RN 1937 battleship design - G3 updated?

Some interesting posts. So, given that going for 18" guns would have been a no, no, both from a treaty point of view, and the development time to design and build it, there was the possibility of a G3/N3 big brother version of the Nelrods. But it seems, experience with them, and a rethink, brought any new design back to a more conventional layout.
The other option that may have occurred, after reading the comments, is that after starting a couple of KGVs, the issue of the 14" gun standard goes away - why not then use up the spare 15" gun turrets i.e. an early Vanguard though maybe not so big - then go Lions!?
The Royal Navy were generally not happy with the NelRod turrets. So there had to be a redesign.

The spare 15" turrets would have resulted in a ship that was too long and heavy (more armour for the length) or too lightly armed (6×15 inch guns).
 
If the Effort put in by the RCNC in designing the new quad Turret and twin Turret for the KGV had instead been put into designing a new triple turret for 15' guns, that for treaty purposes would be initially fitted with 14' rifles the RN would have had a better ship than OTL IMVHO. Yes three triple 14" guns on a KGV may seem little light on fire power but upgrading to Triple 15" definitely gives you a better balance and more firepower that the OTL KGV 14" layout.
 
Actually a "Treaty Vanguard" could be quite a decent ship, after all, it can be a fair bit bigger than the updated QEs. I've spring-sharped several variants, the most recent is:

Laid down 1937

713' (oa) x 112' (over bulges) x 33' (normal), flush deck, bulbous bow & transom stern

34990 tons standard, 40532 full

8x15" (4x2), 16x4.7" (or 4.5") DP (8x2), 32x2pdr AA (4x8), (+ 40x20mm AA (20x2) added)

Main belt 14.5"x360'x40', TDS 2"x360'x40', turrets 14.5", barbettes 9", deck 6", forward conning tower 4"

120000 shp, 4 shafts = 29.7 knots, 10000 nm @ 15 knots
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The spare 15" turrets would have resulted in a ship that was too long and heavy (more armour for the length) or too lightly armed (6×15 inch guns).
Given fact that the Japanese hid Yamato easily, hiding this Vanguard wouldn't be very hard, since such a ship would exceed the limit by just a margin.
 
Some interesting posts. So, given that going for 18" guns would have been a no, no, both from a treaty point of view, and the development time to design and build it, there was the possibility of a G3/N3 big brother version of the Nelrods. But it seems, experience with them, and a rethink, brought any new design back to a more conventional layout.
The other option that may have occurred, after reading the comments, is that after starting a couple of KGVs, the issue of the 14" gun standard goes away - why not then use up the spare 15" gun turrets i.e. an early Vanguard though maybe not so big - then go Lions!?
Because you can’t replace quad 14” with twin 15” without some major structural modifications, because redoing the design early to accommodate them is counterproductive on a class intended to get ship into the water fast, and there simply aren’t enough spare guns and turrets left.
 
Given fact that the Japanese hid Yamato easily, hiding this Vanguard wouldn't be very hard, since such a ship would exceed the limit by just a margin.
The problem is that hiding it from the 1st SL and HMT might be tricky, any hiding would require a very different government policy above the RNs pay grade.

Because you can’t replace quad 14” with twin 15” without some major structural modifications, because redoing the design early to accommodate them is counterproductive on a class intended to get ship into the water fast, and there simply aren’t enough spare guns and turrets left.
Not sure that's really true in hindsight, they have at least 8x15"twins available (4 from LLC and 4 on monitors) that builds you 2 ships and with hindsight two early vanguards would be most of the battleships the RN needs for WWII, then you might want to go safe and make 4/5 ships using turrets from a couple of R class? Then fit old 13.5" mounts to the monitors.
 
Because you can’t replace quad 14” with twin 15” without some major structural modifications, because redoing the design early to accommodate them is counterproductive on a class intended to get ship into the water fast, and there simply aren’t enough spare guns and turrets left.
Indeed. I believe there were a grand total of only 8 15” turrets available if they used all the spares and scrapped whichever of the monitors had such turrets. That leaves zero spares if any of the battlefleet suffer major damage and also requires considerable time on modernising some of the turrets.
Also, I believe the quad 14” turrets had already been not just designed but already ordered months before it became clear JP was not ratifying the treaty. Sure the RN could have stalled for time, could have had parallel designs, etc etc but at it gets to a point where keeping ones options open for the perfect choice costs far more than just pressing on as fast as possible with whatever is first on the list.

