The Battleships that should have never been, 1930-1945!

Well as they say in any number of sports, "you can't teach speed." Seriously though, it mainly just requires a RN admiral to conclude that fast BCs/BBs are useful partners for fast aircraft carriers for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's a reach, the French came up with the Force de Raid concept but unfortunately Bearn was the weak link in that chain.
I agree, keeping Tiger instead of Iron Duke would be my preferred option but I'm sure there was a extensive review and found that ID was a better (cheaper) long term prospect.
 
Id keep the IDs and Tiger while the 15"ers are being rebuilt

I would ditch Tiger and the IDs as soon as the last BB and BC were refitted and the Post treaty BBs are laid down and just give them the periodical refits that keep them current and operational - their only job would be to fill in the gaps while the BCs and QEs are being rebuilt and keep the fleet at 15 Capital ships (till the WNT and 1st LNT runs out)
 
The pre-War RN thought they had submarines beat as they had perfected ASDIC (Sonar). Note that the RN agreed to equality in submarine tonnage with the Germans in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. ASDIC was secret, the equipment covered up and referred to as 'Asdevite'. Its limitations weren't found out till later although the Germans also thought that the RN had beaten the submarine menace too.

Which is why they upped production numbers and just kept on adding more orders as war approached. Hitler knew -even if the KM didn't- that HMG could do nothing to halt German rearmament. He was mostly concerned about naval expansion not hindering Wehrmacht rearmament. Britain was politically too weak to stand up to Hitler until he made the mistake of invading Poland.

From ROSSLERS THE U-BOAT, in the mid 1920s the RM [UNREALISTIC] plans were to build 8 U-Boats a year for 10 years based on tweaked versions of WW-I designs. With the move to 21" torpedo and effects of the depression -these plans had to be overhauled . The 1932 reconstruction secret program dictated 16 boats by 1938, with the first 6 completed in secret by 1936 with there slipway ID being Mineboot. However follow on plans were accelerated to 36 boats by 1938 [mostly type-II] . Reportedly 34 type II were completed by the beginning of 1940 but that number could have been 88 if only Type-II boats were the plan. .

http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_submarines.htm

Looking at actual production numbers 62 U-boats were completed by the end of 1939 - but 90 had been laid down by then. By the end of 1940 that number increased to 324 U-boats pretty much all completed by the end of 1941. That was across 16 sub types from 6 different U-Boat designs...all completed before 1942 . Had they all been TYPE-VII, I have little doubt they could have succeeded.

The original premises was 375 Type U-Boats instead of 4 BB & 5 CA which was spring 1942 . That means the point of the 1957 study was completely valid. .
 
Which is why they upped production numbers and just kept on adding more orders as war approached. Hitler knew -even if the KM didn't- that HMG could do nothing to halt German rearmament. He was mostly concerned about naval expansion not hindering Wehrmacht rearmament. Britain was politically too weak to stand up to Hitler until he made the mistake of invading Poland.

From ROSSLERS THE U-BOAT, in the mid 1920s the RM [UNREALISTIC] plans were to build 8 U-Boats a year for 10 years based on tweaked versions of WW-I designs. With the move to 21" torpedo and effects of the depression -these plans had to be overhauled . The 1932 reconstruction secret program dictated 16 boats by 1938, with the first 6 completed in secret by 1936 with there slipway ID being Mineboot. However follow on plans were accelerated to 36 boats by 1938 [mostly type-II] . Reportedly 34 type II were completed by the beginning of 1940 but that number could have been 88 if only Type-II boats were the plan. .

http://navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_submarines.htm

Looking at actual production numbers 62 U-boats were completed by the end of 1939 - but 90 had been laid down by then. By the end of 1940 that number increased to 324 U-boats pretty much all completed by the end of 1941. That was across 16 sub types from 6 different U-Boat designs...all completed before 1942 . Had they all been TYPE-VII, I have little doubt they could have succeeded. The original premises was 375 Type U-Boats instead of 4 BB & 5 CA which means the point of the 1957 study was completely valid. .

No, it was not.

Summary; the Germans were inefficient in the use of their labor force, physical plant and manufacturing methods. This is further shown by how late they were to Kaiserize U-boat production and how incompetently that program was run.
 
Same again. By the time these ships are designed, the USN knows the carrier is the future. So build carriers.



There is a number of clashes in early and mid WW2 were aircraft technology and knowledge of their full capability at the time was still relatively in their infancy and meant that they would not have been of use - for example night fights and fighting in poor weather - granted by 1944 the aircraft could achieve such things but not in 1941 and certainly not in 1936 when such decisions have to be made.

