Then all of my thoughts conform to that; keeping the Tiger instead of the Iron Duke for training purposes and conforming to the treaty's requrements, until 1936, when previous signatories pulled out of it; then within the funds available, the armour belts would have been re-installed (maybe adding an inch or two), torpedo bulges installed as with the Revenge BBs', install updated telemetry, some deck plating as could have been done under the treaty, sufficient AA armament, octoples, quads and singles, still under the treaty, some re-installement of the boilers with tweaking for best available power, removal of all the 6 in. guns and torpedo tubes,and installation of 6 QF 4-45 high elevation secondary armament after the pull-out of the rebel signatories and keeping within the design weight, leading to a decently equiped battlecruiser suited for heavy escort for the carriers, having enough speed and agility( somewhat) for the purpose, or other similar duties....The Repulse got that, but was misused.....And not reliable
battlecruiser HMS Tiger survives til Second World War?
- Thread starter Owens Z
- Start date
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Well, the explanation may be given that this ship would be also used as target for torpedo exercises, and even inert torpedo could punch a hole)
Well, I wouldn't know about making such allegations but, as is said, with the admiralty's paranoia at observing al clauses of the treaty, this reason might not have had a lot of punch
However, all is possible after 36'....Only the funds and the building capacity were the main restrictions at that point; and the fact that decision to scrap or not had to have been taken by 23'; the only reason for it to stay longer was that it replaced the Hood while it was in drydock for an extensive refit, Leading to the scrapping in 32' Sad, but I don't see it taking one of the other ship's place in the priority......
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
This depend on the scale of refit. My proposal:Well, I wouldn't know about making such allegations but, as is said, with the admiralty's paranoia at observing al clauses of the treaty, this reason might not have had a lot of punch
* No changes in main guns (just supercharges to gave enough range)
* New boilers (installed in 1930s under pretext of "providing modern training experience") to gave 28-30 knots for the half amount of boilers
* Additonal armor over machines and magazines (would not require much time if it would be put on main deck)
* Bulges (installed during refit)
* New fire control system
* New AA set (the Revenge-class one, i.e. four dual AA mounts and two octuple Pom-Pom's)
* Catapult for scout plane
In compairson with what Hood required, such refit would be very compact.
But there is a small problem for this plan set out in LNT 1936 which seems to preclude the re-arming of Tiger as proposed, or Iron Duke as historical.
"Article X
"Article X
Vessels which were laid down before the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty, the standard displacement or armament of which exceeds the limitations or restrictions prescribed in this Part of the present Treaty for their category or sub-category, or vessels which before that date were converted to target use exclusively or retained exclusively for experimental or training purposes under the provisions of previous treaties, shall retain the category or designation which applied to them before the said date."
So your training ship Tiger 1930-36 must remain a training ship after 1 Jan 1937. until Britain declared war on 3 Sept 1939. I don't see how the works proposed justify a training ship, especially if the number of boilers is being increased.
Historically it was 1938 before any thought was given to modernising Iron Duke. This was to cost £920k and would take 2 years (Moore). It was one of a number of reconstructions considered that year of which only the reconstruction of the cruiser London proceeded.
Burt places the proposed reconstruction proposal even later, in March 1939. That was to comprise a new 11in armour belt between upper and main decks (KC armour 1,750 tons or non-cemented 1,200 tons) suggesting her original armour had been disposed of or was of such inferior quality by the late 1930s that better was available. Bulges as per Royal Sovs, 4in deck armour on main deck to be fitted. 13.5in turrets to be reinstated. New secondary armament with 4-8 4.5in or 5.25in guns.
Burt continues
"The main argument against this project was the question of speed; the entire boiler / engine / machinery arrangements would have to be renewed to achieve the desired increase [not specified], and with outside estimates arranging from £920k to £1.2m, which could be better spent on a new ship, it is not surprising that the idea was dropped."
So that is a lot of armour needed to come from an already stretched industrial base (we were having to order carrier & cruiser armour from Czechoslovakia) and 5.25in turret development and production fell behind because of many other on going projects.
To put the cost figures in context various other new capital ship proposals were floating around in 1938/39:-
1. A 34,000 ton 6x16in two turret Lion £7.5m
2. 37,000 ton 8x15in (spares available) with KGV speed and protection £7.0m
3. 33,500 tons 6x15in speed 29.5-31 knots KGV protection £5.25m
So your training ship Tiger 1930-36 must remain a training ship after 1 Jan 1937. until Britain declared war on 3 Sept 1939. I don't see how the works proposed justify a training ship, especially if the number of boilers is being increased.
Historically it was 1938 before any thought was given to modernising Iron Duke. This was to cost £920k and would take 2 years (Moore). It was one of a number of reconstructions considered that year of which only the reconstruction of the cruiser London proceeded.
Burt places the proposed reconstruction proposal even later, in March 1939. That was to comprise a new 11in armour belt between upper and main decks (KC armour 1,750 tons or non-cemented 1,200 tons) suggesting her original armour had been disposed of or was of such inferior quality by the late 1930s that better was available. Bulges as per Royal Sovs, 4in deck armour on main deck to be fitted. 13.5in turrets to be reinstated. New secondary armament with 4-8 4.5in or 5.25in guns.
Burt continues
"The main argument against this project was the question of speed; the entire boiler / engine / machinery arrangements would have to be renewed to achieve the desired increase [not specified], and with outside estimates arranging from £920k to £1.2m, which could be better spent on a new ship, it is not surprising that the idea was dropped."
So that is a lot of armour needed to come from an already stretched industrial base (we were having to order carrier & cruiser armour from Czechoslovakia) and 5.25in turret development and production fell behind because of many other on going projects.
To put the cost figures in context various other new capital ship proposals were floating around in 1938/39:-
1. A 34,000 ton 6x16in two turret Lion £7.5m
2. 37,000 ton 8x15in (spares available) with KGV speed and protection £7.0m
3. 33,500 tons 6x15in speed 29.5-31 knots KGV protection £5.25m
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Well, battlecruiser is not as heavily invested in armor as battleship. And - most importantly - restored Tiger would still be pretty reasonably fast for 1940s.
Increased - not) But the new boilers could be installed under pretense of training the mechanics crews on up-to-date equipment. And, well, the progress in boilers by 1930s was so great, that the much smaller number of much more compact boilers could be used to produce the required power for max speed. Yes, it's playing around of treaty - it required training ships to be reduced in number of boilers to sufficient to provide 18 knots speed - but it actually did not forbade replacement the remaining boilers with high-capacity ones. And if the training ship in question did not move faster than 18 knots, it would be pretty hard for anyone to prove that re-boilering gave her previous speed back.
So my idea is to replace the remaining boilers on Tiger by mid-1930s, leaving the same FORMAL number - but with greater efficiency.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Well, at least on budgetary level, getting a Repulse-comparable battlecruiser (i meant Tiger restoration) for a 1/5 - 1/7 cost of a new fast battleship seems to be reasonable.
I still would ad the QF 4.5-45 twins(six or eight depending on their weight) on the deck and delete the old 6 in. though; They were available, didn't require a full mounting as with the 6 in. and therefore would save some weight; but overall, yes that could have made a lot of sense.....
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
A possibility, yes. I just oriented more on Revenge-class refits.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,138
- Reaction score
- 6,297
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but a question from someone not well read on this era.
Assuming no Naval Treaties but the same financial and industrial events in the 20s and 30s which capital ships from 1918 could have made it to 1939?
Assuming no Naval Treaties but the same financial and industrial events in the 20s and 30s which capital ships from 1918 could have made it to 1939?
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Hm. Hard to say. The factor of old ships obsolescence would become more prominent. United States would probably scrap all their 12-inch ships and early 14-inch ones; they could afford it, if they gonna replace them with South Dakota's and Lexingtons.
Japanese would likely replace their old 14-inch battleships and battlecruisers as soon as their industry could produce new 16-18 inch ones to replace them. Japan operated on rather tight budget, and could not afford to retain old ships with limited combat value.
