ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1496
Feb 15 10 12:05 PM
Just call me Author
Mark
Wow – comprehensive response there, and at short notice too – impressive.
Ok, my comments:
Battleship Building - Vanguard
So as I understand it, you’re saying 1 x Vanguard will get built – OK, seeing the drivers I can believe that, however I think that your “We (most probably) have a 'Far East Fleet fully armoured battlecruiser' launched in late 1941” is a bit optimistic time wise.
In OTL Vanguard was laid down October 41, I can see that without the Dry Cargo repair factor this date will come forward, but it CAN’T happen before mid 1940 (if the divergence between OTL and FFO/APOD is mid 1940, then logically we can’t allow Vanguard to be laid down before that date – if it didn’t happen OTL it can’t happen here). Taking the POD as July, then realistically I’d say that the best you can plausibly have is the order being placed in August 40, and ship laid down October 40.
Assuming that the turrets are substantially complete at that time, and applying the 20-22 month building time we used earlier, then Vanguard won’t be ready until July/August 42.
Do you agree? Have I missed anything?
Battleship Building - Lions
OK, the decision to build Vanguard will have thrown some red meat to the Gun club at the Admiralty. Having pacified them, I can see Goodall prevailing and keeping the Lions remaining “on hold” – sure they are “nice to have”, but so are plenty of other things (Cruisers, Carriers) and there simply aren’t enough resources to go round. There is no need to build the Lions yet (and they can’t be built without sacrificing something that is needed), so the drivers point towards them not going ahead.
Once Japan enters the war, and Admiral Philips has his defeat then the drivers change. At this point the “We need Battleships” lobby would prevail, and I’d expect 2 Lions to be laid down and built to the timescale I set out at part 2 (NB, there are only enough turrets for 2 ships, if the Admiralty want to lay down 4, expect Goodall to point out that the additional 2 ships will take at least an extra year to build, and to stress that they probably won’t be ready in time to take part in the war. He’s also likely to stress that the additional Lions are likely to displace other high priority units (Carriers) that can be completed in time).
As far as guns are concerned, I still lean towards the 15 inch option (especially now you’ve confirmed that the guns are available) – it’s the safe option, going 16 inch adds risk to the programme, and the important thing is to get the ships out to the fleet ASAP. Throw in the logistics issue (and the Pacific fleet is going to be fighting at the end of a very long logistics chain as it is, so anything that simplifies things has to be considered), and I think the case is more or less made.
Note - If the strategic situation allows, I suggest that 2 R class be decommissioned (they are really getting too old and slow for the battleline, and their crews can provide an experienced nucleus for the Lions)
Repair of Jean Bart and Richelieu
I wasn’t aware of the FFO US option. Like you said, it seems logical. I can’t see any reason to change it HOWEVER while it fits nicely with the British and French drivers, how does it sit with the US ones? If it fits with them then fine (no sense reinventing the wheel for the sake of it), but if it doesn’t, then you’ve got Brown as a back up option.
Carrier Building at John Brown
I have to disagree with you on the MALTA, as I don’t think that the drivers/timelines allow it yet. We’re talking about a building slot in October 41, which realistically means allocating it/starting to pull together material 4-6 months early – I just don’t see the drivers pointing to a MALTA that soon.
My source for this is Nelson to Vanguard, according to this the OTL the discussions leading to MALTA came out of the Future Building Committee’s discussions of requirements that took place in December 42 – you’re bringing it forward by 18 months – what are the drivers for that?
If you’re going for a larger carrier than the Implacable (and here, I admit that the drivers point that way), I’d say that an EAGLE/ARK ROYAL looks more realistic – in fact, on my reading of N to V, I’d say that an EAGLE is a necessary precursor to a MALTA (it was the perceived advantages from EAGLE that led to the discussions that led to MALTA).
Look at the difference in sizes:
· Implacable 23,450t standard
· Eagle, 36,800t standard
· Malta, 46,900t standard
Bearing in mind that we’re talking about decisions made mid 1941 (i.e. before Japan enters the war), I just can’t see the drivers to jump from Implacable to Malta without the intervening step.
What do you think?
Tech Transfer with the US
We know that US steam plant is much more efficient, but exactly when do the RN find out? And when they do, how long before they believe it (overcoming the “Not Invested Here” syndrome), and unless you intend building all your capitol ships in US yards, how long is it going to take to transfer the knowledge/equipment required to UK yards?
All this gives you the earliest practical date to introduce US style plant to the RN, and while its a very nice idea, I don’t think that the timeline will allow the Lions to benefit (unless the Admiralty are willing to sanction a delay, which given that the Lions are going to be a “crash priority, get them out the dock” build, isn’t likely).
What do you think? Does this all hang together?
Share This