battlecruiser HMS Tiger survives til Second World War?

[zoeafr]

As far as I can tell from naval history, Zoeafr, that does seem to be the general case in the Second World War: USN warships, whatever their age, were kept well maintained, with even terrible battle damage repaired to like-new condition, sometimes again and again, while RN warships became increasingly dingy and battered. For example tough old HMS Warspite, which never did steer quite right after enduring fifteen 283mm and 305mm shell hits at Jutland, was famously "repaired" in Scotland after the 16 September 1943 Fritz-X guided bomb hit by having concrete poured to cover the hole blasted in her bottom, with her damaged boiler room and third turret left permanently abandoned. This general wartime difference was not due to RN preference or to any lack of fight. Comparing both countries after they entered the war (the UK two years earlier) and were fully mobilized, the USA had much greater manufacturing capacity than the UK, including in shipyards. And the UK's smaller population, with slightly more casualties than the USA suffered, was already unable in 1944-45 to provide enough young men to hard-fighting British Army divisions; therefore ship's crews had to be curbed. The British wrung everything out of their fleet (and then some) to ensure victory: a necessary, and honorable, decision.

But to keep this thread tight, let's stay focused here on battlecruiser HMS Tiger, please.

Sure, ok; so, I scribbled something of a crane and catapult on the sketch I have; it is related to the HMS Barham's system set-up; it's for those who would have seen a float plane on the HMS Tiger in this theorical 1930s' refit.
See if that makes sense. I'm personally still not convinced about the catapult option, but there are some here who think it would be necessary; so have a look and give me some opinions. Oh, just a detail, the Fairy seaplane weighed in at roughly 6000 lbs empty. the arm on this sketch would have to be about 65 to 70 feet long, so the crane would have to be a 15 to 20 ton crane, its mounting, plus mounting of the catapult and tank, and gaz, plus a small workshop set-up inside for basic maintenance and repairs, leading to an added weight of about 60 to 70 tons...Something to consider....

 

[Dilandu]

Sure, ok; so, I scribbled something of a crane and catapult on the sketch I have; it is related to the HMS Barham's system set-up; it's for those who would have seen a float plane on the HMS Tiger in this theorical 1930s' refit.
See if that makes sense. I'm personally still not convinced about the catapult option, but there are some here who think it would be necessary; so have a look and give me some opinions. Oh, just a detail, the Fairy seaplane weighed in at roughly 6000 lbs empty. the arm on this sketch would have to be about 65 to 70 feet long, so the crane would have to be a 15 to 20 ton crane, its mounting, plus mounting of the catapult and tank, and gaz, plus a small workshop set-up inside for basic maintenance and repairs, leading to an added weight of about 60 to 70 tons...Something to consider....

I think third funnel would be removed. If Tiger would be converted to training ship, about 2/3 of her boilers would be removed. And when she would be restored to combat unit, she would certainly get new high-efficiency boilers, which would require far less space. Two forward boiler rooms would be enough.

 

[zoeafr]

I think third funnel would be removed. If Tiger would be converted to training ship, about 2/3 of her boilers would be removed. And when she would be restored to combat unit, she would certainly get new high-efficiency boilers, which would require far less space. Two forward boiler rooms would be enough.

That sketch would essentially be more of what would be the final result; in this scenarion, after the training duties in about 1937, she would have been taken into dry dock to reinstall all the protection as I mentioned earlier in the sketches and scenario. What I was mainly thinking is since the funds are very limited, only the boilers would have been exchanged with refurbished QE type oil-only boilers, this way, the turbines and electricity generating units wouldn't be changed. having 39 spaces for boilers, 2/3 of them already removed for previous duty, removing the last thirteen and reinstalling refurbished QE ones was the cheapest way to achieve a goal of 125000 hp. With the more recent systems, all of the machinery would have to be ditched and the new one installed, creating a lot more cost.
It would have been the best solution, but way more expensive; instead, whatever funds available were spent on AA armament, more protection and the newer directors and control systems....So, with that scenario, still having 3 funnels for the 39 boilers made sense. Or course it would have been possible to merge one or both, but then you get into other issues. I tried the two ''Hood'' type funnels, they were a bit too close and could have created a ''sail effect in cross winnds with very high drafts between the two. Then I tried merging the front with the middle one, but that looked awkward; I suppose it could have been a solution and then raising side platform for the searchlights and AAs' there.....
But yes, having enough funds for recent new machinery would have been ideal..

 

[zoeafr]

That sketch would essentially be more of what would be the final result; in this scenarion, after the training duties in about 1937, she would have been taken into dry dock to reinstall all the protection as I mentioned earlier in the sketches and scenario. What I was mainly thinking is since the funds are very limited, only the boilers would have been exchanged with refurbished QE type oil-only boilers, this way, the turbines and electricity generating units wouldn't be changed. having 39 spaces for boilers, 2/3 of them already removed for previous duty, removing the last thirteen and reinstalling refurbished QE ones was the cheapest way to achieve a goal of 125000 hp. With the more recent systems, all of the machinery would have to be ditched and the new one installed, creating a lot more cost.
It would have been the best solution, but way more expensive; instead, whatever funds available were spent on AA armament, more protection and the newer directors and control systems....So, with that scenario, still having 3 funnels for the 39 boilers made sense. Or course it would have been possible to merge one or both, but then you get into other issues. I tried the two ''Hood'' type funnels, they were a bit too close and could have created a ''sail effect in cross winnds with very high drafts between the two. Then I tried merging the front with the middle one, but that looked awkward; I suppose it could have been a solution and then raising side platform for the searchlights and AAs' there.....
But yes, having enough funds for recent new machinery would have been ideal..