Britain would be forced to at least try & build some number of new battleships and battlecruisers to maintain a parity with USN. On the other hand, their 15-inch fleet is perfectly fine and capable, and likely would be retained.
My hunch on this would have been none of the first world war except the Queen Elizabeth class; but G3s' would have made it in place of the Nelson/Rodney duo, the Hood would have finaly got a decent reconstruction, the King george V class would have been longer, heavier and equiped with 3 triple 16 in. main armament, as with the U.S. BBs', the Queen elizabeth class would all have had the same reconstruction as the ship of that name, and finally, the Lion class ( Vanguard) would have been completed earlier with 3 or 4 triple 16 in. man armament late in the war( that would have been up to 5 of the class).
Finally, the Repulse would have had the same reconstruction as the Renown, not that that would have change their reputation and surname of ''refit and repair duo''
Now, whether they would have had a change of mind in 40' and convert some of those into aircraft carrier is another debate on itself....
Yes
I got that; but my main concern up to that point is the weght; it's ok to add on a BB, but if you want to retain the speed on a battlecruiser, saving weight when adding is a priority; as demonstrated in late 39' with the Hood, when they removed the old 4 inches on the deck and replaced them with the QF4.5-45 duals, and added two more octoples and 3 more quad AAs', the ship was low in the water and had lost 3 knots; it also included some armed plating on the deck. So, the only way to bring the ship back to its usual draft was to remove something; and that something came in the way of the deletion of all of the 6 inches.If some plate in was to be added on the Tiger, there would necessarily have to be some form of weight offset; when adding the weight of the AA logisticals like fire controls and munition depots, weight climbs quickly; changing the 6 in. for the QF4.5-45 in itself actually would save some weight and allow high angle firing, something the 6 in. can't do.
So, bulges slow the ship
Added plating on deck and turrets ( they badly needed that) adds weight and slows the ship
Added AA adds weight and slows the ship.
Removing the 6 in. reduces weight by a lot ( considering all the barbettes and logistics)
New boilers, oil only saves some weight and adds operations distance capability along wih a bit more power.
Adding the QF4.5-45 adds some weight, though much less than the weight than the 6 in. because of lighter logistical systems and installation ( only a good thickess deck needed)
The end result could have been a ship better equiped and as fast, if not a bit faster....
It resembles the basic thinking for the Hood, though the latter had to have a deeper refit than what is described above.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
The KGV's most likely would not appear it all. Just building the four G3's would occupy British industry up to mid-1920s. And if they would actually order the N3's, it would be even more a challenge.
they would
Churchill was keen on seeing them come to life; he even pressured the design teams to install the triple 16 in. turrets instead of the quad 14s', to no avail.....His view was that the Royal navy should match what was being built in the U.S. The N3 designs were not to his liking, though they were for the admiralty
Churchill was keen on seeing them come to life; he even pressured the design teams to install the triple 16 in. turrets instead of the quad 14s', to no avail.....His view was that the Royal navy should match what was being built in the U.S. The N3 designs were not to his liking, though they were for the admiralty
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Erm. For what reason RN, that is having G3-N3 series capital ships, may even consider building a 35.000 ton battleship?they would
Churchill was keen on seeing them come to life; he even pressured the design teams to install the triple 16 in. turrets instead of the quad 14s', to no avail.....His view was that the Royal navy should match what was being built in the U.S. The N3 designs were not to his liking, though they were for the admiralty
BlackBat242
OK, I changed my personal text ;)
- Joined
- 10 April 2013
- Messages
- 1,283
- Reaction score
- 3,535
This has been gone over repeatedly on other sites, I don't know about this one.
One of the main reasons the US proposed the 1921-22 arms limitation talks and treaty to begin with was that Congress had made known to the President & Navy Department that they would NOT be funding the majority of the 1916 construction program - they would pay for the completion of the 4 Colorado class 8x16" gunned battleships (Washington was ~76% complete by Feb 1922), but ALL of the South Dakota and Lexington classes were "on the chopping block".
