Updated Lion class for the 1930's

Quote:

the problem with retaining Tiger is that we'd have to scrap Iron Duke and pull the teeth out of one of the 'R' class BBs or, simply scrap an 'R' to satisfy the terms of the London Naval Disarmament Treaty. Therefore, I maintain only a full rebuild of Tiger would justify such a drastic action

Having looked at the LNT I just don't see why ? cant we just swap Tiger for Iron Duke ( I don't see a problem as Japan is keeping a Kongo class ,'Hiyei' as its training ship and they are very similar ). Why does it affect the R's ? (as long as Tiger is 'disarmed' and not for any combatant purpose

).

Section V
Vessels retained for training purposes

(a) In addition to the rights already possessed by any High Contracting Party under the Washington Treaty, each High Contracting Party is permitted to retain for training purposes exclusively the following vessels:

United Kingdom: 1 capital ship ("Iron Duke"); swap for Tiger

(b) Vessels retained for training purposes under the provisions of paragraph (a) shall, within six months of the date on which they are required to be disposed of, be dealt with as follows:

1. Capital ships

The following is to be carried out:

(1) Removal of main armament guns, revolving parts of all barbettes and turrets; machinery for operating turrets; but three turrets with their armament may be retained in each ship;

(2) Removal of all ammunition and explosives in excess of the quantity required for target practice training for the guns remaining on board;

(3) Removal of conning tower and the side armour belt between the foremost and aftermost barbettes;

(4) Removal or mutilation of all torpedo tubes;

(5) Removal or mutilation on board of all boilers in excess of the number required for a maximum speed of eighteen knots.

(c) The High Contracting Party concerned undertakes that vessels retained in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall not be used for any combatant purpose. (

)

Quote:

there's the omni-present problem of funding. And, even if another couple of million pounds could have been found it would probably have gone to Repulse or another 'QE' class

Agreed so it must be a cheap refit (what about Hood ? with another BC available she might have been modernised ? although I think Repulse is more likely).

This has started me thinking where Tiger might go in WW2 ? Wining Battle of the River Plate v Admiral Graf Spee , Escorting Glorious and having the last north sea battleship duel fighting Scharnhorst and Gneisenau or just sent to die with force Z ?

JSB

deleted, to save thread-space/visibility

Quote:

So, if as you propose, Tiger is rebuilt during the early to mid 30s, how does that leave her disarmed?

If you keep Tiger you must either; (a) scrap Revenge and keep Iron Duke or (b) scrap Iron Duke and disarm Revenge. That can only be justified by making Tiger better than Revenge and that can only be done by giving Tiger a full reconstruction. Your proposed intermediate rebuild of Tiger is the least plausible and least logical of all scenarios whether funding is an issue or not.

The Royal Navy was never going to scrap a battleship unless they could get something more useful. Your proposed rebuild of Tiger aint it.

Sorry JSB, but that's the way I see it. All of this has come up before with more than one monkey wrench tossed my way. Meanwhile, I hope you continue with your plan and from now on I'll just go with the flow.

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

deleted, to save thread-space/visibility

Quote:

if as you propose, Tiger is rebuilt during the early to mid 30s, how does that leave her disarmed?

my time line,

1928 as OTL
1932-36 disarmed as training ship
1937-38 rebuilding
1939 - WW2

( well with hindsight I would start 'routine maintenance' in 1936

)

Quote:

BCRenown, you're wrong (but this is only my opinion VS your opinion)
Waiting the next JSB drawing (1938/1940)

So why was Tiger scrapped in the first place?

Under the terms of the LNT, the RN was allowed to keep 15 capital ships and 1 disarmed capital ship. They could easily have kept Tiger in lieu of Iron Duke but 1 ship had to be disarmed regardless. If they'd kept Tiger, she or one of the others would have to be disarmed.

If Tiger is to be modernised during 1932-36 as is proposed here, it is quite obvious that a battleship would have to be disarmed in her stead. Do you really think the RN would have disarmed a BB instead of an elderly BC? Tiger was the oldest BC and she simply had to go - rightly or wrongly.

So, we keep Tiger (in lieu of Iron Duke) in a disarmed state, no modernisation can take place until after 2nd London is annulled - that is the outbreak of WWII.

_________________
Keep well and keep drawing,

Monty

Quote:

So why was Tiger scrapped in the first place?

Short:
HMG didn't want or intend to start a war !

Long:
HMT !
Iron Duke was cheaper to run ?

RN
Institutional dislike of battlecruisers after Jutland 'something wrong with our ships'
Iron Duke most famous for being the fleet flagship at the Battle of Jutland would you cut up HMS Victory ?

Politicians
They didn't really expect a war so soon and thought they would have time to build lots of new ships, so didn't bother to waste cash on modernising old ships. makes sense if you have time to build Lions why fix up old QE's, R's or Tiger.(and in a world with Bismarck's/Lions Tiger is In big trouble, as she cant run or fight).

JSB

Colombamike wrote:

Trojan wrote:

Mike your udeniably more knowledgeable then me on this subject, but historically the cast mates on British battleships were removed not left in during the war. Also, having a catapult on top of a turret is far from ideal. The debris that would fly from the aircraft stored on it and the catapult itself if it during battle (which happened often in World War Two) would make for flying shrapnel for the crew and could also get stuck in the turret ring limiting its fields of fire. It's not a huge problem and hindsight is 20/20 but during World War Two most ships with such an arrangement had already had it removed or changed or modified during the war. Pre war it's a vey sensible modification but I think it would be removed sometime during World War Two during a future refit at the very least. Many British cruisers saw similar removals for extra AA and I think Tiger should do the same if not in 1941(for it might be too early) then later.

Useless comments
I'm talking about the late 1938-mid 1940 version
WAIT the 1943 version before criticizing, remains serious, please

PS : I advise you not to compare a 6000/10000 tons cruiser with a 214 meters, 28 000/34 000 tons, 343mm armed guns battle-cruiser

Oddly Enough Mike I mentioned it being an issue that could be rectified in a later refit (1943 sounds perfect). Also an interesting quote about HMS Queen Elizabeth " In her 1937–1941 rebuild she was fitted with a tower bridge in place of her old bridge; her 6 inch (152 mm) guns were removed and in their place received 20 4.5 in (114 mm) guns and several smaller anti-aircraft guns; horizontal armour was added; engines and boilers were replaced; and the elevation of her main battery was increased to 30 degrees." Considering you just B****tched about a harmless joke a few minutes ago, I wouldn't be calling other people's comment useless and not serious enough.

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

deleted, to save thread-space/visibility

Shipbucket

Who is online