How would you improve the Royal Navy

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
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 »

Well, sure. The French on Richelieu. Different countries measure weight differently though and I think it might be hard for us to figure out the difference.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by Dave Saxton »

According to R&R, the Admiralty thought the best design was the 9x15" design in three triples, two forward and one aft. The 15" was not to be the same 15"/42 used by the Hood and so forth, but an all new design, with a barrel length of 45 calibers. However, this design was passed over for the 12x14" (then the 10x14") because of the politics, despite the reccomendations of engineers, and design experts, and the Admirals.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by dunmunro »

Historically, the new 15/45 weighed about 17 tons more than a 14/45 and ammo weight would have added about 200 tons, for a total of ~400 tons, assuming no changes in turret dimensions. A "what if" alternative would have been the development of a new design 15/42 which would have weighed about 8-10 tons/gun more than the 14/45 and added about ~300 tons weight, assuming no changes in turret dimensions.
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 »

Dave Saxton wrote: However, this design was passed over for the 12x14" (then the 10x14") because of the politics, despite the reccomendations of engineers, and design experts, and the Admirals.
Yes, its a very familiar story isn't it?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Seekanone
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by Seekanone »

I thing the 9-15inch gunned battleship with 20-4.5inch secondaries would have been the ideal design. If the RN had been given admin control and purchasing priority for FAA aircraft, the Royal Navy would have been better prepared for war, especially in the Far East.
One of the reasons for building HMS Vanguard was to have a fast ship able to go to SIngapore for use against Japan. The British government had promised the SW Asia colonies that a "Main Fleet" would be there within 90 days. After the war had begun, they could make no such time guarantee. If the 1936 Fleet Replenishment Program been implemented with it's 18 battleships and 8 fleet carriers, the RN could have met her commitments in the Pacific, Med and Atlantic.
I believe that with what she had, Britain's Royal Navy performed as well as any navy could have been expected to from 1939-42. It was a tough fight and things got pretty dicey for awhile but the Fleet came through. :clap: :clap: :clap:
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by dunmunro »

The RN was in the process of outbuilding Germany, Italy and Japan when the war started.
"If the 1936 Fleet Replenishment Program been implemented with it's 18 battleships and 8 fleet carriers"
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.

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/RNbuildup2.pdf
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/RNbuildup.pdf
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 »

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?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
RobertsonN
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:47 am

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by RobertsonN »

Given the general conservatism of RN WWII designs, going for quadruple turrets in the KGVs seems odd. But the fact that quadruple turrets were a new and untested idea, at least for the RN, would not have been obvious to politicians. I suppose the sequence was, first 14 in guns (political decision), then had to be more than nine guns, and then 35000 tons and speed requirement dictated three (and therefore quadruple) turrets.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by Dave Saxton »

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.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
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 »

RobertsonN wrote:Given the general conservatism of RN WWII designs, going for quadruple turrets in the KGVs seems odd. But the fact that quadruple turrets were a new and untested idea, at least for the RN, would not have been obvious to politicians. I suppose the sequence was, first 14 in guns (political decision), then had to be more than nine guns, and then 35000 tons and speed requirement dictated three (and therefore quadruple) turrets.
The Nelson and Rodney weren't exactly conservative, either.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by dunmunro »

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.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by dunmunro »

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.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: How would you improve the Royal Navy

Post by paul.mercer »

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.
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 »

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. :D
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 »

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.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply