ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 3716
Feb 14 10 11:11 PM
Born Again P-76 Pilot
Very timely thread, this! I have added some thoughts below.
POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction – Part 1 Background – What happened in OTL King George V class: When war broke out in 1939 the RN had 5 King George V class in advanced stages of building – all were launched in 1940, and completed between 1940 and 1942. Lion Class: 4 Lion class had been authorised (2 in the 1938 estimates, 2 in the 1939 estimates), but only the 2 1938 ships (Lion and Temeraire) had been laid down (in June and July 1939), and construction was not very far advanced. On 28 September 1939 the decision was taken to suspend construction although work on the gun mountings would continue (this will be an important factor in the discussion in Part 2). Vanguard Class: Vanguard was based on an early study from 1937, which was dusted down and re-evaluated in 1939. There was much discussion in 1940 about the design. The order for the ship was not placed until 14 March 1941, and she was not laid down until 2 October 1941.
POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction – Part 1 Background – What happened in OTL King George V class: When war broke out in 1939 the RN had 5 King George V class in advanced stages of building – all were launched in 1940, and completed between 1940 and 1942.
Lion Class: 4 Lion class had been authorised (2 in the 1938 estimates, 2 in the 1939 estimates), but only the 2 1938 ships (Lion and Temeraire) had been laid down (in June and July 1939), and construction was not very far advanced. On 28 September 1939 the decision was taken to suspend construction although work on the gun mountings would continue (this will be an important factor in the discussion in Part 2).
Vanguard Class: Vanguard was based on an early study from 1937, which was dusted down and re-evaluated in 1939. There was much discussion in 1940 about the design. The order for the ship was not placed until 14 March 1941, and she was not laid down until 2 October 1941.
Vanguard: The decision for Vanguard was a pre-war 'emergency' decision made in 1939. She was conceived as a 'fully armoured battle-cruiser for the Far East'. importantly, she was always considered an 'emergency' (that is, second class) ship. It's important to note that material assembly and rebuilding of the turrets, guns, shell room machinery etc stored in Rosyth began in 1939 and was mostly completed in 1940. it's often thought that this was a sort of 'paint and polish' effort, but it was not. It was expensive and very comprehensive, all but the major structural items of teh turrets, guns and systemswere replaced or fully refurbished.
So at POD, this task is mostly done, material assembly is underway and the armour is being built. What delayed Vanguard in 1941 was the dry cargo ship repair crisis. This is not really an issue in APOD (or FFO for that matter), because the trigger for that crisis was the British purchase of 100 old US merchant ships. These needed a hell of a lot of refit work, and it was very expensive and had to be done in US yards! In APOD and FFO, the British will just not be buying these ships. The French and Belgians have to. That enables them to use these vessels for calmer, tropical colonial trades (working the cross-trades) while their better merchant ships head for the North Atlantic. There's no options here for them. The British just do not have the tonnage to support North Africa and Congo even with the additional 1.2-1.3 million grt of their merchant fleets. The must find an 'instant' million grt themselves. He 100 old US ships and 70 new-build standard tramps in US yards are the only games in town. And the 100 used ships will have to be refitted it Franco-Belgian expense in US yards. The UK will bring a shipbuilding crisis down on its own head if they accept the repair contracts. Oh, they'll accept a few, maybe 5 or so, but not enough to help. They'll also be able to do some of their own, maybe another 10-15.
Now, I am most definitely NOT a fan of any additional RN BB construction (neither was the Naval Constructor Sir Stanley Goodall in OTL!) but Cunningham, Pound and Churchill very definitely were. So, unfortunately, in both APOD and FFO in June-Dec 40, all the drivers to delay Vanguard vanish… In fact, they get accelerated in 1940 because the 'gun club' can really pounce on this issue. The delay in authorisation was caused by Sir Stanley Goodall's gallant rearguard action against the ship. His major ammunition there was the cruiser shortage, caused by the loss of the French navy. he does not have that ammunition here in APOD.
The bad thing? I'd personally much rather not have her at all (but personal feelings do not count). The good thing? She's cheap, and does not cost much. The damned thing gets brought forward by these drivers, with the 5.25" shortage meaning that she probably gets 4.5" instead.
We covered a lot of this at: http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html href="http://francefightson.yuku.com/topic/586/t/RN-Responses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html">http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html>http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>http://francefightson.yuk...sponses-in-FFO-Pt-1.html
All that said, this is NOT FFO, it is APOD, and this issue really does need serious and considered review - so I am extremely grateful to you for doing so!
