battlecruiser HMS Tiger survives til Second World War?

[Owens Z]

Battlecruiser HMS Tiger, commissioned in 1914, was scrapped in 1932 after distinguished service to the Royal Navy. What if she hadn't been scrapped, and (being by all accounts in good shape) survived five more years, when the looming threat from Japan, Italy, and Germany was becoming obvious? Perhaps to comply with the London Naval Treaty she was demilitarized in 1932 rather than scrapped, like the Hiei of similar design; or a tired R-class battleship was scrapped in her place; or she simply languished rusting in some backwater. (No aspersion is cast here on Britain's compliance with signed arms limitation treaties, which was much stricter than that of most signatories).

Using our knowledge of the times and the technologies, and, yes, the benefit of hindsight, what would be the optimum course to get Tiger into shape to fight in the coming war, if you agree with me that the big ship would be useful? I suggest to you that a middle course would have been wisest, between the barest minimum (scrape the barnacles, slap on a new coat of paint, enlist a few hundred coal stokers, and sail to war to do her best) and the extreme and expensive reconstructions of the Kongo class and the Andrea Dorias, which among many other things lengthened and re-formed the entire hulls. I will call my refitted warship HMS Tiger bis, for clarity. Tiger bis would be about two years off her feet (say, mid-1937 to mid-1939) and would have the following work done:

· strip out the original direct-drive steam turbines, coal-fired boilers, and coal bunkers, and replace with modern geared steam turbines, new lower-rpm propellers, and oil-fired boilers

· entirely delete the underwater torpedo tubes and torpedo magazines

· replace the dated 13.5-inch guns (1410 lb Greenboy shells) with eight 14-inch Mark VII guns (1590 lb shells) as used on the new King George V battleships, and substantially increase the max elevation from 20°

· add modest bulges to the sides, to better resist torpedo hits

· drizzle anti-aircraft cannon around the weather deck, and [later] increase their number and update the weapons as the Second World War progresses, like all other capital ships did

· update communications, and [later] add radars and electronic warfare gear as those become available


Although they were out of production, Britain had some stores of 13.5 shells and guns left in the late 1930's, but I still think a firepower upgrade is indicated. Weight of metal on the enemy from Tiger bis's broadside is usefully more than the Renown class's 11,628 lbs (and also more than the Scharnhorsts, updated Kongos, etc.). No doubt during the refit, judicious additions of deck armor would be done, complementing the additions done post-Jutland, but I don't want Tiger bis to be heavier than, say, 4% above her 1918 full-load displacement, both for reasons of economy and also to avoid the serious weight problems of, for example, the Queen Elizabeth class and HMS Vanguard (as I said, hindsight is allowed). Some 6-inch casemate guns can be taken off as needed to help with this weight goal. There were no aircraft aboard after the two flying-off platforms for Sopwiths had been discarded, but I affirm Tiger bis has no aircraft handling capability. The ship is faster than her 29-knot maximum when new. Tiger bis is more robust and hit-tolerant than the flimsy Renowns (which nonetheless fought valiantly).

What do you all think of my suggested refit? Please weigh in. I believe this ship would have been worthwhile for many roles in WW2 against Japan, Italy, and Germany. I don't know whether Tiger bis would have survived the savage fighting (and speculation on that is welcome), but if she did, she would today be a proud museum ship in Portsmouth to visit, the last of the Splendid Cats, with funky red, white, and blue artwork on her hull inspired by the dazzle painting of yesteryear.

 

[EwenS]

I think the Admiralty's view of Tiger was best summed up by Friedman:-

"Although the battlecruiser Tiger and the four Iron Dukes survived the Washington Treaty .....virtually nothing was invested in them. Tiger became a gunnery test and training ship. What money was spent went into the ships with lasting value, the 15in battlecruisers and battleships."

Like Hiei (or Hiyie as spelt in the Treaty) Iron Duke survived the 1930 London Treaty by virtue of Article II(1)(b). The only way Tiger survives is as a stand in for Iron Duke.

"These ships shall be reduced to the condition prescribed in Section V of Annex II to Part II of the present Treaty. The work of reducing these vessels to the required condition shall begin, in the case of the United States and the United Kingdom within twelve months, and in the case of Japan within eighteen months from the coming into force of the present Treaty; the work shall be completed within six months of the expiration of the abovementioned periods."

