Shipbucket

Hi My thoughts on an ideal RN rearmament (with maybe a bit of ASB crystal ball gazing )

First off my battleships.

The core of any fleet !


Laid down in 1937 as soon as the treaty's allow me to.
Limited by cost (well at least production capability) and weight and TIME !


What do you think ? for a 35kt treaty BB that can be built rather quickly ......

Thanks JSB

I would not use a bulb on a 1937 design, the hull shape doesn't fit for that. and since it's have British flag, it should have the British Atlantic bow. the bow looks rater to modern.

the superstructure looks like Vanguard, some are an later design, compared to ships of 35-37'ish


that just my feeling.

So that's 6x15", 24x4" and 48x40mm. That's a lot of AA for 1938. Not saying that that is bad, just a lot. Most navies did not wake up to the need for heavier AA batteries till the Spanish Civil War showed how much damage the latest aircraft could do and how (in)effective current AA guns were against modern monoplanes. Whether HMG and Admiralty would accept a BB with only 6x15" is probably more to the point.

That said I like the look of the ship. Not knowing how much armour is on there and the overall weight of the ship it is tough to gauge whether the hull and engine power is enough to give a speed over 30 knots. You are still governed by the space between B and Y turrets for your boiler and engine rooms. Unless of course you have one of Oberst Amiruddins super systems.

6*15? Thats an insanely light armament for a battleship. One of the real world proposals such as the 9*15 would be far better. It may take longer to construct, but would be much more practical. Also, I agree with the views on the superstructure and hull, too advanced. And was that bofors mount even available at the time? Otherwise it is an interesting premise.

6*15" is totally normal armament for a ship of this type. twin turrets are better than triple turrets, the same way as triple turrets are better than quad turrets. And the fact the Brits "almost" every time used twin turret on there Battleships. But if you read the text to, it state the BB was build to be cheap to build... that explain why twin turrets and now new British triple turrets... it's cheaper to use what you have that is already as good as it can get, than something new.

I'm not arguing against the use of twin turrets, I'm arguing against there only six main guns on that warship. The ship just seems undergunned when compared to other battleships of the time.

I like her lines.

Just to talk through my reasoning,

- ANYTHING is better than nothing,
- We need new fast Battleships yesterday,
- The politicians will not let us break the treaty's, (ie must be 35kt and laid down after the start of 37, also should be designed for 14' but I'm going to pretend that we will fit 'liners' to reduce the calibre )
- The GB shipbuilding industry is still very big so can build a hull very fast,
- The GB heavy gun/turret industry had been siting in a pile of dust for a decade and cant,
- So reusing old turrets will save a huge amount of time/cash/production capability, (and reduces uncertainty)
- We can start rebuilding turrets pre 37 as they can be for other ships rebuilds (and historically we have 8 spare, Vanguards + Monitors +pull one R class for 'rebuilding' gives us 12 turrets for the first 4 ships in the KVG class) This combined with a big pile of steel near the slipway (not in itself a treaty violation) and plenty of overtime will make them very fast to build.
- 6 guns will fit on 35kt with plenty speed and a decent belt/deck (we will mostly be firing forward at others running away, and we will hopefully never fight a fair fight 1 on 1 anyway )
- 4' twins will be cheaper/faster/lighter to build than turrets (and can always be added later if they are delayed) they will work better v HA and just about ok v LA (and we guess HA is more important, and when in WW2 did any RN ships shoot at DDs and BBs at the same time ?)
- 40mm are available if you loosen the purse strings and decide they are needed (but might change the mount to a more 'RN' one),
- The hull is optimised for high speed (and big waves) so bulbous bow and big transom and dam the fuel costs and range (we will have US/Persian Oil and the largest merchant marine in the world to transport it and HMT will just have to put up with it )
- Fitted with big strong masts for the special heavy lamps that the signals branch has insisted will become needed later,

KVG class (Batch I, KVG, POW, DOY,H)
Laid down Jan 37 - completed late 38
35kt SD
30KN
6 x 15' (3 x 2)
24 x 4" (12 x 2)
48 x 40mm (12 x 4)
Heavy belt/deck with good anti torpedo protection
Better backup generators and shaft bearings (and lots of other improvements to small to see )

So you end up with a set of Better/newer R&Rs (planning to make at least 4 quickly and then a second batch using lots of R class turrets)

What would a new R & R have to fight that 6 guns would not be sufficient ? (as long as you go at 2 v 1)

JSB

A careful rearmament of RN will perhaps save money for post war development. For instance, with an evolution of King George would probably avoid building Vanguard.

I think the biggest 'savings' will be shipping I would not want to be a German raider with 4 more fast battleships ready from the start.
JSB