battlecruiser HMS Tiger survives til Second World War?

[zoeafr]

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.

One thing I keep thinking about is the height of the catapult at that level; or rather the lack of; from old footache I have seen in some documentaries, the biplane dips a bit before gaining altitude when pushed off the ramp....The X turret location doesn't give a whole lot of leeway for errors or wind instability....It also probably is why they always tried to install the catapult in the higher turrets; The newer generation U.S and British warships had higher freeboards that allowed high enough catapults installations. This is a thought, and not an affirmation though....

 

[Arjen]

Machinery. They need a lot of space for machinery.

Precisely this. Queen Mary had Q turret between boiler rooms, Tiger had Q turret aft of the boiler rooms and the aft funnel to give it a clear arc of fire.
Moving Q turret even further aft would have necessitated moving engine rooms, which would have needed even more redesign and time, cost than was deemed acceptable.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I have to suppose that the admiralty were reasonably au fait with the facts of the day, that they would (I know, supposing an awful lot) put the tonnage and money in the best possible direction.

For me, I go for the simplest approach, do no more than you need to for the result required, sometimes I have to accept a less than optimal solution.

Weighing the points raised here, treaty limits, ship condition, cost of various rebuilds etc, I conclude that HMS Tiger was on borrowed time and the situation was not best for any kind of extension.

Not even in a position to be rebuilt as a carrier, not even for delivering aircraft to active ships.

More likely to be placed as a blockship somewhere.

 

[zoeafr]

I have to suppose that the admiralty were reasonably au fait with the facts of the day, that they would (I know, supposing an awful lot) put the tonnage and money in the best possible direction.

For me, I go for the simplest approach, do no more than you need to for the result required, sometimes I have to accept a less than optimal solution.

Weighing the points raised here, treaty limits, ship condition, cost of various rebuilds etc, I conclude that HMS Tiger was on borrowed time and the situation was not best for any kind of extension.

Not even in a position to be rebuilt as a carrier, not even for delivering aircraft to active ships.

More likely to be placed as a blockship somewhere.

It is a point of view; remember though that most ships, the ''R'' class, the QE class, The repulse class were all of within a couple of year of each other in terms of age and wear and tear; Of course, we were not there to see the exact situation; however in hind sight, it might have made sense to keep the Tiger past the 1930 treaty and give it the same treatment of at at least equivalent to the Barham. The point being that she could have been a more useful ship than one of the ''R'' class, simply by being able to have more speed as either a fast escort, or a pocket battleship, or a Sharnhorst class battleship hunter; opinions will always differ, especially on a one one one with a Sharnhorst class ship, but there is good information now to be able to make scenarios that are potent and logical.
That doesn't mean your opinion isn't worthy of discussion

 

[Dilandu]

Not even in a position to be rebuilt as a carrier, not even for delivering aircraft to active ships.

More likely to be placed as a blockship somewhere.

Well, the reconstruction of Iron Duke and Centurion back into warships WAS actually proposed and even calculated. Tiger have at least the advantage of relatively high speed.

 

[zoeafr]

Well, the reconstruction of Iron Duke and Centurion back into warships WAS actually proposed and even calculated. Tiger have at least the advantage of relatively high speed.

But since it wasn't approved, we would have to rely on a swap with an ''R'' ship, a proposition not easily accepted by the admiralty and their ''protection over speed'' mentality, and funds would restrict their views...

 

[Dilandu]

But since it wasn't approved, we would have to rely on a swap with an ''R'' ship, a proposition not easily accepted by the admiralty and their ''protection over speed'' mentality, and funds would restrict their views...

Just cancel the rebuild of HMS London in late 1930s, and you would get enough funding.

 

[zoeafr]

Just cancel the rebuild of HMS London in late 1930s, and you would get enough funding.

Sorry for my ignorance, which London is that? the only battleship I know of that period ( actually before) is the 1899 London....

 

[Dilandu]

Sorry for my ignorance, which London is that? the only battleship I know of that period ( actually before) is the 1899 London....

The C69 one, County-class heavy cruiser. In 1939-1941 she undergo a major refit (a belt armor was added, AA guns increased, superstructure rebuild).

 

[zoeafr]

The C69 one, County-class heavy cruiser. In 1939-1941 she undergo a major refit (a belt armor was added, AA guns increased, superstructure rebuild).

Oh, a heavy cruiser.... I hadn't looked into that........
Hmm... From what I just read, the new structure wasn't a success........

 

[Foo Fighter]

Looks like the refit and various repairs to that ship could have paid for a new build......

 

[Dilandu]

Looks like the refit and various repairs to that ship could have paid for a new build......

You means London? Well, she was supposed to become a prototype for all County-class rebuild - but due to war, the program was cancelled.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Yes mate, HMS London

If a success, it might have been worthy. Considering all the repairs required etc, not so much.

 

[zoeafr]

Looks like the refit and various repairs to that ship could have paid for a new build......

It all depends on what extent the work done would have cost; if it isn't a full rebuild, and only the bulge, some AA's and plating being installed, even a catapult, would be far below to the cost of a full reconstruction, which itself is less than a full new ship though quite expensive; however, the return on investment would have to be calculated...It probably is the main reason some, or most of the QE's were reconstructed instead of being discarded and new ships be built; and that proved to be a well thought decision...For that same reason, no work besides bulges and a few more AA's were installed on the ''R''s; the cost might not have justified the potential result...
In the case of the Tiger, there would hve been legitimate reasons to spend on a minimum upgrade, without going into deep reconstruction, and have a ship which had speed and a decent armament once some AA's are installed, for a wide variety of different duties, and it is this last aspect which makes it a worthwhile asset to have since there were only two others that could have made that job, and we both know the Repulse wasn't as good an asset as a tiger could have been....

 

[Foo Fighter]

It all depends on what extent the work done would have cost; if it isn't a full rebuild, and only the bulge, some AA's and plating being installed, even a catapult, would be far below to the cost of a full reconstruction, which itself is less than a full new ship though quite expensive; however, the return on investment would have to be calculated...It probably is the main reason some, or most of the QE's were reconstructed instead of being discarded and new ships be built; and that proved to be a well thought decision...For that same reason, no work besides bulges and a few more AA's were installed on the ''R''s; the cost might not have justified the potential result...
In the case of the Tiger, there would hve been legitimate reasons to spend on a minimum upgrade, without going into deep reconstruction, and have a ship which had speed and a decent armament once some AA's are installed, for a wide variety of different duties, and it is this last aspect which makes it a worthwhile asset to have since there were only two others that could have made that job, and we both know the Repulse wasn't as good an asset as a tiger could have been....

I think you missed the topic shift to the cruiser HMS London.

 

[zoeafr]

I think you missed the topic shift to the cruiser HMS London.

Oops)))
I didn't read that much on the HMS Londn but basically what I did read was that all that work caused some issues with the integrity of the main bridge struture. There is probably more to that, but I have not read the whole thing. As for the money potentially saved and put on the Tiger, yes those funds would have been more useful there; I think that the issue was that they had more flexibility with add-ons and modifications for a cruiser compared to the capital ship requirements. I will need to read more on that to have a better perspective..

 

[EwenS]

Just cancel the rebuild of HMS London in late 1930s, and you would get enough funding.

The C69 one, County-class heavy cruiser. In 1939-1941 she undergo a major refit (a belt armor was added, AA guns increased, superstructure rebuild).

Oh, a heavy cruiser.... I hadn't looked into that........
Hmm... From what I just read, the new structure wasn't a success........

Looks like the refit and various repairs to that ship could have paid for a new build......

You means London? Well, she was supposed to become a prototype for all County-class rebuild - but due to war, the program was cancelled.

Yes mate, HMS London

If a success, it might have been worthy. Considering all the repairs required etc, not so much.

Firstly a new build replacement for London, or any of the Counties wasn't possible before 1948-9 courtesy of the Replacement Conditions in the 1930 & 1936 London Treaties (a cruiser completed after 1920 wasn't overage, so allowing replacement, for 20 years).

Secondly. London was not a prototype for all the County class rebuilds. She was the first of the intended 4 London class reconstructions.

The preceding 5 RN Kent class underwent reconstruction between Feb 1935 & Nov 1938. The amount of work carried out on them varied according to how much margin there was in each ship under the 10,000 ton Treaty limit before work started plus what could be saved during the process. All received an narrow 4.5in armoured belt, a hangar & fixed catapult (except Kent which started as the heaviest and only received a more powerful turntable catapult), and improved AA armament and improved HACS arrangements at a cost of losing their 2 quad TT, which it was felt they wouldn't require patrolling the Empire sea lanes. The estimated cost per ship before work started was £215k per ship (Kent £161k). They came out at an estimated 10,200 tons to 10,600 tons standard.

Initial planning for the reconstruction of the Londons began in 1936 and work was planned to be far more extensive and drastic It was originally to include new machinery. As finally carried out she retained he original machinery, the main chnage being a rerouting of the boiler uptakes into 2 funnels and a superstructure layout similar in outline to the Fiji class, everything down to main deck level having been removed. Due to her construction being different to that of the Kents, the new armour belt fitted was only 3.5in thick but was fitted directly to the ship's side plating. All were to be reconstructed at Chatham Dockyard under the following provisional timetable:-
London - Dec 1938-Jan 1940 (work actually took in Mar 1939 to Feb 1941)
Devonshire - March 1940 - May 1941
Sussex - April 1941 - June 1942
Shropshire - June 1941- Aug 1942.

London's standard displacement after reconstruction rose from a planned 10,200 tons in 1936, to 10,650 tons and then to 10,687 in Jan 1939 when it was decided to retain the 2 quad TT. She turned out at 11,015 tons standard. It was this weight growth coupled with the enlargement of the of the openings for the boiler uptakes and the arduous operating conditions of the northern waters she operated in in 1941/42 that caused the subsequent problems. (Note she wasn't the only RN vessel to suffer such structural problems. The Tribal class destroyers and early Dido class cruisers, amongst others, had similar problems and needed hull / deck strengthening).

London's Oct 1941- Jan 1942 was intended to solve her hull strength issues by stiffening up the upper hull and deck. Unfortunately that simply moved the problem lower in the hull, where it had more serious consequences. Another refit followed in Dec 1942-May 1943. After that any problems were not considered serious, being in line with what was expected of other ships operating under wartime conditions.

After further service with the Home Fleet in 1943, she was sent to join the Eastern Fleet in Feb 1944 as part of its emergency reinforcement. Most of the rest of her career was spent in Eastern waters, before returning home to be scrapped in 1950.

The reconstruction of the Counties in the 1930s was essential to keep thm effective since they couldn't be replaced in the short term.

 

[zoeafr]

Firstly a new build replacement for London, or any of the Counties wasn't possible before 1948-9 courtesy of the Replacement Conditions in the 1930 & 1936 London Treaties (a cruiser completed after 1920 wasn't overage, so allowing replacement, for 20 years).

Secondly. London was not a prototype for all the County class rebuilds. She was the first of the intended 4 London class reconstructions.

The preceding 5 RN Kent class underwent reconstruction between Feb 1935 & Nov 1938. The amount of work carried out on them varied according to how much margin there was in each ship under the 10,000 ton Treaty limit before work started plus what could be saved during the process. All received an narrow 4.5in armoured belt, a hangar & fixed catapult (except Kent which started as the heaviest and only received a more powerful turntable catapult), and improved AA armament and improved HACS arrangements at a cost of losing their 2 quad TT, which it was felt they wouldn't require patrolling the Empire sea lanes. The estimated cost per ship before work started was £215k per ship (Kent £161k). They came out at an estimated 10,200 tons to 10,600 tons standard.

Initial planning for the reconstruction of the Londons began in 1936 and work was planned to be far more extensive and drastic It was originally to include new machinery. As finally carried out she retained he original machinery, the main chnage being a rerouting of the boiler uptakes into 2 funnels and a superstructure layout similar in outline to the Fiji class, everything down to main deck level having been removed. Due to her construction being different to that of the Kents, the new armour belt fitted was only 3.5in thick but was fitted directly to the ship's side plating. All were to be reconstructed at Chatham Dockyard under the following provisional timetable:-
London - Dec 1938-Jan 1940 (work actually took in Mar 1939 to Feb 1941)
Devonshire - March 1940 - May 1941
Sussex - April 1941 - June 1942
Shropshire - June 1941- Aug 1942.

London's standard displacement after reconstruction rose from a planned 10,200 tons in 1936, to 10,650 tons and then to 10,687 in Jan 1939 when it was decided to retain the 2 quad TT. She turned out at 11,015 tons standard. It was this weight growth coupled with the enlargement of the of the openings for the boiler uptakes and the arduous operating conditions of the northern waters she operated in in 1941/42 that caused the subsequent problems. (Note she wasn't the only RN vessel to suffer such structural problems. The Tribal class destroyers and early Dido class cruisers, amongst others, had similar problems and needed hull / deck strengthening).

London's Oct 1941- Jan 1942 was intended to solve her hull strength issues by stiffening up the upper hull and deck. Unfortunately that simply moved the problem lower in the hull, where it had more serious consequences. Another refit followed in Dec 1942-May 1943. After that any problems were not considered serious, being in line with what was expected of other ships operating under wartime conditions.

After further service with the Home Fleet in 1943, she was sent to join the Eastern Fleet in Feb 1944 as part of its emergency reinforcement. Most of the rest of her career was spent in Eastern waters, before returning home to be scrapped in 1950.

The reconstruction of the Counties in the 1930s was essential to keep thm effective since they couldn't be replaced in the short term.

I have read more on her activities and she did pull her own weight during the war; what is the question here is whether the reconstruction actually made a difference when compared to the other ships of that class.....

 

[EwenS]

I have read more on her activities and she did pull her own weight during the war; what is the question here is whether the reconstruction actually made a difference when compared to the other ships of that class.....