By Feb. 1922, the six BB-49s were (respectively) 38.5, 34, 32, 28, 28, and 11 percent complete; and the six CC-1s were (respectively) 29, 27, 23, 13, 13, and 4 percent complete
The USN had even been looking for alternate ways to use the incomplete hulls of the Lexington class before the Washington Conference convened.
For example:
In 1919 the USN's Bureau of Construction and Repair produced a Preliminary Design which used the then-current CC design (the 35,000 ton, 35-knot version) as the basis for a fast carrier; the carrier would work out as (roughly) 29,000 tons.
In 1920-21, the prospects for a purpose built carrier design ran the gamut, but the high end was a 35,900 ton, 35-knot ship that was so close to the dimensions of the then-current CC design (the 43,000 ton) that the General Board suggested converting one or more as an economy measure (again, before the conference started). There are photos of the 1921 design models on page 42 of Friedman; Design A was a flush-decker, 35,000 tons, without an island; Design B was 39,000 tons, based on the hull of the CC Ranger, with an island.
The Washington conference was called in July 1921, to meet in November 1921 - in response Preliminary Design produced a conversion design of the 43,000-ton CC hull on July 25, 1921, and the rest, so to speak, was history - including the conversions authorized by Congress once Harding's Asst. Sec. Nav. Theodore Roosevelt Jr., had suggested the 36,000 ton exemption for carrier conversions (yes, the ex-President's son held his father's old position!).
The above-mentioned 'Design "B"' (note the handwritten date on the bottom-center line of the drawing and in the "notes" section in the lower right):
Just as an aside, the 35,000 ton S-584-167 design actually made it into the USN's budgets, with 4 authorized (3 in 1920 and 1 in 1921)... but were canceled shortly thereafter:
Last edited:
The original concept of the King George V family of BB was a in fact the Lion class (Vanguard size); so it was supposed to be closer to 800 feet, 3 triple 16 in. main guns, a main belt of 15 or 16in. and a tonnage closer to 42000T.
So since that also corresponded somewhat to the N3 specs, Churchill preferred the Lion type; what happened when treaty requirements and finance restriction appeared was to make a 35000T BB on the Lion class model because the N3 design could not be adapted to the new restrictions. The now new King george class would be 750 ft long and initially would have had 3 triple 16 in. main guns, but they were getting quickly at the upper limit of the treaty rules; So the next option came to be 3 quad 14in. turrets to be able to come within the treaty limits with some form of margin. The last decision was to have the super firing front turret become a twin which allowed some weight savings which they then applied on more deck protection; to the great deception of Churchill I might add.....
I'm not following. Friedman (British Battleships" sets out the design history of the KGVs.
Once it was decided that there was no hope of securing agreement on limiting capital ships to 12in guns around 1933/34, the first designs for the new ship that would become the KGV were produced in Oct 1934.
14LTA 34,000 tons standard, 29 knots, 12x14in (4x3) + 24x4.7in, length oa 704ft.
14LTB 30,000 tons standard, 29 knots, 9x14in (3x3) + 20x4.7in, length oa 644ft.
Following that numerous other proposals followed with 14in, 15in, & 16" guns. None of these exceeded the 35,000 ton (standard displacement) limit by more than 450 tons.KGVs. The 15in & 16in proposals were late additions to the design process (around Aug 1935). Some reached 777ft oa.
On 20 Sept 1935 at a Sea Lords conference, and in view of the German announcement that they would be building 15in gunned ships, it was decided to adopt design 15C for development.
15C 35,000 tons standard, 28.5 knots 9x15in (3x3) + 20x4.5in, length bp 700ft.
Friedman notes:-
"It soon turned out that the Americans would accept a 14in gun limit, a great prize from the British point of view - provided the Japanese would go along. A few days later (10 October) First Sea Lord (Chatfield) wrote that the 15in designs were not well enough balanced (I.e., both fast and sufficiently protected). That was a convenient way to live with a decision forced by the Treaty Conference. The 15in design was dropped."
