Royal Navy Alternate Cruiser designs post WW1

I'll reiterate, if you want a good account of the light fleets in combat, read John Landsdown's With the Carriers in Korea (an editor had to add the "South East Asia" to the title; Mr Landsdown knows quite well where Korea is!)
It's an eye opener, good insight into RN carrier operations postwar.

The light fleets, with their larger elevators compared to the wartime armored deck carriers, should have been a place-holder for the RN until they could have gotten the financials together and built some CVAs in the 50s.

As for the cruisers, the wartime built hulls were just too d@mn small. They should have never been utilized, the three Swiftsures commissioned should have been the last of them. What they should have built to bridge the gap between conventional light cruisers and guided missiles was one of the Minotaur designs

Gw7RSLz.jpg


They would have provided the fleet with real AA firepower and large ships suitable for showing the flag on foreign stations and task force flagships. Let the light fleets and the CVAs focus on aviation; put the admirals on another ship so they can focus on fleet command.

But RN finances and decision making postwar is mostly a comedy of errors, poor decisions and good money thrown after bad, not something a financially strapped nation needed at the time.

My additional thoughts,

The RN tried quad turrets to increase the number of barrels but did they ever consider adding a fifth turret, don't think I have seen any drawings for such a proposal.
 
The RN tried quad turrets to increase the number of barrels but did they ever consider adding a fifth turret, don't think I have seen any drawings for such a proposal.

Hi PMN,

For the light cruisers, including the big Town class, I don't recall that happening. I do recall BC Renown from NavWeaps and the BC board doing a speculative five turret Southampton.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Warship 2017, the article by David Murfin (also of the BC board) has line drawings for prospective five-turret County-like heavy cruisers. As I recall, one has a midships twin 8in, and another has a Brooklyn/Atago style additional turret forward, when amidships pointed aft. There are more than just those two, I don't recall the others off-hand.

Regards,
 
Hi PMN,

For the light cruisers, including the big Town class, I don't recall that happening. I do recall BC Renown from NavWeaps and the BC board doing a speculative five turret Southampton.

If you can get your hands on a copy of Warship 2017, the article by David Murfin (also of the BC board) has line drawings for prospective five-turret County-like heavy cruisers. As I recall, one has a midships twin 8in, and another has a Brooklyn/Atago style additional turret forward, when amidships pointed aft. There are more than just those two, I don't recall the others off-hand.

Regards,

So something like this?


d2yw0d4-4e118020-768f-41f8-beb9-d449da1393f4.png
 
Carrying on from Post 129...

At the end of 1929 the British Commonwealth had 59 cruisers (including 4 under construction) with a total standard displacement of 368,530 tons as follows:

RN Cruiser Strength End 1929.png

The displacements come from Lenton and Colledge. I don't have standard displacements for the Weymouth to Centaur classes. Therefore I have had to use the standard displacements for Adelaide and the Caledon classes as applicable.

However, the requirement was for 70 cruisers, so the British Commonwealth was 11 ships short.

The newly signed London Naval Treaty allowed the British Commonwealth to have 339,000 tons of cruisers made up of 146,800 tons of ships armed with 8" guns and the 192,200 ton of ships armed with 6" guns.

The 4 Hawkins class cruisers would have had to be discarded by the end of 1936 or rearmed with 6" guns to comply with the Treaty. However, Vindictive and Hawkins would be over age by the end of 1936 anyway and the Treaty allowed for the disposal of Effingham and Frobisher in 1936.

Under the terms of the treaty 37 ships with an aggregate displacement of 184,940 tons would become overage by 31st December 1936. However, the Treaty also said,

Apart from the cruisers under construction on 1 April 1930, the total replacement tonnage of cruisers to be completed, in the case of the British Commonwealth of Nations, prior to 31 December 1936, shall not exceed 91,000 tons (92,456 metric tons).

The 91,000 tons of cruisers that the British Commonwealth was allowed to begin after 1st April 1930 and complete before 31st December 1936 was sufficient for 13 Leander class ships.

As far as I can work out the projected cruiser force for 31st December 1936 in 1929-30 was as follows.

Projected Cruiser Strength at 31.12.36.png

The Royal Navy still required a minimum of 70 cruisers so the force it was allowed was 21 short of the number that it wanted.

Of the 21 Birmingham to E class ships:
  • 14 ships of 62,860 tons would be overage on 31st December 1936 and;
  • 5 ships of 23,940 tons would become overage by 31st December 1938 and;
  • 2 ships of 15,130 tons would become overage in 1942.
However, as usual things didn't go according to plan.
  • Only 16 of the 23 cruisers that should have been scrapped by the end of 1936 were disposed of. The 7 ships that survived were the 3 Caledon and 4 Hawkins class cruisers;
  • The 91,000 tons was used to order 5 Leanders, 3 Amphions, 3 Arethusas and 2 Southamptons, which is still a total of 13 ships. They were ordered in the 1929-30 to 1933-34 Navy Estimates and used 90,500 of the 91,000 tons available.
The First London Naval Treaty allowed replacements for cruisers that would become overage in 1937, 1938 and 1939 to be laid down before 1st January 1937. This was used to order 9 cruisers were ordered in the Navy Estimates for the 3 financial years 1934-35 to 1936-37. They were the fourth Arethusa, the 6 remaining Southampton and the 2 Edinburgh class cruisers.