POD - Rationale The POD for RN Battleships is mid/late 1940. With the French still in the war, and the MN Battlefleet still available to the Allied cause, there is much less need for the RN to consider ordering another battleship. With the King George V class being completed as OTL, the RN feel that combined with the MN forces (Dunkerque and Strasbourg, with Richelieu and Jean Bart nearing completion), they have sufficient fast modern battleships available. Consequently, there isn’t the need to lay down another ship – it would be a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. There is also less impetus to discuss the Vanguard design (which would tie up valuable design resource in the DNCs department), so the 1939 discussions die out and get quietly shelved. Effect: Vanguard doesn’t get authorised in March 41 or laid down in October.
POD - Rationale The POD for RN Battleships is mid/late 1940. With the French still in the war, and the MN Battlefleet still available to the Allied cause, there is much less need for the RN to consider ordering another battleship.
With the King George V class being completed as OTL, the RN feel that combined with the MN forces (Dunkerque and Strasbourg, with Richelieu and Jean Bart nearing completion), they have sufficient fast modern battleships available.
Consequently, there isn’t the need to lay down another ship – it would be a waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. There is also less impetus to discuss the Vanguard design (which would tie up valuable design resource in the DNCs department), so the 1939 discussions die out and get quietly shelved.
Effect: Vanguard doesn’t get authorised in March 41 or laid down in October.
Comment: Gloomily, I am forced to say that she probably does get built due to the above mix of drivers. All those stars line up, unfortunately. HOWEVER, this does not mean your comments on the Lions are invalid, quite the opposite.
POD Team Discussion: You’ll probably want to think about the butterflies arising from this decision. The main one being that as of October 41 a large (battleship sized) berth and a lot of shipbuilding manpower has become available at the John Brown yard. Planning on how to use this berth would probably start earlier (say around May/June 41). Given the POD strategic position at that time, how best to use it?
This is something for you to decide, but here are some ideas to start off your discussions: · Offer it up to the French, to enable them to speed up completion of Richelieu and Jean Bart – this gives a “quick win”, as the ships are largely complete already, so the yard can probably complete work (freeing up the berth for another project) within 6 months or so. Also it scores diplomatic brownie points with the French. · Build a third Implacable class carrier – John Brown is already working on one (Indefatigable), so they already have the plans to hand, and the experience in building it. · Repair of damaged ships – do the RN/MN have any large (Cruiser or above ships) in need of repair?
This is something for you to decide, but here are some ideas to start off your discussions: · Offer it up to the French, to enable them to speed up completion of Richelieu and Jean Bart – this gives a “quick win”, as the ships are largely complete already, so the yard can probably complete work (freeing up the berth for another project) within 6 months or so. Also it scores diplomatic brownie points with the French.
· Build a third Implacable class carrier – John Brown is already working on one (Indefatigable), so they already have the plans to hand, and the experience in building it.
· Repair of damaged ships – do the RN/MN have any large (Cruiser or above ships) in need of repair?
1. In FFO, the Euroteam completed Richelieu in the USA (at French cost) in an ingenious way. IIRC they sent both Jean Bart and Richelieu to the same yard. Jean Bart was stripped to complete Richelieu, (speeding her up a bit) and then left at the yard to be converted into a fast carrier! This seems logical. What's your view on this?
2. John Brown is a shipbuilder of note and that's a heavy building way. There is another alternative - lay down a Malta class carrier.
POD – the decision to build again Note – the following assumes that events follow “FFO”. If however some of the events change (for example if Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet still get defeated, but with a less savage outcome) then the drivers will change. In mid 1941 the RN sees no need for new battleship construction. When does this change? The obvious answer is Japan’s entry into the war. This changes the whole strategic picture – especially after Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet fights the Battle of the China Sea. Suddenly there is a need to make up the losses, and rebuild the battleline. Proposed timeline: December 41 – Japan declares war December 41 – Battle of the China Sea January 42 – RN decision to build Battleship(s) Ships(s) laid down sometime between Marchg-May 42 - it takes time to complete/postpone existing work and free up the berths required for construction. POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction Part 2 New Battleship Build – Lion or Vanguard? As we saw in Part 1, the decision to go ahead with Battleship construction takes place early 1942. The need is urgent, the ships are needed as soon as possible. Realistically there are two options on the table: Option 1 - Vanguard Re use the turrets and guns from Glorious and Courageous, and use them to arm a modern ship. Superficially a good idea, however there are some potential issues: · Detailed plans have not been drawn up – there are a few sketch designs, but (unlike OTL where discussions/refinement of plans took place throughout 1940/early 41) there are no detailed plans available. · The turrets are of an old design, with magazines sited above shell handling rooms, whereas modern design calls for shell handling rooms to be above magazines. The turrets will have to be re-worked and modified to bring them up to modern standards, and to incorporate the current level of flash protection. This will require considerable work, both in terms of design effort and manufacturing/construction resources. · Only one set of turrets is available, which means only one ship can be produced. These issues are solvable, however solving them will take time, and time is a luxury right now – the perceived need is to get the ships build as soon as practicable.