Well it seems that you need your retrospectroscope for the RN to know in advance that the reconstruction would not turn out as planned and that she would have so many problems. I'm sure those that designed her reconstruction didn't set out with that aim.

In the 1930s the RN was planning reconstructions of all the cruisers that they couldn't replace, even to the extent of getting agreement from the other Treaty countries to extend the life of some of the old C class if converted to AA cruisers.

C class conversion to AA cruisers (at one point all 13 survivors in the mid-1930s. Programme cut short on outbreak of WW2 with 6 converted 1935-40)
D class to AA cruisers with 4 twin 4.5in (project cancelled on outbreak of WW2. Some of the guns and mounts already ordered for this went to the Didos Charybdis & Scylla)
Hawkins class to be rearmed with 5.25in guns (6x2). Plans for this only existed briefly and no drawings exist in official records.

With cruiser tonnages limited by Treaty you make the best of what you have got.

 

[zoeafr]

Well it seems that you need your retrospectroscope for the RN to know in advance that the reconstruction would not turn out as planned and that she would have so many problems. I'm sure those that designed her reconstruction didn't set out with that aim.

In the 1930s the RN was planning reconstructions of all the cruisers that they couldn't replace, even to the extent of getting agreement from the other Treaty countries to extend the life of some of the old C class if converted to AA cruisers.

C class conversion to AA cruisers (at one point all 13 survivors in the mid-1930s. Programme cut short on outbreak of WW2 with 6 converted 1935-40)
D class to AA cruisers with 4 twin 4.5in (project cancelled on outbreak of WW2. Some of the guns and mounts already ordered for this went to the Didos Charybdis & Scylla)
Hawkins class to be rearmed with 5.25in guns (6x2). Plans for this only existed briefly and no drawings exist in official records.

With cruiser tonnages limited by Treaty you make the best of what you have got.

I understand that; and I know not all the funds were directed at the battleships and battlecruisers; money was tight and time was short; as with all conflicts since there are ships involved, it isn't the capital ships, or three deckers which did most of the work; the two deckers, and later the cruisers, light and heavy, handled most of the ''daily work'' and pursuit/defense of the wars; it therefore made sense to invest in them; what I'm not convinced of, is whether the reconstruction made a difference when compared to the others of the same class....The plating on the London was only around the critical areas, the overweighted ship was what caused the stress on the structure; Was that all worth it? And did the engineers understand the added weight stress on the hull and bridge's effect?

 

[Arjen]

From Man O'War 1 - County Class Cruisers by Alan Raven and John Roberts, R.S.V. Publishing 1978:

The Reconstruction of London

Extensive proposals were made for the reconstruction of the London class which involved the provision of new machinery and greatly improved sub-division and protection of the hull. Only the London was, however, reconstructed and although her superstructure was rebuilt, her internal arrangements were not extensively modified and she retained her original machinery. Basically the modifications were along similar lines to those carried out in the Kent class. The work was undertaken at Chatham Dockyard between March 1939 and February 1941, and as we shall see, she proved to be something of a minor disaster. The main alterations were as follows:

1) Belt armour 4½ inches thick added abreast machinery and magazine compartments.
2) New block bridge replaced original structure.
3) After control replaced by searchlight tower and aft 8 inch director repositioned on pedestal abaft mainmast.
4) Boiler re-trunked into two new funnels.
5) Fixed cross deck catapult fitted between funnels, hangar fitted on each side of fore funnel and two cranes added abreast after funnel.
6) Original catapult deck modified to form boat deck.
7) Single 4 inch HA removed and four twin 4 inch HA mountings fitted abreast boat deck.
8) New director control tower fitted on bridge and two HACS fitted with directors abreast bridge.
9) Two eight barrel pom poms fitted abreast fore funnel on hangar roofs and four quad 0.5 inch MG fitted, two each, B and X turret.
10) Tripod masts fitted.

It was originally estimated that the standard displacement after reconstruction would be 10,200 tons but, after the ship was inclined on February 6, 1937, it was discovered that her natural growth was much greater than estimated. The figure was therefore revised to 10,650 tons and then to 10,687 tons after a decision to retain the torpedo tubes. After the refit, on February 1, 1941, the ship was inclined again and it was found the standard displacement had risen to 11,015 tons!

This great increase in weight, and in particular top weight, proved to be too much for a hull that had been comparatively lightly built in order to save weight. The London was commissioned in February 1941 and in May complaints were received from the ship of structural weaknesses in the upper section of the hull. Rivets and butt connections in the upper deck and sheer strakes had begun to leak, and cracks had appeared in the lighter sections of the upper deck near the openings for boiler uptakes. Also ventilators and some parts of the structure including the hangars had begun working. It was concluded that due to the increase in weight and the reduction of strength involved in providing larger openings for the boilers, the stresses in the upper deck had gone beyond the safe limit. To overcome these difficulties the London's sheer strake was doubled over a considerable length amidships and additional strengthening was provided from frame brackets, butts and the hangars. The additional structure added 63 tons to the weight of the ship. Unfortunately this strengthening in the upper portion of the hull raised the neutral axis of the ship which in turn increased the stresses in the keel and shell plating on the lower half of the ship. After this refit the London served in the Arctic during the winter of 1941/42. The severe weather conditions experienced resulted in leaks in the double bottom and again in the upper deck. The latter were not serious but the former resulted in salt water contamination of the reserve feed water and oil fuel. The ship's staff, aided by occasional visits to a dockyard struggled through 1942 to keep the ship in an efficient state without success. In November 1942 the CO submitted a report (continued from an earlier report in April) on the condition of the ship: he was obviously an unhappy man. Contamination had reduced the reserve feed water form 212 tons to 57 tons which seriously reduced the endurance. If the evaporators were put out of action, this meant the ship would only be able to steam at full power for a few hours before being reduced to a crawl. Internal leakage of oil fuel was flooding the after 8 inch magazine and the bilges in the engine rooms. In the magazine the fuel oil was collected in buckets and returned to the tanks! This was not practical in the engine room and to get rid of what was a fire hazard the fuel was pumped over the side leaving a trail of oil in the ship's wake. This, together with the leaks, resulted in uncomfortable living conditions and placed a serious strain on the ships complement, in particular the engineering personnel.

The CO was of the opinion that the London was not capable of steaming at high speed for long periods without a complete break down of single units of the machinery. Full power was something that could not be achieved at all owing to the salt water in the fuel. The London was refitted again in 1942/43 and additional strengthening was again fitted. This included the fitting of external butt straps to the outer bottom below the bilge keels. The situation was improved considerably and most subsequent problems with the ship were comparatively minor.

The tale of London's troublesome refit. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Well it seems that you need your retrospectroscope for the RN to know in advance that the reconstruction would not turn out as planned and that she would have so many problems. I'm sure those that designed her reconstruction didn't set out with that aim.

Right on.

 

[zoeafr]

From Man O'War 1 - County Class Cruisers by Alan Raven and John Roberts, R.S.V. Publishing 1978:


Thus far the tale of London's troublesome refit.