The 22 ships of the Leander to Edinburgh classes ordered from 1929-30 to 1936-37 had a total displacement of 171,270 tons. Therefore, 20,930 ton remained from the 192,200 tons of 6" cruisers allowed by the Treaty. However, 15,130 tons of this was absorbed by the 2 E class cruisers. They would not become over age until 1942 and under the terms of the Treaty their replacements could not be laid down until 1939. Therefore, only 5,800 tons of cruisers could be begun 1937-38, which was only enough for one Arethusa class cruiser.

There would also be a gap in cruiser construction between laying down the E class replacements in 1939 and 1942 because the first County class cruisers would not become over age until 1945.

Fortunately, the tonnage quotas were abolished by the Second London Naval Treaty. Otherwise it would have been impossible to build the 11 Colony and 10 Dido class cruisers ordered in the 1936-37 to 1939-40 Navy Estimates. My guess is that instead of 21 ships ordered IOTL the 20,930 tons that were available would have been used to build 3 Amphions or 2 Edinburghs, which would have been laid down in 1939 for completion in 1942.
 
I think the premise of the thread is wrong.

There were 65 cruisers in September 1939 including 37 (not 29) modern ships.

However, for most of the interwar period the requirement had been for 70 ships (including 10 over age) to fight a war against one Great Power (Japan). It was raised to 100 (including 15 over age) in the second half of the 1930s to fight a war against Two Great Powers (Germany and Japan).

The 37 modern cruisers that the British Commonwealth did have weren't perfect, but they were fit for purpose. Their main defect is that there were 23 too few of them.

Therefore, I think the OP should really have been how do we get more cruisers built between the wars, not how do we get better cruisers built between the wars.
 
The Emerald class was a brilliant scouting cruiser with very high speed and excellent range . Again the single 6 inch mounts are inadequate.
As they were laid down in June and September 1918 respectively and not completed until 1926 would it have been feasible to complete them with eight 6" in 4 twin turrets? Enterprise was completed with one twin 6" turret IOTL.

Also it would have been useful if the 3rd E class and the last 4 D class hadn't been cancelled at the end of World War One. However, as they hadn't been laid down by the Armistice that's probably too much to ask.
 
As they were laid down in June and September 1918 respectively and not completed until 1926 would it have been feasible to complete them with eight 6" in 4 twin turrets? Enterprise was completed with one twin 6" turret IOTL.
I think fitting them especially in the stern (over shafts not designed for them) might be hard without effectively a new hull?
Under the terms of the treaty 37 ships with an aggregate displacement of 184,940 tons would become overage by 31st December 1936. However, the Treaty also said,

Apart from the cruisers under construction on 1 April 1930, the total replacement tonnage of cruisers to be completed, in the case of the British Commonwealth of Nations, prior to 31 December 1936, shall not exceed 91,000 tons (92,456 metric tons).

The 91,000 tons of cruisers that the British Commonwealth was allowed to begin after 1st April 1930 and complete before 31st December 1936 was sufficient for 13 Leander class ships.

As they were laid down in June and September 1918 respectively and not completed until 1926 would it have been feasible to complete them with eight 6" in 4 twin turrets? Enterprise was completed with one twin 6" turret IOTL.
This does raise the question of what would RN do if they got all 184,940t they should have?
Build, 26 Leander class ships? What would 13 more do in WWII?
 
This does raise the question of what would RN do if they got all 184,940t they should have?

Build, 26 Leander class ships? What would 13 more do in WWII?
Unless the TTL London Naval Treaty increases the British Commonwealth's cruiser quota by 91,000 tons from 339,000 tons to 430,000 tons all you're doing is building 26 ships over 4 financial years instead of 22 ships over 7 financial years.

And if you do give the British Commonwealth a larger tonnage quota the American and Japanese tonnage quotas have to be increased in proportion.
 
Unless the TTL London Naval Treaty increases the British Commonwealth's cruiser quota by 91,000 tons from 339,000 tons to 430,000 tons all you're doing is building 26 ships over 4 financial years instead of 22 ships over 7 financial years.

