battlecruiser HMS Tiger survives til Second World War?

[zoeafr]

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 get what you were saying; but then how would you explain the Tiger's survival till early 30'?

 

[Arjen]

Simple. The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty gave the UK enough room to retain Tiger. The 1930 London Naval Treaty didn't.

 

[Dilandu]

I get what you were saying; but then how would you explain the Tiger's survival till early 30'?

Because she fit in British quota - as well as four Iron Duke-class superdreadnoughts - and was listed as one of the ships to be retained. So there was no reason to remove her till 1930. She was placed into reserve, and later used as training ship, but it was due to cost reasons, not due to any treaty obligation.

In 1930, hovewer, another - London - naval treaty was signed. Amongst other things, it called for further naval reduction. The Britain agreed to get rid of its five oldest capital ships, including "Tiger". But the provisions of the London Treaty allowed one of decomissioned capital ships to be rebuild into training ship, with no more than three main turrets retained, only enough boilers left for 18-knots max speed, and main belt removed. The Britain chose "Iron Duke"; but it is not impossible that "Tiger" could be chosen instead.

 

[zoeafr]

Simple. The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty gave the UK enough room to retain Tiger. The 1930 London Naval Treaty didn't.

The 30 London treaty wasn't about battleships and battlecruisers... Submarine restrictions, Light cruisers definition and tonnage, heavy cruiser definitin and numbers and tonnage.....It didn't change any of the capital ship rules....

 

[EwenS]

The 30 London treaty wasn't about battleships and battlecruisers... Submarine restrictions, Light cruisers definition and tonnage, heavy cruiser definitin and numbers and tonnage.....It didn't change any of the capital ship rules....

Time for you to educate yourself look in detail at the actual 1930 London Treaty itself

World War Two Ships: 1930 London Treaty

Part I Article II - the very start of the Treaty. All about the changes to the capital ships I've referred to previously. Note all the ships to be disposed of are specifically named, as are those able to undergo conversion. And note the references therein to later parts of the Treaty that set out conditions that applied.

 

[zoeafr]

Time for you to educate yourself look in detail at the actual 1930 London Treaty itself

World War Two Ships: 1930 London Treaty

Part I Article II - the very start of the Treaty. All about the changes to the capital ships I've referred to previously. Note all the ships to be disposed of are specifically named, as are those able to undergo conversion. And note the references therein to later parts of the Treaty that set out conditions that applied.

 

[zoeafr]

Ok; I read..... But my initial argument was that they could have argued for that ship to remain as a replacement while the reconstructions of the rest of the designed ships would go on because then the fleet would not be considered effective as the number of maximum ships, or ship tonnage, because of the particularly worn out state of the fleet and that some would be in drydocks for some lenght of time; it wasn't done and it very well might not have worked. This is, and was only a theorical argument about ways to save the Tiger from being scrapped. The real and more important factors for England to push so hard on that treaty was mainly because of funding, which didn't allow them to renew their fleet as they would have wished. It was becoming very hard to push spending on the population that was coming out of the great depression and in time of peace.....
So, thank you for your input and info. but you missed the point of my ''theorical', argument.......

 

[zoeafr]

Today I would like to involve all the people here for a reflection and input on what could have been done with the Tiger if it would have been kept with the argument that it would replace all the reconstructions of the battleships during the period from 1930 to the star of the war; yes....I read, and my argument could have had some value on art. 3 of the replacement of ships; no, it isn't straight forward, but it is an avenue, at least theoretically; but, that being said, there were restrictions for any ships to be refit during that period, at least until 1936. So, what does the 1930 treaty say; first, no ship is allowed to have armament alterations; this would mean main, and secondary armament. Second, no ship can be altered in it's structure, and protection; no ship can have significant alteration to its propulsion beside maintenace of the actual propulsion system; here there was an exception for a couple of things; ships would be allowed to receive some submarine protection, I.E. bulges, plunging fire protection, and anti aircraft defense protection. In the case of plating for the decks, the maximum allowance was 3000 tons. This was all within the treaty's requirements and tolerances......

So, what would be your input, opinions, and scenarios? remeber the weight and drag effects.....