There were plenty of negotiations taking place ahead of the London Conference that began on 9 Dec 1935.
A new series of 14in designs then followed leading to the adoption of the final KGV design.
Discussions about what became the Lion began in July 1936, with the Treaty now agreed, but awaiting confirmation of the Japanese position. The Japanese formally rejected the 14in limit on 31 March 1937 so the Lion class could then be built with 16in guns. But the earliest design proposals tried to do that on as close to 35,000 tons as possible, which did not produce a satisfactory ship. Then in July a new 45,000 ton limit was agreed, forced by the USA. For various practical reasons Britain chose to limit the original Lion design to 40,550 tons (It subsequently grew to 42,550 in 1942). Vanguard as designed in 1941 was 41,600 tons.
Yes, but what I read was from documents on Churchill's views on the matter; he was already trying to convince the admiralty to draw plans for the Lion class before the KGV projects were on the table; when those were conceived, he fumed at the fact that they would not be comparable to what the U.S. had planned for the North Carolina class BBs'; but by that time, he was being slowly shown out the door; he also had seen the U.S. basic requirements of twelve 14 in. being converted to 9 16in. if required; that was the source of his frustration
Pirate Pete
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 332
- Reaction score
- 506
Apologies to Moderators for straying into ‘Politics” here….
Zoeafr…
Not wishing to denigrate Churchill in any way, what you have to remember about Winston, his papers and memoirs, were very much written from a personal perspective. History has shown this when cross-checking primary document sources and other materials when you re-visit his epic work on WW2…Like a lot of authors who are telling ‘their’ story, certain information (facts) become distorted. One only has to look at the Internet these days to see what happens when something is believed by many people when it has not been either peer reviewed or, and I had the phrase, ‘fact checked’…
Zoeafr…
Not wishing to denigrate Churchill in any way, what you have to remember about Winston, his papers and memoirs, were very much written from a personal perspective. History has shown this when cross-checking primary document sources and other materials when you re-visit his epic work on WW2…Like a lot of authors who are telling ‘their’ story, certain information (facts) become distorted. One only has to look at the Internet these days to see what happens when something is believed by many people when it has not been either peer reviewed or, and I had the phrase, ‘fact checked’…
I understand that; but some other reference books do mention Churchill's point of view on the matter; I know quite well his political history and decision making have not always been the wisest ( I.E. the Dardanelles decisions, the sending of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse to South east Asia without air cover) but it remains that he had influence in the Royal Navy even after the termination of his lordship, and before he became PM...
Churchill could lobby the Admiralty as much as he wanted and fume as much as he wanted, no one in authority needed to pay him any attention. These events occurred during his "Wilderness Years" when he was just an MP and held no position in any Govt . It was 3rd Sept 1939 before he was reappointed to Govt as First Lord of the Admiralty.
As for the North Carolinas they were designed around an armament of 12x14in (3x4). When Japan did not sign up to the 1936 Treaty limits, they were redesigned to take 9x16in (3x3). That happened after March 1937, with North Carolina laid down in Oct sand Washington in May 1938.
Britain had a much more pressing need than the USA to modernise its capital ship fleet with new construction. It ordered KGV & PoW from the 1936 Programme in July 1936, allowing the builders to begin accumulating material, and allowing them to be laid down on the first day possible under the new Treaty - 1 Jan 1937. The three ships of the 1937 Programme followed in May-July.
If we had followed the USA and hesitated either in laying them down or pausing construction to redesign them to take triple 16in guns, we would have ended up with a ship that was "unbalanced" in the Admiralty view (firepower/protection/speed equation). More importantly we wouldn't have been able to start completing these ships in Dec 1940. While the North Carolinas may have completed in April / May 1941, it was early 1942 before they were ready to join the fleet due to severe vibration problems.
As for Churchills knowledge of warship construction, IIRC he criticised the KGVs for having an unprotected centre section. He seemed to have got it into his head that because there was a break in the superstructure to accommodate the catapult, the hull in that area was unprotected. The First Sea Lord, Pound, had to take the time to explain his misunderstanding..