Here's a sketch with the ''Hood'' style funnels

 

[BlackBat242]

The Arkansas served as a training ship, and is not considered as an active fleet ship....And was re-activated..
The Wyoming was refit for Anti- aircraft training.....In 44, so replaced the Arkansas as a trainer....

The argument here is that, the U.S. had the possibility of one more ship, which had not yet been disposed of, and one more ship which they did put back in the active fleet (Arkansas)......

1. Wyoming was converted to a training ship in 1931, not 1944.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/w/wyoming-iii.html

Returning north after that cruise, Wyoming was placed in reduced commission at the Philadelphia Navy Yard on 1 January 1931 to prepare for demilitarization and conversion to a training ship in accordance with the 1930 London Treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armaments. During that process, Wyoming lost her blisters, side armor, and the removal of guns and turret machinery from three of her six main battery turrets. On 21 May 1931, Wyoming was relieved of her duties as flagship for the Scouting Force by the new heavy cruiser Augusta (CA-31) and by her sister ship Arkansas (BB-33) as flagship of the Training Squadron. Wyoming subsequently visited Annapolis upon the completion of her demilitarization and, between 29 May and 5 June 1931, embarked Naval Academy midshipmen for a cruise to European waters.

While she certainly did get more 5"/38 dual-purpose twin mounts in early 1944, she had been training anti-aircraft crews since before Pearl Harbor:

In November 1941, Wyoming embarked on yet another phase of her career-that of a gunnery training ship. She departed Norfolk on 25 November 1941 for gunnery training runs out of Newport, R.I., and was off Platt's Bank when the Japanese attacked the U.S. Pacific Fleet as it lay at Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, on 7 December 1941, in addition to local naval and military targets on Oahu.
Putting into Norfolk on 28 January 1942, Wyoming sailed out into the lower reaches of Chesapeake Bay on 5 February to begin gunnery training drills in that area that would carry her through World War II. So familiar was her appearance in that area that Wyoming earned the nickname of the "Chesapeake Raider." Assigned to the Operational Training Command, United States Atlantic Fleet, the former dreadnought provided the platform on which thousands of gunners trained in guns, ranging from 5-inch to .50-caliber.

2. Arkansas was never converted to a training ship, and always remained fully functional battleship. Did she conduct training for both her crew and others (including midshipmen)? Of course she did... as did every battleship in the fleet - that was all any of them had to do (other than respond to the odd disaster or international crisis) between 1920 and 1941. That she was assigned to a formal "training squadron" along with two other old fully-functional battleships just meant that she did more of it than the newer warships.

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/a/arkansas-battleship-no-33-iii.html

The Atlantic Squadron, Rear Adm. Alfred W. Johnson in command, was established in January 1939. The outbreak of war in Europe in September of that year found the squadron comprising Arkansas, New York, Texas, and Wyoming under Johnson’s immediate command, Ranger (CV-4) and Wasp (CV-7), the latter not yet in commission and her planes consequently ashore, Cruiser Division 7, Rear Adm. Andrew C. Pickens, counting heavy cruisers Quincy (CA-39), San Francisco (CA-38), Tuscaloosa (CA-37), and Vincennes (CA-44), and Destroyer Squadron 10, Capt. William G. Greenman, as well as various auxiliaries. Arkansas herself lay at Hampton Roads, preparing for a Naval Reserve cruise to be completed in company with her traditional consorts, New York, Texas, and Wyoming. She soon got underway and transported seaplane moorings and aviation equipment from Naval Air Station (NAS) Norfolk to Quonset Point, a low sandy promontory on the western shore of Narragansett Bay, where the Navy was in the process of establishing a seaplane base. The project including substantial building and dredging, and the seaplane facilities comprised two hangars earmarked for the seaborne aircraft. While at nearby Newport, Arkansas took on board ordnance material for destroyers and brought it back to Hampton Roads.

And Arkansas, along with Texas and New York needed no upgrade or change in crew to slip right into operational use - as shown by her escorting a convoy to Iceland just 1 week after Pearl Harbor.

Arkansas continued to train along the east coast until the outbreak of war with the Japanese attack upon the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, T.H., on 7 December 1941, which found her at anchor in Casco Bay. The ship operated up to three Vought OS2U-1 Kingfishers or OS2U-3s of VO-5. One week later (15–16 December), Canadian Troop Convoy TC 16, consisting of a trio of steamers, Cuba, Letitia, and Pasteur, escorted by a trio of U.S. destroyers, Ericsson (DD-440), Ingraham (DD-444), and Ludlow (DD-438), set out from Halifax for the United Kingdom. Arkansas, Nashville, Eberle (DD-430), Livermore (DD-429), and high speed minesweeper Hamilton (DMS-18) rendezvoused with the convoy on the 16th and escorted the ships to Icelandic waters on the 22nd, where Ingraham detached. The ships led their charges into Hvalfjördur (Whale-fjord), Iceland, the following day. British destroyers Havelock (H-88) and Sherwood (I-80), ex-Rodgers (DD-254), along with Norwegian destroyer Newport (G-54), ex-Sigourney (DD-81), and Polish Blyskawica (H-34), meanwhile joined the troopships on 22nd and subsequently led them to British ports. On Christmas of 1941, Arkansas and her consorts stood out to sea for the return voyage to U.S. waters via Argentia.
The ships stayed at Argentia, however, because the Germans launched Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat)—an attack against Allied shipping off the East Coast of North America and in the West Indies. U-552, Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp, operating as part of Wolfpack Ziethen, torpedoed and sank British freighter Dayrose southwest of Cape Race, Newfoundland, on 15 January 1942. That same day U-203, Kapitänleutnant Rolf Mützelburg, also operating as part of that wolfpack, torpedoed and sank Portuguese motor fishing vessel Catalina southeast of Newfoundland. Arkansas, aircraft escort vessel Long Island (AVG-1), Philadelphia (CL-41), small seaplane tender Barnegat (AVP-10), and their destroyers were preparing to return to the United States on the 18th, but the news of the U-boat attacks electrified naval planners. Fearful of the large ships’ vulnerability, the Allies dispatched an eight-ship hunter-killer group comprising U.S. destroyers Badger (DD-126), Ellis (DD-154), Ericsson, and Greer (DD-145), along with four Canadian Flower-class corvettes, to rush to the waters off Cape Race and clear a course through the U-boats for the vessels at Argentia. The Germans aggressively continued their attacks and the Allied ships failed to sink the enemy boats, however, so the authorities delayed the ships from sailing until the 22nd. They then slipped out of Argentia and two days later on the 24th entered Boston safely.
On 29 January 1942, Arkansas served with New York and Texas in BatDiv 5, along with VO-5, all part of Battleships, Atlantic Fleet. Arkansas spent the month of February carrying out exercises in Casco Bay in preparation for her role as an escort for troop and cargo transports.