Yes, I had just read that
But back to the point of spending the transfer of those funds toward the Tiger; at the time of the decisions and allocations, it would not have made sense, with the operational tasks cruisers would usually be assigned, it was important to keep them in as good of a shape as possible. They were also younger than the Tiger was, and it made sense in investing in them.
I think the only true option would have been an exchange between the Tiger and an ''R'' battleship; but it would then also have made more sense to have that''R'' replace the Iron Duke for training purposes....

 

[JFC Fuller]

It's Christmas and this seems fun so I'll dive in.

The obvious opportunity with Tiger is her machinery, replacement as in the reconstructed QE class would save significant space and weight that could be allocated to other things. Tiger ran trials at 29 knots at 104,635 SHP but was pushing the limit of her hydrodynamic potential. Based on the machinery weight figures given by Friedman (which aren't even consistent between different parts of the book) for the Queen Elizabeth pre and post reconstruction, 1,500-2,000 tons could have been saved on Tiger before considering the reduced oil and coal stowage due to reduced consumption.

The space savings would provide magazine capacity and might, I'll let other do precise measurements, provide a solution to aircraft arrangements. Reducing the length of the boiler rooms and trunking the funnels could provide space for a cross-deck catapult between the new aft funnel (roughly where the middle funnel was originally) and the first aft 13.5" turret. Hangars could be placed either side of the funnels as in the QE reconstructions. This is certainly not ideal, the aviation facilities could be unusable whilst the main arament is firing, especially if the aft turrets are trains forward, and restrictions on firing arcs/elevations may have been necessary to protect the capapult form blast.

I find secondary armament more challenging but think the best option would be to mount four twin 4.5" BD turrets either side of the new hangars, for a total of eight. HACS could be mounted on the new forward superstructure and on the rear of the new hangars, for a total of four.

Eight 4.5" twin mounts is obviously less than the QE's ten but I suspect that every possible ton would be wanted to improve protection.

Main armament is interesting, the 14" option is superficially attractive but would be a major additional cost and the turrets would be a custom job. It would entail removing all the shell and cordite handling equipment (hoists etc.) and starting afresh within the constraints of the existing barbette and hull structure. The only other option would be a radical modernisation of the 13.5" turrets akin to what was done to the turrets used on Vanguard. The question might be how much more work would it be to produce a 14" solution for Tiger versus the reconstruction of the 15" turrets for Vanguard (e.g. would any reuse be possible)? That is probably not answerable by anyone on the forum.

 

[zoeafr]

It's Christmas and this seems fun so I'll dive in.

The obvious opportunity with Tiger is her machinery, replacement as in the reconstructed QE class would save significant space and weight that could be allocated to other things. Tiger ran trials at 29 knots at 104,635 SHP but was pushing the limit of her hydrodynamic potential. Based on the machinery weight figures given by Friedman (which aren't even consistent between different parts of the book) for the Queen Elizabeth pre and post reconstruction, 1,500-2,000 tons could have been saved on Tiger before considering the reduced oil and coal stowage due to reduced consumption.

The space savings would provide magazine capacity and might, I'll let other do precise measurements, provide a solution to aircraft arrangements. Reducing the length of the boiler rooms and trunking the funnels could provide space for a cross-deck catapult between the new aft funnel (roughly where the middle funnel was originally) and the first aft 13.5" turret. Hangars could be placed either side of the funnels as in the QE reconstructions. This is certainly not ideal, the aviation facilities could be unusable whilst the main arament is firing, especially if the aft turrets are trains forward, and restrictions on firing arcs/elevations may have been necessary to protect the capapult form blast.

I find secondary armament more challenging but think the best option would be to mount four twin 4.5" BD turrets either side of the new hangars, for a total of eight. HACS could be mounted on the new forward superstructure and on the rear of the new hangars, for a total of four.

Eight 4.5" twin mounts is obviously less than the QE's ten but I suspect that every possible ton would be wanted to improve protection.

Main armament is interesting, the 14" option is superficially attractive but would be a major additional cost and the turrets would be a custom job. It would entail removing all the shell and cordite handling equipment (hoists etc.) and starting afresh within the constraints of the existing barbette and hull structure. The only other option would be a radical modernisation of the 13.5" turrets akin to what was done to the turrets used on Vanguard. The question might be how much more work would it be to produce a 14" solution for Tiger versus the reconstruction of the 15" turrets for Vanguard (e.g. would any reuse be possible)? That is probably not answerable by anyone on the forum.

Hi; many things come to ''put scratches'' on your scenario the treaty being one of them; the whole Tiger design and structure being an other, an finally the funds available for another reconstruction;
So, from what I now know, here are the constraints....
- the main armament cannot be altered;
-The side protection cannot be altered except for torpedo bulges
horizontal protection only is allowed for plunging fire and airial bombs and AA's are allowed, as well as modifications to the secondary armament as well as new technologies for detecting and fire director controls.
-The funds are quite limited at that point
-A limit of 3000 tons is the maximum allowed by the treaty ( that shouldn't be of much concern though) for protection modifications.
-space in drydocks availability; many ships are scheduled for different levels of refit/allowed reconstructions.
- everyone knows at that point that some sort of political mess is brewing, and the Royal Navy doesn't want to be caught off guard.
- the effects of the add-ons versus the weight, and the torpedo bulges extra drag ...
It would be too easy if funds and space were readily available and no treaty came to cut down on possibilities..
The ship was laid down in 1913 (?), so the tresty would not allow a full reconstruction for another 20 years, andd a declration to the signatories of the intentions 17 years after the laid down date.
So, the ealiest reconstruction scenario would be a declaration in 1930 and a reconstruction beginning in 1933....
Now, try it with all that in mind, and it soon becomes more of a challenge)))

 

[Scott Kenny]

The space savings would provide magazine capacity and might, I'll let other do precise measurements, provide a solution to aircraft arrangements. Reducing the length of the boiler rooms and trunking the funnels could provide space for a cross-deck catapult between the new aft funnel (roughly where the middle funnel was originally) and the first aft 13.5" turret. Hangars could be placed either side of the funnels as in the QE reconstructions. This is certainly not ideal, the aviation facilities could be unusable whilst the main arament is firing, especially if the aft turrets are trains forward, and restrictions on firing arcs/elevations may have been necessary to protect the capapult form blast.

That is true of EVERY ship with guns 8" or larger and carrying aircraft.

 

[zoeafr]

That is true of EVERY ship with guns 8" or larger and carrying aircraft.

Yes; but I didn't mention that)

 

[Dilandu]

The only other option would be a radical modernisation of the 13.5" turrets akin to what was done to the turrets used on Vanguard.

Not neccesary. The 13.5-inch guns could be just provided with supercharges, to allow for greater range with the same elevation angle. The railroad versions of the same guns were used with supercharges, and worked without excessive wearing.

It all depend on scale of reconstruction, basically.

 

[zoeafr]

Not neccesary. The 13.5-inch guns could be just provided with supercharges, to allow for greater range with the same elevation angle. The railroad versions of the same guns were used with supercharges, and worked without excessive wearing.

It all depend on scale of reconstruction, basically.

Some sayings...''money makes the world go round'''....''No money, no candy''))
I think any changes would have to be related to the degree of fund availability. If work would have been stated during the mid twenties at the time the QEs' got their first major reconstruction, bulges, oil fired only engines, newer gun directors, a somewhat expanded bridge structure and a few AA's would have made their way then; as it became evident, more and more AAs' would have been installed, and by the end of that decade some form of aircraft and catapult would have been installed instead of the foldable platforms tried.
There had already been some changes to the Tiger, though very modest, in the early twenties, but nothng close to a major refit....
The mast being move on top of the boat crane, new director installed on the previous mast's location behing the foretop; an outside small platform installed around the foretop, a torpedo lookout just under it, and a couple of 3 in, AA guns. But no torpedo bulges. Expanding on that would have made sense.....getting into the thirties, even less funds were being marked for the Navy in general....

 

[zoeafr]

Some sayings...''money makes the world go round'''....''No money, no candy''))
I think any changes would have to be related to the degree of fund availability. If work would have been stated during the mid twenties at the time the QEs' got their first major reconstruction, bulges, oil fired only engines, newer gun directors, a somewhat expanded bridge structure and a few AA's would have made their way then; as it became evident, more and more AAs' would have been installed, and by the end of that decade some form of aircraft and catapult would have been installed instead of the foldable platforms tried.
There had already been some changes to the Tiger, though very modest, in the early twenties, but nothng close to a major refit....
The mast being move on top of the boat crane, new director installed on the previous mast's location behing the foretop; an outside small platform installed around the foretop, a torpedo lookout just under it, and a couple of 3 in, AA guns. But no torpedo bulges. Expanding on that would have made sense.....getting into the thirties, even less funds were being marked for the Navy in general....

 

[zoeafr]

Hi; so, I used the schematics of the Tiger circa 1928 and I applied what I would do if the ship ad been more prioritized during the twenties bu the admiralty; it resembles somewhat the work done on the HMS Barham. I voluntarily left the X turret for you guys to decide whether or not a catapult is warranted; take note that no hangar is possible on this; the reason being is I checked the blueprints of the ship, and from what I could see (not that clear) is there is a ''dome'' 1 inch plate running over the turbines and generator in the area where it seems the long quarter deck space is empty; at the beginnng of the ''triangle'' shape; something could be installed, but it would hamper the main turret's canons arc. The Barham didn't have the hangar either by the way......The Plane was covered with a tarp attached to some anchors.
What I did put on is the torpedo bulges ( sorry for the inexactitude of the drawing's corrections) the AAs', inluding 3 pom-pom 2 pounders, 4 quad .5, 6 single .5 ( more could be installed) 4 QF4.5/45 twin cannons; I remove the torpedo tubes, 4 6in. canons and 4 3in. old singles. I would put 4 in. plating on the quarter deck (most of it), and some on the forecastle and rear main deck. Engines would not be changed ( can't be done unless major work is done) but I would convert to oil only and look for efficiencies with that fuel; I would be looking for about 5% which is achievable.
There.s an small extension on the foretop with inclined guardrails for the wind resistance and gusts. Also, a deflector is put on the first stack to keep the smoke aloft the bridge structure. Some AAs' are on new platforms, some are extension of searchlight platforms.
You can download the image since it is hgh resolution and will allow you to erase and make your modifications...
Have fun

 

[Owens Z]

Firstly a new build replacement for London, or any of the Counties wasn't possible before 1948-9 courtesy of the Replacement Conditions in the 1930 & 1936 London Treaties (a cruiser completed after 1920 wasn't overage, so allowing replacement, for 20 years).

With cruiser tonnages limited by Treaty you make the best of what you have got.

EwenS, it seems strange that one so knowledgeable in the details of the interwar naval arms limitation treaties appears not to understand this, but please note that the restrictions on ship numbers, the tonnage limitations, the limits on max gun caliber, the heavy vs light cruiser legal distinction, etc. of the London Naval Treaty and the Second London Naval Treaty became utterly null and void on 3 September 1939 when signatories UK and France declared war on non-signatory Germany. I do mean de jure null and void, not just de facto. This was legally the case even though signatory Italy would not enter the war until June 1940, and ex-signatory Japan would not enter the war until December 1941. The treaties were dead during WW2 and did not continue after the war.

(The specific articles outlawing unrestricted submarine warfare were intended to continue in perpetuity. But because signatory UK was soon fighting for a second time against ruthless U-boats; and because in signatory America, the Chief of Naval Operations gave the order "commence unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan" immediately after Pearl Harbor; and because everybody believed that non-signatory USSR would shoot at anything that moved if the Cold War ever went hot, those articles too are a dead letter, and are not part of today's customary international law.)

 

[Owens Z]

It's Christmas and this seems fun so I'll dive in.

The obvious opportunity with Tiger is her machinery, replacement as in the reconstructed QE class would save significant space and weight that could be allocated to other things. Tiger ran trials at 29 knots at 104,635 SHP but was pushing the limit of her hydrodynamic potential. Based on the machinery weight figures given by Friedman (which aren't even consistent between different parts of the book) for the Queen Elizabeth pre and post reconstruction, 1,500-2,000 tons could have been saved on Tiger before considering the reduced oil and coal stowage due to reduced consumption.

The space savings would provide magazine capacity and might, I'll let other do precise measurements, provide a solution to aircraft arrangements. Reducing the length of the boiler rooms and trunking the funnels could provide space for a cross-deck catapult between the new aft funnel (roughly where the middle funnel was originally) and the first aft 13.5" turret. Hangars could be placed either side of the funnels as in the QE reconstructions. This is certainly not ideal, the aviation facilities could be unusable whilst the main arament is firing, especially if the aft turrets are trains forward, and restrictions on firing arcs/elevations may have been necessary to protect the capapult form blast.

I find secondary armament more challenging but think the best option would be to mount four twin 4.5" BD turrets either side of the new hangars, for a total of eight. HACS could be mounted on the new forward superstructure and on the rear of the new hangars, for a total of four.

Eight 4.5" twin mounts is obviously less than the QE's ten but I suspect that every possible ton would be wanted to improve protection.

Main armament is interesting, the 14" option is superficially attractive but would be a major additional cost and the turrets would be a custom job. It would entail removing all the shell and cordite handling equipment (hoists etc.) and starting afresh within the constraints of the existing barbette and hull structure. The only other option would be a radical modernisation of the 13.5" turrets akin to what was done to the turrets used on Vanguard. The question might be how much more work would it be to produce a 14" solution for Tiger versus the reconstruction of the 15" turrets for Vanguard (e.g. would any reuse be possible)? That is probably not answerable by anyone on the forum.

JFC Fuller, welcome to this thread on HMS Tiger surviving into WW2, which I am glad to see has resulted in widespread interest.