Ok, but we're going away from the original question which was, which ship would have existed if no treaties had been signed....
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 9,195
- Reaction score
- 10,253
Part of sea trials is "push the ship as hard as you can"
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Training ship) We are talking about old battlecruiser turned into training ships and reboilered. There is no reason to run her at full speed (especially considering that it would be a clear violation of the Washington Treaty)
Sure there would be reasons; testing the efficiency of those new boilers for application elsewhere; and really, do you think all the spies and the whole press core would be there at the exact moment the ship exceeds 18 knots for one trial? I actually think many such tests on other systems and items were done while everyone was looking elsewhere even when prohibited; One test could always find justification as long as it isn't systematically repeated......
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
It's much simpler and safer to just try boilers on full power individually, not together.
It doesn't yeld the same data; the view of simply trying one then multipliyng it by the number og boilers doesn't give the true value; in fact trying one boiler at maximum generates more efficiency than having three or four tied together working all at once. Propelers are designed to work best at a certain rotation speed; if faster than that the create a cavity phenomenon. It is why maximum efficiency is determined by the rate of drag VS the amount of water being pushed by the rotation of the propellor. Even the rate of propellor acceleration ( turbine torque) isn't a linear calculation affair......
So, here's mytheoretical story and mods for the Tiger....
The Tiger actually was saved by the RN; that much is true, since they managed to keep it right up to the beginning of the thirties before time ran out on them; so, how did they achieve that; they justified keeping it to replace the Hood which was going to be dry docked for several repairs and refit during the 20's it actually replaced the Hood as the admirals ship for two years. So, in keeping with that line of thought, it could be said that the retaining of the Tiger was to replace the QEs' while they were reconstructed. It is somewhat of a stretch in argument but it could have been swallowed. During that time, torpedo bulges would be installed and torpedoes and their infrastructures removed; a bit more drag created, but weight removed; the machinery changed to more efficient oil-only boilers of a lighter weight would bring back the speed, or a bit more and save some extra weight. Next, the main belt thickened to 10 in. and extended up to the outermost barbettes, adding weight which would be offset by removing the 4 in bow plating and reducing the stern to 2 in.; (compromises) the final weight of the hull plating added would be minimal. For the deck protection, an extra 3 in. plating for the upper deck and main deck up to and around the barbettes. Next, the turret sides would now be 11 in. while their top would be 6 in.; the barbettes would now be 11 in. ( part which is above the deck), along with the conning tower. This added weight would be offset by the removal of 4 of the 6 in. secondary armement along with their barbettes and loading structures. Replacing this would be 4 of the much lighter and easy to install twin QF high angle 4.5/45 in and 3 octople 2 pdr pom-poms plus 4 .5 in. quads; to finish with AA armament, 10 single .5 in. spread between the front mastand the decks. New gen HA director controls on foretop and on the rear structure would complete the light refit.....
The final result would be a ship capable of 28 to 30 knots, the same operational range, and a beeter fast escort for aircraft carriers or other duties not involving primary combat........
Let me know what you think
The Tiger actually was saved by the RN; that much is true, since they managed to keep it right up to the beginning of the thirties before time ran out on them; so, how did they achieve that; they justified keeping it to replace the Hood which was going to be dry docked for several repairs and refit during the 20's it actually replaced the Hood as the admirals ship for two years. So, in keeping with that line of thought, it could be said that the retaining of the Tiger was to replace the QEs' while they were reconstructed. It is somewhat of a stretch in argument but it could have been swallowed. During that time, torpedo bulges would be installed and torpedoes and their infrastructures removed; a bit more drag created, but weight removed; the machinery changed to more efficient oil-only boilers of a lighter weight would bring back the speed, or a bit more and save some extra weight. Next, the main belt thickened to 10 in. and extended up to the outermost barbettes, adding weight which would be offset by removing the 4 in bow plating and reducing the stern to 2 in.; (compromises) the final weight of the hull plating added would be minimal. For the deck protection, an extra 3 in. plating for the upper deck and main deck up to and around the barbettes. Next, the turret sides would now be 11 in. while their top would be 6 in.; the barbettes would now be 11 in. ( part which is above the deck), along with the conning tower. This added weight would be offset by the removal of 4 of the 6 in. secondary armement along with their barbettes and loading structures. Replacing this would be 4 of the much lighter and easy to install twin QF high angle 4.5/45 in and 3 octople 2 pdr pom-poms plus 4 .5 in. quads; to finish with AA armament, 10 single .5 in. spread between the front mastand the decks. New gen HA director controls on foretop and on the rear structure would complete the light refit.....