Aircraft designs and tactics were only just about good enough in 1941 to find and attack Bismarck - in 1936 the foresight was not yet at the point where the people making the decisions on what ship to build to be in service by 1942 could say that battleships were going to be obsolete by 1942.

Could US or IJN carrier power have prevented the Savo Island clashes?

I am sure that there were some people that knew for certain that carriers were the future but they might have been wrong (they were not as it turned out) - militaries are a conservative bunch if they get it wrong at best men die, at worse Empires fall and to go all carrier and ditch battleships from 1936 would be in the minds of many not just revolutionary but hippy smoking bad weed revolutionary.

I think that the battleships laid down in the late 30s should have been the last - IMO they were still needed - by end of 1942 it is obvious to all that the BB has had its day - however by then all 4 Iowa's are well on their way to being built and Vanguard had been started.

IMO much as I like Battleships the British should have stopped Vanguard - there was discussion to turn her into a 5th Audacious but this was rejected - fools - at best they should have laid down a 5th Audacious at worst halt her construction and eventually scrap her in the stocks and use the resources elsewhere

The Iowas did little more (in WW2) than shell stuff and provide a large hull for lots of AAA - I am sure that the existing BBs were good enough to shell stuff and I do wonder how many Oaklands could have been built instead?

So while I think that they were correct in building the earlier post 1936 Fast BBs the later Iowas and Vanguard were not required.



 

There is a number of clashes in early and mid WW2 were aircraft technology and knowledge of their full capability at the time was still relatively in their infancy and meant that they would not have been of use - for example night fights and fighting in poor weather - granted by 1944 the aircraft could achieve such things but not in 1941 and certainly not in 1936 when such decisions have to be made.​

You should really read this. No one better than I knows about the fighting that took place in the western Pacific by now. What I will have to write about Coral Sea will pop your eyes out.

Aircraft designs and tactics were only just about good enough in 1941 to find and attack Bismarck - in 1936 the foresight was not yet at the point where the people making the decisions on what ship to build to be in service by 1942 could say that battleships were going to be obsolete by 1942.

There was the 1st Kokutai. And there was the incident with Prince of Wales and Repulse. Rikkos were horribly effective.

Could US or IJN carrier power have prevented the Savo Island clashes?

Depends. If an American Rikko had been available or a US carrier force in range; Mikawa, Gunichi would have massacred the Allies in the night action, but he would have never survived the return trip to Rabaul.

I am sure that there were some people that knew for certain that carriers were the future but they might have been wrong (they were not as it turned out) - militaries are a conservative bunch if they get it wrong at best men die, at worse Empires fall and to go all carrier and ditch battleships from 1936 would be in the minds of many not just revolutionary but hippy smoking bad weed revolutionary.

Raymond Spruance was a weed smoking hippy?

I think that the battleships laid down in the late 30s should have been the last - IMO they were still needed - by end of 1942 it is obvious to all that the BB has had its day - however by then all 4 Iowa's are well on their way to being built and Vanguard had been started.

Bismark would have survived had not a carrier aircraft caught her.

IMO much as I like Battleships the British should have stopped Vanguard - there was discussion to turn her into a 5th Audacious but this was rejected - fools - at best they should have laid down a 5th Audacious at worst halt her construction and eventually scrap her in the stocks and use the resources elsewhere.

You may be right about that.

The Iowas did little more (in WW2) than shell stuff and provide a large hull for lots of AAA - I am sure that the existing BBs were good enough to shell stuff and I do wonder how many Oaklands could have been built instead?

Well... that's another good point, but what the Americans desperately needed in the rotten two years of *42 and *43 when they were playing catchup for that decade when they were not shipbuilding at all was cheap expendable delivery platforms for guided weapons that worked as attrition units. I would have scrapped every battleship building for a good twin engine torpedo-carrying bomber (Which they never built by the way, did you notice?). If the Japanese can use night flares and spotter planes for night surface actions, then the same tactics should allow night air attacks on aforesaid Tokyo Expresses.

So while I think that they were correct in building the earlier post 1936 Fast BBs the later Iowas and Vanguard were not required.

Samar. Might need some stout AAA ships off Okinawa, though.​
 
Last edited:
I partly agree with the idea they Soviets needed a more robust naval force, but their requirements and limitations were different than any other navy. The Baltic and Black Seas are very confined and not mutually supportable and in the Pacific they faced potential adversaries with world class navies of great size and skilled sailors(Japan, US, UK, even without counting France). The Soviets would have been better off starting smaller - both in scope and quantity. As you note, learn as you go and adjust. Trying to create world beaters completely from scratch probably wasn't a great idea, plus the execution was poorly done-the quality control of armor and construction was pretty bad.

