How would you improve the Royal Navy

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by RF »

neil hilton wrote:
As stated in my original post I would build 6 BBs and 6CVs because pairing a CV with a fast BB result in a symbiotic relationship.
I'm glad that the British taxpayer (and that includes me) won't be having to pay for all this lot.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by RF »

neil hilton wrote:
Speaking of the CV this is my design. An enlarged Implacable class 35000 tons.
Most of this extra volume I would put in hanger capacity, raising the aircraft capacity form 60 to 80 or maybe 90.
Alter the AAA loadout to a half and half mix of twin 40mm bofor and twin 20mm oerlikens. This could result in around 40 pieces of each type (20 of each per side).
Only having 2 twin 5.25" per side for DP.
This is more like it. However do we need DP?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by neil hilton »

RF wrote:
neil hilton wrote:
As stated in my original post I would build 6 BBs and 6CVs because pairing a CV with a fast BB result in a symbiotic relationship.
I'm glad that the British taxpayer (and that includes me) won't be having to pay for all this lot.
Me too!

However, if its for to protect the empire? The British have historically overspent on a navy as first line of defence and to protect the shipping lanes, if done correctly it can pay for itself.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by neil hilton »

RF wrote:
neil hilton wrote:
Speaking of the CV this is my design. An enlarged Implacable class 35000 tons.
Most of this extra volume I would put in hanger capacity, raising the aircraft capacity form 60 to 80 or maybe 90.
Alter the AAA loadout to a half and half mix of twin 40mm bofor and twin 20mm oerlikens. This could result in around 40 pieces of each type (20 of each per side).
Only having 2 twin 5.25" per side for DP.
This is more like it. However do we need DP?
DP guns would give some effective weaponry for use against close surface threats when the carriers air power is unavailable.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by neil hilton »

This is my design for a cruiser. 15000 tons, allowing 4 to be built per year.
An enlarged Edinburgh design with most of the extra weight put into armour.
Increase the machinery to maintain a 32kt speed.
4 or 5 triple 6" mk23 turrets.
A half and half mix of twin 40mm bofors and twin 20mm oerlikens. Should be able to fit around 14 of each, maybe 18 of each. Keep the torps and the scout planes for versatility.

I would also push for better ASW weapons earlier, like hedgehog and improved sonar. The RN sat on its laurrels a lot regarding ASW.
Also I would organise the RN destroyer force into 'convoy escort' roles instead of 'search and patrol' roles as historical.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
Kitsetone
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:15 am

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by Kitsetone »

I would start by looking at a standardised, easily mass produced frigate design much earlier. The Royal Navy's greatest contribution to the winning of WW2 was its work in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Flower Class corvettes were a timely stop gap, but rather small for the conditions. There were of course the Improved Black Swan Class sloops. These were very good, but they were not really suitable for mass production by dispersed commercial ship yards. Not until the Loch class was this achieved in 1944/45.
User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by neil hilton »

Kitsetone wrote:I would start by looking at a standardised, easily mass produced frigate design much earlier. The Royal Navy's greatest contribution to the winning of WW2 was its work in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Flower Class corvettes were a timely stop gap, but rather small for the conditions. There were of course the Improved Black Swan Class sloops. These were very good, but they were not really suitable for mass production by dispersed commercial ship yards. Not until the Loch class was this achieved in 1944/45.
Good plan.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
David
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by David »

Armoured carriers with dive and torpedo bombers and 8" cruisers (big enough to scout in heavy weather, deal with surface raiders and in groups, engage battleships) would be the core of the fleet. Beyond that, convoy escorts (frigates), submarines and long range aircraft under naval command. I'd scrap all battleships and battlecruisers. Regardless, we can all be wise after the event.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by Bgile »

David wrote:Armoured carriers with dive and torpedo bombers and 8" cruisers (big enough to scout in heavy weather, deal with surface raiders and in groups, engage battleships) would be the core of the fleet. Beyond that, convoy escorts (frigates), submarines and long range aircraft under naval command. I'd scrap all battleships and battlecruisers. Regardless, we can all be wise after the event.
I take it you threw out the Washington Treaty and also that you found a way to train many more pilots than Britain was historically able to.
David
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by David »

If we're being hypothetical, of course. But if Britain had agreed to scrap the Rs and the QEs to build more of the derided (at the time) "tin clad" Counties, would the other countries have objected? The RN should have maintained control over its aircraft. As for pilots, during the Battle of Britain, the RAF had hundreds of pilots flying desks when they should have been in cockpits.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by Bgile »

I was under the impression that there was an extreme shortage of pilots. You are saying this is not true, and that there were enough pilots hanging around in desk jobs to crew airwings for a number of carriers. Honestly, I find that hard to believe.

I also believe building a lot of CVs would have been in violation of the treaty, and there were total tonnage limits on 8" gun cruisers.
David
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by David »

I don't think that CVs were included in the treaty, which is why the US converted Lex and Sara (building) from CB into (at the time) giant CVs. If the British had scrapped their BBs (as a "goodwill gesture" ) and built 8 inch cruisers as their "capital ships" to defend the then sacroscant "Trade Routes", the other countries might have agreed to let them have a larger number of 8 inch ships. I don't know what public opinion in Britin would have said. As it was, the Counties turned out to be good ships, able to keep the sea in conditions in which a CL would have suffered a loss of efficiency. The 8 inch shell proved to be surprisingly effective against armoured ships.One County vs Kormoran? Three Counties vs Graf Spee? Five Counties vs Bismark? We'll obviously never know. As regards pilots; whether a separate RNAS would have been involved in the Battle of Britain, I imagine it would have, as it was in WWI (Collishaw and the famous "Black Flight" were RNAS). Britain did have hundreds of pilots(officers) at administration jobs that could have been performed by WRAFs but the old social structure still held. I heard of one incident where a Sergeant who reported for duty in an emergency was reprimanded for having taken a taxi. He was told that taxis were for officers, as an NCO, he should have taken the bus. These were RAF pilots, not naval trained but it does show that a "shortage" of pilots is an administrative concept. Regardless, if the RN had retained control over its own aircraft, it might have gotten better designs out of it. But in addition to the RAF wanting control, the RN was still led by old school battleship admirals who didn't push as hard as they should have. Some realized, through experience. James Somerville, the luckiest Admiral in British or possibly any other navy's history, said he felt like "a blind beggar without his dog" when he didn't have Ark Royal's aircraft up.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by lwd »

David wrote:I don't think that CVs were included in the treaty,
They were.
which is why the US converted Lex and Sara (building) from CB into (at the time) giant CVs.
They weren't CB's they were BC's and not particularly gigantic for CVs.
If the British had scrapped their BBs (as a "goodwill gesture" ) and built 8 inch cruisers as their "capital ships" to defend the then sacroscant "Trade Routes", the other countries might have agreed to let them have a larger number of 8 inch ships.
And they would have been in trouble if they had to confront madern battleships or even some WWI battleships.
The 8 inch shell proved to be surprisingly effective against armoured ships.
Did it?
One County vs Kormoran?
County clearly overmatches the Kormoran unless there's serious laps.
Three Counties vs Graf Spee?
3 heavy cruisers against one heavy cruiser should win but you can't always count on those odds.
Five Counties vs Bismark?
I don't want to be on the counties if they have to engage.
We'll obviously never know.
We can however make well educated guesses.
... have hundreds of pilots(officers) at administration jobs that could have been performed by WRAFs but the old social structure still held.
Some documentation PLS. Even then is it enough to make a difference? Now they could have increased the size of the training establishements especially if they start in the mid 30's but there's considerable cost to training pilots and keeping their skills up to snuff.
David
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by David »

I realized as soon as i sent it that CVs were part of Washington. Sorry.
Since we were using American designators, (BB for battleship) I used CB (as in USS Alaska, CB 1) for battlecruisers.
Lex and Sara. Giant at the time?
Some contemporaries:
Ryuzyo 548' x 60.5. ' 7,100 tons
Bearn 599' x 89' 22,000 tons
Eagle 667' x 100'. 22,600 tons
Akagi 763' x 92'. 28,100 tons
Ranger 769' x 80'1" 14,500 tons
Furious 786.25' x 89.75'. 19,100 tons
Lex and Sara 888' x 106', 33,000 tons.
Yes. Giant at the time.
The Counties were good ships, given the limitations of the treaty, tough and resiliant and as I said, big enough to scout in heavy weather. Four rounds pmpg with 65 degree elevation. A Force with a CV and five 8in cruisers should have little to fear from anyone.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: How would you improve the royal navy

Post by Bgile »

You are putting all of your 8" gun cruisers with convoys? What are you going to use to hunt the German Panzershiff?

Again, there was a total tonnage restriction on cruisers in the treaty.
Post Reply