It turns out that what would probably have been the best possible BB for the RN is whatever could have been built as fast and cheaply as possible. 3-4 extra modern BB or BC in 39/40 would have been significant.
Number of guns largely irrelevant provided enough to shoot alternate salvos. 14, 15, 16 inch - whatever. Armour - any scheme realistically considered would have been fine. I believe all the designs considered were reasonably fast. No secondary/AA fit considered was adequate when put to the test.
Probably the most important factors turned out to be underwater protection and weight margin, but good luck convincing anyone in the late thirties to build KGV with 3x3 14”, shave an inch off the armour and delete planes/TT all order to get an extra layer in the TDS and a foot of freeboard.
 
I wonder if the RN might have looked at taking one or two of the R's out of service and recycling the turrets off of them...

just off the top of my head (and throwing this out to see what sticks)...

lets go with taking 2 R's out of service...gives you 8 turrets to play with...

build two improved BCs with 3 turrets each and a heavier AA suite...

use the other two turrets to build an improved monitor design (2 hulls) with enough speed to be a convoy escort...
 
build two improved BCs with 3 turrets each and a heavier AA suite...

Why build BC's that does not have the armament to fight modern battleships. Better to build 1 proper Vanguard and use new turrets for the battleships. Since they can't plan for war to start exactly in september 1939 using the turrets from the R class means they lose out on 2 battleships while building the new ones. Putting them at a disadvantage if war breaks out before the new ships are ready. Not to mention that there still are costs for modernizing the turrets (and rebuilding them to take into account lessone learnt in ww1) which takes time and money meaning the savings are less. Vanguard did not get this modernization but if they are doing it in peacetime why accept the compromises that the old turrets forces on you?
 
Why build BC's that does not have the armament to fight modern battleships. Better to build 1 proper Vanguard and use new turrets for the battleships. Since they can't plan for war to start exactly in september 1939 using the turrets from the R class means they lose out on 2 battleships while building the new ones. Putting them at a disadvantage if war breaks out before the new ships are ready. Not to mention that there still are costs for modernizing the turrets (and rebuilding them to take into account lessone learnt in ww1) which takes time and money meaning the savings are less. Vanguard did not get this modernization but if they are doing it in peacetime why accept the compromises that the old turrets forces on you?
By BC he could mean G3 grade BC, or fast Battleship.
A Fast Battleship, with 9 15" guns has a few advantages over Vanguard. One more gun, a shorter belt, meaning more tonnage can be devoted to either speed, or even more armour.
Of course, the downsides are that it takes longer to develop, and if a turret is knocked out, it's 33% of firepower lost, compared to 25% in the likes of Hood, QE or Vanguard.
Of course the development problems are mitigated if LNT doesn't work out, then the building holiday ends, and Britain can build several new battleships, as WNT allowed
 
By BC he could mean G3 grade BC, or fast Battleship.
A Fast Battleship, with 9 15" guns has a few advantages over Vanguard. One more gun, a shorter belt, meaning more tonnage can be devoted to either speed, or even more armour.
Of course, the downsides are that it takes longer to develop, and if a turret is knocked out, it's 33% of firepower lost, compared to 25% in the likes of Hood, QE or Vanguard.
Of course the development problems are mitigated if LNT doesn't work out, then the building holiday ends, and Britain can build several new battleships, as WNT allowed

He is talking about a modern R&R with 3x2 15" guns, using the turrets from the R class battleships.
 