 

[Dilandu]

But my initial argument was that they could have argued for that ship to remain as a replacement while the reconstructions of the rest of the designed ships would go on because then the fleet would not be considered effective as the number of maximum ships, or ship tonnage, because of the particularly worn out state of the fleet and that some would be in drydocks for some lenght of time; it wasn't done and it very well might not have worked.

It would NOT work, because Treaty make no difference between ships in commission, in reserve and in repair. Arguments about "fleet worn-out" are too subjective; it's not something that could be objectively calculated. So no, such approach would definitedly won't work (especially considering that Britain managed to get herself the right to build two new modern battleships - Rodney and Nelson - claiming that it must sacrifice the most among others)

 

[zoeafr]

It would NOT work, because Treaty make no difference between ships in commission, in reserve and in repair. Arguments about "fleet worn-out" are too subjective; it's not something that could be objectively calculated. So no, such approach would definitedly won't work (especially considering that Britain managed to get herself the right to build two new modern battleships - Rodney and Nelson - claiming that it must sacrifice the most among others)

Well, actually, you don't know that since you weren't there; you said it yourself about subjectivity of the argument
And as I said, it was a theorical argument and I wasn't in any form trying to undermine anyone and the decisions of the time.........
So, let's put that to rest and move on......
Try to think of what the Tiger might have been like it it had managed to survive.....It's not as easy as it looks

 

[Dilandu]

Well, actually, you don't know that since you weren't there; you said it yourself about subjectivity of the argument

I do knew that, because Treaty literally have no mention about different states of warships. It's not a subjective argument; it's a text of the treaty. Subjective may be interpretation, but not the text.

 

[zoeafr]

I do knew that, because Treaty literally have no mention about different states of warships. It's not a subjective argument; it's a text of the treaty. Subjective may be interpretation, but not the text.

In any negotiations, and I've had quite a few, nothing is set in stone until it is signed; nothing is said that there could not have been a provision for that at the time......As I said, you were not there during those negotiations and therefore you cannot say it is impossible......
And again...Put it to rest.....

 

[Dilandu]

In any negotiations, and I've had quite a few, nothing is set in stone until it is signed; nothing is said that there could not have been a provision for that at the time......As I said, you were not there during those negotiations and therefore you cannot say it is impossible......
And again...Put it to rest.....

So you are talking about massive rewriting of Washington Treaty - for all sides, not merely for Britain - just to save "Tiger". Okkam's razor of alternate history strongly recommend NOT to do that. It's better to keep with minimal possible alterations of timeline, to avoid the need to massively rething the whole system.

 

[zoeafr]

So you are talking about massive rewriting of Washington Treaty - for all sides, not merely for Britain - just to save "Tiger". Okkam's razor of alternate history strongly recommend NOT to do that. It's better to keep with minimal possible alterations of timeline, to avoid the need to massively rething the whole system.

Really?? The Washington treaty did not involve the removal of the extra ships of the 1930 agreement, which was a further requested reduction; only a respect of tonnage; and it sure as hell isn't a ''massive''change to the 1930 agreement either; under section, or article 3, it says that the signatories are allowed to keep active the old ship which is stated to be replaced until the new one is commissioned. That keeps the tonnage of ship and provides a stability of the force; that was signed....
So, again, my theorical argument was that since the Royal Navy had been the only allied fleet directy involved in the conflict, and as a consequence had many of those ships in a ''well worn out'' state, it could have been an argument to request one ship of equivalent size to ''piggyback'' the reconstruction phases of the 5 Queen Elizabeth class ship which were stated for a full reconstrution...That has nothing to do with the Washington treaty ad would have only been a specific provision under art. 3..........AND is only a theoretical argument!
So, for the third time, let's move on.....

 

[Owens Z]

Ok, but we're going away from the original question which was, which ship would have existed if no treaties had been signed....

Zoeafr, welcome to Secret Projects. In fact the original question is the counterfactual career of battlecruiser HMS Tiger after 1932. Interesting tangents are possible, but if you wish to discuss a different topic, please start your own appropriate thread.

This depend on the scale of refit. My proposal:
* 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.

Dilandu, you and I are basically on the same page. I like brand-new KGV-type 14-inch guns for Tiger bis's late-1930's refit, which tallguy confirmed could (with effort) fit the existing turrets and cradles, while you prefer to keep the existing 13.5-inch guns and add the supercharges that were actually used in the 13.5 cross-Channel railway guns, which is reasonable. HMS Tiger had no aircraft capability after the two flying-off platforms for Sopwiths were removed, and I believe your suggestion to add a catapult and one or two scout planes would be a fire hazard and a waste of valuable centerline space. Otherwise fine.

As for substituting Tiger for Iron Duke after LNT 1930 regard has to be had to what it was necessary to carry out.

EwenS, you are obviously quite knowledgeable and I am glad to have you and your informed comments here. But I suspect you are missing the forest for the trees. I wrote earlier that the main point of this thread is not the political/economic plausibility of HMS Tiger surviving for five more years to the time when war clouds became obvious, but technical: had the ship's 1932 scrapping not happened for whatever reason, how would she best be modernized for service in the foreseen war? But to engage directly about the political/economic plausibility with you, the exact things you say couldn't have happened did happen: battlecruiser Hiei, British-designed and similar to Tiger, which had ostensibly been cut down to a training ship to conform to the treaty, was rebuilt much more extensively than anything I (or Dilandu) postulate for Tiger bis. Yes, the Japanese in the 1930's were wicked cheats, and would very soon (with their Axis allies) get a lot more wicked, while the UK upheld its agreed word as I pointed out in the first paragraph of my original post. Japan illegally rebuilding Hiei didn't interfere with its enthusiastic new-warship programs, and the UK of the 1930's (not counting the Commonwealth) had substantially greater shipbuilding capacity than the Japanese home islands did, so comments that there "wasn't room" in some dockyard for Tiger seem implausible.

So it comes down to the UK's judgment in the early 1930's. You (of course pertinently) point out that they chose as they did. You agree with that choice: you wrote earlier that sacrificing, say, one R-class battleship in place of Tiger would have been "plainly absurd". By strictest contrast, I say this choice was completely wrong (with the benefit of hindsight). A refitted Tiger bis, dashing around the globe, would have been of much greater value to the British war effort than an Iron Duke or an R-class battleship, and would have stayed right in the thick of things until she was sunk with her flag flying or the war ended. Your and the Board of Admiralty's preference, the slow R-class battleships, sat out 1942, while the British were desperately fighting for their lives, anchored in backwater Kenya!

 

[Dilandu]

Dilandu, you and I are basically on the same page. I like brand-new KGV-type 14-inch guns for Tiger bis's late-1930's refit, which tallguy confirmed could (with effort) fit the existing turrets and cradles, while you prefer to keep the existing 13.5-inch guns and add the supercharges that were actually used in the 13.5 cross-Channel railway guns, which is reasonable.

Well, my proposal was basically "to push Tiger back in sea as fast as possible", i.e. getting only minimal sufficient refit. The re-arming would require major turrets rebuild - i.e. at least 1.5-2 years, considering that industry was already fully loaded.

I believe your suggestion to add a catapult and one or two scout planes would be a fire hazard and a waste of valuable centerline space. Otherwise fine.

Without spotting planes it would be not very efficient by early 1940s standards, I'm afraid.

 

[zoeafr]

Well, my proposal was basically "to push Tiger back in sea as fast as possible", i.e. getting only minimal sufficient refit. The re-arming would require major turrets rebuild - i.e. at least 1.5-2 years, considering that industry was already fully loaded.


Without spotting planes it would be not very efficient by early 1940s standards, I'm afraid.