POD – the decision to build again Note – the following assumes that events follow “FFO”. If however some of the events change (for example if Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet still get defeated, but with a less savage outcome) then the drivers will change.
In mid 1941 the RN sees no need for new battleship construction. When does this change? The obvious answer is Japan’s entry into the war. This changes the whole strategic picture – especially after Admiral Phillips and the Far Eastern Fleet fights the Battle of the China Sea. Suddenly there is a need to make up the losses, and rebuild the battleline.
Proposed timeline:
POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction Part 2 New Battleship Build – Lion or Vanguard? As we saw in Part 1, the decision to go ahead with Battleship construction takes place early 1942. The need is urgent, the ships are needed as soon as possible. Realistically there are two options on the table:
Option 1 - Vanguard Re use the turrets and guns from Glorious and Courageous, and use them to arm a modern ship. Superficially a good idea, however there are some potential issues:
· Detailed plans have not been drawn up – there are a few sketch designs, but (unlike OTL where discussions/refinement of plans took place throughout 1940/early 41) there are no detailed plans available.
· The turrets are of an old design, with magazines sited above shell handling rooms, whereas modern design calls for shell handling rooms to be above magazines. The turrets will have to be re-worked and modified to bring them up to modern standards, and to incorporate the current level of flash protection. This will require considerable work, both in terms of design effort and manufacturing/construction resources.
· Only one set of turrets is available, which means only one ship can be produced. These issues are solvable, however solving them will take time, and time is a luxury right now – the perceived need is to get the ships build as soon as practicable.
Option 2 - Lion Lion looks like a good option for the following reasons: · Detailed plans (approved by the Admiralty Board) already exist. They will need to be reviewed in light of wartime experience, but this should only result in comparatively minor changes. · One of the main bottlenecks in battleship construction is the gun mountings. Thanks to the (OTL) decision that work on the mountings would continue (see Part 1), work on the mountings has already been underway for over two years – by now they should be largely complete. These advantages would seem to swing the decision for the Lion, however there is a fly in the ointment – the armament. The Lions are designed for a new 16in gun. This isn’t yet in service, is of unproven reliability, and the production facilities for the ammunition aren’t in place yet. Furthermore, shortage of spare ammunition may place logistical constraints on deployment of the ships when complete. end, the availability of sufficient turrets to build 2 ships swings it in favour of a modified Lion design. The modification takes two forms: · Tweaking the design to take account of war experience (for example more light AA) · Change the armament to 9 x 15 in guns – the 15 inch is a well liked and reliable weapon, and logistically speaking the logical choice – stocks of ammo exist all over the Empire, and wartime experience has already shown that in extremis, old 4crh ammo can be pressed into service (see APOD 6-9 Sept 40). While the change will require some modification to the turret and magazine fittings, these can be designed to enable them to be reversed later, giving the option of upgunning to 16in later if required. As far as availability of guns is concerned, taking the 8 intended for Vanguard, plus one from stores gives enough to arm one of the Lions. Working on the assumption that there are insufficient weapons left in storage to arm the second ship, decommissioning and de-arming one of the R class (which are well past their sell-by date and not fit to face a modern opponent anyway) arms the second.
Option 2 - Lion Lion looks like a good option for the following reasons: · Detailed plans (approved by the Admiralty Board) already exist. They will need to be reviewed in light of wartime experience, but this should only result in comparatively minor changes.
· One of the main bottlenecks in battleship construction is the gun mountings. Thanks to the (OTL) decision that work on the mountings would continue (see Part 1), work on the mountings has already been underway for over two years – by now they should be largely complete. These advantages would seem to swing the decision for the Lion, however there is a fly in the ointment – the armament. The Lions are designed for a new 16in gun. This isn’t yet in service, is of unproven reliability, and the production facilities for the ammunition aren’t in place yet. Furthermore, shortage of spare ammunition may place logistical constraints on deployment of the ships when complete.
· One of the main bottlenecks in battleship construction is the gun mountings. Thanks to the (OTL) decision that work on the mountings would continue (see Part 1), work on the mountings has already been underway for over two years – by now they should be largely complete.