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");
​

(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.

​

Iron Duke's forward boilers were mutilated and the remainder converted to oil firing.

From Burt "British Battleships 1919 - 1945" in March 1939 the possibility of restoring her to active service was examined. 11in main belt to be added. Missing 13.5in turrets and guns put back aboard (the were in storage at Rosyth). New secondary armament of 4-8 4.5" or 5.25" mounts. He goes on:-

"The main argument against the project was the question of speed: the entire boiler/engine/machinery arrangements would have to bbe renewed to achieve the desired increase, with outside estimates ranging from £920,000 to £1,200,000, which could be better spent on a new ship, it is not surprising that the idea was dropped."

The same issues would have been met with your proposed modernisation of Tiger.

As for your idea of replacing the main armament in Tiger with 14" Mk.VII from the KGV, unfortunately it is not that simple. Each turret is designed for a specific weapon. It sits on an armoured barbette designed to absorb the forces generated on firing. That barbette is engineered into the ship around it. Put a new gun in and you need to look at re-engineering the whole ship from top to bottom.

The 14" gun as a calibre wasn't selected for the new battleships until late 1935. The guns then had to be designed & built along with their new turrets. They were only ready for installation in KGV herself in 1939/40.

Then there is the issue of whether industry could produce the new guns / turrets / armour necessary on top of what was already needed for the other reconstructions and new construction. These industries were run down inter war due to a lack of orders and it took time to get them back up and running. They were limiting factors in battleship production and reconstruction.

When it came to the Italian ships, their bow sections simply had a new structure built outside the original structure. Their existing 12"/46 (305mm) guns were remanufactured as 320mm/44 and fitted to the same turrets with the guns generating a modest 13% increase in muzzle energy. The increase in the forces involved in going from the 13.5" of Tiger to the 14" of the KGV would, I believe, have been far greater.

So while Tiger might appear useful in WW2, she was essentially a 30 year old pre-Jutland design, requiring a huge, for the time, amount of money spent to reactivate her that would still have produced a mediocre ship useful for little more than convoy escort.

 

[CV12Hornet]

And financially such a comprehensive rebuild would require the Brits to substitute her for one of the ships that did get a reconstruction IOTL - there just isn't the money available for more, and the Brits declined rebuilding Barham and Repulse to Warspite standards anyway.

I doubt even this rebuilt Tiger would be worth giving up a reconstruction of Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, or Renown.

 

[Rule of cool]

Britain could do a lot of rebuilding of more valuable ships before rebuilding Tiger was reached on the priority list.

 

[BlackBat242]

My first thought was: "get her functional, then put Hood in drydock for her planned modernization".

My second thought was "or get her functional, then put Repulse in drydock to bring her up to Renown's fit".

 

[BlackBat242]

Iron Duke's forward boilers were mutilated and the remainder converted to oil firing.

From Burt "British Battleships 1919 - 1945" in March 1939 the possibility of restoring her to active service was examined. 11in main belt to be added. Missing 13.5in turrets and guns put back aboard (the were in storage at Rosyth). New secondary armament of 4-8 4.5" or 5.25" mounts. He goes on:-

"The main argument against the project was the question of speed: the entire boiler/engine/machinery arrangements would have to bbe renewed to achieve the desired increase, with outside estimates ranging from £920,000 to £1,200,000, which could be better spent on a new ship, it is not surprising that the idea was dropped."

The same issues would have been met with your proposed modernisation of Tiger.

Hardly... Iron Duke's original top speed was 21.25 knots... her hull was designed for that and slower - to increase her speed more than maybe a knot or so would require hull lengthening and reshaping similar to that applied to the Italian and Japanese rebuilds.

Tiger's original speed was 28 knots... no hull changes would be required to maintain that speed through the modernization - and maybe reach 30 if available SHP is boosted.

As for the guns... the 14" twin turret on the KGVs (1939) required a barbette inner diameter of 29' 6" - while the 13.5" twin turrets all had a barbette inner diameter of 28'.

That, along with the differences with the gun mounts etc, means that they would have to keep their 13.5" guns and turrets (suitably modified for greater elevation). The turrets that were removed from Centurion & Iron Duke historically were kept, so if Tiger had been training ship her removed turret would be easily replaced.