And if you do give the British Commonwealth a larger tonnage quota the American and Japanese tonnage quotas have to be increased in proportion.
No I'm suggesting that GB/RN dosn't agree to the,
The "Frobisher" and "Effingham" (United Kingdom) may be disposed of during the year 1936. Apart from the cruisers under construction on 1 April 1930, the total replacement tonnage of cruisers to be completed, in the case of the British Commonwealth of Nations, prior to 31 December 1936, shall not exceed 91,000 tons (92,456 metric tons).
and therefore reserves the right to replace any overage ships at the date they become over age up to her full CA/CL limits?

I dont see what USN/IJN do in response?

USN might cut,
Article 18

The United States contemplates the completion by 1935 of fifteen cruisers of sub-category (a) of an aggregate tonnage of 150,000 tons (152,400 metric tons). For each of the three remaining cruisers of sub-category (a) which it is entitled to construct the United States may elect to substitute 15,166 tons (15,409 metric tons) of cruisers of sub-category (b). In case the United States shall construct one or more of such three remaining cruisers of sub-category (a), the sixteenth unit will not be laid down before 1933 and will not be completed before 1936; the seventeenth will not be laid down before 1934 and will not be completed before 1937; the eighteenth will not be laid down before 1935 and will not be completed before 1938.
And IJN might cut,

Art 20
B, Japan may replace the "Tama" by new construction to be completed during the year 1936.

C, In addition to replacing destroyers becoming "over-age" before 31 December 1936, Japan may lay down, in each of the years 1935 and 1936, not more than 5,200 tons (5,283 metric tons) to replace part of the vessels that become "over-age" in 1938 and 1939.

D, Japan may anticipate replacement during the term of the present Treaty by laying down not more than 19,200 tons (19,507 metric tons) of submarine tonnage, of which not more than 12,000 tons (12,192 metric tons) shall be completed by 31 December 1936.

But I don't think that really hurts GB/RN significantly if at all?
 
Build, 26 Leander class ships? What would 13 more do in WWII?
OTL the 91,000 tons was used to build 8 Leander/Amphion, 3 Arethusa and 2 Southampton class.

If the Treaty had allowed 182,000 tons to be built over the same period ITTL then it would probably have been 16 Leander/Amphons, 6 Arethusas and 4 Southamptons ordered 1929-30 to 1933-34. However, there wouldn't be any tonnage left to build the 6 Southamptons, one Arethusa and 2 Edinburgh class ordered 1934-35 to 1936-37 IOTL.

And in practice it wasn't really 184,940 tons anyway. This is because the tonnage quota for 6" cruisers was 192,200 tons and the British Commonwealth had 39,070 tons of cruisers of this type that would not become due for replacement until after 31st December 1936. Therefore, only 153,130 tons could have been built between April 1930 and the end of 1936. Which is still about 60,000 tons more than OTL. However, as I've tried to explain more then meant less later and empty shipyards until the Second LNT abolished the tonnage quotas.
 
However, there wouldn't be any tonnage left to build the 6 Southamptons, one Arethusa and 2 Edinburgh class ordered 1934-35 to 1936-37 IOTL.
And in practice it wasn't really 184,940 tons anyway. This is because the tonnage quota for 6" cruisers was 192,200 tons and the British Commonwealth had 39,070 tons of cruisers of this type that would not become due for replacement until after 31st December 1936. Therefore, only 153,130 tons could have been built between April 1930 and the end of 1936. Which is still about 60,000 tons more than OTL. However, as I've tried to explain more then meant less later and empty shipyards until the Second LNT abolished the tonnage quotas.
I'm not sure that's the case as the 1LNT allowed,
The keels of replacement tonnage shall not be laid down more than three years before the year in which the vessel to be replaced becomes "over-age";
So If they are allowed to do it they will start replacing things that would be scraped later in 37-39 but then 2LNT negotiated in Dec 35-march 36 would make it clear that they could keep anything anyway post 2LNT so they can "replace" everything they can by laying down hulls in early 36.......
 
I'm not sure that's the case as the 1LNT allowed,

So If they are allowed to do it they will start replacing things that would be scraped later in 37-39 but then 2LNT negotiated in Dec 35-march 36 would make it clear that they could keep anything anyway post 2LNT so they can "replace" everything they can by laying down hulls in early 36.......
Just don't tell the treasury you plan on retaining the older ships in reserve until after they have forked over the pounds to replace them
 
So If they are allowed to do it they will start replacing things that would be scraped later in 37-39 but then 2LNT negotiated in Dec 35-march 36 would make it clear that they could keep anything anyway post 2LNT so they can "replace" everything they can by laying down hulls in early 36.......
From Post 144 the British Commonwealth's cruiser force at 31st December 1936 as projected in 1929-30.

Projected Cruiser Strength at 31.12.36.png

Of the 21 Birmingham to E class ships:
  • 14 ships of 62,860 tons would be overage on 31st December 1936 and;
  • 5 ships of 23,940 tons would become overage by 31st December 1938 and;
  • 2 ships of 15,130 tons would become overage in 1942.
There were only 23,940 tons worth of ships that would become due for replacement between 1st January 1937 and 31st December 1939.