Even though Tiger bis has a bit more drag from the modest bulges fitted, I think that with a quarter-century improvement in turbine machinery, a top speed of 30 knots in extremis is reasonable. Remember that Tiger during its 29-knot trials had old-fashioned direct drive, where the turbine shafts were the propeller shafts, resulting in non-optimal revolutions for both turbine rotors and propellers. With modern reduction gearing included in the refit, and with larger, lower-rpm propellers, a greater percentage of the shaft horsepower could be put into the water. (Dilandu seems to overlook this matter while he concentrates on the ship's boilers.)

I was leery about adding 4-inch/45 cal dual-purpose guns to Tiger bis until it was pointed out that those were not "turrets" with deck penetration and thus necessarily requiring considerable redesign work for the ship, but instead were simply gun mountings with a shield, like (on their scale) a 20mm Oerlikon was. So I agreed to include 4-inch/45 cal guns wherever convenient on the weather deck in addition to the light AA cannon. I'm unsure which 4.5-inch weapons you are referring to above, but yours might require costly deck penetration.

I disagree with you that adding new KGV-type 14-inch guns to Tiger bis would require "radical" rebuilding of its turrets, hoists, magazines, etc. But as I told him, as a fallback option I could live with Dilandu's idea to keep the original 13.5-inch guns and add supercharges. The 13.5 was a proven, hard-hitting gun. I just worry about shell and spare barrel availability for that long-out-of-production weapon, especially in distant waters.

Yes, Hiei and the others of the Kongo class, similar to Tiger, did carry floatplanes throughout WW2, but Tiger bis doesn't need them aboard. I of course value airplanes, but for North Sea actions those could fly from UK land bases, and in distant waters those should come from accompanying cruisers or carriers. A catapult and the needed one or two heavy-lift cranes would interfere with the ship's AA firing arcs. And the aviation gasoline stowage would be an explosion threat: British capital ships don't need more of those. Ditch the planes!

 

[Scott Kenny]

(The specific articles outlawing unrestricted submarine warfare were intended to continue in perpetuity. But because signatory UK was soon fighting for a second time against ruthless U-boats; and because in signatory America, the Chief of Naval Operations gave the order "commence unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan" immediately after Pearl Harbor; and because everybody believed that non-signatory USSR would shoot at anything that moved if the Cold War ever went hot, those articles too are a dead letter, and are not part of today's customary international law.)

Considering that Nimitz and Lockwood testified on behalf of Donitz regarding unrestricted submarine warfare, and that everyone saw that the only way for submarines to be effective is to be highwaymen/bandits/assassins, those are a very dead letter indeed.

Even though Tiger bis has a bit more drag from the modest bulges fitted, I think that with a quarter-century improvement in turbine machinery, a top speed of 30 knots in extremis is reasonable. Remember that Tiger during its 29-knot trials had old-fashioned direct drive, where the turbine shafts were the propeller shafts, resulting in non-optimal revolutions for both turbine rotors and propellers. With modern reduction gearing included in the refit, and with larger, lower-rpm propellers, a greater percentage of the shaft horsepower could be put into the water. (Dilandu seems to overlook this matter while he concentrates on the ship's boilers.)

Yes, going to oil-fired only and reduction gears would be a big improvement. Assuming that you can buy a set of reduction gears, those are some of the most expensive parts of a ship.

Yes, Hiei and the others of the Kongo class, similar to Tiger, did carry floatplanes throughout WW2, but Tiger bis doesn't need them aboard. I of course value airplanes, but for North Sea actions those could fly from UK land bases, and in distant waters those should come from accompanying cruisers or carriers. A catapult and the needed one or two heavy-lift cranes would interfere with the ship's AA firing arcs. And the aviation gasoline stowage would be an explosion threat: British capital ships don't need more of those. Ditch the planes!

Strongly disagree, a battlecruiser's planes are there to enable effective long range gunnery (and to find the enemy in the first place). There is a reason the USN made room for planes on everything from light cruisers on up!

 

[Owens Z]

I have to suppose that the admiralty were reasonably au fait with the facts of the day, that they would (I know, supposing an awful lot) put the tonnage and money in the best possible direction.

For me, I go for the simplest approach, do no more than you need to for the result required, sometimes I have to accept a less than optimal solution.

Weighing the points raised here, treaty limits, ship condition, cost of various rebuilds etc, I conclude that HMS Tiger was on borrowed time and the situation was not best for any kind of extension.

Not even in a position to be rebuilt as a carrier, not even for delivering aircraft to active ships.

More likely to be placed as a blockship somewhere.

Foo Fighter, your post alludes to the ignominious fate of French battleship Courbet, which was fully manned and seeing action in 1940 and yet by 1944 was a hulk to be scuttled off Sword Beach as a breakwater. Had HMS Tiger survived for whatever reason into WW2, I admit the possibility that it too might have been considered of little worth by the Royal Navy. EwenS wrote earlier that a Tiger bis rebuilt according to my wishes would have been "mediocre", so his thoughts about an unrebuilt original Tiger can be imagined. But I think you and others are overlooking the wartime value of velocity. The 1940 Courbet could do 19-20 knots at best. Even an unrefitted Tiger, when coal and stokers had been found for her after the declaration of war, would have been capable of, say, 27 knots. And unlike glass-jawed Indefatigable (1916), Queen Mary (1916), Invincible (1916), and Hood (1941), HMS Tiger took a beating from German shells at both Dogger Bank and Jutland and yet continued to steam and fight. Despite your views, in her time of need the UK could have used the speedy Tiger against Italy, Japan, and Germany. Too bad she had been prematurely scrapped.

 

[EwenS]

EwenS, it seems strange that one so knowledgeable in the details of the interwar naval arms limitation treaties appears not to understand this, but please note that the restrictions on ship numbers, the tonnage limitations, the limits on max gun caliber, the heavy vs light cruiser legal distinction, etc. of the London Naval Treaty and the Second London Naval Treaty became utterly null and void on 3 September 1939 when signatories UK and France declared war on non-signatory Germany. I do mean de jure null and void, not just de facto. This was legally the case even though signatory Italy would not enter the war until June 1940, and ex-signatory Japan would not enter the war until December 1941. The treaties were dead during WW2 and did not continue after the war.

(The specific articles outlawing unrestricted submarine warfare were intended to continue in perpetuity. But because signatory UK was soon fighting for a second time against ruthless U-boats; and because in signatory America, the Chief of Naval Operations gave the order "commence unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan" immediately after Pearl Harbor; and because everybody believed that non-signatory USSR would shoot at anything that moved if the Cold War ever went hot, those articles too are a dead letter, and are not part of today's customary international law.)

Oh I understand it perfectly. What I don't understand is when you expect to carry out this reconstruction. You seem to have covered the entire period from 1930 through 1936 and now into the WW2 period post 3 Sept 1939. It makes a huge difference to the weaponry available. Starting the kind of reconstruction you are proposing would take 2-3 years in peacetime. Longer in wartime given the problems faced by the British shipbuilding industry. So if you start in Sept 1939 It is likely to be 1942 before you see this ship in service. By that time your raider hunter is largely redundant.