The final result would be a ship capable of 28 to 30 knots, the same operational range, and a beeter fast escort for aircraft carriers or other duties not involving primary combat........
Let me know what you think
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Erm, I'm afraid it's a VERY big stretch. The Washington Treaty put no difference between active and inactive capital ships; any non-demilitarized capital ship counted (even if it was mothballed). So no, "replacement for refit" argument would not work at all.
It was done within the Washington Treaty limits. Basically RN removed Hood from active fleet for refit, and returned Tiger from training ship role to fill the niche in battlecruiser division (which was supposed to have three ships). As I mentioned - Washington Treaty put no difference between active and inactive capital ships.
Last edited:
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
First of all, it's not allowed. Washington Treaty specifically stated that alterations of vertical armor (i.e. belts) are NOT allowed for Britain, USA and Japan. France and Italy have more freedom here.
True, the Repulse and Renown main belts were replaced. But works on them already started by the time Washington Treaty was signed, and they were specifically mentioned as exception because of that.
Secondly, changing the 9-inch belt to 10-inch one would be a massive costly undertaking - and would provide very little in terms of actual benefits. While on Repulse and Renown the replacement of 6-inch belt to 9-inch one provided 1/3 thickness increase, in your case it would be just 1/9. Not enough capabilities improvement to validate the MASSIVE cost of new plates.
Again; no alteration in vertical armor was allowed for Britain, US and Japan. Not to mention that increasing side armor while the face armor remains 9-inch seems to be a pretty strange solution.
There was no barbettes for secondary armament of Tiger; her 6-inch secondaries were in casemates, manually-loaded.
WNT 1922 permitted the RN to retain 22 named capital ships until completion of the Nelrods in 1927 when they had to give up 4 of the oldest ships in compensation. That left the fleet with 20, including Tiger. LNT 1930 reduced the fleet to 15, with 5 named ships including Tiger being given up.So, here's mytheoretical story and mods for the Tiger....
The Tiger actually was saved by the RN; that much is true, since they managed to keep it right up to the beginning of the thirties before time ran out on them; so, how did they achieve that; they justified keeping it to replace the Hood which was going to be dry docked for several repairs and refit during the 20's it actually replaced the Hood as the admirals ship for two years. So, in keeping with that line of thought, it could be said that the retaining of the Tiger was to replace the QEs' while they were reconstructed. It is somewhat of a stretch in argument but it could have been swallowed. During that time, torpedo bulges would be installed and torpedoes and their infrastructures removed; a bit more drag created, but weight removed; the machinery changed to more efficient oil-only boilers of a lighter weight would bring back the speed, or a bit more and save some extra weight. Next, the main belt thickened to 10 in. and extended up to the outermost barbettes, adding weight which would be offset by removing the 4 in bow plating and reducing the stern to 2 in.; (compromises) the final weight of the hull plating added would be minimal. For the deck protection, an extra 3 in. plating for the upper deck and main deck up to and around the barbettes. Next, the turret sides would now be 11 in. while their top would be 6 in.; the barbettes would now be 11 in. ( part which is above the deck), along with the conning tower. This added weight would be offset by the removal of 4 of the 6 in. secondary armement along with their barbettes and loading structures. Replacing this would be 4 of the much lighter and easy to install twin QF high angle 4.5/45 in and 3 octople 2 pdr pom-poms plus 4 .5 in. quads; to finish with AA armament, 10 single .5 in. spread between the front mastand the decks. New gen HA director controls on foretop and on the rear structure would complete the light refit.....
