class, they are just to small for the future and smaller and cheaper Colossus can do the commando/ASW job fine.
Lost Freeway
Banned
The Malta class had a overall length of 897 feet, 71 feet shorter than the Midway class.
Fair enough. I would agree with you. I would even argue that a 13.5 inch gunned battleship could have mission killed Bismarck or Tirpitz if either cared to fight a 13.5 inch gunned battleship. The problem of course being that the ships cannot force an engagement and that we require an asb to provide them.
The reason that I derailed the thread was the comparison if you are not an ASB but a 1950s RN admiral, would you really scrap old worn out CVs that would still be able to carry aircraft that could kill a Soviet Cruiser or Submarine when you know doing so will not get you a significant % of new decks return?
The main problem with the post war RN (and GB in general) was the lack of forward planning, but that's tied up in the much bigger problem of unwillingness to accept realistic GB lose of power and therefore thinking that they would always get more later if only they survived this years short budget crunch.... For Admirals who had joined the navy when Britain had the most capital ships in the world the fact that GB would not build any new hulls from 1945 to 2008 would be inconceivable (OK I admit a few SSBN should also count, but I doubt that they fitted the definition of capita ship in admirals minds).
Maybe to both, but head of the Admiralty (First Sea Lord, Chief of Naval Staff) is a 3 year or so posting and about the only person who fits the bill of someone who has the power in the position long enough to exert real power and influence is Louis Mountbatten who was AotF 1955-59 and then Chief of Defence Staff 1959-65.
Admiral David Luce resigned at 1st Sea Lord/CNS in March 1966 over the decision to cancel CVA01 and was replaced by Varyl Begg who was an opponent of CVA01 supporter of the Through Deck Cruiser, so personalities are important to influence or backup government decisions.
I think you need a more realistic set of strategic objectives given by the Cabinet to everybody downwards, but that really means a different elected government and the entire country...
That's right, when it was decided that Vic would be rebuilt in 1948-49 I believe it was assumed she'd be the first of several WW2 carrier rebuilds to a standard similar to the almost complete Eagle which was finished as an axial deck carrier in 1951. That her machinery wasn't surveyed and found to be ratshit was only part of the problem, the other part was the simultaneous invention of the steam catapult, mirror landing sight and angled deck so even if her machinery was properly overhauled while the ship was torn down she'd still come out of rebuild in about 1953-54 obsolescent due to the need to refit her with these three things. However in that scenario the Ark may have been completed with Vic's full angled deck and Type 984 radar/CDS which would be a better result come 1968.
You could also add that the size of jets was also going up very fast and she simply would not fit the later aircraft....
Archibald
Banned
as I said in the other thread, have Victorious torpedoed by the Italian air force, bombed by Stukas, and crippled by Kamikazes in WWII. With so much battle damage, the ship isn't worth upgrading after 1950 (see Illustrious fate).
what could be modernized instad ? you said Ark Royal might be in better shape and maybe last longer ? the alternative is Centaur, probably a couple of them.
Anderman
Donor
Here is another idea how to get a Malta -class sized aircraft carrier into RN service.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-class_battleship#Hybrid_aircraft_carrier
Perhabs somebody asked for a full aircraft carrier based on the Lion-class.
One interesting thing to note is that the Malta-Class, CVA01 and the american CVV design are all very similar in dimension and all shorter then the Midway-class.
So the smaller dry docks the RN had are not a large problem for a carrier design. The CVV was designed with the F-14 inmined.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-class_battleship#Hybrid_aircraft_carrier
Perhabs somebody asked for a full aircraft carrier based on the Lion-class.
One interesting thing to note is that the Malta-Class, CVA01 and the american CVV design are all very similar in dimension and all shorter then the Midway-class.
So the smaller dry docks the RN had are not a large problem for a carrier design. The CVV was designed with the F-14 inmined.