These advantages would seem to swing the decision for the Lion, however there is a fly in the ointment – the armament. The Lions are designed for a new 16in gun. This isn’t yet in service, is of unproven reliability, and the production facilities for the ammunition aren’t in place yet. Furthermore, shortage of spare ammunition may place logistical constraints on deployment of the ships when complete.
· Tweaking the design to take account of war experience (for example more light AA) · Change the armament to 9 x 15 in guns – the 15 inch is a well liked and reliable weapon, and logistically speaking the logical choice – stocks of ammo exist all over the Empire, and wartime experience has already shown that in extremis, old 4crh ammo can be pressed into service (see APOD 6-9 Sept 40).
While the change will require some modification to the turret and magazine fittings, these can be designed to enable them to be reversed later, giving the option of upgunning to 16in later if required.
As far as availability of guns is concerned, taking the 8 intended for Vanguard, plus one from stores gives enough to arm one of the Lions. Working on the assumption that there are insufficient weapons left in storage to arm the second ship, decommissioning and de-arming one of the R class (which are well past their sell-by date and not fit to face a modern opponent anyway) arms the second.
Time to Build Hopefully you’ll pardon a historical digression, but this sets the yardstick by which I’m judging potential build time. Warship 2009 contains an article “A shipyard at War”, all about the John Brown Yard during WW1. It contains a fairly detailed account of the building of HMS Repulse. According to the article, her keel was laid on 25 January 1915, and she had completed steam and gun trials and finally left the yard on 16 August 1916. As this included a 6 week delay while the ships plans were finalised, the effective build time was around 18 months. The reason the ship was completed so quickly was that the turrets were already available, having been re-assigned from an R class.
Time to Build Hopefully you’ll pardon a historical digression, but this sets the yardstick by which I’m judging potential build time. Warship 2009 contains an article “A shipyard at War”, all about the John Brown Yard during WW1. It contains a fairly detailed account of the building of HMS Repulse.
According to the article, her keel was laid on 25 January 1915, and she had completed steam and gun trials and finally left the yard on 16 August 1916. As this included a 6 week delay while the ships plans were finalised, the effective build time was around 18 months.
The reason the ship was completed so quickly was that the turrets were already available, having been re-assigned from an R class.
The timeline example makes a good deal of sense. The issue (as ever) will be drivers.
Does the RN need a new BB class, or a very large new CV?
We (most probably) have a 'Far East Fleet fully armoured battlecruiser' launched in late 1941. We have a class of 5 short-ranged 'working class BB' for European waters. The gap is obvious, there is no class of globally capable, long-endurance BB. Oh, and really, really big, long-range carriers with 90-100 plane air groups
That interesting thing? RN steam plants are old-fashioned, making long range ships harder to build. So when they swap their tradar tech, why don't they get USN steam plant technology in exchange?Then, in 1941, we have a powerful RN Far East Fleet which gets its head handed to it on a plate. The 'old FFO' verion of this was a great game, but it was not an AH. It had Tom Phillips completely ignore his strategic guidance. While we cannot tell yet what's going to happen, that sure as hell is not going to happen! Phillips was 'played stupid' in 'old FFO'. Kind of like the US Government until war outbreak was also 'played stupid', something I really did not like.
As soon as Phillips gets a flogging in the daylight, he will run. He is not permitted to risk the destruction of his fleet. Risking its defeat is different, that's just par for the course. He can get defeated and nobody will worry much about it provided he preserves the Fleet - defeats happen. Complete annihilation of a whole fleet does NOT. If the IJN big carriers are meanwhile beating seven bells of buggery out of Kimmel in the Marshalls, the RN has a problem. It does not have any big-air-group fleet carriers or the BB to escort them.
That sound we hear is all the chickens coming home to roost from the collapse of the central Imperial naval startegy of 1920-35, the Singapore Strategy which substituted bases and a one-hemisphere fleet for a globally-capable fleet.
Hmm. Sounds like a powerful driver for the 1944 Far East Fleet! Which it is, of course. This as all distorted in 'old FFO' by relentless cherrypicking of each and every incident or action to magnify the French contribution to the war.
But in APOD it's clearer.
In 1942, the RN knows it has to build a Pacific capable fleet that is also its postwar globally capable fleet. That means massive carriers on teh USN model, and they are needed yesterday (Singapore class nee Malta class) and they need a tropicalised/arctic capable fast BB with very long legs. One Vanguard does not cut it. So it is 2-4 huge carriers, 2-4 big, fast, long range BB and 8 very big fast fleet tankers. The rest already exists or is in planning.Comments??Cheers: Mark
Share This