MatthewB
Banned
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ginally-scheduled.469543/page-2#post-19061130Or more Carriers earlier and less need for Guards Van?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ginally-scheduled.469543/page-2#post-19061130Or more Carriers earlier and less need for Guards Van?
No they all got built pre 1 JAN 37 when they where clearly legal as just under 20Kn is fine..... (well who would have through that RN engines can later run at 150% overload...)Does this mean significantly fewer antisubmarine escorts, since much of the delays were a result of priorities shifting to those?
Here's an enlarged version of the table.The British Rearmament Programme
As early as 1934 the British Government realised that a war with either Germany or Japan and possibly both was likely by 1941, with Italy thrown in to lengthen the odds. What disturbed the Admiralty was the fact that the Royal Navy was considerably under-strength for such a struggle. Although nominally still the largest in the world, the RN had a large proportion of elderly capital ships, the majority of which would be unfit to fight their opposite numbers. It must be remembered that the aircraft carrier had not yet developed its full potential, and no major navy dared think of countering battleships with anything but its own battle fleet.
The leading naval powers were anxious to continue the limitations enshrined in the treaties, but not at the cost of their fighting efficiency. The London Naval Treaty was due to expire in December 1936, and a new conference was due to be convened to discuss how to continue the limitations of the world's fleets. With a view to rectifying what they saw was a serious weakness in the Royal Navy's strength, the Admiralty advised the Cabinet in May 1934 that the new naval treaty must allow Great Britain to build new battleships. The Admiralty was particularly anxious that they must be laid down as soon as the treaty expired, even if the new agreement reduced the permitted displacement and armament.
Design studies for new capital ships had begun in the spring of 1933 to allow the British delegates to have clear objectives at the 1935 conference, just as they had at Washington. Armour protection was given top priority, as it was recognised that even if the conference agreed to reduce the gun calibre the new ships would still have to face opponents with 15-in and 16-in guns for some years. Air attacks with bombs up to 2,000lb weight were taken into account. Speed was to be no more than 23 knots, the same as foreign battleships and the Nelson class. The decisive battle range was held to be 12,000-16,000 yards; it was felt that although high speed (30 knots) would permit action at greater distances, experience showed that destruction of an enemy battleship would only take place as shorter ranges.
The question of speed vexed the designers of what had now been labelled the "1937 Capital Ships". The 1935 conference led to the Three-Power Treaty among Great Britain, the USA and France. But the French, with an eye on Italy, would not renounce their right to build 35,000 ton ships with 15-in guns. The battle-cruiser Dunkerque and Strasbourg were also fast, as were the German replies to them, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Gun calibre was also the subject of violent changes of policy. At the conference in 1935 the British were still pressing for a reduction to 12-in guns for battleships, although the Americans wanted to retain the 16-in, while the French and Italians had secreatly already committed themselves to 15-in guns for their new ships. But the British remained optimistic about the reduction to 14-in calibre, and won the Americans round. As naval guns and their massive mountings take a long time to design and even longer to build, the guns had to be ordered before the end of 1935 if the first two battleships were to be ready in 1940.
The result was that in October 1935, two months before the convening of the London Naval Conference, the Board of Admiralty recommended that the new capital ships should be 35,000-ton, 28-knot ships armed with twelve 14-inch guns. The United States insisted on a clause to allow 16-in guns to be reinstated if the Japanese refused to accept the treaty terms by April 1937. In the event this happened, and so Great Britain ended up as the only country to build 14-in gunned battleships. This was the core of most of the criticism levelled at these ships, although experience during the Second World War was to indicate that the theoretically greater range and hitting power of the 14-inch and 16-inch made little difference in action. But in 1935 the British designers felt that to compensate for the lighter shell they should increase the number of guns from eight or nine to 12 in three quadruple mountings, a solution adopted by the Americans in their 14-in design.
As work on the new ships progressed several radically novel features were incorporated. A new 5.25-in surface/anti-aircraft gun mounting was adopted for the battleships in place of the planned 4.5-in gun; this was the first example of a dual-purpose armament. The thick horizontal armour against plunging shells and bombs was raised from the middle deck to the main deck to improve stability if the ship was damaged and to reduce the volume of structure vulnerable to semi-armour-piercing (SAP) bombs. The original requirement for six aircraft had been altered, but now provision was to be made for two aircraft hangars in the superstructure, the first time this had been done in any battleships. The underwater protection system which had proven such an important feature of the Nelson class was retained in a much improved form.
In February 1936 a provisional programme was drawn up for the two ships. It is quoted below to give some idea of the time-scale for building battleships, and the actual completion dates are given for comparison.
![]()
It can be seen clearly from this table that the main source of delay was the armament. The guns themselves presented no problems, unlike the turrets. Three quadruple turrets had been stipulated to achieve the maximum weight of broadside, although for a time designers toyed with the idea of nine 14-inch guns in three triple mountings. Finally it was decided to alter the number of guns to ten by substituting a twin mounting for one of the quads to save weight. As time was to show this sudden change can only be described as capricious. With hindsight it is clear that nine 14-inch would have been nearly as good as twelve, for the simple reason that a triple turret was roomier and easier to work than a quadruple one. But either arrangement was preferable to incurring further delay while a new twin 14-in turret was designed. In any case the design of the new turrets proved more complex than the Director of Naval Construction had envisaged, and the quadruple turrets were eleven months late because of a shortage of draughtsmen.
The first two ships were the King George V, ordered from Vickers-Armstrongs, Barrow, and the Prince of Wales from Cammell Laird, Birkenhead. The Board of Admiralty wanted to go to a 16-in gunned design to match the ships which it believed the Japanese were building, but to save further delay the next three battleships authorised under the 1937 programme were repeats of the King George V. Despite all the delays was still hoped to have the first ship at sea in September 1940 and the others in 1941, and King George V began her trials in October 1940. During the crisis at the time of Dunkirk, work on the last two ― Anson and Howe ― was stopped, but only for a few months; they joined the fleet in 1942.
This makes me ask how long did the twin (assuming that's the 3rd turret?) slow the building?
I don't know. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the quote from Battleships 1856-1977, Preston wrote.This makes me ask how long did the twin (assuming that's the 3rd turret?) slow the building?
What date could you get for the KVGs if they simply accept 8x 14" in two quads?
In any case the design of the new turrets proved more complex than the Director of Naval Construction had envisaged, and the quadruple turrets were eleven months late because of a shortage of draughtsmen.
My (potentially faulty?) understanding was that the twin was even later as it was only ordered after they decided they needed to drop down from 12 to 10 guns to reduce weight and that the twin was basically quickly (ish) designed by halving a quad (not the other way round) if so it would be a later delay added to the existing late quads?I don't know. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the quote from Battleships 1856-1977, Preston wrote."In any case the design of the new turrets proved more complex than the Director of Naval Construction had envisaged, and the quadruple turrets were eleven months late because of a shortage of draughtsmen."
That's more or less my understanding too.My (potentially faulty?) understanding was that the twin was even later as it was only ordered after they decided they needed to drop down from 12 to 10 guns to reduce weight and that the twin was basically quickly (ish) designed by halving a quad (not the other way round) if so it would be a later delay added to the existing late quads?
Preston also said that nine 14" in three triple turrets was considered as an alternative to two quads and one twin and his opinion was that nine guns would have been nearly as goods as twelve.
Therefore part of the POD might be that the naval powers that be decided on nine 14" in three triple turrets instead of twelve 14" in three quadruple turrets to begin with.
Yes but with OTL situation I think a 8 guns rush job is potentially less of a diversion and would be IMO perfectly sufficient....So what if they decide to do a few creative weight calculations and stick with the original 3 quad turrets?
Or stick to nine 15" in three triple turrets?So what if they decide to do a few creative weight calculations and stick with the original 3 quad turrets?
I think the problem was as much the potential loss of speed if the weight was higher as anything else.So what if they decide to do a few creative weight calculations and stick with the original 3 quad turrets?
A British Richelieu? So 5 ships with 2 turrets = 10 in all, instead of 5 with 3 = 15. If the limiting factor was the number of gun pits, that's interesting.Yes but with OTL situation I think a 8 guns rush job is potentially less of a diversion and would be IMO perfectly sufficient....
Since the RN was limited by the number of turrets they could build would accepting two quads get them to sea earlier and by how much?
The new 15" gun wasn't the same as the existing gun so the ammunition was probably not compatible. It's a repeat of the 4.5" gun.Deciding on an armament of 9 15" guns in triple turrets would have saved time, because the equipment for producing 15" barrels already existed. Not to mention cost savings seeing as how the heavier shell design for the Warspite already existed.
Most of the ships ordered up to and including the 1935-36 Navy Estimates were built in a reasonable length of time. It was the 1936-37 Navy Estimates onwards when the building times began to become "elongated".Of course, is any government procurement EVER completed as scheduled? Aren't we asking for a miracle here?