Why? They were fighting a land war. Whatever they threw into the navy was going to be mostly a waste. As long as they get LL through Vladivostok and Iran they are good to go and that was primarily the USN's problem. The money they spent on ships would have been better spent on tanks, artillery and planes.
 

There was the 1st Kokutai. And there was the incident with Prince of Wales and Repulse. Rikkos were horribly effective.

Depends. If an American Rikko had been available or a US carrier force in range; Mikawa, Gunichi would have massacred the Allies in the night action, but he would have never survived the return trip to Rabaul.


Rikkos were horribly effective where there was no enemy aircover - a single flight of 6 Brewsters maintained over Force Z would have enabled the fleet to survive as the Rikkos could not have formed up at leisure and attacked with only AAA to worry about.

There was no reason why this could not have been achieved with the assets on hand other than an appreciation of the power of aircraft which they obviously did not have at that time (they certainly had it the day after)

Look what even a single Wildcat can do to them!

As for an 'American Rikko' the only allied AC I can think of during this time was the Bristol Beaufighter and Bristol Beaufort both of which served as torpedo bombers as well as the Wellington

What about the Martin Maryland - I think that would make a good US Rikko candidate - fast, maneuverable, relatively long ranged?

Later on B25 and B26 and Mossi

Raymond Spruance was a weed smoking hippy?

Not from my POV - he was right - but to the 'conservative' leadership back in 1936 when those ships have to be ordered to be ready in time - yes he would have been seen by some as a fanatic and only a handful of carriers are laid down

By 1942 its as clear as day that Carriers are the new 'capital ship' and that's when we see more carriers of every kind being laid down ASAP - sadly not available until late war (Essex reaches the Pacific in May 43) and the USN (and the British) are forced to fight with what they have - and that was 'mostly' ordered at or before 1937 when it was not so clear.

Bismark would have survived had not a carrier aircraft caught her.

Very true but the British still only sent a relative handful of string bags against her in 1941 - had they fully appreciated the power of the carrier Strike plane earlier then that number would have been massively increased - while several years later when it was fully appreciated and Raymond was able to send 400 odd against Yamato and her battlegroup during Op Ten Go - sinking the lot.

What a difference a few years makes.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened had a 2nd full strike from Ark Royal attacked Bismarck before Rodney and KGV arrived on the scene at say 08:00 on the 27th May 1941?

That might have further changed more minds earlier!

Edit: Some good pods here
 
As for an 'American Rikko' the only allied AC I can think of during this time was the Bristol Beaufighter and Bristol Beaufort both of which served as torpedo bombers as well as the Wellington

What about the Martin Maryland - I think that would make a good US Rikko candidate - fast, maneuverable, relatively long ranged?

Later on B25 and B26 and Mossi

The trouble with the Martin Maryland, the B-25 and the B-26 and virtually every other American bomber of the era is that the bomb bay is a stack rack arranged compartment with bomb shackles and fall space designed for short fat bombs. The only torpedo these bombers could carry because it was designed for these bombers and the Liberator was FIDO. That particular torpedo was 19 inches in diameter and 84 inches long or just about the size of a US 2000 lb GP bomb.

US bombs were similar to British GP bombs in use.
For a US bomber to deliver a true torpedo, the bomb bay would have to be a skedge sled type able to handle a bomb body of at least 21-24 inches diameter and a length of not less than 160-180 inches long or about twice the length of the typical 500 lb bomb.

This could be done. Modified bombers that could do this without butchering the air frame too badly are the A-20 Havoc and the B-17 Flying Fortress, but that means rebuilding the center barrel and moving a lot of aft compartment equipment around as well as re-ballasting weight forward. That has consequences.

See this:

PB_1aq.png


Part of those consequences is a short Lancaster style pannier bomb bay and a V or C shaped carry through of the main wing spar that allows for the pannier. This in turn separates the B-17 into a two compartment bomber with the pilot, co-pilot, top turret gunner and the bombardier separated from the flight engineer, radio-tech, the belly turret gunner and the tail gunner. In addition, the fuselage fuel tank is now moved into the wings outboard the engines, making an already sluggish in climb bomber almost as bad as a Dornier Do-17 in flight characteristics. On the plus side, we add about an hours endurance and now can carry a nominal 2000 lbs of bombs out to a maximum strike radius of 1250 miles instead of the nominal 980 in the B17G. Since we aren't carrying the useless waste of waist gunners (1/2 ton of human beings, machine guns and all that ammunition), that is added fuel.