The final result would be a ship capable of 28 to 30 knots, the same operational range, and a beeter fast escort for aircraft carriers or other duties not involving primary combat........
Let me know what you think
Separate provision was made in each Treaty for capital ships to be stripped for use as training ships or target vessels.
Last edited:
I know
but think for a second; the QEs' were going into reconstruction too........So, they also would be taken off the roll forthat time frame.....As you said, thee treaty did make any distinction between the capital ships...
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
No, you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. The Treaty counted both comissioned and mothballed/repaired/ect. ships. Removal of a battleship from active fleet for repair did not "free" its tonnage or place. It would still count as part of your treaty-allowed tonnage.I know
Through most of the 1930s the RN had 3 of its 15 capital ships under "large repair" / reconstruction (each lasting about 3 years) at any one time (4 While Royal Oak was given her large refit 1934-36). Then figure in the routine maintenance refits that the remainder required every year or two.
The RN was simply not prepared, given the deteriorating world political situation as the 1930s went on and its worldwide commitments, to risk carrying out major works to any more simultaneously.
Each capital ship given up under the Treaties had to be disposed of, in the ways specified therein, within set time periods. From the 1930 Treaty:-
"One of the ships to be scrapped by the United States, and two of those to be scrapped by the United Kingdom shall be rendered unfit for warlike service, in accordance with Chapter II, Part 2, paragraph III(b) of the Washington Treaty, within twelve months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. These ships shall be finally scrapped, in accordance with paragraph II(a) or (b) of the said Part 2, within twenty-four months from the said coming into force. In the case of the second of the ships to be scrapped by the United States, and of the third and fourth of the ships to be scrapped by the United Kingdom, the said periods shall be eighteen and thirty months respectively from the coming into force of the present Treaty."
The fifth RN ship, Iron Duke, was permitted to be converted to a training ship, with work to achieve that starting within 12 months of the Treaty coming into force, and being completed within 6 months of the end of that period.
The 1930 Treaty came into force on 22 April 1930.
The RN was simply not prepared, given the deteriorating world political situation as the 1930s went on and its worldwide commitments, to risk carrying out major works to any more simultaneously.
Each capital ship given up under the Treaties had to be disposed of, in the ways specified therein, within set time periods. From the 1930 Treaty:-
"One of the ships to be scrapped by the United States, and two of those to be scrapped by the United Kingdom shall be rendered unfit for warlike service, in accordance with Chapter II, Part 2, paragraph III(b) of the Washington Treaty, within twelve months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. These ships shall be finally scrapped, in accordance with paragraph II(a) or (b) of the said Part 2, within twenty-four months from the said coming into force. In the case of the second of the ships to be scrapped by the United States, and of the third and fourth of the ships to be scrapped by the United Kingdom, the said periods shall be eighteen and thirty months respectively from the coming into force of the present Treaty."
The fifth RN ship, Iron Duke, was permitted to be converted to a training ship, with work to achieve that starting within 12 months of the Treaty coming into force, and being completed within 6 months of the end of that period.
The 1930 Treaty came into force on 22 April 1930.
Last edited:
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Yep. I suppose, though, there would be no objections to substituting Tiger instead for the training ship role.
You would have to delve into the archives to determine why Iron Duke was chosen over any of the other four, before making that assumption. Who knows what was discussed, and the attitude of other nations.
When you look at the wording of the Treaties you find that there is something there to suit every party, with exemptions being hard fought for by individual nations.
The IJN Hiei was already in the process of being demilitarized BEFORE the 1930 London Conference as under WNT Japan could have laid down a new ship in 1931. With the extension of the battleship holiday, it's retention, even as a training ship was a win for Japan.
Similar threads
-
Tiger class cruisers opinions- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 203
-
-
The Minotaur and Tiger classes
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 116
-
CVA 01 in service: Task Group
- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 24
-
Fate of Aquila had she survived intact WW2?- Started by Lascaris
- Replies: 34