I wonder if the RN might have looked at taking one or two of the R's out of service and recycling the turrets off of them...

just off the top of my head (and throwing this out to see what sticks)...

lets go with taking 2 R's out of service...gives you 8 turrets to play with...

build two improved BCs with 3 turrets each and a heavier AA suite...

use the other two turrets to build an improved monitor design (2 hulls) with enough speed to be a convoy escort...
What always kills this idea is that you lose two capital ships for a significant period of time while you shift the turrets across, do the necessary adjustment work, launch the new ships, and get the bugs worked out of them. Then after all that you have 2 slightly better ships (for some purposes, worse for others) and in this particular variant two half-baked freak ships not useful for anything.
The RN from about mid-thirties onwards was always facing some diplomatic crisis somewhere that could turn hot at a moments notice and needed all their ships out there looking menacing. Take two Rs out of line for scrapping and then you have to cancel modernisation of some QEs to cover the gaps, losing the better ships coming from that. Trading two modernisations for two hacked-up Rs isn’t worth it IMO.

What the RN needed was new extra ships built additional to their current fleet, then they could scrap or modernise the surplus ones after the load had been taken up. They never got them in time, partly because they worried too much about making them as good as humanly possible rather than as quick as possible.
 
If the Effort put in by the RCNC in designing the new quad Turret and twin Turret for the KGV had instead been put into designing a new triple turret for 15' guns, that for treaty purposes would be initially fitted with 14' rifles the RN would have had a better ship than OTL IMVHO. Yes three triple 14" guns on a KGV may seem little light on fire power but upgrading to Triple 15" definitely gives you a better balance and more firepower that the OTL KGV 14" layout.
Agreed. The triple 15 inch guns are a better idea. Also there was delays in the design process of the turrets caused by the unusual arrangement. You could Commision the kgv class 6 months earlier with a simpler turret arrangement.

Indeed. I believe there were a grand total of only 8 15” turrets available if they used all the spares and scrapped whichever of the monitors had such turrets. That leaves zero spares if any of the battlefleet suffer major damage and also requires considerable time on modernising some of the turrets.
While true the idea would be that the R class that's most worn would be up for scrappage when the new ships came into service. The salvaging of the turrets would be planned for.

It turns out that what would probably have been the best possible BB for the RN is whatever could have been built as fast and cheaply as possible. 3-4 extra modern BB or BC in 39/40 would have been significant.
Number of guns largely irrelevant provided enough to shoot alternate salvos. 14, 15, 16 inch - whatever. Armour - any scheme realistically considered would have been fine. I believe all the designs considered were reasonably fast. No secondary/AA fit considered was adequate when put to the test.
Probably the most important factors turned out to be underwater protection and weight margin, but good luck convincing anyone in the late thirties to build KGV with 3x3 14”, shave an inch off the armour and delete planes/TT all order to get an extra layer in the TDS and a foot of freeboard.

True as much as it causes our inner battleship fanboy to cry you are right.

The 15 inch refurbished turrets would have been cheaper

I wonder if Germany and Italy was the main threat used when framing strategic choices if we would accidentally have a much better prepared battleship for aerial threats. Battle with Japan was used as the planning consideration in the mid 30s and carrier planes were seen as inferior to land based planes. So battleships didn't need to deal with aircraft ad they would only face second tier aircraft.
 
I wonder if Germany and Italy was the main threat used when framing strategic choices if we would accidentally have a much better prepared battleship for aerial threats. Battle with Japan was used as the planning consideration in the mid 30s and carrier planes were seen as inferior to land based planes. So battleships didn't need to deal with aircraft ad they would only face second tier aircraft.
Honestly, I don’t think it would make any difference. Everyone went into WW2 with this weird schizo thing that heavy bombers were the mega weapon but a handful of 100cm and some machine guns were pretty much OK for AA. Everyone had poor fire direction, poor training, inadequate guns, not enough ammo. Hence the need for lots of ships and lots of repair yards.
To be fair to the RN, they were wild-eyed madmen by contemporary standards, I think the home fleet had more AA-capable weapons fitted than the whole British isles plus BEF. They tried their best.
But aviation was in its teenage growth spurt, career-minded officers with an interest in aviation were constantly siphoned into the RAF via the FAA, and there were always too many different threats to balance off and no clear idea which was worst. Mines, torpedoes, shells, gas, planes, subs, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, which do you build your defense against in the late thirties?
 
Top