And for that we can carry two torpedoes or a single 4400 lb retarded fall AP bomb out 800 miles or so.

There is your Rikko bomber. Meet the PB1B.
 
Most early war land based torpedo bombers carried a single torpedo 'externally' and this proved to be good enough

The Wellington was able to carry 2 x 18" torpedos in her bomb bay - although this seems to have been longer than the dumpy US bomb bays

images


The Beaufighter seems to have semi recessed the torpedo it carried - could the same thing not be done to the earlier twin engined US types without impacting the airframe?

23ab67356944259278ec43aa885c9e02--the-bomb-malta.jpg
 
It was attempted with the A-20 Havoc and the TBD Devastator. Subsequent replacement designs were for enclosed bomb bays, especially in the TBM Avenger. It seems that torpedo drop in an open slip-stream was a problem as was drag for the Americans. Besides, I can see where a clean fall from a pannier enclosed bomb-bay makes for a better water entry or nose point for a bomb aimed at a ship.

Also makes for a faster bomber, more fuel efficient bomber.
 
I my Lurch from the Adams Family voice, "You rang."

Hello mate

We were idly discussing the maximum number of deep Warspite type refits the RN can get in before 1937 and where the money could have come from!

The RN did only 1 real deep refit of this type (I appreciate that they carried out large but lesser refits on most of the Battleships) before 1937 with the other 3 major ones (QE, Valient and Renown) after that time potentially impacting the new construction (New BBs and CVs) that was also taking place.

Of course I immediately thought of you ;)
 
Hello mate

We were idly discussing the maximum number of deep Warspite type refits the RN can get in before 1937 and where the money could have come from!

The RN did only 1 real deep refit of this type (I appreciate that they carried out large but lesser refits on most of the Battleships) before 1937 with the other 3 major ones (QE, Valient and Renown) after that time potentially impacting the new construction (New BBs and CVs) that was also taking place.

Of course I immediately thought of you ;)
In my John Noakes voice, "Here's one I made earlier." Post 14 dated 21st March 2017 from a thread called the Royal Navy 1919-39.
Battleship Modernisations OTL

This is a list of the major refits applied to the Queen Elisabeth and Repulse class:
1919-22 Repulse - £860,684
1923-26 Renown - £979,927
1924-26 Warspite
1926-27 Queen Elisabeth
1927-28 Barham
1927-29 Malaya
1929-30 Valiant
1930-33 Barham
1932-36 Repulse - £1,377,748 - Partial Modernisation
1934-36 Malaya - £976,963 - Partial Modernisation
1934-37 Warspite - £2,362,000 - Full Modernisation
1936-39 Renown - £3,088,088 - Full Modernisation
1937-39 Valiant - cost unknown but probably similar to Renown - Full Modernisation
1937-41 Queen Elisabeth - cost unknown but probably similar to Renown - Full Modernisation​

The refits applied to the 5 Queen Elisabeth class 1924-33 cost about £1 million each. According to Brown in the above book Hood's planned refit had an estimated cost of £4½ million and the estimated time for the refit was 3 years.

Battleship Modernisations TTL

The signing of the First London Naval Treaty on 22nd April 1930 extended the Battleship Building Holiday from 12th November 1931 to 31st December 1936. In response the Admiralty lobbied the Cabinet to sanction SLEP refits (which included re-boilering) for the 8 best old battleships (5 Queen Elisabeth class, 2 Repulse class and Hood) that would extend their service lives from 20 to 30 years. Each refit would take about 3 years and cost £3 million except for the £4½ million it would cost to refit Hood. The total cost of the programme which was to be spread over 10 years was estimated to be £25½ (equivalent to the building cost of 3½ Nelson class battleships).

ITTL all 5 Queen Elisabeth class had refits along the lines of Queen Elisabeth herself and Valiant IOTL except that the existing 6" gun battery was replaced by twenty 4.7" in 10 twin turrets instead of the OTL 4.5" guns. Similarly Repulse and Renown were refitted to the same standard as Renown in 1939 ITTL except it had 4.7" guns instead of 4.5" guns. IOTL the proposed refit of Hood included replacing the existing 5.5" battery with sixteen 5.25" in 8 twin turrets. IOTL it was twenty 4.7" in 10 twin turrets like the other modernised ships.