Arkansas then saw a lot more active service (not training) from then on:

The battleship sailed from New York on 6 August 1942, bound through U-boat-infested waters for Greenock along the Clyde Estuary, Scotland. Two days later, the ships paused at Halifax, then continued on through the stormy North Atlantic. The convoy reached Greenock on the 17th, and Arkansas returned to New York on 4 September. She escorted another Greenock-bound convoy across the Atlantic, then arrived back at New York on 20 October. Capt. Carleton F. Bryant, the ship’s commanding officer, also led TF 38, which generally comprised Arkansas, Brooklyn, and 7–11 destroyers. Rear Adm. Lyle A. Davidson led TF 37, which usually deployed New York, Philadelphia, and 6–12 destroyers. The two task forces escorted convoys averaging 8–15 transports or troopships packed with U.S. and Canadian soldiers from New York and Halifax to Lough Foyle and Londonderry, Northern Ireland, or to the Clyde or the Western Approaches Command at Liverpool on the Mersey Estuary.
The Allies meanwhile prepared for Operation Torch—the invasion of Vichy French-held North Africa. Cargo ship Almaack (AK-27) and transports Leedstown (AP-73) and Samuel Chase (AP-56) formed Transport Division 11 and sailed from Hampton Roads to New York on 19 September 1942. Arkansas and nine destroyers served in TF 38 and covered the trio as they set out as Convoy AT-26 to cross the Atlantic to Belfast, Northern Ireland (26 September–6 October). Almaack, Leedstown, and Samuel Chase waterproofed Army equipment and re-stowed their cargoes, while the soldiers drilled ashore, before they took part in training exercises and stood out for Torch.
Arkansas and nine destroyers in the meantime set out as the screen for a convoy that planners referred to as “the D plus 5 convoy,” meaning that they were supposed to reach their port of disembarkation at Casablanca, Morocco, five days after the initial landings. The fighting against the French damaged the port, however, and Allied engineers incurred delays as they laboriously cleared wrecked ships and repaired disabled facilities. The convoy reached the area but thus marked time steaming evasive courses offshore in heavy seas. The destroyers made multiple sonar contacts on possible U-boats but the convoy escaped any potential attacks, and French pilots and tugs aided the vessels as they finally slid into the harbor at Casablanca on the 18th. Arkansas and nine destroyers +escorted the 19 merchant ships and oilers of Convoy GUF-2, the second homeward-bound convoy, as they cleared Casablanca and returned to New York (29 November–11 December). Arkansas then accomplished an overhaul.
The battleship wrapped up the yard work early in the New Year and carried out gunnery drills in Chesapeake Bay (2–30 January 1943). She returned to New York and began loading supplies for yet another transatlantic trip, for which she made two runs between Casablanca and New York City (February–April). The following month, Arkansas completed voyage repairs and additional work in dry dock at the New York Navy Yard, emerging from that period of yard work to proceed to Norfolk on 26 May. When the ship completed yard work during the war it often involved installing additional light antiaircraft armament, most notably 20 and 40-millimeter guns.

Both ships had received modernization work in the late 1920s, to insure they would remain battle-ready.

Wyoming subsequently took part in the Fleet's annual winter maneuvers in the Caribbean and then returned northward, reaching Annapolis on 29 May 1927 to embark midshipmen for their summer training cruise. After touching at Newport, R.I.; Marblehead, Mass.; Portland, Maine; Charleston, S.C.; and Guantanamo Bay, Wyoming returned to Annapolis on 27 August, disembarking the officers-to-be upon arrival. The ship then put into the Philadelphia Navy Yard for modernization.
Converted from a coal burner to an oil burner, Wyoming also received new turbines, blisters for added underwater protection against torpedoes, and other alterations. Completing the overhaul on 2 November 1927 and heading south for Norfolk, Wyoming then underwent a post-modernization shakedown cruise to Cuba and the Virgin Islands before returning to Philadelphia on 7 December.

Upon completing the 1925 midshipman cruise, Arkansas entered the Philadelphia Navy Yard for modernization. Workers replaced the coal-burning boilers with oil-fired ones, installed additional deck armor, plated over a number of the gun casemates, substituted a single stack for the original pair, replaced the after cage mast with a low tripod, and slightly lowered the main mast top to reduce the funnel gasses that enveloped the top when the ship steamed at high speed. Arkansas left the yard in November 1926, and after a shakedown cruise along the eastern seaboard and to Cuban waters, returned to Philadelphia to run acceptance trials.