I tend to agree with your vision although, while I understand the value of having a scout plane(s), I'm torn with the fire hazard risk which that involves; also, to have a decent catapult and crane would require room; the catapult itself could be installed on Q turret, as with the Barham, but there would need to be signifant changes in the rear mast structure and a re-routing of he third funnel. The plane itself would have to be on floats to make possible it's recup, something I have always been sceptical of the easiness to do. As for the 14 in. main artillerie, I don't believe putting the KGV ones in there would give a whole lot of benefit compared to a supercharged 13.5 with reworked elevation angle.
The next important thing would have been the torpedo protection; with limited time in dry docks; and before the bulges are installed, I would bring the main belt's 9 in. thickness up to the A and X barbettes. To compensate for the added weight, I would thin out the plating forward of the A barbette, and then install the bulges.
Next, for the plunging fire and bombs, I would thicken the plating of the top deck to 5 in. ( extra 4 in.) and plate the main deck around the A and X barbettes with the same thickness and ad plateing on the turrets and conning tower roofs. to offset the added weight, I would removee 4 of the 12 6 in. guns with their barbettes ( front top one and the outermost rear one). The new front space created by the removal would be filled with 2 lbs octuple AA mounting (1 on each side) and one more octuple mounting would be at the center point of the upper deck at the rear ( depending where a crane would be installed). one quad .5 mounting would be added one A and X turret( the last depending whether there would be a catapult in that place) and two more quad mountings ( one on each side) located close to the base of funnel 2. 10 single mountings would be installed where best situated. to top the new AA defense, 4twin high angle 4.5/45 (two per side) would be added. The initial weight savings would now be negated and the ship would be only a little bit heavier ( depending on whether an aircraft catapult and crane are installe or not). retooling the propulsion to an oil only fired with the twin new slightly wider funnels and maybe 5% more power available would terminate the mods.
All of that could have been done during the late twenties when the HMS Barham had its refit.
It would also pretty much meet the Lonodon treaty restriction if done after 1930, except for the funnels and plane, which I'm not sure about...

 

[Dilandu]

I would bring the main belt's 9 in. thickness up to the A and X barbettes.

Alterations of vertical armor were NOT allowed.

 

[zoeafr]

Alterations of vertical armor were NOT allowed.

I wasn't talkng about vertical; the main belt is full thikness up to the middle of the connig tower, then thins to 5 in. to cover the front barbettes, and 4in, up front; the rear one thins from the end of the upper deck to 5 in to cover the X barbette, then to 4in.
I found this diagram which helps a lot to understand the actual vertical, and horizontal plating..

 

[Dilandu]

I wasn't talkng about vertical; the main belt is full thikness up to the middle of the connig tower, then thins to 5 in. to cover the front barbettes, and 4in, up front; the rear one thins from the end of the upper deck to 5 in to cover the X barbette, then to 4in.

Belts is vertical armor by definition.

 

[zoeafr]

Belts is vertical armor by definition.

But it would fall under torpedo protection......I willw need to look for their definiyion of that

 

[EwenS]

But it would fall under torpedo protection......I willw need to look for their definiyion of that

No. WNT 1922 Part 3 Section 1(d) was quite clear. NO alterations to "side armour".

" No retained capital ships or aircraft-carriers shall be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, and subject to the following rules: the Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted except:"

And note the effect of ALL changes made should not increase the standard displacement by more than 3,000 tons.

 

[zoeafr]

No. WNT 1922 Part 3 Section 1(d) was quite clear. NO alterations to "side armour".

" No retained capital ships or aircraft-carriers shall be reconstructed except for the purpose of providing means of defence against air and submarine attack, and subject to the following rules: the Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip existing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection, providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship. No alterations in side armour, in calibre, number or general type of mounting of main armament shall be permitted except:"

And note the effect of ALL changes made should not increase the standard displacement by more than 3,000 tons.

Ok.... Then scrap the idea of lenghtening the main belt

 

[zoeafr]

Ok.... Then scrap the idea of lenghtening the main belt

And also the removal of the 4 6in.....

 

[zoeafr]

And also the removal of the 4 6in.....

Actually, removing is not altering and is in the spirit of the agreement; so removing the torpedo tubes, removing 2 6 in. ( the two upper ones) would compensate for the added plating weight, and keep the ship within its design tonnage and speed.....Those two removals would make room for the octuples....

 

[Scott Kenny]

I tend to agree with your vision although, while I understand the value of having a scout plane(s), I'm torn with the fire hazard risk which that involves; also, to have a decent catapult and crane would require room; the catapult itself could be installed on Q turret, as with the Barham, but there would need to be signifant changes in the rear mast structure and a re-routing of he third funnel. The plane itself would have to be on floats to make possible it's recup, something I have always been sceptical of the easiness to do.

While I'm not sure what the RN method was, the USN towed a mat behind the ship that the crane would then pick up once the seaplane had powered itself onto the mat.

This worked pretty well in allowing plane recovery even in moderate seas and without slowing the ship.

