Everyone's doctrine was focused on battleships. British construction reflected the battleship threat from the European powers, Germany and Italy, who had no carriers worth speaking of OTL. AIUI, one reason that the USN built so many carriers was because they had relatively few in the late 1930s and wanted to have a 1:1 balance between battleships and carriers, hence the plans of the Two-Ocean Act, which, as you point out, wouldn't have happened ITTL, although some sort of One-Ocean Act probably would have, in response to Japanese construction.
What if the War began in 1944? Royal Navy in particular and RAF overall
- Thread starter Thomas1195
- Start date
Everyone's doctrine was focused on battleships. British construction reflected the battleship threat from the European powers, Germany and Italy, who had no carriers worth speaking of OTL. AIUI, one reason that the USN built so many carriers was because they had relatively few in the late 1930s and wanted to have a 1:1 balance between battleships and carriers, hence the plans of the Two-Ocean Act, which, as you point out, wouldn't have happened ITTL, although some sort of One-Ocean Act probably would have, in response to Japanese construction.
Thomas1195
Banned
R-class, no way, they were too slow, and I don't think 15 inch gun can cause major damage on Yamato, with the sheer thickness of Yamato's armour. Btw, I don't believe H41, H42, H43 could be completed.
Last edited:
Because under peace conditions my guess is that they would have made the Vulture engine work rather than change the engine. For one thing Avro, Rolls Royce and the Air Ministry would want to avoid the bad publicity or let the Germans know that they had ordered 1,500 bombers with engines that didn't work. Failing that the sheer bloody mindedness of not wanting to admit that a mistake had been made.
IIRC the plan for a front-line of 1,360 heavy bombers required the construction of 3,500 aircraft so that there would be the necessary number of aircraft in reserve and for training units. IIRC the spit was to be 500 Stirlings, 1,500 Halifaxes and 1,500 Manchesters.
The Royal Navy as well as the USN both considered the Aircraft Carrier a supportship, rather than a true capital ship. The only navy considering the Carrier the new Capital ship was the IJN and then only by its commander Yamamotop, as most other flag officers still believed in the obsolete big gun ship. The USN only was forced to review this AFTER Pearl Harbor, not before. The Royal Navy started to consider the aircraft carrier as a captial ship after the loss of HMS Prince of Wales (the first modern BB sunk solely by airpower).
Thomas1195
Banned
Without war, Lion BBs would have been completed by 1940. If there was no war until 1944, Britain had plenty of time for building new BB class (maybe improved G3, I3 or N3, as Vanguard was just a wartime emergency solution)
Thomas1195
Banned
Btw, I feel that building KGV like OTL was a mistake. They could have choose 3x3 15 or 16 inch guns instead of the weak and problematic 4x4 14 inch. On paper the KGV class was way inferior to its peers both in terms of speed and firepower (Bismarck, South Dakota, North Carolina or Nagato, all of these ships would give KGV a run).
Lion and Temeraire were only laid down in 1939, so no chance of being ready by 1940.
I said "if both sides can penetrate each other" meaning that I handwaved away issues of mobility simply to demonstrate the point that the 15" gun was quite capable of penetrating Yamato's belt if it was close enough. It therefore follows that at the close ranges typical of a night action, any battleship can penetrate any other one and hence there is little value in having a thicker belt or bigger guns.
Guadalcanal was fought at <10k yards, and Navweaps has the 15" gun penetrating 16.5" of armour at 10k. Yamato had a 16" belt which means that, accounting for inclination, she's theoretically safe-ish from an R-class at 10k, but cut that range down to 8k yards or so and both ships are vulnerable. And that's ignoring the torpedo threat! Battleships had become overspecialised and too vulnerable outside their own tightly defined engagement environments.
