The Deep refits of the Royal Navy

hipper

Banned
To save the shipbuilding industry, you must have a stronger British economy during BOTH 1920s and 1930s, which would require a POD no later than 1923. No 1923 was a little bit too generous, but a POD no later than 1918 would be optimal. You must prevent Geddes Axe.

The reason for the shipbuilding crisis in the 20's is that the Americans had done what you have suggested and subsidized the construction of Hog Islander ships in 1918 to 1922 thus in the 20's there was limited demand for new ships.

The size of the British economy mattered little to the shipping industry because lo a large extent transported goods between non British ports
up to 40% of Japans imports in the late 30s for example.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
To save the shipbuilding industry, you must have a stronger British economy during BOTH 1920s and 1930s, which would require a POD no later than 1923. No 1923 was a little bit too generous, but a POD no later than 1918 would be optimal. You must prevent Geddes Axe.

The reason for the shipbuilding crisis in the 20's is that the Americans had done what you have suggested and subsidized the construction of Hog Islander ships in 1918 to 1922 thus in the 20's there was limited demand for new ships.

The size of the British economy mattered little to the shipping industry because lo a large extent transported goods between non British ports
up to 40% of Japans imports in the late 30s for example.
No, it was also because neutral countries also developed their own shipbuilding industry, and they focused more on motorships (while Britain stuck to steam ships, which were increasingly commercially inferior, for too long). Moving to motorships faster would mean better response to market changes, which were rising demand for motorships and welded ships. Welding technology should have also been adopted to response to market changes.

Next, they should have consolidated and rationalized shipyards, as well as promoting industrial cooperation to reduce industrial unrests. The first two things would reduce excess demand, increase efficiency and reduce production costs, while the last would make it easier to adopt new technology, as trade unions were notoriously resistant to new tech.

Well, better economy means more tax revenues, means more money for shipbuilding. Also, without Geddes Axe, the education reforms by LG Liberal ministers would yield better results during the period, while the industrial infrastructures would be more modern. I discussed more about this in the "Make British economy stronger during the 1920s and 1930s" thread.
 
I believe the armour from CZ was of 3" & 4 " thick for for the decks and belts of the new armored aircraft carriers. rather than the battleships. Though the new battleships were the reason there was a shortage of armour.

Yes that would make perfect sense given the difficulty of transporting Battleship armoured plate vs transporting 'Cruiser level ' armoured plate over such distances
 
British warship construction capacity was gutted by the 1930s, to the extent that even armored plate had to be ordered from Czechoslovakia. You could build a new ship, but they wouldn't be able to get any big guns because the pits for the old 15 inch ones were covered out and would need to be rebuilt. Obviously there weren't any pits for new guns either.

So you could build new ships, but they would have to be Vanguard type (it was an emergency design that existed well before World War II) and use existing 15 inch guns and mounts.

This is, simply, wrong.

There was capacity for 3/4 double or triple BB turrets a year. There were also decommissioned pits that could be renovated in about 18-24 months at the cost of around £2 (this was being considered in 1938)
The armour plate capacity was raised (almost tripled) between 1933 and 1938). The reason for the shortage was trying to build 5BB, 4 armoured CV, and about 10 cruisers at the same time. This is a massive build program by any standards. Note that the OTL build of 5KGV in 2 years needed 15 turrets.

Oh, and you'd need gun pits to redo the old 15" turrets, so I don't see how you say this can be done while also saying there are no pits.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This is, simply, wrong.

There was capacity for 3/4 double or triple BB turrets a year. There were also decommissioned pits that could be renovated in about 18-24 months at the cost of around £2 (this was being considered in 1938)
The armour plate capacity was raised (almost tripled) between 1933 and 1938). The reason for the shortage was trying to build 5BB, 4 armoured CV, and about 10 cruisers at the same time. This is a massive build program by any standards. Note that the OTL build of 5KGV in 2 years needed 15 turrets.

Oh, and you'd need gun pits to redo the old 15" turrets, so I don't see how you say this can be done while also saying there are no pits.
No, the capacity was really gutted if compared to 1919-1922, and 1933 was the lowest point.

I did read somewhere that British shipbuilding capacity during 1930s was only around 70-80% of the 1918 capacity.

You know, the worst thing was that most shipyards rarely or never saw new investments during the whole period of 1922-1933, a whole decade. No investments mean no new technology. You also know that lots of shipyards were too small for the adoption of mass production techniques (which required the yards to be large enough).
 
No, the capacity was really gutted if compared to 1919-1922, and 1933 was the lowest point.

I did read somewhere that British shipbuilding capacity during 1930s was only around 70-80% of the 1918 capacity.

You know, the worst thing was that most shipyards rarely or never saw new investments during the whole period of 1922-1933, a whole decade. No investments mean no new technology. You also know that lots of shipyards were too small for the adoption of mass production techniques (which required the yards to be large enough).

70 to 80% left is not gutting.
 
Does anybody know the design of the battleship the RN planned to lay down in 1931 had there not been a LNT?

AFAIK the ships would have been similar to the KGVs. But the main armament would have been nine 15" in three triple turrets, a secondary battery of 6" guns in twin turrets and a tertiary battery of 4" AA guns. The CRA would have been a mix of 2pdr Pom Poms and 0.5in machine guns in quad mountings.

However at some point between 1921 and 1936 the RN was advocating the reduction of capital ships to 25,000 tons and a maximum gun calibre of 12".

I do wonder how serious the RN or British government was with the 25,000 tons and 12" guns proposal. Those battleships would have been inferior to most of the older ships. As older ships are retired, the imbalance becomes larger until the last of the old ships are gone.

I don't know about any proposed 1931 design. I suspect that the follow-on class would have dual-purpose secondaries and maybe 16" guns.
 
I do wonder how serious the RN or British government was with the 25,000 tons and 12" guns proposal. Those battleships would have been inferior to most of the older ships. As older ships are retired, the imbalance becomes larger until the last of the old ships are gone.

I don't know about any proposed 1931 design. I suspect that the follow-on class would have dual-purpose secondaries and maybe 16" guns.
I agree anything below 14" is really very unlikely.

I have read about designs for early 30s but don't have any books available now, but they did look very hard at single use secondary 6"guns and twin main mounts. Not very weight efficient but more a reaction against the perceived compromises with the N&R without fully understanding them or the trade-offs available, kind of like the transom stern only got into designs at the end of wars (G3/Van) when slow fuel economy gets forgotten.
 
Last edited:
Top