Naval History Forums

A note on the Brit carriers. Eagle is of course the ex-Almirante Cochrane, not the Almirante Latorre which remained a battleship in the service of Chile until 1958.

Great post Jellicoe...

This sounds like a good plan, particulary the emphasis on convoy defence.

One area not consider is the use of fleet auxiliary supply ships to enable the cruisers and capital ships to stay at sea longer.

Given the problem of Britain's overseas empire (far-flung our navies melt away), my fleet construction program would
concentrate on the notion that Britain needs to protect convoys, and have ships available for many stations and possible points
of conflict all over the world.

The core force of BBs/BCs (15 in 1936) can suffice with the addition of a new batch of hardy not-confined-by-treaty battleships.
I would order 4 improved KGVs, basically Lion, with 45,000 tons/30kts/9x16 in, laid down at roughly same pace as the KGVs
were historically, and retain the plans for refits of older BBs/BCs that were under way.

The carrier situation is more problematic. In 1936 Britain had 6 carriers available, of which only 3, Courageous, Glorious, and Furious,
could keep up with the faster battleships. Eagle, ex Chilean Almirante Latore BB, was a nice looking design, and it seems that a good
refit could have enabled an increase in either her speed (from 24kts) or her AC capacity (from 21), to allow her to be able to operate
as a full fleet carrier. Argus is largely fit for training, and Hermes, likewise, is very limited with slow speeds and few aircraft.
Furious I would refit to bring her up to the standards of her 2 sisters with AC complement of 48. Ark Royal had been laid down
in 1936. I would keep that construction going and add 3 others of similar design.

In Sept, 1939, Britain had 66 cruisers active, with 23 new ones laid down. I think the cruiser designs of the Kents, etc, were all
basically sound, and a program extending the 8x8 heavies and 9x6 lights would be sufficient, at a pace consistent with what
was in effect in 1939. Britain had to have a large force of cruisers to protect her overseas stations. I would go for the max possible
here, sacrificing the allowable 6/6 new battleship/cv designs by 2 each. The same with destroyers, DEs, corvettes, or any number
of other smaller ship types. As many as possible would be ideal. The saved 170,000 or so tons from having a 4/4 BB/CV program
instead of 6/6 would applied towards these smaller support warships. 8 capital ships with proper escort to me seems more
reasonable than 12 without, given the number of times RN capital ships were sailing around with little or no escort at all, some of
them being sunk for their efforts.

It would be a money issue, dictating the most efficient spend of the defence budget.

In the late 1930's Britain started to re-arm seriously, with resources emphasised on new weaponry such as the KGV's rather than rebuilding ''old crocks'' like Glorious or even Hood. And don't forget that there was intense competion between the three armed services for funds, especially the RAF and the need for air defence against bombers.

Could the three ex-large light cruisers, Furious, Corageous, and Glorious have been modernised in the late 30s? I'm thinking a very radical rebuild along the lines the IJN took with Akagi and Kaga. Extending the flight deck out to the bows, and aft a bit, and giving Furious an island. Would this have been practical from a design standpoint, or was it all a money issue?

Basically the same problem that Hitler's Z Plan would have come up against - had it proceeded.

paul.mercer wrote:

Bgile wrote:

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Once again thanks for your replies, perhaps I mistook the meaning of 'Improve' as when I suggested 3X15" in four turrets I was assuming that the Washington Treaty did not apply and that weight and size was not a concern.

OK, then 3x18" in four turrets on 100,000 tons.

WOW!

That obviously would not be practical; there might not be a yard in the UK which could build it ... and it might not be the best use of resources even if you assume conventional battleships are going to be built.

Bgile wrote:

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Once again thanks for your replies, perhaps I mistook the meaning of 'Improve' as when I suggested 3X15" in four turrets I was assuming that the Washington Treaty did not apply and that weight and size was not a concern.

OK, then 3x18" in four turrets on 100,000 tons.

WOW!

By conservative, I was referring to the 1930s. Tennyson, DNC in the earlier period, was certainly a radical with a very open mind: He raised the protective deck in the R class, introduced a sloped belt with crushing tube torpedo protection in the Hood, and an internal sloped belt, raft body, and water compartment torpedo protection in the Nelson class. The first two were probably more suitable for the conditions of the First War than the earlier designs of Sir William White, at least up to the introduction the Greenboy shells (in the opinion of Brown). However, their low GM made them harder to modernize, and the poor shelter of the more steeply sloping deck behind the main belt made them more vulnerable to the better shells in the Second War.
Just like one man could virtually design a complete steam locomotive whereas now big design teams are needed for individual components of the much more complex modern locomotives, in the battleship era, the man at the top exercised great control over what kind of ship was built. The earlier times were simpler, more human and more interesting I find (maybe it's because I am now 59 that I think this way).

In other words a super Yamato.....

Actually for super tanker size of up to 200,000 tons you could have quad turrets for those 18 inch guns. Or perhaps go for the Fuehrer's preference of 21 inch guns.....

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Once again thanks for your replies, perhaps I mistook the meaning of 'Improve' as when I suggested 3X15" in four turrets I was assuming that the Washington Treaty did not apply and that weight and size was not a concern.

OK, then 3x18" in four turrets on 100,000 tons.

Gentlemen,
Once again thanks for your replies, perhaps I mistook the meaning of 'Improve' as when I suggested 3X15" in four turrets I was assuming that the Washington Treaty did not apply and that weight and size was not a concern.

Dave Saxton wrote:

dunmunro wrote:The RN had 9 BBs and 7 new CVs built or under construction in 1939 with 3 BBs rebuilt and 6 more scheduled for rebuilding.

And how was the RN buildup to deal with a enemy intent on waging commerce warfare against Britian's communications with large numbers of submarines? It seems like the Royal Navy was building the wrong ships, or didn't or wouldn't recognize the greater threat, and could not meet both build up commitments.

No one was building large fleets of submarines, prewar, (Germany was limited by Treaty) and the RN/RCN massively expanded escort production when the U-boat threat appeared. However the RN was building sloops, which were a specialized ASW/AA escort, pre-war.

RF wrote:But not all of them were built though were they?

We have the five KGV ships, the last two with different names from the actual, two ships reconstructed while the two Lion class ships with 16 inch guns never made it.

Looking at these press articles - American - I detect an element of spin and propaganda here, overstating what is really happening.

For example - with all this fiscal prolifigacy why was there no room to strengthen the armoured decks of Hood?

Warspite, Valiant, QE and Renown were reconstructed, with the other QEs, Hood and Repulse scheduled for rebuilding. Hood was scheduled for rebuilding after some of the KGV class entered service, as the RN needed to have ~30 knot BBs in service to counter Axis raiders, but a rebuild required ~3 years.

The RN fully intended to build all the ships mentioned in the article, but when war broke out in 1939, some of them had to be cancelled or delayed, especially after the FoF, as Britain was then forced to do a crash build up of the Army and RAF, and massively expand escort ship production. I think you should do some more research on this, as the articles are not propaganda, and are correct.