 

[zoeafr]

Here's a sketch with the ''Hood'' style funnels

And here's a sketch of the HMS Tiger with a full reconstruction; this is taken from a image I found and added my take.
( No, no airplanes ) In a re-construction, should the funds and interest have been there, I probably would have included an inner 4 in torpedo bulkhead the lenght of the bulges, with supports leading to the hull, making individual isolated compartments ( until a torpedo hit), with a more flexible alloy for shock absorbtion. the now 13 boilers would make the same 125000 SHP, but the fuel consumption would be diminished and the previous tanks would allow for greater range at a quicker 18 to 20 knot speed; a 25 knot speed would not cause excessive consumption, allowing fast escort for a long range. The new lighter bridge structure ( as in the Warspite) would help bring up the metacenter point ( roll over axis). that extra margin would be used to plate the turret magazines with a thicker protection of 5 inches.
The weight saving with the new machinery ( apprx. 1300 tons) would be used to extend the 6 inch belt down 4 feet, followed by a three inch belt of 3 inch further down. the main outer belt would now be 12 inches. ( see previous diagrams on the vertical and horizontal protection modifications)

The armament would be as follows:
4x 13.5 twin turret primary arrangement, as initial, with augmented high angle to 25 degrees, and supercharged.
8x QF 6 in casemates
5x QF 4/45 twin mountings
3x octuple Vickers pom-pom 8 barrels
6x quadruple Bofor .50mm AA
6x twin Oarlikon .50mm AA
2x single oarlikon .50mmAA

Ship weight about 32500 tons, 37000 deep load; beam stays the same; draft now at 32,5, 33.5 to 34 at deep load

To be debated: airplane or not ( 60 tons extra); Where would the crane be installed; stretching of the rear and flair the forecastle, and by how much.... Deleting the bow ram?

You discuss.......
Oh, I almost forgot....Cost would be similar to the Warspite re-construction at 2,800,000 pounds....expensive....

 

[Dilandu]

And here's a sketch of the HMS Tiger with a full reconstruction; this is taken from a image I found and added my take.
( No, no airplanes ) In a re-construction, should the funds and interest have been there, I probably would have included an inner 4 in torpedo bulkhead the lenght of the bulges, with supports leading to the hull, making individual isolated compartments ( until a torpedo hit), with a more flexible alloy for shock absorbtion. the now 13 boilers would make the same 125000 SHP, but the fuel consumption would be diminished and the previous tanks would allow for greater range at a quicker 18 to 20 knot speed; a 25 knot speed would not cause excessive consumption, allowing fast escort for a long range. The new lighter bridge structure ( as in the Warspite) would help bring up the metacenter point ( roll over axis). that extra margin would be used to plate the turret magazines with a thicker protection of 5 inches.
The weight saving with the new machinery ( apprx. 1300 tons) would be used to extend the 6 inch belt down 4 feet, followed by a three inch belt of 3 inch further down. the main outer belt would now be 12 inches. ( see previous diagrams on the vertical and horizontal protection modifications)

Great work!

 

[zoeafr]

Great work!

Thanks But it loses its initial silhouette charm)

 

[zoeafr]

So, I had asked about peoples' opinion about lenghtening the ship, keeping or removing the bow ram and flairing the bow.
Here's my take on that;
Keeping the bow ram; it could be useful in pursuing U boats when and if the occasion presented itself; with 30 to 31 knots available, it is a possibility, even if remote. There are no advantages in removing it.
Flairing the bow; obviously since the british ships, especially the 20's and before front design were wet forecastle and side main decks; many stern main decks were too. By how much remains the question. would that mean lenghtening the front? Structural issues could come into play.
Lenghtening the ship; we know that the japanese navy did that on the Kongo class; I could very well imagine the lenghtening of the stern in an attempt to ease the rear tubulence of the water, especially at the higher speeds. they added some 25 feet; was that too much? was it enough? Only hydrodynamic tests would give answers to that. I believe some form of lenghtening of the stern durning a reconstruction would be a wise solution mainly because of the bulges which make the ship artificially wider. But in order not to unduly add unecessary weight and structural construction, I believe restricting the lenghtened part to the hull closest to the waterline is the more beneficial part which needs some stretching; so somewhat pointier, and sloped down toward the surface of the water wouldn't cause undue structural changes to the main deck and still provide a waterflow turbulence easing measure.

See the diagram below and write your comments....

The lighter blue parts are the inclinaison of the hull with the darker blue being more inclined.
The light brown is the extra forecastle deck because of the widening caused by the flairing.
There are also two breakwaters on each side in front of the 6 in gun casemate.

 

[Martes]

See the diagram below and write your comments....

With enough added displacement with the bulges, I think it's safe to prolong the stern in a more conventional way, it won't change much.

The ram bows were not removed from many designs starting from Dreadnought because they were considered to reduce resistance, as a form of proto-bulb, so it makes sense to keep it.

But are you sure you want to keep the casemates and place semi-open guns between the aft turrets? With Warspite-style refit it would possibly make more sense remove the 6" guns completely, enclose the casemate deck and surround the superstructure with AA and DP guns.

 

[zoeafr]

With enough added displacement with the bulges, I think it's safe to prolong the stern in a more conventional way, it won't change much.

The ram bows were not removed from many designs starting from Dreadnought because they were considered to reduce resistance, as a form of proto-bulb, so it makes sense to keep it.

But are you sure you want to keep the casemates and place semi-open guns between the aft turrets? With Warspite-style refit it would possibly make more sense remove the 6" guns completely, enclose the casemate deck and surround the superstructure with AA and DP guns.