ITTL the refit of Barham that began in 1930 became the prototype and because of the extra work involved it continued into 1934. Queen Elisabeth's OTL refit was brought forward to 1931 to make space for Hood. Therefore from 1930 the TTL list of refits was:
1930-34 Barham
1931-34 Queen Elisabeth
1932-36 Repulse
1934-37 Malaya
1934-37 Warspite
1936-39 Renown
1937-39 Valiant
1937-41 Hood​

New Battleships

The British don't have the 1936 LNT reduce the gun calibre limit to 14". The design of the King George V Class was frozen a year earlier (i.e. when still armed with nine 15") and the turrets were ordered a year earlier. The earlier order for the turrets allowed all 5 ships to be completed 3½ years after they were laid down, which was the planned building time in OTL. That is:
01/01/37 to 01/07/40 for King George V - Actual completion 11/12/40 - 5 months late
01/01/37 to 01/07/40 for Prince of Wales - Actual completion 31/03/40 - 8 months late
05/05/37 to 05/11/40 for Duke of York - Actual completion 04/11/41 - 12 months late
01/06/37 to 01/12/40 for Howe - Actual completion 29/08/42 - 21 months late
20/07/37 to 20/01/41 for Anson - Actual completion 22/06/42 - 17 months late​

The secondary armament is either sixteen 6" in eight twin turrets or twenty 4.7" in ten twin turrets. This would have been the secondary armament of the TTL Lion class and TTL Vanguard.

Except that the Super Implacable class aircraft carriers Invincible and Inflexible were laid down in the summer of 1939 in place of Lion and Temeraire. An additional Audacious class aircraft carrier was built in place of Vanguard.
 

SsgtC

Banned
This could be done. Modified bombers that could do this without butchering the air frame too badly are the A-20 Havoc and the B-17 Flying Fortress, but that means rebuilding the center barrel and moving a lot of aft compartment equipment around as well as re-ballasting weight forward. That has consequences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the B-17's main wing spar go right through the middle of the bomb bay? Pretty sure that would preclude an easy modification to allow torpedos
 
The people who were arguing that the battleship was obsolete in the '30's were not correct YET, but people like that are a critical part of any organization. The ones with far out ideas have their ideas analyzed, the totally wacky ones discarded ad the ones with value integrated into a larger scale plan.
 
In my John Noakes voice, "Here's one I made earlier." Post 14 dated 21st March 2017 from a thread called the Royal Navy 1919-39.

Loving your work and thanks

So with increased activity for the supporting industries with these rebuilds a lot of the issues that delayed the KGVs and Fleet carriers caused by atrophied strategic industries such as those making armour plate, large machinary and gert great big guns would be less of an issue as the demand for them would have continued from 1930 leading to much better capacity in 1937.

Also with this greater capacity the parallel rebuilding of ships plus new builds might be a lesser issue
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the B-17's main wing spar go right through the middle of the bomb bay? Pretty sure that would preclude an easy modification to allow torpedos

Part of those consequences is a short Lancaster style pannier bomb bay and a V or C shaped carry through of the main wing spar that allows for the pannier.

Another way of saying that is an arched bridge truss. It physically separates and blocks the walkthrough that the classic B-17 has through the bomb bay proper. Sorry; if I was unclear. And since the bombs fell through the wing spar, it probably would be a better, stronger engineering solution to carry the wing spar C truss span OVER rather than under the bomb racks.
 
Last edited:
Loving your work and thanks

So with increased activity for the supporting industries with these rebuilds a lot of the issues that delayed the KGVs and Fleet carriers caused by atrophied strategic industries such as those making armour plate, large machinary and gert great big guns would be less of an issue as the demand for them would have continued from 1930 leading to much better capacity in 1937.

Also with this greater capacity the parallel rebuilding of ships plus new builds might be a lesser issue
Here's a link to the whole thread.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-royal-navy-1919-39.412578/#post-14452958

The main reason for the earlier delivery of the KGVs in that thread was that I ordered the turrets a year earlier so they were delivered a year earlier.
 
Another way of saying that is an arched bridge truss. It physically separates and blocks the walkthrough that the classic B-17 has through the bomb bay proper. Sorry; if I was unclear. And since the bombs fell through the wing spar, it probably would be a better, stronger engineering solution to carry the wing spar C truss span OVER rather than under the bomb racks.

Nice one

Also you can get shot of the fwd chin turret and the belly gun in addition to the side gunners for this ac - thats 4 men, 2 turret, at least 4 x 50 cal and ammo that can free up using napkin math about 2 tons? Should further improve its range and/or possibly double up on the number of fish it can carry to 4.
 
Top