Even so, I still think that the UK would be better off using her to enable either of the unmodernized 15" battlecruisers to be modernized. Hood would likely survive her encounter with Bismarck with improved armor, but Repulse would still fall victim to the IJN torpedo bombers in my opinion, so unless Tiger is sent to Singapore instead of Repulse, then Hood should be the one modernized.

 

[EwenS]

Burt doesn't say what the speed required from a refitted Iron Duke was, and makes no mention of hull reshaping. But the need to add bulges would have meant an increase in power just to get her back to 21 knots without massive hull changes.

But Tiger, stripped as a gunnery training ship as set out in the 1930 London Treaty (see above - that would have limited her to 18 knots just like Iron Duke meaning removal / mutilation of far more boilers than lD lost. She would also have had to be bulged resulting in a loss of speed. So greater cost to restore her original 28 knots), through the 1930s is useless without spending money on modernisation, which was better spent elsewhere.

With everything going on and with its worldwide commitments the Admiralty felt it couldn't have any more than 3 capital ships (of the 15 it then had) out of service for reconstruction at a time from the mid-1930s

1933-37 "large repairs" to Repulse, Malaya & Warspite. When they opened up Warspite they found her machinery needed replaced which extended the refit time and allowed some of the changes planned for the next group to be incorporated. So she became a kind of half way house between Repulse & Malaya on the one hand and the next 3 on the other.

These were too early for modernised secondary armament of 4.5" or 5.25" DP guns (1935 designs).

Royal Oak was also worked on in this period before it was decided to concentrate on the faster ships.

1936-1940 Renown, QE & Valiant.

Then from 1940 Nelson, Rodney & Hood. But war stopped that. Had Hood survived, something would have had to be done in 1942 as her machinery needed a total overhaul.

Each round was 1 battlecruiser & 2 battleships. Hood, being the most modern of the 3 battlecruisers was always going to be the last to be reconstructed.

The idea in 1930 of keeping a 13.5" armed battlecruiser designed pre-WW1 and sacrificing a 15" R class battleship in place of ID is plainly absurd.

Edit:- Barham had been the last QE to go through the previous round of modernisation, being in dock 1/31-1/34).

Nelson & Rodney were a priority over Hood due to their 16" main armament needed to challenge the Nagatos.

 

[Dilandu]

What about of simply drilling 343-mm barrels to 356-mm size? Of course, it would still require turret modernization (breech and loading systems), but could be done much easier than complete turret reconstruction).

 

[EwenS]

What about of simply drilling 343-mm barrels to 356-mm size? Of course, it would still require turret modernization (breech and loading systems), but could be done much easier than complete turret reconstruction).

Not that simple.

These big guns were of "built up construction" with a number of tubes fitted one inside the other.

Built-up gun - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There are photos here of 13.5" under construction at the bottom of this page

United Kingdom / Britain 13.5"/45 (34.3 cm) Mark V - NavWeaps

navweaps.com

While the Italians took the 305mm guns and converted them to 320mm there was a lot more involved than simply "drilling" out the bore. The description given on Navweaps is

"The conversion consisted of boring out to remove the original A tube and apparently some of the wire. The remainder was shrunk on to a new A tube. It is possible that a shrunk or tupped inner A tube was also fitted."

This work could only be carried out in a handful of factories in the UK in the 1930s (there were only 3 involved in manufacturing the 78, including spares, 14" Mk.VII for the KGVs). As can be seen from the photos, it involved seriously large chunks of steel, huge machinery and a lot of heat. There is a photo in this article of the "Cathedral" at Beardmore's Parkhead Forge Works in Glasgow, where many of these guns were manufactured.

History Timeline of the Parkhead Forge, Glasgow

‘Transport is the Thing’ – Sir William Beardmore By Evelyn McKechnie I grew up in Parkhead, and the Forge was the main employer for the East End of Glasgow and beyond. My father w…

spotonlocations.wordpress.com

Those factories were also responsible for relining the 15" & 16" guns as the liners were worn away through routine use.

So again the question is where is the spare capacity for the design of your proposed conversion let alone the manufacturing capacity.

 

[tallguy]

I think the Admiralty's view of Tiger was best summed up by Friedman:-

"Although the battlecruiser Tiger and the four Iron Dukes survived the Washington Treaty .....virtually nothing was invested in them. Tiger became a gunnery test and training ship. What money was spent went into the ships with lasting value, the 15in battlecruisers and battleships."

Like Hiei (or Hiyie as spelt in the Treaty) Iron Duke survived the 1930 London Treaty by virtue of Article II(1)(b). The only way Tiger survives is as a stand in for Iron Duke.

"These ships shall be reduced to the condition prescribed in Section V of Annex II to Part II of the present Treaty. The work of reducing these vessels to the required condition shall begin, in the case of the United States and the United Kingdom within twelve months, and in the case of Japan within eighteen months from the coming into force of the present Treaty; the work shall be completed within six months of the expiration of the abovementioned periods."

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");
​

(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:



Iron Duke's forward boilers were mutilated and the remainder converted to oil firing.

From Burt "British Battleships 1919 - 1945" in March 1939 the possibility of restoring her to active service was examined. 11in main belt to be added. Missing 13.5in turrets and guns put back aboard (the were in storage at Rosyth). New secondary armament of 4-8 4.5" or 5.25" mounts. He goes on:-

"The main argument against the project was the question of speed: the entire boiler/engine/machinery arrangements would have to bbe renewed to achieve the desired increase, with outside estimates ranging from £920,000 to £1,200,000, which could be better spent on a new ship, it is not surprising that the idea was dropped."

The same issues would have been met with your proposed modernisation of Tiger.

As for your idea of replacing the main armament in Tiger with 14" Mk.VII from the KGV, unfortunately it is not that simple. Each turret is designed for a specific weapon. It sits on an armoured barbette designed to absorb the forces generated on firing. That barbette is engineered into the ship around it. Put a new gun in and you need to look at re-engineering the whole ship from top to bottom.

The 14" gun as a calibre wasn't selected for the new battleships until late 1935. The guns then had to be designed & built along with their new turrets. They were only ready for installation in KGV herself in 1939/40.

Then there is the issue of whether industry could produce the new guns / turrets / armour necessary on top of what was already needed for the other reconstructions and new construction. These industries were run down inter war due to a lack of orders and it took time to get them back up and running. They were limiting factors in battleship production and reconstruction.

When it came to the Italian ships, their bow sections simply had a new structure built outside the original structure. Their existing 12"/46 (305mm) guns were remanufactured as 320mm/44 and fitted to the same turrets with the guns generating a modest 13% increase in muzzle energy. The increase in the forces involved in going from the 13.5" of Tiger to the 14" of the KGV would, I believe, have been far greater.

So while Tiger might appear useful in WW2, she was essentially a 30 year old pre-Jutland design, requiring a huge, for the time, amount of money spent to reactivate her that would still have produced a mediocre ship useful for little more than convoy escort.

The 14" gun was specifically designed to fit in the 13.5 gun cradles

 

[EwenS]

The 14" gun was specifically designed to fit in the 13.5 gun cradles

Do you have a source for that? Not seen that before.

The 14" Mk.VII was designed from 1935 with new turrets designed to carry them.

By that point in time the only 13.5" turrets left in service were on the gunnery training ship Iron Duke plus a couple in store. Why would they even consider designing a gun to back fit to mounts no longer in service?

Edit. Designing the new twin turret caused delays in the KGV build programme. Odd that if old designs for at least some parts of it could be wheeled out and incorporated that it doesnt appear to have been done.

 

[Dilandu]

By that point in time the only 13.5" turrets left in service were on the gunnery training ship Iron Duke plus a couple in store. Why would they even consider designing a gun to back fit to mounts no longer in service?

I suspect that Tallguy may be confusing the 14-inch BL Mk VII naval gun (from KGV's) with earlier 14-inch BL Mk III guns (used in WW1 as railway artillery). I recall that when several 14-inch railway guns carriages were found in storage in 1939 (quite a story for itself - British literally forgot completely about those massive weapons!) there were no 14-inch barrels left, and they were re-equipped with 13.5-inch Mark V, which were close enough to fit into their cradles.

 

[tallguy]

Do you have a source for that? Not seen that before.

The 14" Mk.VII was designed from 1935 with new turrets designed to carry them.

By that point in time the only 13.5" turrets left in service were on the gunnery training ship Iron Duke plus a couple in store. Why would they even consider designing a gun to back fit to mounts no longer in service?

Edit. Designing the new twin turret caused delays in the KGV build programme. Odd that if old designs for at least some parts of it could be wheeled out and incorporated that it doesnt appear to have been done.

Trials of 14" in Iron Duke

 

[tallguy]

I suspect that Tallguy may be confusing the 14-inch BL Mk VII naval gun (from KGV's) with earlier 14-inch BL Mk III guns (used in WW1 as railway artillery). I recall that when several 14-inch railway guns carriages were found in storage in 1939 (quite a story for itself - British literally forgot completely about those massive weapons!) there were no 14-inch barrels left, and they were re-equipped with 13.5-inch Mark V, which were close enough to fit into their cradles.

Not confused at all. 14s were designed to fit the Iron Dukes cradles for testing

 

[Owens Z]

I thank the above contributors for their comments. Some fixate on a secondary matter: the plausibility of HMS Tiger surviving for a few more years, to a time when NO weapon would be thrown away, by anyone. In the same sense that with war clouds gathering, antique USS Arkansas (older than Tiger) became safe from the scrapping that was otherwise warranted. The prim accountant-like observations here are completely wrong for the period in question. When you're desperate, you do what you have to do.

The comment of the noted Dilandu proves my point. In the UK's dire time of need, the railway mountings uncovered in warehouses, with their original 14-inch naval guns long gone, hurriedly had Tiger-type 13.5-inch guns placed in them, and (yes, with some effort) those fitted fine. The railway guns immediately were put to work shelling Germans around Calais.

The main point of my post is not political or financial, but technical: had Tiger's scrapping not happened for whatever reason, how would she best be modernized for service in the foreseen war? I agree that designing and building all-new turrets, or adding an extra four King George V B-turrets to the production line, would take the Tiger bis effort beyond the "moderate middle way" that I advocate. We know there were twin 13.5- and 15-inch turrets sitting in UK warehouses, and I was going to check whether there were also twin 14-inch turrets gathering dust (perhaps from Almirante Cochrane converted to carrier HMS Eagle?). But Tallguy's info (thank you, T) reassures me that new King George V-type 14-inch guns could, with effort, be fitted into Tiger's turrets. So I stand by my original post.

Just to be clear, even if no work at all was done (or, as some here maintain, was possible) other than scraping off rust and barnacles, I still say that a surviving HMS Tiger would have been sent to war with her coal and her 13.5s (which was a hard-hitting gun), and would have served honorably and usefully.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

At a bare minimum for air defense, I'd expect twin 4"/45 anti-aircraft guns to replace the existing older single 4"/45 mounts, several quadruple or octuple multiple 2pdr (40mm) "Pom Poms" mounts, and some quadruple Vickers .50 caliber machine gun mounts. Depending on how things go, those might later be replaced with 20mm Oerlikons as they often were on ships had had them.

 

[Owens Z]

Thanks, Pvt Vasquez. While I am relatively indifferent to the low-angle 6-inch guns of the original Tiger, and approve removing some of those to help with weight loss or for any other reason, like everybody else I know that old anti-aircraft efforts had to be massively upgraded for WW2 threats. I didn't add new turrets for high-angle 4-inch or 5.25-inch AA guns to Tiger bis because I deemed the design effort would necessarily take that outside the "moderate middle way" that I think is best. And the several new magazines needed would, I fear, become another explosion threat: British warships in particular don't need more of those. And also, (as I had said, hindsight is allowed) British heavy AA guns proved to be not especially effective in action. A Tiger bis with only light AA cannon caught steaming off Trincomalee by planes from the Japanese carriers of the April 1942 Indian Ocean raid would not have lasted one hour. A Tiger bis with light AA cannon plus as many 4-inch or 5.25-inch AA guns as could fit would not have lasted one hour. So no use worrying about it. Put out to sea and fight.

 

[Owens Z]

Noted expert and keeper of the excellent NavWeaps site, Tony DiGiulian, reminds me that the Royal Navy's WW2-era twin 4"/45 cal dual-purpose gun, which Colonial-Marine recommends, had little or no deck penetration, unlike what I had wrongly thought, and thus could be bolted to the weather deck wherever convenient, not just be constricted to replacing HMS Tiger's few obsolete 4" AA guns one-for-one. No major below-decks reconstruction would be needed, in keeping with my preferred moderate course. Therefore, instead of mostly agreeing with Colonial-Marine, I now fully agree with him. Add several 4"/45s to Tiger bis, removing 6" casemates as needed for balance. Even so, I suspect that the practical wartime difference between a wall of light AA cannon vs. a wall of light AA cannon plus several 4"/45s is small. My gold standard of comparison here is with (early war) the USN's 5"/38 cal, and (late war) the USN's 5"/38 cal with British-inspired, American-manufactured VT fuzes. I'm a fan of the old girl, and she might have had battle damage repaired in a US yard like many other British warships did, but Tiger bis would not be getting those guns.