If they had replaced all the ships that were going to become overage by the end of 1936 by the end of 1936 there would only be 2 or 3 ships to be ordered in the 3 financial years 1934-35 to 1936-37 instead of the 10 that were ordered IOTL. That could put the naval armaments industry in a worse position when rearmament began in 1936-ish that it was IOTL.

Until the tonnage quotas were abolished in 1936 it's what I believe is known as a, "Zero sum game." There's a finite amount of tonnage and if too much is consumed too quickly the result is full shipyards for 4 years followed by empty shipyards for 3 years instead of OTL when it was half-full shipyards for 7 years.

Or to paraphrase my line-manager feast followed by famine or a calorie controlled diet.
 
Just don't tell the treasury you plan on retaining the older ships in reserve until after they have forked over the pounds to replace them
It worked IOTL.

The First LNT's tonnage quotas didn't have to be met until the end of 1936. Therefore, from 1935 when it looked as if the next treaty was going to abolish the tonnage quotas it was possible to retain 7 cruisers and some destroyers that should have been scrapped.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, another factor on cruiser sizes was dry dock availability...I vaguely remember reading it was one of the reasons that the RN looked at quad turrets rather than just adding another turret.
 

Deleted member 94680

IIRC, another factor on cruiser sizes was dry dock availability...I vaguely remember reading it was one of the reasons that the RN looked at quad turrets rather than just adding another turret.

When designing the Hood dry docks were a factor. The wiki page on the Admiral class battlecruiser has the following:

The DNC had been able to reduce the draught in comparison to Queen Elizabeth by 22% by widening the ship to 104 feet (31.7 m) and lengthening it to 810 feet (246.9 m); this had the consequence of restricting the ships to use only one dock in Rosyth and two in Portsmouth.

But if lengthening a ship to 810 feet reduces the number of available docks to 3, it’d have to be a pretty big cruiser before similar issues bedevil the design.
 
When designing the Hood dry docks were a factor. The wiki page on the Admiral class battlecruiser has the following:

The DNC had been able to reduce the draught in comparison to Queen Elizabeth by 22% by widening the ship to 104 feet (31.7 m) and lengthening it to 810 feet (246.9 m); this had the consequence of restricting the ships to use only one dock in Rosyth and two in Portsmouth.

But if lengthening a ship to 810 feet reduces the number of available docks to 3, it’d have to be a pretty big cruiser before similar issues bedevil the design.

Line from Whitleys 'Cruisers of World War Two; An International Encyclopedia' in the description of the Edinburgh class, though i'd put money on seeing the line elsewhere.

'As usual with British design requirements, the ability to dock the ship world-wide was important, so the length had to be less than about 615ft, too short to mount five triple turrets.'

Presumably, this was relaxed later as it became too restrictive.
 

Deleted member 94680

Line from Whitleys 'Cruisers of World War Two; An International Encyclopedia' in the description of the Edinburgh class, though i'd put money on seeing the line elsewhere.

'As usual with British design requirements, the ability to dock the ship world-wide was important, so the length had to be less than about 615ft, too short to mount five triple turrets.'

Presumably, this was relaxed later as it became too restrictive.

I suppose with the normal duties (and higher numbers) of cruisers in the RN fleet, they would need/want more docks to take them. 3 may be enough to deal with BBs, but a design that limits the number of facilities to deal with cruisers could well have been a deal breaker.
 
The 37 modern cruisers in service at the outbreak of World War Two were all ordered and laid down when the Washington and First London Naval Treaties were in force, as follows:

RN Cruisers Ordered 1924-36.png

The 13 ships in red used the 91,000 tons of ships that could be begun after 1st April 1930 and completed by 31st December 1936. The 9 ships ordered in 1934-35 to 1936-37 were to replace ships that came due for replacement in 1937, 1938 and 1939. I haven't included the 5 Dido class ships in the 1936-37 programme because they had to be laid down after the First London Naval Treaty expired.

37 cruisers over 13 years is an average of just under the 3 ships a year to maintain a fleet of 60 cruisers under 20 years of age.

Before that the service life of a cruiser was set at 15 years and a building rate of 4 cruisers a year would have produced 52 modern cruisers in September 1939. IMHO a building rate of 4 per year is the most that the Admiralty could persuade the Government to pay for.
 
Sorry if this has been covered already, but is the initial sticking point the Hawkins class with 7.5" guns? Could these be replaced with BL6" Mk.XII guns, encouraging a cruiser definition of a ship armed with up to 6" guns? Resulting in an earlier proto-Leander design replacing the Counties. And how do the triple 6" and twin 8" turrets compare in size and weight? I can imagine the York class with three triple 6" turrets as an earlier Crown Colony?
 
Top