An earlier starting point then affects your weapon choice. It takes time to develop and produce the weapons you are talking about. Not all are available depending on your intended timescale.

The 14in gun for the KGVs was designed in 1937, once Treaty issues about what size of gun (14in/15in/16in) were resolved. The design was based on a 12in/50 weapon that was trialled in 1933, at a time when Britain was pushing for a 12in gun limit in future Treaties, and which the USA would ultimately not accept. Two trial guns were produced for testing around 1939. The first operational guns were fitted in KGV in early 1940. Start siphoning off 8 guns for your Tiger reconstruction would in all probability lead to delays in completing PoW and/or DoY (it was July 1941 before the last of her 14in guns were delivered to John Brown for fitting following delivery of the turrets). Two spare barrels produced for KGV were put into a coastal battery at Dover in 1940/41 as Winnie & Pooh on extemporised mounts.

I'd rather see the available guns going into the KGVs than some near useless Tiger reconstruction. I'm sure the RN would have thought likewise.

The 4.5in/45 you are proposing was designed "around 1935" and didn't enter service in the Mark III Upper Deck mounts until 1938 when the depot ship Maidstone completed in May and the Ark Royal in Dec. The first Mark II Between Deck mounts entered service in Renown in mid-1939. That was why all the large repairs / reconstructions up to Warspite (completed 1937) were given twin 4in. Some Mk.III mounts might become available on 4 Sept 1939 with cancellation of the D class cruiser AA conversions, but that would depend on how many had actually been contracted for.

So just when are you proposing to reconstruct Tiger? Is it planned far in advance to allow extra weapons to be ordered? Or is it a rush job requiring diversion of weapons and equipment from other more valuable ships.

I really don't understand the internet fascination of armchair admirals nearly 100 years after the event, with preserving this old ship beyond 1931 when the professionals of the time were happy to see her go to the scrap yard. I would value their opinion over yours any day of the week.

 

[Dilandu]

Even though Tiger bis has a bit more drag from the modest bulges fitted, I think that with a quarter-century improvement in turbine machinery, a top speed of 30 knots in extremis is reasonable. Remember that Tiger during its 29-knot trials had old-fashioned direct drive, where the turbine shafts were the propeller shafts, resulting in non-optimal revolutions for both turbine rotors and propellers. With modern reduction gearing included in the refit, and with larger, lower-rpm propellers, a greater percentage of the shaft horsepower could be put into the water. (Dilandu seems to overlook this matter while he concentrates on the ship's boilers.)

And even at 28 knots, she would be still extremely useful addition to wartime Royal Navy.

I just worry about shell and spare barrel availability for that long-out-of-production weapon, especially in distant waters.

Well, by 1939 there were at least 54 guns in storage - sufficient for at least six complete replacement of Tiger's main armament, even after three guns were taken for Dover area defense. Considering that no other warship have those guns, I think, Tiger would be supplied enough for the whole course of war.

 

[Dilandu]

Foo Fighter, your post alludes to the ignominious fate of French battleship Courbet, which was fully manned and seeing action in 1940 and yet by 1944 was a hulk to be scuttled off Sword Beach as a breakwater. Had HMS Tiger survived for whatever reason into WW2, I admit the possibility that it too might have been considered of little worth by the Royal Navy. EwenS wrote earlier that a Tiger bis rebuilt according to my wishes would have been "mediocre", so his thoughts about an unrebuilt original Tiger can be imagined. But I think you and others are overlooking the wartime value of velocity. The 1940 Courbet could do 19-20 knots at best. Even an unrefitted Tiger, when coal and stokers had been found for her after the declaration of war, would have been capable of, say, 27 knots. And unlike glass-jawed Indefatigable (1916), Queen Mary (1916), Invincible (1916), and Hood (1941), HMS Tiger took a beating from German shells at both Dogger Bank and Jutland and yet continued to steam and fight. Despite your views, in her time of need the UK could have used the speedy Tiger against Italy, Japan, and Germany. Too bad she had been prematurely scrapped.

There were also other reasons. Courbet was NOT standard for Royal Navy; it was designed in France, around metric system, and it required components (like 12-inch barrels and shells) that weren't neither in production nor in storage. She was also used as training ship before the war, and her max speed was down to 15-16 knots. It was very problematic to use her in any role but harbor defense - even coastal bombardment would be risky for Courbet due to lack of underwater protection from mines and torpedoes.

Tiger, on the other hand, WAS standard for Royal Navy. Her guns and shells were available in storage in sufficient numbers. She also, as you pointed, have advantage of high speed - which made her more valuable than Revenge-class battleships.

 

[Dilandu]

Oh I understand it perfectly. What I don't understand is when you expect to carry out this reconstruction. You seem to have covered the entire period from 1930 through 1936 and now into the WW2 period post 3 Sept 1939. It makes a huge difference to the weaponry available. Starting the kind of reconstruction you are proposing would take 2-3 years in peacetime. Longer in wartime given the problems faced by the British shipbuilding industry. So if you start in Sept 1939 It is likely to be 1942 before you see this ship in service. By that time your raider hunter is largely redundant.

Well, I put my suggestion as reconstruct Tiger in 1938-1940 at minimal serviceable variant: bulges, increased deck thickness, new boilers and fire control. No turret alterations (just supercharges for main guns) and AA suit as on Revenge-class battleships. All at the expence of London reconstruction being pushed forward (and eventually cancelled).

 

[zoeafr]

EwenS, it seems strange that one so knowledgeable in the details of the interwar naval arms limitation treaties appears not to understand this, but please note that the restrictions on ship numbers, the tonnage limitations, the limits on max gun caliber, the heavy vs light cruiser legal distinction, etc. of the London Naval Treaty and the Second London Naval Treaty became utterly null and void on 3 September 1939 when signatories UK and France declared war on non-signatory Germany. I do mean de jure null and void, not just de facto. This was legally the case even though signatory Italy would not enter the war until June 1940, and ex-signatory Japan would not enter the war until December 1941. The treaties were dead during WW2 and did not continue after the war.

(The specific articles outlawing unrestricted submarine warfare were intended to continue in perpetuity. But because signatory UK was soon fighting for a second time against ruthless U-boats; and because in signatory America, the Chief of Naval Operations gave the order "commence unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan" immediately after Pearl Harbor; and because everybody believed that non-signatory USSR would shoot at anything that moved if the Cold War ever went hot, those articles too are a dead letter, and are not part of today's customary international law.)

Oh I understand it perfectly. What I don't understand is when you expect to carry out this reconstruction. You seem to have covered the entire period from 1930 through 1936 and now into the WW2 period post 3 Sept 1939. It makes a huge difference to the weaponry available. Starting the kind of reconstruction you are proposing would take 2-3 years in peacetime. Longer in wartime given the problems faced by the British shipbuilding industry. So if you start in Sept 1939 It is likely to be 1942 before you see this ship in service. By that time your raider hunter is largely redundant.

An earlier starting point then affects your weapon choice. It takes time to develop and produce the weapons you are talking about. Not all are available depending on your intended timescale.