Yes; I can visualize youridea on the stern; I just wanted to keep off any excessive weight as much as possible;Not having to reframe the rear of the main deck eliminated some unecessary work. I'm not sure about the bow ram's ability to reduce resistance since they weren't bulby enough to make a difference, but I would also keep it simply for the opportunity to ram a U boat AND not having the removal work.
About the casemates, the Warspite still had 8 of them, but you are right in removing them all together. They did that with the QE and the Valiant, so it must make sense))

 

[Martes]

I'm not sure about the bow ram's ability to reduce resistance since they weren't bulby enough to make a difference

I am not very sure of that either, but they wrote they ran experiments and found rams better in that regard - for what it's worth see The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development, 1906-1922, the question was raised during the work on the Dreadnought or very soon after, when there was a debate whether to switch to clipper bow or not.

And I am very worried about the small guns between the aft turrets. They either limit the Q turret firing arc, or they're dead metal when it fires.

 

[zoeafr]

I am not very sure of that either, but they wrote they ran experiments and found them better - for what it's worth see The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development, 1906-1922, the question was raised during the work on the Dreadnought or very soon after.

Well, I guess they knew better)) In any case, we both agre for it to stay, even if for different reasons.....
The original sketch, the superstructure has a mostly similar construction to the Warspite and I assume it would be too heavy; I have reworked it too a somewhat lighter design, since I'm a bit worried with extra top weight and the influence on the metacenter of the ship, which is already heavier........

 

[Martes]

If I recall correctly, those superstructures included removal of the original armored conning tower exactly to save weight.

 

[zoeafr]

If I recall correctly, those superstructures included removal of the original armored conning tower exactly to save weight.

Hi; yes, and they uused that weight saving on dck plating; but the newer structures were not protecting as much; it was a decision of probability too I guess...

 

[Dilandu]

If I recall correctly, those superstructures included removal of the original armored conning tower exactly to save weight

For Tiger it's not a problem, since her reconstruction into training ship would require (per London Naval Treaty terms) removal of conning towers anyway.

 

[zoeafr]

For Tiger it's not a problem, since her reconstruction into training ship would require (per London Naval Treaty terms) removal of conning towers anyway.

Yep; workmanship hours saved.....I'm debating however whether the 6 in. guns should be kept....Removing them would mean first a widened flat quarter deck, but having to do away with the twinQF4/45s' also; and replacing all that with twin QF 5.25/45s', which is a huge change, much added weight, and they were not ''on sale'', only a few were available and reserved for the KGVs'; anything smaller would make the ship vulnarable to destroyers and cruisers sneaking up close....My thoughts anyway...

 

[Martes]

As a training ship weren't they going to be removed anyway?

 

[zoeafr]

As a training ship weren't they going to be removed anyway?

No, not the secondary battery.... only the main battery was to be limited to 6 guns

 

[Martes]

anything smaller would make the ship vulnarable to destroyers and cruisers sneaking up close....My thoughts anyway...

Cruisers can certainly be dealt with the main battery, and casemates do hamper seaworthiness a lot. Otherwise it is indeed a question of weapon availability and intended tactical employment of the ship.

 

[zoeafr]

No, not the secondary battery.... only the main battery was to be limited to 6

Cruisers can certainly be dealt with the main battery, and casemates do hamper seaworthiness a lot. Otherwise it is indeed a question of weapon availability and intended tactical employment of the ship.

The problem with using the main battery against close by cruisers or destroyers is their rate of fire; at maybe 2 per minute, the ship would encounter more of the 6, or 8 inches from the cruisers, and withstand damage while trying to reload and aim, which is also slower; and with faster ships, it could get complicated.....

 

[Martes]

I'd say, if you suppose you can, follow Renown 1939 refit.

 

[zoeafr]

I'd say, if you suppose you can, follow Renown 1939 refit.

Yes, they were QF 4.5/45s', which might do the job; the idea for that was mainly to save some weight while trying to maintain some form of close encounter capability; I have thought about that for a while and it would be a solution; not the best, but to save some weight, worthy of considering....

 

[Owens Z]

As Volkodav pointed out, author Alexander Clarke has an interesting (if overlong) video on YouTube from a few months ago about a prospective plan to accompany the 1912-14 construction of battlecruiser HMS Tiger with a derived class of armored cruiser mini-Tigers bearing 9.2-inch guns; see <

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaLdj6KBZ_8
>.

 

[zoeafr]

As Volkodav pointed out, author Alexander Clarke has an interesting (if overlong) video on YouTube from a few months ago about a prospective plan to accompany the 1912-14 construction of battlecruiser HMS Tiger with a derived class of armored cruiser mini-Tigers bearing 9.2-inch guns; see <

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaLdj6KBZ_8
>.

Hi; It took a while to watch that video, and yes, it was needlessly long A few points on the host's opinions; he draws pictures of ships with a under vision of computer based warship scenarios and build ups; the one thing he doesn't bring into the picture is the U.K.s' finances after the first world war. Yes, before that war, the British Navy had pretty much the funds it needed and wanted. But they also were quite opinionated about the superiority of their fleet, driving a lot of conservatism into their development and research thnkings. After thet war, money was much tighter than before, and that is the point where I differ quite a bit from his building scenarios. That was also the main reason for the Washington treaty. Now, of course, his new type of ''battle ccruisers would have been built just before, and during the first world war, therefore before the washington treaty. But they would have been considered capital ships under the treaty's definition, and therefore part of the choices being made thereafter. If one considers that the HMS Repulse never got to a full reconstruction because of funds issues, the same went for the Malaya and the Barham to a lesser degree, I fail to see with what funds could the navy have been able to modernise its ''tiger cubs'' whichwould have had to be hacked anyway because of the treaty's maximum tonnage allowed.
As for utility, it runs along the same lines I have writen with being fast escorts for carriers and, if still alive by 43' be loaded with AA armament. On this he fails to consider the added weight which, on smaller ships would have slowed them much, and render them somewhat doubtful as to their utility, compared with heavy cruisers......
My take on that........
It doesn't judge the host on the video on his knowledge, just his opinion on that specific subject....

 

[zoeafr]

Yes, they were QF 4.5/45s', which might do the job; the idea for that was mainly to save some weight while trying to maintain some form of close encounter capability; I have thought about that for a while and it would be a solution; not the best, but to save some weight, worthy of considering....

So, in the context ofthe Tiger having been used as a training ship, and that it would be now 1936, the Navy would have wanted as many ships available at the shortest delay possible. With the limited funds which already have impacted the HMS Repulse, which only had a partial reconstruction along with the HMS Malaya, the Tiger would have to be upfitted back into combat readiness as soon as possible, with only a limited amount being spent on it so it doesn't delay the other ships ( HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth) going soon into drydock for the full reconstruction which has already been budgeted for.
The work allowed would be something like this;

reinstallation of the under main belt with extension up to the end of ''A'' barbette up front and ''X'' barbette at the rear with a uniform 6 inch cemented armor plating. this would also dip an extra 4 feet, fllowed by a 3 inch plating 4 feet wide and the length of the 6 inch one.
Reinstallation of the main outer belt, now 10 inch of cemented armor plating, and extended to the middle of ''A'' barbette in fron t and ''X'' barbette at the back
Installation of the torpedo bulges, but no inside reinforcement of the actual bulkhead as it would require a full reconstruction. The bulge are a combinaison of air/liquid system, and no steel pipe or wood shaving.
Installation of regular armor plating on top of the actual deck armor as described on the schematic drawing.
The rest of the old boilers ( 12or 13) are to be taken out, and refurbished HMS Warspite boilers (24) are to be installed in the same space of the old ones (39); the balance are to be taken out of the HMS Queen Elizabeth during her reconstruction and refurbished, then installed (15). the result should be an increase of power available of apprx. 120000 SHP. The actual funnels will be re-used since an equivalent exhaust size is needed.
The main turret will be thicker plated (see diagram) and the canon ports elongated to allow for a higher elelvation. The elevation mechanism will also be rearranged for a maximum elevation of between 25 and 30 degrees; however, the maximum loading angle will have to remain at 20 degrees due to the space available.
The maximum elevation should give a range extension of apprx. 10000 yards with double cordite charging (supercharging)
The QF 6/50 casemate guns will be reduced to 8 from 12, with the two front ones on each side being removed; it should reduce the water penetration in the front casemate, being plated over.
Those will be replaced with 5 twin QF 4/45 high angle dual purpose guns, 4 placed on the top of the casemates and one at the end of the quarter deck, giving a broadside aiming of 6on both sides.
Torpedo system, removed already will not be reinstalled.
The 4 4 inch AA canons previously installed are to be removed.
3 octuple 2 pounder Vickers anti-aircraft units will be installed, 2 on the CT bridge(1 each side) with the directors on the foretop sides. The third will be installed on ''Q'' turret.
7 quadruple Bofor .40 anti-aircraft units will be installed. 2 of them on ''B'' and ''X''turret, 4 on platforms on the side of the funnels and one on the rear funnle elevated platform.
6 twin Oerlikon .40 anti-aircraft units, with 2 on the CT deck, 2 on the bridge, and 2 at the end of the quarterdeck
The conning will be reinstalled with better armor coverage, as the exposed portions of the barbettes.
The overall cost will be between 500000 and 650000 pounds, and the ideal work time should be abour 6 months.
The changes take into account the 13.5 blast range of ''Q'' turret firing, and the different movements of the multiple derricks. some boats have been stacked as the ''supended boat'' system has been removed to allow the QF 4/45 mounts to be installed. Still no aircraft catapult; lack of available space and weight considered.

Other opinions aree welcome

 

[Owens Z]

Hi; It took a while to watch that video, and yes, it was needlessly long A few points on the host's opinions; he draws pictures of ships with a under vision of computer based warship scenarios and build ups; the one thing he doesn't bring into the picture is the U.K.s' finances after the first world war. Yes, before that war, the British Navy had pretty much the funds it needed and wanted. But they also were quite opinionated about the superiority of their fleet, driving a lot of conservatism into their development and research thnkings. After thet war, money was much tighter than before, and that is the point where I differ quite a bit from his building scenarios. That was also the main reason for the Washington treaty. Now, of course, his new type of ''battle ccruisers would have been built just before, and during the first world war, therefore before the washington treaty. But they would have been considered capital ships under the treaty's definition, and therefore part of the choices being made thereafter. If one considers that the HMS Repulse never got to a full reconstruction because of funds issues, the same went for the Malaya and the Barham to a lesser degree, I fail to see with what funds could the navy have been able to modernise its ''tiger cubs'' whichwould have had to be hacked anyway because of the treaty's maximum tonnage allowed.
As for utility, it runs along the same lines I have writen with being fast escorts for carriers and, if still alive by 43' be loaded with AA armament. On this he fails to consider the added weight which, on smaller ships would have slowed them much, and render them somewhat doubtful as to their utility, compared with heavy cruisers......
My take on that........
It doesn't judge the host on the video on his knowledge, just his opinion on that specific subject....

Yes, I don't think much of Alexander Clarke's proposal of mini-Tigers for the UK. I don't see how those would have benefitted the Royal Navy in their WW1 struggle against Germany: like the RN armored cruisers that did have the misfortune to face German 283mm and 305mm guns, they would have been sunk with great loss of life. And against the U-boat menace they would be useless.