 

[zoeafr]

Actually, removing is not altering and is in the spirit of the agreement; so removing the torpedo tubes, removing 2 6 in. ( the two upper ones) would compensate for the added plating weight, and keep the ship within its design tonnage and speed.....Those two removals would make room for the octuples....

Delete the last line; the ''no alteration'' refers only t the main armament; 6in. a part of the secondary armament so they could technically be altered; back to my opton of removing 4 and replacing them with 4 QF hgh angle 4.5/45 twins...

While I'm not sure what the RN method was, the USN towed a mat behind the ship that the crane would then pick up once the seaplane had powered itself onto the mat.

This worked pretty well in allowing plane recovery even in moderate seas and without slowing the ship.

 

[zoeafr]

Oh, I had not seen or read about that; then it would make more sense to have one...Except for the fire hazard; but I have not read any literature on events directly related to fire hazards...
Where would you put it?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oh, I had not seen or read about that; then it would make more sense to have one...Except for the fire hazard; but I have not read any literature on events directly related to fire hazards...
Where would you put it?

Looks like the only really available spot to stick catapults and crane is on the fantail, all the way aft like on the later US designs.

 

[zoeafr]

Looks like the only really available spot to stick catapults and crane is on the fantail, all the way aft like on the later US designs.

What about a scheme similar to the HMS Barham? with the crane on one of the two triangular sides close to the funnel?That would eliminate the fulle rear salvo obstruction.....

 

[Scott Kenny]

What about a scheme similar to the HMS Barham? with the crane on one of the two triangular sides close to the funnel?That would eliminate the fulle rear salvo obstruction.....

I don't know that the US had any issues with the aviation bits interfering with the shellfire, considering that the planes would normally be aloft during a gunfight.

 

[zoeafr]

I don't know that the US had any issues with the aviation bits interfering with the shellfire, considering that the planes would normally be aloft during a gunfight.

It is true that it would be a better location for the arcraft's retreive; I don't know how much structural modification and strenghtening would be needed......I guess there would need to be some trials for the main guns blast zones....Most U.S. ships had longer rear main deck, and those that didn't (the older ones) had them on top of a turret....

 

[Dilandu]

Looks like the only really available spot to stick catapults and crane is on the fantail, all the way aft like on the later US designs.

Erm. Why couldn't a catapult be fitted on X turret roof, and planes be stored in hangar behind the turret? Remove the rear conning tower - she is almost useless anyway - and there would be enough space in superstructure under platform deck.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Erm. Why couldn't a catapult be fitted on X turret roof, and planes be stored in hangar behind the turret? Remove the rear conning tower - she is almost useless anyway - and there would be enough space in superstructure under platform deck.

I think I'm professionally annoyed by the large gap between X and Y turrets...

 

[Dilandu]

I think I'm professionally annoyed by the large gap between X and Y turrets...

They are Q and X. The center turret is Q, the rearmost is X. Exactly the gap between them I suggest to use: remove the rear conning tower, and build a hangar with opening roof for a small plane. Like on Kongo-class.

 

[Dilandu]

Basically the idea of hangar placement (sorry for poor quality, made from phone)

 

[zoeafr]

Basically the idea of hangar placement (sorry for poor quality, made from phone)

I guess that could be an avenue; I just don't know about blast vibrations in a big wide hangar ......But it makes sense..
I would need to find the reason of why they left the X turret so far out the back instead of keeping it closer within a more sturdily plated structure....

 

[Dilandu]

I guess that could be an avenue; I just don't know about blast vibrations in a big wide hangar ......But it makes sense..
I would need to find the reason of why they left the X turret so far out the back instead of keeping it closer within a more sturdily plated structure....

Machinery. They need a lot of space for machinery.

 

[zoeafr]

Machinery. They need a lot of space for machinery.

If that was the case, wouldn't it be better to push Q turret to the end of the upper deck and benefit the central space instead? AKA the Hood...

 

[Dilandu]

If that was the case, wouldn't it be better to push Q turret to the end of the upper deck and benefit the central space instead? AKA the Hood...

I do not recall exactly the thinking process behind the Tiger, but the general idea was for her to be an improved "Queen Mary" class, because funds were limited, and she was ordered only under condition that her cost would not exceed the "Queen Mary"'s. So the scale of redesign was limited. Moving the Q turret to rear would require a massive redesign, including weight distribution along the hull, so it was likely out of question.