 

[Dilandu]

Okay, let's explore the main guns options. I see three potential scenarios: retain old 343-mm, rebore old 343-mm to 356-mm, replace them with new 356-mm.

1) Retain the old 343-mm/45. Using supercharges (like on R-class battleships), the range on max 20 degrees elevation could likely be increased to 25-26 km, which is sufficient (just sufficient) for WW2 battleship. The salvo weight would be about 5112 kg.

For compairson, Renown-class battlecruiser have a salvo of 5214 kg, so our "Tiger" would NOT be under-armed with her original guns. She may, however, have problems with penetration; RN WW1 era Greenboys weren't exactly the shining light amongst APC munitions.

2) Re-bore and rebuild the guns to use new 356-mm ammo. Technically, this is possible - after all, the bore size would be increased merely to 356-343=13 mm. Which is less than what Italians done with their cannons, when rebored them from 305 to 320 mm.

The lenght of new 356-mm projectile is 156 cm, which is longer than old 343 mm CPC (152 cm), but not critically, so presumably it could be adapted. The muzzle velocity would likely be decreased (due to shorter barrel and reduced powder charges), but 356-mm shell would still have sufficient pehetration. Probably better than supercharged 343-mm. The total salvo would be 5768 kg.

Re-boring the guns would require turret modernization (mainly in terms of handling systems), but PROBABLY could be done without complete rebuild. I'm not sure here.

3) The third options is to fit the 356-mm guns into 343-mm cradles. Technically, it seems to be doable. The lenght difference is about 1,5 meters and weight difference is 4 tons more for 356-mm guns. It would require major turrets rebuild, though. Then the Tiger would essentially have the firepower of 0,8 KGV-class battleship, which is quite impressive.

P.S. For the wartime restoration, I 'd say that supercharging the 343-mm guns seems to be the most practica solution. Maybe a newm heavier 343-mm AP, based on 356-mm shell design, could be developed to remedy the armor penetration problems

 

[Owens Z]

I didn't emphasize the hypothetical HMS Tiger situation vis-a-vis the real-life Hiei situation in my original post, but that was exactly my thinking. As Antony Preston wrote in the 1979 book Sea Power: A Modern Illustrated Military History (p92), "When the British saw the rebuilt Kongos (which they had designed originally) they reflected ruefully that they could have done the same with the battlecruiser Tiger, which had been prematurely scrapped in 1933 [sic] to comply with the Washington Treaty [sic]."

Among my recommended updates to a surviving Tiger bis, I did consider remodeling the old ram bow into a modern clipper bow, for better seakeeping at speed, but I chickened out and didn't mention it, thinking that I was already pushing my luck on the amount of work needed for the "moderate middle way" refit that I think would have been best. If remodeling the bow could have been done relatively cheaply and easily, then I am all for that.

 

[Owens Z]

The Hiei and the other Kongos, despite their elaborate and expensive reconstructions, didn't need to worry about a main armament upgrade because their Vickers-designed 14-inch guns remained in general service with the IJN through the end of WW2, including aboard the Fuso class and Ise class battleships. The 13.5-inch, while a fine gun, was no longer in service with the Royal Navy by the late 1930's. HMS Iron Duke had been demilitarized and in any case was run aground very early in WW2 by German bombs. There were 13.5 barrels and shells ashore in warehouses, and some of these were subsequently used to fire on the Germans around Calais from the Dover area. So a surviving HMS Tiger could have made do with her original armament, as I think Dilandu prefers if supercharges could have been used in their chambers. Still would be a hard-hitting ship, even without the modern KGV 14-inch guns that I recommend.

 

[Dilandu]

So a surviving HMS Tiger could have made do with her original armament, as I think Dilandu prefers if supercharges could have been used in their chambers. Still would be a hard-hitting ship, even without the modern KGV 14-inch guns that I recommend.

Yep. She would be at least as powerful as refitted Renown - and additional battlecruiser would surely be handy.