But in the different thread "Could HMAS Australia have been saved from scrapping ?", I suggest that two or three Tiger cubs with 9.2-inch guns built postwar for the Royal Australian Navy might have been affordable and useful, and seen better service as "pocket battleships" against the eventual Japanese onslaught than one surviving Indefatigable-class battlecruiser would have.

 

[zoeafr]

Yes, I don't think much of Alexander Clarke's proposal of mini-Tigers for the UK. I don't see how those would have benefitted the Royal Navy in their WW1 struggle against Germany: like the RN armored cruisers that did have the misfortune to face German 283mm and 305mm guns, they would have been sunk with great loss of life. And against the U-boat menace they would be useless.

But in the different thread "Could HMAS Australia have been saved from scrapping ?", I suggest that two or three Tiger cubs with 9.2-inch guns built postwar for the Royal Australian Navy might have been affordable and useful, and seen better service as "pocket battleships" against the eventual Japanese onslaught than one surviving Indefatigable-class battlecruiser would have.

I agree, but what would need to be settled is the cost of such a ''tiger cub''; From what I read, the Australian government was not interested much in funding large ships for many reasons, such as the lack of seamen already trained, and the cost of maintaining a sizable ship, or ships in their fleet; from what I understand, the Royal Navy would have had to produce new shells and mountings of the type, and that would have been for only one, two or three ships; Of course the county type cruisers were not the right ships for the later war, but finances dictated the actions of the government of that time....So, in brief, what would have been the cost of such a ''Tiger cub'' compared to a county class cruiser........For the sake of the navy strength argument, anything wuld have been better than those cruisers; not that they were bad, but truly not up those the task at hand......

 

[Dilandu]

The main turret will be thicker plated (see diagram) and the canon ports elongated to allow for a higher elelvation. The elevation mechanism will also be rearranged for a maximum elevation of between 25 and 30 degrees; however, the maximum loading angle will have to remain at 20 degrees due to the space available.

I doubt it would be practical. It would require sending turrets to factories so they could be reconstructed, and it would took time and money. Just use supercharges without increasing elevation. It woud suffice.

 

[zoeafr]

I doubt it would be practical. It would require sending turrets to factories so they could be reconstructed, and it would took time and money. Just use supercharges without increasing elevation. It woud suffice.

I read something where they actually torch cut the gun enclosures of The Royal Sovereign to give it more elevation while being refit in the U.S. befre being transfered to the Russian navy; either this ship or the Ramillies...I imagine they also worked on the gun cribs, and that the whole thing was quite crude, but apparently it gave an extra 5 degrees of elelvation....

 

[Dilandu]

read something where they actually torch cut the gun enclosures of The Royal Sovereign to give it more elevation while being refit in the U.S. befre being transfered to the Russian navy; either this ship or the Ramillies...I imagine they also worked on the gun cribs, and that the whole thing was quite crude, but apparently it gave an extra 5 degrees of elelvation....

Never heard anything about that and I doubt very much it happened actually. Especially considering how many problems 15-inch turrets have on large elevation angles. The actual turret refit that such ships as QE, Valiant, Warspite and Renown were subjected in 1930s involved not only cutting larger ports, but also repositioning and raising the gun trunnions and guns themselves (as well as rebuilding the whole turret mechanics) - so they would have enough clearance to move. Without such measures, the guns would simply not have enough space inside the turret to use the larger ports.

 

[EwenS]

I read something where they actually torch cut the gun enclosures of The Royal Sovereign to give it more elevation while being refit in the U.S. befre being transfered to the Russian navy; either this ship or the Ramillies...I imagine they also worked on the gun cribs, and that the whole thing was quite crude, but apparently it gave an extra 5 degrees of elelvation....

Another persistent internet myth. There was no visible change to the gun ports on either vessel.

This was Royal Sovereign during the Spanish Civil War




And this is an official USN photo of her taken in Sept 1943 as she left Philadelphia for Norfolk and to return to Britain.



You can find a whole lot of photos of her in Sept 1943 here.

British Battleship HMS Royal Sovereign - Destination's Journey

Photos of the Revenge-class dreadnought battleship HMS Royal Sovereign of the British Royal Navy. From the first and Second World Wars

www.destinationsjourney.com

One source says that on arrival in Britain in Dec 1943, an RN report noted she had defects in her shell and cordite handling gear which made her unsuitable for use as a bombardment ship. It was decided not to repair those defects and she was reduced to Reserve at Rosyth in Feb 1944, before being transferred to the USSR on 31st May, but that is another story.

This was Ramillies in Dec 1939 in New Zealand preparing to escort a troop convoy.



And in her final form in 1944/45



By June 1944 she was only partially manned, with only enough gunnery personnel to man two of her four 15in turrets. At one point off Normandy A turret developed a fault and the crew moved to B turret.

 

[zoeafr]

Another persistent internet myth. There was no visible change to the gun ports on either vessel.

This was Royal Sovereign during the Spanish Civil War

View attachment 757344


And this is an official USN photo of her taken in Sept 1943 as she left Philadelphia for Norfolk and to return to Britain.

View attachment 757346

You can find a whole lot of photos of her in Sept 1943 here.

British Battleship HMS Royal Sovereign - Destination's Journey

Photos of the Revenge-class dreadnought battleship HMS Royal Sovereign of the British Royal Navy. From the first and Second World Wars

www.destinationsjourney.com

One source says that on arrival in Britain in Dec 1943, an RN report noted she had defects in her shell and cordite handling gear which made her unsuitable for use as a bombardment ship. It was decided not to repair those defects and she was reduced to Reserve at Rosyth in Feb 1944, before being transferred to the USSR on 31st May, but that is another story.

