Yuku free message boards
Username or E-mail:
Password:
Forgot
Password?
Sign Up
Grab the Yuku app
Search:
RSS
Email
France Fights On
>
APOD - General Discussion
>
POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction - Intro
0 Points
Search this Topic:
Remove this ad
«Prev
1
2
Next»
Jump
Forum Jump
1940 - January
1941 - January
February 1943
January 1942
Mar 44
New Forum
Mowbray's Malaya Forum
TechNaval
Possible Post-1945 APOD Discussions
Announcements
1940 - February
1940 - February
February 1942
January 1943
Jan 44
Tech Mil
1940 - March
191 - March
Index & Time Line
March 1942
March 1943
44 july
Tech Aero
1940
1940 - April
1941-apr
April 1942
April 1943
Feb 44
Tech IndPol
1940 - May
1941-may
May 1942
1940 Year Events and Miscellaneous Topics
May 1943
Apr 44
1941
1940 - June
1941-jun
July 1942
June 1943
May 44
1940-Jul
1941-jul
June 1942
1941 Year Events and Miscellaneous Topics
Dec 43
jun 44
1940 - August
1941-aug
1942 - Chronology
August 1942
Nov 43
1940 - September
1941-sep
September 1942
1942 Year Events, Topics and SINGAPORE
Sept 43
1940 - October
1941-oct
1943 - Chronology
October 1942
Aug 43
1940 - November
1941-Nov
November 1942
1944 Chro
Oct 43
1940 - December
1941-Dec
December 1942
Jly 43
1945
APOD - General Discussion
APOD BARBAROSSA
Technical Papers
APOD Fiction
Naval Losses Annex
Geoff's Shed
Issues
Chronology
The Dugout
B Echelon
Africa & Eurasia
Orders Of Battle
The Good Oil
IJN
Cw Land
USN
MN
KM
RM
China
RN
Gr Land
Jap-Air
USSR
RAFs
Germany
Italy
The Axis
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Re: POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction - Intro
Author
Comment
bbgator
British Naval Constuction
#1
[-]
Posts
: 15
Apr 7 10 11:20 AM
Reply
Quote
More
My Recent Posts
Gentlemen,
First, let me congratulate you all on your work on this project. It is well thought out, researched and presented in a most readable and enjoyable fashion.
Now, I have a couple of comments and questions.
Battleships--The drivers for the completion of VANGUARD, LION and TEMERAIRE have been established and the projected completion dates set. In light of the identified need for an efficient medium calibre AA gun and the recognized shortage of the 5.25" guns, would consideration be given to completing these ships with 20 x 4.5" in BD mtgs MK III? IRC, the orginal design of the KGV's had this armament until it was decided that the 4.5" was too light for anti-destroyer work. The mounting is "slightly" easier to produce that the heavier gun mount and the production is on the same assembly line at Vickers and can be accomplished at other facilities as well.
As an aside, enough twin 15" exist to complete 2 VANGUARDs without disarming any existing ships. There are the four mountings which were used in VANGUARD, a spare mounting used in the monitor ABERCROMBIE, the mount from MARSHAL SOULT used in ROBERTS and the two mounts in EREBUS and TERROR.
Aircraft Carriers--I think the AUDACIOUS class is still a viable option. The design exists and the material requirements will be less than the MALTA class. And it meets the requirement for an American sized airgroup. Even with the design revisions incorporated in 1941/42, this will get a large carrier in service faster than the MALTA design.
I have always been a big fan of the COLOSSUS class; relatively inexpensive, easy to build and embarking a good sized airgroup for the size of the ship. Looking at the origins of the class, as a fighter carrier, this is your platform to get naval fighters over the fleet. Its biggest flaw is the lack of speed. I think it would be reasonable to build enough of the class to meet the immediate needs of the fleet and then move on to the CENTAURs. This class addresses the need for more speed to act with the fleet without a huge increase in size.
To my way of the thinking, the biggest problem with British carriers operations is not the size of the airgroup, but the doctrine on its use. They seemed to be wedded to the small deck strike, regardless of the number of aircraft embarked. The RN needs to switch to USN style deckhandling and strike size.
Cruisers--IMVHO, there is not a material need to reduce the FIJI's to 9 gun ships, sufficient production facilities exist to build enough triple mounting for these ships. Now the sort of change in staff requirements that lead to the design of the UGANDAs may be sufficient to warrant the change to 9 guns.
With the DIDO's, I would complete the last three of the original group, CLEOPATRA, SIRIUS and ARGONAUT as repeats of CHARYBDIS. There are sufficient UD mtg MK II available to accomplish this without any effect of production of guns and mountings if you replace the UD MK II's on some of the depot ships with twin 4". The remainder of the orginal group, I would replace Q turret in the 10 gun ships and the 4" in the 8 gun ships with a quad 2 pdr. The DIADEM's should be completed as design OTL. With the completion of three extra ships armed with 4.5", there will be considerable resistance, IMVHO, to reverting to the smaller calibre for the remainder. The cruiser qualities of these ships will be considered more valuable than the additional AA value they may bring.