If you change KGV armament, then POW isn't ready for Denmark Strait and British strategy is thrown into chaos. Not clever. The 14" gun was good enough, and we all know that the best is the enemy of the good. I'm a particular fan of the KGVs because they were a triumph of efficiency - their guns were just good enough, they were just fast enough and they were ready just in time, meaning that no resources were wasted on unnecessary features on an all-singing, all-dancing white elephant like the Yamato.
I said "if both sides can penetrate each other" meaning that I handwaved away issues of mobility simply to demonstrate the point that the 15" gun was quite capable of penetrating Yamato's belt if it was close enough. It therefore follows that at the close ranges typical of a night action, any battleship can penetrate any other one and hence there is little value in having a thicker belt or bigger guns.
Guadalcanal was fought at <10k yards, and Navweaps has the 15" gun penetrating 16.5" of armour at 10k. Yamato had a 16" belt which means that, accounting for inclination, she's theoretically safe-ish from an R-class at 10k, but cut that range down to 8k yards or so and both ships are vulnerable. And that's ignoring the torpedo threat! Battleships had become overspecialised and too vulnerable outside their own tightly defined engagement environments.
If you change KGV armament, then POW isn't ready for Denmark Strait and British strategy is thrown into chaos. Not clever. The 14" gun was good enough, and we all know that the best is the enemy of the good. I'm a particular fan of the KGVs because they were a triumph of efficiency - their guns were just good enough, they were just fast enough and they were ready just in time, meaning that no resources were wasted on unnecessary features on an all-singing, all-dancing white elephant like the Yamato.
Thomas1195
Banned
Actually, the problematic 14 inch gun (it was plagued with mechanical problems which damaged their already average firepower, that was the MAIN issue) nearly made them defeated when fighting Bismarck. They could have sticked to the much more reliable 15 inch guns (which were used on QE and vanguard classes OTL). Fortunately, they still fulfilled their role in the end, mainly because the nature of naval warfare had changed.
Still, in theory KGV would not be my first choice for a battleship duel due to their lack of range and firepower, they could be eliminated from around 20-25k yard before they can close the range.
I would pick the American ones. Excellent fire control, superior firepower and speed, and still very efficient.
"The modern development of aircraft has demonstrated conclusively that the backbone of the Navy today is the aircraft carrier. The carrier, with destroyers, cruisers and submarines grouped around it[,] is the spearhead of all modern naval task forces." - Carl Vinson, July 1940, after the unanimous passage of the Two Ocean Navy Act
The USN was aware that the battleship era was over and that aircraft carriers were the queen of the seas even before Pearl Harbor.
That conclusion is a bit siplistic and not entirely true, since there still were old fashioned "Big gun club" admirals in the navy seriously opposing to the airpower at see as main force, Admirals King, Stark, Hart and so on, all senior admirals taking charge of most of the navy, were old fashined style officers with little or no experience with airpower, let alone understanding it. A mere fact is that the USN continued to construct more battleships, that were obsolete before build as late as 1939. With a little more understanding of airpower at sea, these ten ships would have been canceled and replaced by more aircraft carriers, that is more than the origjnal eight of the first order for the two ocean bill.
Quotes from individuals don't represent institutional opinion, let alone political opinion tbh.
This gives you a KGV with six guns in three twin turrets. Not very clever. Unless you design new turrets... but there wasn't time for this, and even if there had been, then you're likely to meet the same problems that POW met at DS because the philosophy behind the turret designs would have been the same.
TBH the 14" turrets' problems are often overstated. POW was barely commissioned; KGV and DOY showed that the turrets were good enough if you'd had time to work them up properly.
The A150 would be lucky to see service before 1947 so is out of scope for this discussion and I have my doubts that it would be laid down at all let alone finished
At best I think the Japanese might have finished a 4th Yamato (or 2nd Shinano as there were differences between the Shinano design and the first 2) by 1944 and be building the 5th Yamato (or 3rd Shinano) at this time
And in 1944 the British ships with their superior 'sensors' in anything other than perfect weather will detect first and be firing first at extreme range in such an analogous encounter.
I guess it depends on your definition of a mistake - Building to the then expected 2LNT limits and deciding to build the ships so that they would be ready as soon as possible or building better ships that would be ready later (in OTL this = too late) - Britain decided to do both - 5 good enough ships that would be ready sooner (all by 1942) and then 4 better ones that would be ready a few years later - as it turned out the better ships were not built nor needed
The problem is that on paper of those 4 ships you mention only Bismarck is faster yet in practice could not out run a still working up POW
Nagato is just shy of 25 knots post rebuild, SoDak is just Shy 28 knots while Showboat can just about pip 28 knots - KGV class could exceed that and the designs machinary proved capable of maintaining even higher speeds for long periods of time with no ill effect.
The KGVs armour Scheme is only exceeded by the Yamoto Twins - which were 50% heavier
The "weak and problematic" 14" guns proved to be good enough in combat - the POW at Denmark Straight still had Vickers Engineers on board fixing issues with her guns - had she been in that condition in peacetime she would still have belonged to Cammal Laird and Company until all the kinks were ironed out.
Big Dreadnought guns are difficult both the NelRod 16" guns and Turrets took nearly 10 years to get right and the 8" guns and turrets of the British Heavy Cruisers were still giving problems as late as 1938 (IIRC one of the reasons why the British only built 'Light' 6" armed Crusiers from the late 30s onwards)
With 5 more years of peace the issues with the Quad and Twin 14" and turrets would very likely have been resolved
So I disagree with your opinion that they were a mistake OTL - they were good enough, built in time and served the Royal Navy and the British well.
Thomas1195
Banned
One question is that how American and Japanese could mount 16 inch guns (or more) without any notable errors since 1920?
) Especially American guns were excellent.The problem for NelRod could bethat their guns and turrets were originally designed for G3 and N3, and after the Treaty they have to redesign N3 to reduce weight while using 16'' guns from G3.
Oh I forgot, Iowa and Montana, the best BB classes in ww2
Last edited:
One question is that how American and Japanese could mount 16 inch guns (or more) without any notable errors since 1920?
The problem for NelRod could bethat their guns and turrets were originally designed for G3 and N3, and after the Treaty they have to redesign N3 to reduce weight while using 16'' guns from G3.
Oh I forgot, Iowa and Montana, the best BB classes in ww2
British had seriously bad experiences with big guns in WW1, simmilar to the Germans. This was not the case with navies not being tested in battle, such as the USN and IJN, which both still used more primitive ways of internal gun and turretprotection, especially against internal fires (Mutsu was destroyed by an internal explosion, while on few post WW2 occasions USN turrets and guns seemed to blow up.) The British had a very advanced and complex system of interlocking devices to prevent any flash of fire reaching parts of a magazine, or turret, tp prevent just such an explosion. There are no examples of modern post Great War design British guns, or turrets suffering an explosion as a result, where IJN and USN turrets did on few occasions have accidents.
As such, the often claimed excelence of USN guns is not entirely so excellent, as the crew of USS Iowa in 1989 will tell you!
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
It is important to distinguish between the propellant and the gun. This article explains the different types the British and USN used. British guns in WW1 worked very well; the BC's lost at Jutland were from removing what flash protection there was in order to increase the firing rate. The British powder was also more prone to explosion than the American type. As to the bolded, AIUI the USN did not properly store the powder in temperature controlled rooms, but left it in the heat for 40 years, leading to it degrading and becoming more dangerous, while the IJN used a WW1 recipe that could detonate on its own, like HMS Vanguard.
@Thomas1195 , the 16" guns were twin mounts, the easiest to use. The USN triples had dispersion problems thru the 1920's, only solved by delaying the middle turret a bit. The NelRods had the problem of trying triples for the first time, as well as using different materials than before (not using brass mountings to save weight, etc). I'm sure the G3's mounts would have been exceptional. The KGV's were great, and would have been unsurpassed if they had been allowed to go overweight and keep the 3 quad turrets (that cost 6 months; the difference is PoW fully worked up, and likely leading the charge at Denmark Strait).
One question is that how American and Japanese could mount 16 inch guns (or more) without any notable errors since 1920?
The problem for NelRod could be that their guns and turrets were originally designed for G3 and N3, and after the Treaty they have to redesign N3 to reduce weight while using 16'' guns from G3.
Oh I forgot, Iowa and Montana, the best BB classes in ww2
I suspect that the excellence of guns systems is inversely proportional to the amount of documentation made and subsequently kept regarding their use
The British record absolutely everything and because 3 of the KGV battleships were actually used in battleship vs battleship battles on 3 very notable occasions much is made of that data and its put under serious scrutiny as a result
Regarding the Nelrod turrets that's my understanding as well
The Iowa's were great ships and served the USA well - sadly they were not built 'just in time' the first entering service in early 43 and were given a year to work up before going to the Pacific in 44 much of the burden of WW2 fell on existing ships and the 6 Treaty battleships of the SoCal and SoDak classes (which were not available till mid 41 and mid 42 respectively)
Its interesting to note that had the SoCals been built with the original 2LNT 14" guns they would have been available earlier
The Montana class was not laid down let alone built in WW2 so was not the best Battleship of the war - had they been laid down as planned then I see them entering service in late 45/46
So the best - its subjective but for me the best = the most useful and the 5 KGV class 'Mistakes' were certainly very useful and were available in time to match the 5 German and Italian Super Fast Battleships
Hi there,
I am aware of the dirrences in propelant and the ways the users stored it normally. What it does not explain is why the Post Jutland guns an turret designs of the Royal Navy seemed to have some technical issues, where most such guns and turrets in other, less experienced navies did not. The only reasonable explaination is the Royal Navy engineers were foccussed on savety issues and this was something causing the newly designed guns and turrets to become rather complex things to start with, where the more basical turrets and guns on USN and IJN were not reaching the same level of savety as the British did. History did show that none of the post jutland period designed turrets and guns on larger British ships did suffer accidents like in USN and IJN ships. OK Older turrets could still have issues, but none of the Nelsons, King George V or turreted treaty cruisers did have accidents like on multiple USN and IJN ships.
Note: not only USS Iowa did suffer a gunnery accident in 1989. USS Mississippi in 1924 also had a turretexplosion in B turret. USS Newport News (CA-148) did suffer a simmilar accident in B turret in 1972. In WW2 more such accidents happened, though none of them proved fatal, as far as is known, though killing a lot of personel.
The King George V class indeed did give value for the investment, although the latest pair did never engage enemy ships at all. As such the first trio (HMS King George V, Prince of Wales and Duke of York) did give the Royal Navy value for the investmenet, although it still is a very sad thing HMS Prince of Wales was send to the Far East in a hopeless mission. The USN Battleships were a waist of resources mostly, as only the North Carolina's were deployed in time for warservice, where the South Dakota's and iowa's were merely used as cruisers, escorting carriers, but with much larger crews and costs, as well as gunnery support on the beaches, whcih was a waist as well, since even small landingcraft addapted for this role could perform in that sort of missions. That is eight big usless humpsof steel waisted, while steel was also on demand for armored vehicles, hopefull of more durable types compared to the vast numbers of M-4 Sherman tanks. (The USA did suffer from a shortage of steel in mid war, due to the enormeous demand for the resource)
Overall the Royal Navy needed the King George V Class in the beginning of the war, simply as there were no alternatives at the time in the form of Naval airpower on aircraft carriers, as the British lacked sufficient numbers of both carriers and aircraft. The USN on the other hand did not need the new battleships, as it had more than enough fightingpotential in its growing number of aircraft carriers, besides the war in the Pacific was an airwar mostly.