The 14in gun for the KGVs was designed in 1937, once Treaty issues about what size of gun (14in/15in/16in) were resolved. The design was based on a 12in/50 weapon that was trialled in 1933, at a time when Britain was pushing for a 12in gun limit in future Treaties, and which the USA would ultimately not accept. Two trial guns were produced for testing around 1939. The first operational guns were fitted in KGV in early 1940. Start siphoning off 8 guns for your Tiger reconstruction would in all probability lead to delays in completing PoW and/or DoY (it was July 1941 before the last of her 14in guns were delivered to John Brown for fitting following delivery of the turrets). Two spare barrels produced for KGV were put into a coastal battery at Dover in 1940/41 as Winnie & Pooh on extemporised mounts.

I'd rather see the available guns going into the KGVs than some near useless Tiger reconstruction. I'm sure the RN would have thought likewise.

The 4.5in/45 you are proposing was designed "around 1935" and didn't enter service in the Mark III Upper Deck mounts until 1938 when the depot ship Maidstone completed in May and the Ark Royal in Dec. The first Mark II Between Deck mounts entered service in Renown in mid-1939. That was why all the large repairs / reconstructions up to Warspite (completed 1937) were given twin 4in. Some Mk.III mounts might become available on 4 Sept 1939 with cancellation of the D class cruiser AA conversions, but that would depend on how many had actually been contracted for.

So just when are you proposing to reconstruct Tiger? Is it planned far in advance to allow extra weapons to be ordered? Or is it a rush job requiring diversion of weapons and equipment from other more valuable ships.

I really don't understand the internet fascination of armchair admirals nearly 100 years after the event, with preserving this old ship beyond 1931 when the professionals of the time were happy to see her go to the scrap yard. I would value their opinion over yours any day of the week.

I understand most of that argument with some exceptions; the first being the the admiralty of the day priviledged protection over speed, and that influence remained throughout the twenties and early thirties. the issue od the 4.5/45 MKIII is that, contrary to the older guns, you could install them on the deck and not having the substructure and barbette logistics. That means a much quicker installation. with minumum alterations and manpower expenses.
It is a versatile high angle gun which would make sense in a low budget udate. As for a reconstruction or machinerie change, it would have been too expensive, and too long. even changing the turbines is a very intrusive endeavor. just moving the stacks means rethinking the compartments in the shelter decks to re-route the exhaust ducts, and that is a lot of manpower hours even if the material itself is affordable...Only in a deep reconstrution or refit can you install a hangar for an aircraft; the HMS Barham is a case and point on that; however it did carry an aircraft and plane which stayed parked on the catapult and covered, or partially covered with a tarp. While it does create discussions about the value of having one under this scenario, I think ( I'm still torn at the idea) the advantages overtake the disadvantages, but not by a big margin. I found some room for a crane, not centered, which would not intrude on the armaments; but it would only be able to pick the plane up from one of the ship's side.....Again, with minimal work...That's the fun of having restrictions Compromises...

 

[Owens Z]

Oh I understand it perfectly. What I don't understand is when you expect to carry out this reconstruction. You seem to have covered the entire period from 1930 through 1936 and now into the WW2 period post 3 Sept 1939. It makes a huge difference to the weaponry available. Starting the kind of reconstruction you are proposing would take 2-3 years in peacetime. Longer in wartime given the problems faced by the British shipbuilding industry. So if you start in Sept 1939 It is likely to be 1942 before you see this ship in service. By that time your raider hunter is largely redundant.

An earlier starting point then affects your weapon choice. It takes time to develop and produce the weapons you are talking about. Not all are available depending on your intended timescale.

So just when are you proposing to reconstruct Tiger? Is it planned far in advance to allow extra weapons to be ordered? Or is it a rush job requiring diversion of weapons and equipment from other more valuable ships.

EwenS, thank you for your post # 155 (one hundred fifty-five? We are picking up steam here; good). As I had mentioned in my original post that started this thread (which see), I estimated that if Tiger had counterfactually survived, a two-year refit would have been best, roughly between mid-1937 and mid-1939. That is, when the gathering war clouds became obvious to all, but still in peacetime. My estimate is, of course, arguable, and others (e.g. Dilandu) have weighed in with tweaked schedules, as you can read above.

The 14in gun for the KGVs was designed in 1937, once Treaty issues about what size of gun (14in/15in/16in) were resolved. The design was based on a 12in/50 weapon that was trialled in 1933, at a time when Britain was pushing for a 12in gun limit in future Treaties, and which the USA would ultimately not accept. Two trial guns were produced for testing around 1939. The first operational guns were fitted in KGV in early 1940. Start siphoning off 8 guns for your Tiger reconstruction would in all probability lead to delays in completing PoW and/or DoY (it was July 1941 before the last of her 14in guns were delivered to John Brown for fitting following delivery of the turrets). Two spare barrels produced for KGV were put into a coastal battery at Dover in 1940/41 as Winnie & Pooh on extemporised mounts.

I certainly would not want my recommended "moderate middle way" of reconstructing HMS Tiger to delay the needed new King George V-class battleships in any way, which I agree would have been bad. I just doubt your assurance that "siphoning" would happen. The early order for such-and-such number of new 14-inch Mark VII guns in real history would have instead been an order for such-and-such number plus eight in the counterfactual history, with a busier factory no doubt happy for the extra work during the Depression.

I'd rather see the available guns going into the KGVs than some near useless Tiger reconstruction. I'm sure the RN would have thought likewise.

Earlier you had a refitted Tiger bis as being "mediocre": now she is "near useless"? You assertion doesn't have arguments behind it. You have not, for example, directly engaged with my point that your and the Board of Admiralty's preferred vessels, the R-class battleships, spent the crucial year 1942, when Britain was desperately fighting around the world, anchored off Kenya, because they proved to be too slow.

The 4.5in/45 you are proposing was designed "around 1935" and didn't enter service in the Mark III Upper Deck mounts until 1938 when the depot ship Maidstone completed in May and the Ark Royal in Dec. The first Mark II Between Deck mounts entered service in Renown in mid-1939. That was why all the large repairs / reconstructions up to Warspite (completed 1937) were given twin 4in. Some Mk.III mounts might become available on 4 Sept 1939 with cancellation of the D class cruiser AA conversions, but that would depend on how many had actually been contracted for.

You are mistaken; I never proposed any such gun. JFC Fuller did, and you are welcome to take these points up with him.

I really don't understand the internet fascination of armchair admirals nearly 100 years after the event, with preserving this old ship beyond 1931 when the professionals of the time were happy to see her go to the scrap yard. I would value their opinion over yours any day of the week.

Your disapproval has never been concealed from us here, I assure you. I am indeed in an armchair, and (as I have always said) I have the benefit of hindsight. Professionals in the early 1930's said generally that appeasement and disarmament would prevent a future war, and peace would prevail as far as they could see. And they said specifically that HMS Tiger was no longer needed and should be scrapped despite her good condition. Those professionals were wrong.