Shipbucket

Yes but is it worth the cost ?

I don't think you can fit 15' guns (780t v 610t is big difference per turret) so you will have to modernise one set of 13.5 guns just for her (extra expense and develop new shells for her and stock them )

She is still very week and the only benefit is speed, how fast can you get a Barfleur/Majestic (27 knots) can you not get 28+Kn with new engines if you are willing to add to the bow/stern, you are suggesting you can add 2Kn to Tiger why not 2Kn to a Barfleur and then you have a very powerful unit at 29Kn that can stand v any WW2 BB. (you save the cost of the 13.5' kit and that might well cover the extra of a new bow/stern)

I total I think RN is in a much stronger position apart from the fact that it doesn't have the 3 fast ships it had OTL but the battle line is much stronger so I would think N&R would be built faster so compensate (or the KVGs) unless you can rebuild the Barfleur to 29 at that point you are better than OTL in all respects IMO.

(I will also add I'm not sure about reusing guns for the KVGs, if you are willing to do that would they not have been used for the N&R ? say due to needing speed in the fleet balance they are 9x15' fast ships ?)

I know, which is why I said for it to be built as a modified or improved derivative thereof and not as the OTL excluded pair. I just can't see Tiger being useful without a monumental refit somewhere down the line other than as a training ship like Caroline.

I share those thoughts

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

Talking of training ships ? would one of the Rs have to go due to the LNT ? (OTL 5R/5QE/2RR/1H/2NR =15, TTL 2NR/1M/3B/5QE/5R =16) I think that's alluded to by Krakatoa when he has 5/4 in front of the Rs in that case I cant see you keeping Tiger instead as a training ship (much as it might be more useful in WW2 than another R class)

Hi all,

I can't see a compelling argument for keeping a 13.5"-armed ship, but maybe you could ship 15 or 16-inch singles. I suspect that this decision, if you went with it, would negatively impact the ship's utility but might make it more economical to keep around (for one thing, your half-salvoes for engaging targets fore or aft would consist of two shells only!)

Regards,
Adam

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

Why not Keep the LLC in that case (assuming the are built) I don't think 4 guns works for hitting ships at range in WW1/2

I have a book I read a while ago about a guy who Captained a 1904 County class cruiser (4x7.5" 6x6") that was being used as a training ship, after WW1, which took cruises to the Caribbean with the cadets. That has always made me wonder why those ships were used in place of the larger BC/BB types. I came to the conclusion that the County Armoured cruisers were less than 10,000 tons and could be kept as cruisers till the new Frobishers and E's are completed post-war.

Which took me to try to find out how 'demilitarised' an ex-BB/BC would need to be to be removed from Capital Ship tonnage. I could not find anything definitive. So I went on the premise that at least half the main guns would have to go, armour would have to be reduced and the speed reduced to less than 20 knots. They would become large pre-dreadnoughts that would not scare anyone. That was the figures I used on the 2 Lion class and the original training ship conversion of Tiger.

The Nelson and Rodney were to allow the RN parity with the US and Japanese 16" ships.

A thought about the WNT/LNT and the rest of the alphabet. Were they about numbers of ships or total tonnage. 15 ships or 500,000 tons?

They are cheaper to run, slow, week but they have good accommodation, range and are designed to go to sunny places not just north sea, nobody will care if you keep them as they are effectively death traps (as shown by WW1)
WNT PART 2 RULES FOR SCRAPPING VESSELS OF WAR, IIb) and III (except 7)
LNT Part 1,b) and Section V of Annex II to Part II
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.
It looks like you can keep A and B to save work and then just rebuild the boilers through the gap created by X ?
Yes but with 4 post QE BBs I don't see the need (except for prestige) so using 15' triples built would save money and being faster would be better for fleet balance. (personal I would just finish the 2 Majestic BBs at 75% and 80% I sure you could get them under 38kt at least on paper, 35+3 rebuilding allowance)
They are about 15 ships (so you get a nice number for the smaller powers. 15/15/9/etc (note they all get different amounts of tonnage in Article IV of WNT to balance it out) and remember it was written by politicians not admirals (or even nerds 90 years later ) they did not really fully understand that the early ships are useless IMO.

Would Fisher's absence during the last 2-3 years of WWI really have
altered the design and construction of RN cruisers during the 1920's
and 1930's? Were the historical designers/builders influenced by him?
Would they have automatically designed and built different cruisers if
he had not returned?

Considering the butterfly's might be huge he did after all chose who had what jobs and who got promote, that will effect their whole careers.....

Also without the Hawkins class (designed in 1915) would the WNT definition of CAs have been the same ? (ie 10,000t, the next largest are the Furutaka class cruisers at 7,100 tons standard that at least the RN would have preferred to get more numbers)

Howdy Signal,

With Fisher as First Sea Lord, he had veto on designs and could direct designers to create what he wanted. This would not have extended into the 1920-30's periods but the idea of a Fisherless RN is to give me a chance to explore alternative designs to those that were produced in Real Life. (In effect I become Fisher and tell my designers what I want.)