Royal Navy Battleships had WW1 not broken out?

Redbeard

Banned
If any in early 20th century dared to follow new ideas in naval warfare it IMHO was the RN. They introduced Dreadnought at a time when they had absolute superiority in the pre-dreadnought which was made obsolete by Dreadnought. Next they were initiaters of naval airpower and leader in technology and doctrine for decades. That a person like Fisher could advance to the top of the RN is alone a very good indication that the RN was capable of deleting stereotypic thinking - even if it meant the obsolescence of most of existing ships and doctrines. Probably because naval power was so all important for the British Empire - you simply couldn't take the risk of being left behind - no matter what.

When Fisher took over first time as First Lord his basic challenge was that Britain couldn't afford to build enough pre-dreadnought to be sure to be superior in numbers anywhere anytime. This gave birth to the BC and the Dreadnought which through their superior firepower and speed (Dreadnought also was much faster at sustainable speed than traditional pre-dreadnoughts) had a chance of establishing local superior and not at least force a decisive action on the enemy.

Initially this made sense and it was possible for the pre WWI Britain to actually outbuild everybody else in the (super)dreadnought race. If WWI doesn't happen the decision makes will first of all be confronted by the exponentially rising costs of building big guns ships better than those of the enemy. In OTL Fisher ordered some studies made in how the "ultimate BC" should look; I don't have the details here, but in short the ships was so big and expensive, but still obviously vulnerable, that it in itself was prohibitive. But not at least it was obvious that the big gun ship design literally had reached the horizon. Until now you had been able to outreach your enemy by mounting ever bigger guns, but even if the proposed 20" guns could fire a shell longer than a 16" or 18" it really wouldn't hit anything at the extra range, and if the ship had the speed needed to enforce an action it couldn't have the necessary armour to protect it against much smaller guns. IOW you were back to the original dilemma of either building more of the same or think out of the box.

If WWI hadn't happened I'm sure the decision makers would have reached that conclusion very soon and that naval airpower would be a very good bid for a game changer - and much cheaper than just building more superdreadnoughts similar to those of the potential enemies.

Seen from a Fisher'ist point of view the ideal ship to ensure you could force a decisive and successful action upon the enemy by the 1910s was the BC and the Dreadnought. By the 1920s it was the aircraft carrier.

Extract from an Admiralty discussion: "We entered and won the BC/Dreadnought race, not let's enter and win the aircraft carrier race!"
 
If any in early 20th century dared to follow new ideas in naval warfare it IMHO was the RN. They introduced Dreadnought at a time when they had absolute superiority in the pre-dreadnought which was made obsolete by Dreadnought. Next they were initiaters of naval airpower and leader in technology and doctrine for decades. That a person like Fisher could advance to the top of the RN is alone a very good indication that the RN was capable of deleting stereotypic thinking - even if it meant the obsolescence of most of existing ships and doctrines. Probably because naval power was so all important for the British Empire - you simply couldn't take the risk of being left behind - no matter what.

When Fisher took over first time as First Lord his basic challenge was that Britain couldn't afford to build enough pre-dreadnought to be sure to be superior in numbers anywhere anytime. This gave birth to the BC and the Dreadnought which through their superior firepower and speed (Dreadnought also was much faster at sustainable speed than traditional pre-dreadnoughts) had a chance of establishing local superior and not at least force a decisive action on the enemy.

Initially this made sense and it was possible for the pre WWI Britain to actually outbuild everybody else in the (super)dreadnought race. If WWI doesn't happen the decision makes will first of all be confronted by the exponentially rising costs of building big guns ships better than those of the enemy. In OTL Fisher ordered some studies made in how the "ultimate BC" should look; I don't have the details here, but in short the ships was so big and expensive, but still obviously vulnerable, that it in itself was prohibitive. But not at least it was obvious that the big gun ship design literally had reached the horizon. Until now you had been able to outreach your enemy by mounting ever bigger guns, but even if the proposed 20" guns could fire a shell longer than a 16" or 18" it really wouldn't hit anything at the extra range, and if the ship had the speed needed to enforce an action it couldn't have the necessary armour to protect it against much smaller guns. IOW you were back to the original dilemma of either building more of the same or think out of the box.

If WWI hadn't happened I'm sure the decision makers would have reached that conclusion very soon and that naval airpower would be a very good bid for a game changer - and much cheaper than just building more superdreadnoughts similar to those of the potential enemies.

Seen from a Fisher'ist point of view the ideal ship to ensure you could force a decisive and successful action upon the enemy by the 1910s was the BC and the Dreadnought. By the 1920s it was the aircraft carrier.

Extract from an Admiralty discussion: "We entered and won the BC/Dreadnought race, not let's enter and win the aircraft carrier race!"
Then Sir Hugh Trenchard came in
Trenchard: Hullo Men! We need you're aircraft!
Admiral: Do you know how Naval Aviation works?
Trenchard: I do!

(Later that night)
Trenchard: Frick, this is hard! Lets build a bomber instead!

(20 Years Later)
RN: TRENCHARD!
 
See My Earlier Post. No war Means no RAF, Full stop. The RFC will be operating under and for the Army as the RNAS will be for the Navy. without the 1916 Zeppelin raids and the 1917 Gotha Raids there is no driver for the formation of an independent air force. ITTL Trenchard will be a senior officer in an embryonic air service centered on reconneciece. Until war commence there will be no air fighting and very little or no development of either fighter aircraft or bombers. This also implies that until the advent of hostilities the RNAS will only have a vague concept of the wartime requirements and conditions to come. Therefore however forward thinking the admiralty may be ITTL it will still take some years for Naval aviation to mature to the point where the aircraft carrier effectively challenges the Battleship.
 
As an aside I am reading The Decline of British Sea Power by Desmond Wetteren, the gutting of the RN post-WW2 is astonishing, and it is a near perfect guide to how to exit the world stage by any naval power. What prevented the "Treasury" mindset from sinking the Navy in the 1920s without a war? Or even more likely in the austere environment of the 1930s given some form of the "Depression"? Despite innovation and mission the RN has seen itself reduced to near irrelevance as of today.
 
As an aside I am reading The Decline of British Sea Power by Desmond Wetteren, the gutting of the RN post-WW2 is astonishing, and it is a near perfect guide to how to exit the world stage by any naval power. What prevented the "Treasury" mindset from sinking the Navy in the 1920s without a war? Or even more likely in the austere environment of the 1930s given some form of the "Depression"? Despite innovation and mission the RN has seen itself reduced to near irrelevance as of today.
Many reasons were involved in the shrinking of the Royal Navy after WW2
Britain was seriously broke following the war.
Most of britains battleships were obsolete,and most were of pre war design
Aircraft carriers made many other ships completely irrelevant in a navy.
Britain simply didn't need a massive navy anymore, as its empire was rapidly shrinking

However, considering that eventually BBs and BCs were increasingly expensive each generation, surely the treasury would eventually pull the plug.
How battleships would have developed would be interesting
I see The admiral class being designed as a fast battleship, as opposed to a Battlecruiser, from the offset, as a continuation of the QEs
Maybe a slightly more modest speed,28 knots?
Would the all or nothing armour scheme still be introduced to battleships?
 
Many reasons were involved in the shrinking of the Royal Navy after WW2
Britain was seriously broke following the war.
Most of britains battleships were obsolete,and most were of pre war design
Aircraft carriers made many other ships completely irrelevant in a navy.
Britain simply didn't need a massive navy anymore, as its empire was rapidly shrinking

However, considering that eventually BBs and BCs were increasingly expensive each generation, surely the treasury would eventually pull the plug.
How battleships would have developed would be interesting
I see The admiral class being designed as a fast battleship, as opposed to a Battlecruiser, from the offset, as a continuation of the QEs
Maybe a slightly more modest speed,28 knots?
Would the all or nothing armour scheme still be introduced to battleships?

As I ponder it I see more pressure to pursue a limitation Treaty and to focus the fleet. The Battle Fleet needs to be qualitatively superior to the most likely foe, i.e. Germany, but that would entail a deeper relationship into the Entente, possibly trapping the British to war on the continent. In other words it only increases pressure to maintain a stronger Army and Air Corps akin to how that commitment drained funds to support the BAOR and RAF Germany in the Fifties/Sixties. The RN is in a similar vise, it needs to cheapen its "Colonial Police Fleet" and reduce commitments further from home waters unless it can gain security in Europe. I would suspect land-based and possible seaplanes to fill gaps left in the reduced Cruiser fleet, perhaps submarines pursued as a substitute scouting and sea-denial force, and adoption of the flying base concept to reduce the need for far flung fortified bases. I am also reading War Plan Orange so it is interesting to see how the USN dealt with the potential of war in Asia. The RN might either pursue Japan as its ally building on the 1902 Treaty but that alienates the USA, but would the USA pursue a build-up without the War? Just more random thoughts to muddy these waters.
 
Fine. But not only is this excuse of "need" rather arbitrary - excusing innovation "only after it becomes necessary" is a hopelessly circular argument - it also again ignores the facts on the ground, that the RN had the first carriers and they were the ones who proved that the idea worked and did most of developmental work.
It would be relatively easy for the RN to demonstrate a need for carriers. 1 cruiser sized ship with a squadron of aircraft can search an area for raiders that would otherwise require 4 or 5 cruisers, and do it quicker. Also having the aircraft torpedo the enemy is cheaper than having to engauge in a gunnery duel. A squadron of aircraft is much more easily replaced than a cruiser and a lot cheaper. If an aircraft comes back badly damaged you push it over the side and put in a request for a new one. If a cruiser is damaged it can be in dock for months and cost a fortune to repair. If it's lost it will take years to replace. A lost squadron is unfortunate but for naval aircraft of the teens and twenties only 12 or 24 men. A lost cruiser is a tragedy with hundreds gone.
 
Top