If completing the last three DIDOs with the UD mounting is unacceptable, I propose using the BD mtg MK III in lieu of the MK IV. The MK IV will not be available in any considerable numbers until late 1943 and will be needed for destroyers. The deeper hulls of the cruisers should accommodate the MK III without any trouble and the MK III is in production now.
Concerning the "County" replacements, I see two options, with subsets. First, build a new 9.2" gun. I think this is the least probable course of action as the resources just are not there to design and build a new gun. The second option is to use an existing gun. Here I can see three possibilities. 1. use the MK IXs in storage. This gun, while a bit long in the tooth, is in widespread use with plenty of support and ammunition distributed around the world. 2. Use the 9.2"/50 that are in storage. These guns were removed from the NELSONs and armoured cruisers, but no mounting exist. Since the new ships would require a new turret and mounting, this is not an obstacle. 3. D. K. Brown refers to a MK XV gun developed as an improved MK IX, but never put into service. He mentions that 36 guns were ordered, and some were proofed, but he does not know if all of the guns were built.
The second option is to buy American. It has been implied that the US will provide a replacement for AUSTRALIA, which I assume ( with all of the dangers that entails) that this means the transfer of a BALTIMORE class CA. This introduces the 8"/55 to the British/Commonwealth inventory. But this is a one off situation, so that this ship is really only supportable from Australia. This leads to two possibilities; buy the guns, mountings and fire control equipment from the US or buy incomplete BALTIMORE cruisers from the US and complete them to meet RN requirements. The clarity of hindsight shows that these ships were used by the USN postwar in exactly the role of second class battleship proposed for the British ships. This may be a politically unpalatable option, but it leaves British construction resources free for other projects.
Finally, concerning cruisers, I would still try to get the US to convert two "D" class into anti-aircraft cruisers with 5"/38 guns. This adds to the anti-aircraft capability of the fleet using what would otherwise be marginally useful hulls. The remaining "C" and "D" should be transfered to minor allies (Poland, Greece, Brazil?) or used for alongside duties such as static training ships or berthing hulks.
That concludes my pontifficating. Now for a couple of questions.
What is the status of the Destroyers for Bases deal. I think most of the drivers that lead to that arrangement still exist. British destroyer losses up to the loss of France are still there and while I recognize that these are less than ideal ships, they are still hulls in the water. Remember, these are not Lend-Lease assets, these ships were transfered directly to British ownership, lock, stock and keel plate.
And what direction is British destroyer development taking. Will we still see the large number of utility ships followed by the large fleet destroyers or will we see a more limited construction of the utility type and the "U/V/W/Z/C" classes be something more akin to the "Battles"?
Again, thanks for a great deal of enjoyable and thought provoking reading. I look forward to readling and learning more.
Best Regards,
Gator
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Forum Jump
1940 - January
1941 - January
February 1943
January 1942
Mar 44
New Forum
Mowbray's Malaya Forum
TechNaval
Possible Post-1945 APOD Discussions
Announcements
1940 - February
1940 - February
February 1942
January 1943
Jan 44
Tech Mil
1940 - March
191 - March
Index & Time Line
March 1942
March 1943
44 july
Tech Aero
1940
1940 - April
1941-apr
April 1942
April 1943
Feb 44
Tech IndPol
1940 - May
1941-may
May 1942
1940 Year Events and Miscellaneous Topics
May 1943
Apr 44
1941
1940 - June
1941-jun
July 1942
June 1943
May 44
1940-Jul
1941-jul
June 1942
1941 Year Events and Miscellaneous Topics
Dec 43
jun 44
1940 - August
1941-aug
1942 - Chronology
August 1942
Nov 43
1940 - September
1941-sep
September 1942
1942 Year Events, Topics and SINGAPORE
Sept 43
1940 - October
1941-oct
1943 - Chronology
October 1942
Aug 43
1940 - November
1941-Nov
November 1942
1944 Chro
Oct 43
1940 - December
1941-Dec
December 1942
Jly 43
1945
APOD - General Discussion
APOD BARBAROSSA
Technical Papers
APOD Fiction
Naval Losses Annex
Geoff's Shed
Issues
Chronology
The Dugout
B Echelon
Africa & Eurasia
Orders Of Battle
The Good Oil
IJN
Cw Land
USN
MN
KM
RM
China
RN
Gr Land
Jap-Air
USSR
RAFs
Germany
Italy
The Axis
Share This
Email to Friend
del.icio.us
Digg it
Facebook
Blogger
Yahoo MyWeb
«Prev
1
2
Next»
Jump
France Fights On
>
APOD - General Discussion
>
POD Proposal – RN Battleship construction - Intro
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies