Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 29  [ 288 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 529 »
Author Message
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 2:01 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Added HMS Tiger, battlecruiser with write-up to page one in the Battleships section.

[ img ]

[ img ]

[ img ]


Last edited by Krakatoa on April 27th, 2016, 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 2:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
I like but not sure the total rebuild is worth it I had a few discussion with Jabba/Colombamike/BCRenown about it and a limited QE style is more reasonable than a full one with 4.5s IMO, would link mine but I now realizes I will need to redo all my Majhost links (well at last for the good versions ;) )


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 7:32 pm
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Howdy JSB,

If I still had Renown, Repulse and Hood, then yes I would agree with you, Tiger would not be required. But without R,R&H, the Tiger is the fastest capital ship in the fleet at 30 knots. The rest are, R's 21 knots, QE's 25 knots, Nelson 26-7 knots, Barfleur/Majestic 27 knots. The new aircraft carriers of the Ark Royal and Illustrious classes are both capable of 31-32 knots, they need ships like the Tiger to act as fast escort vessels.

One thing most people do not realise, Tiger entered service October 1914, Queen Elizabeth December 1914. Tiger is only 2 months older than QE, so age of the ship is not a problem for rebuilding.

I did think of trying to keep Lion and Princess Royal in a state where they could be rebuilt, but those extra two years of age (Lions completed 1912) make a big difference at the end of their lifespans.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 8:01 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
I see your point but,

- BC had a hard life steaming fast in war time so lots of hard use
- its your only 13.5 ship so cost will be higher to keep in inventory
- the USN got away with using CAs till they got new fast BBs
- if you are lacking ships with speed will the KGVs not be built faster to fill in ?

I would just put up with 27Kn escorts its not to slow till you get the KVGs, I'm just not sure its worth wasting one of the precious rebuilds on a ships that will never be able to stand in the battle line due to guns and belt ( much better to do the rebuild on a Barfleur/Majestic and get a 1st class fast battleship,but you never know what ships would be in line for a routine dock when you have the cash/time to rebuild ;) so might happen)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Krakatoa
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 23rd, 2015, 7:50 am
Offline
Posts: 2504
Joined: July 1st, 2014, 12:20 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact: Website
Sorry Dimiti97,
I had not noticed your post before now. All ships bridges and superstructures increased in size for more accommodation and office spaces. The advent of all the electronic equipment required space for all the screens and viewing equipment, plus all the extra accommodation required by the people who manned all the added equipment. Warships at sea are 24/7 environments. Most operated on 6 4hour shifts, so for each piece of equipment you needed three or four new crew per each shift person to run it 24/7. So if you have 10 crew doing radar duty you actually need 30 extra crew to run it night and day. (Something like that).


Last edited by Krakatoa on April 23rd, 2015, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 23rd, 2015, 7:59 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
I'm not sold on the idea of a Tiger rebuild if drydocks and materials are short and needed elsewhere, but I guess if you want to bolster strength out East it makes sense.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Blackbuck
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 23rd, 2015, 8:14 am
Offline
Posts: 2743
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 9:15 am
Location: Birmingham, United Kingdom
Regardless of the behind the scenes wrangling I can't help but think that a modified or improved Renown would be a better prospect than Tiger either as an attrition replacement during hostilities or completed after hostilities. She'd be newer and able to work in lessons learned at Dogger Bank and Jutland which would mean less expensive refits down the line as well as being a better looking ship ;)

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 23rd, 2015, 12:02 pm
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
But there is no Renown or Repulse in this AU, so that option is not there.
I wonder if its possible to rearm Tiger with four 15in turrets? Probably need new barbettes and that adds up cost with new machinery and superstructure. Newer machinery would save some weight and hullspace too. As I say, fiscally it makes no sense, but in certain constrained circumstances it might make sense.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
JSB
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 23rd, 2015, 12:03 pm
Offline
Posts: 1433
Joined: January 21st, 2014, 5:33 pm
I have 2 questions regarding your plans,

1) in 1923 would the RN really ask for 2 Nelsons when they had 2 Majestic at 75% and 80% complete ?
Yes the Majestics are 40kt but 35+3 rebuilding allowance = 38kt and you might well be able to save 2kt from the ship (say fiting twins on the super firing turrets or something ?) The WNT was all about saving money and saving building 2 new BBs 200% v finishing 2 older ones 45% would make the British very happy (and they are an older design so other might not be so upset as they will not be the full 5kt better than a new design with weight saving included)

This would mean that you needed to build 2 new CVs but they will be better than conversions (even if smaller) and they can be put off into the later 20s/early 30s till you have finished playing with your experimental ones and learned what you need.

2) Rebuilding, in OTL you got major rebuilds of 3 QEs, and Renown and Repulse with other smaller stuff done to others (mainly AA but a bit of deck added) so at least 5 But only 3 of them got the full new 4.5 guns etc.

So in this world who would get what ? you have 5 x Rs (useless as OTL), 5 x QEs (unlike OTL now not the fastest/strongest BBs), 3 x B (now in the OTL QE position), 1 x Majestic (now in Hoods position), 2 x N&R (as OTL)

I would think that the rebuild will happen to the Barfleur class even if you would like it to include the Majestic as well and any spare cash will go on limited rebuilds of the QEs (but not sure any will get the full 4.5' guns treatment) but in OTL it came down to date for routine maintenance so might be a bit random in TTL as well)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
APDAF
Post subject: Re: Fisherless Royal NavyPosted: April 23rd, 2015, 12:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 1508
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am
Wouldn't a Kongo style rebuild be feasible?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 29  [ 288 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 529 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]