This was Ramillies in Dec 1939 in New Zealand preparing to escort a troop convoy.

View attachment 757347

And in her final form in 1944/45

View attachment 757349

By June 1944 she was only partially manned, with only enough gunnery personnel to man two of her four 15in turrets. At one point off Normandy A turret developed a fault and the crew moved to B turret.

Again, it is what I read; but they did go to the U.S. for a refit, and came back out with an elevation up to 25 degrees; since the visuals of the gun port doesn't seem to have alterations, maybe the ''opening up'' was simply made through the angle change in the thickness at the top of the faces; it wouldn't take much for a 5 degree additon from the base; the QEs' larger elevation works were a lot more intensive, for up to 30 degree elevation....
I'll see if I can find again it in one of my books......

 

[EwenS]

But increasing the gun elevation involved not just cutting away part of the face/ roof plates when the turrets on Warspite, QE, Valiant, Renown and Vanguard were made. That was by 10 degrees. Even 5 degrees would have needed most if not all of these works, or modifications thereof. From the Navweaps site:-

"During modernizations carried out in the 1930s, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite and Renown had their turrets lifted off the ship and sent to the Vickers-Armstrong ordnance works at Elswick for modifications to increase the maximum elevation from 20 degrees up to 30 degrees. Besides altering the elevation machinery, this was accomplished by enlarging the gun ports, raising the slide trunnions 8.75 in (22.2 cm) and moving them back 7.25 in (18.4 cm). The guns and slides were moved forward relative to the trunnions by the same amount. This change gave the necessary clearance in the gun wells but the gunloading cage rails had to be moved forward in order to reach the new breech position. There was a penalty in that a 12 ton (12.2 mt) balance weight had to be fitted to the rear collar of each gun. The elevation cylinders and elevation walking pipes also had to be redesigned to accommodate these positional changes and pneumatic run-out was fitted to eliminate the "stalling" problem at higher elevations. Sighting hoods were removed and sighting ports were added in their place, which increased the practical firing arcs. Modified mountings can be easily identified by the "hooded" armor fittings used to cover the larger gun port openings. These modified Mark I and Mark I* turrets were redesignated as Mark I/N and Mark I*/N, respectively."

The problem lies within the turret in creating the space to accomodate the rotation of the breech downwards as the gun elevates. And then you need to realign all the loading gear. These works involved the turrets being returned to the factories to be reworked. And to exploit the increased elevation thee ships received new Admiralty Fire Control Tables and DCTs.

Friedman noted Royal Sovereign's list of defects on arrival at Philadelphia was long. Note my comment about the state of her shell and cordite hoists on her return to Britain. The RN Warship History site has a further comment about that from when she arrived at Philadelphia in Oct 1942:-

"Shell and cordite handling gear from the magazines to the 15in turrets was found to be badly worn and in need of replacement but the Americans refused to carry out this work."
Given that the US would have needed to strip down the turrets to increase the elevation why would they refuse to do a proper job and fix the hoists?

The armour plates on the turret were 11-13in thick armour grade steel. Cutting any of it away would not have been an easy task to carry out in site.

Friedman notes that there was a proposal in 1940 with approval given in 1941 to modify those capital ships other than Hood and the 4 reconstructions to increase the gun elevation from 20° to 30°, install new AFCT and DCT (demand meant these wouldn't be available until 1943) and to take the new longer shells which itself involved modification of the turret machinery and strengthening the ships' structures to cope with the increased forces. Resolution was to be the lead ship for this. But due to a lack of capacity in British yards she was sent to the USA for refit instead. He notes however that the work to increase the elevation of her guns was never carried out.

Burt has details of all the various modifications carried out to these ships in wartime. The closest he gets is a note in relation to Resolution that a "Proposed increase in 15in elevation to 30° never carried out."

The RN Warship History site has a claim that Resolution had the elevation of the guns in her A & B turrets increased from 20.25° to 30.25° in a US refit in April to Sept 1941, but again the photographic evidence does not support that, and is contradicted by Friedman and Burt. She went to Reserve on her return from the Indian Ocean in Sept 1943. This is her in 1942 after a pom-pom was mounted on B turret.




After completing the refit of Royal Sovereign in Sept 1943 the USA refused to carry out any further refits on ships of this class (Friedman)

 

[zoeafr]

But increasing the gun elevation involved not just cutting away part of the face/ roof plates when the turrets on Warspite, QE, Valiant, Renown and Vanguard were made. That was by 10 degrees. Even 5 degrees would have needed most if not all of these works, or modifications thereof. From the Navweaps site:-

"During modernizations carried out in the 1930s, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite and Renown had their turrets lifted off the ship and sent to the Vickers-Armstrong ordnance works at Elswick for modifications to increase the maximum elevation from 20 degrees up to 30 degrees. Besides altering the elevation machinery, this was accomplished by enlarging the gun ports, raising the slide trunnions 8.75 in (22.2 cm) and moving them back 7.25 in (18.4 cm). The guns and slides were moved forward relative to the trunnions by the same amount. This change gave the necessary clearance in the gun wells but the gunloading cage rails had to be moved forward in order to reach the new breech position. There was a penalty in that a 12 ton (12.2 mt) balance weight had to be fitted to the rear collar of each gun. The elevation cylinders and elevation walking pipes also had to be redesigned to accommodate these positional changes and pneumatic run-out was fitted to eliminate the "stalling" problem at higher elevations. Sighting hoods were removed and sighting ports were added in their place, which increased the practical firing arcs. Modified mountings can be easily identified by the "hooded" armor fittings used to cover the larger gun port openings. These modified Mark I and Mark I* turrets were redesignated as Mark I/N and Mark I*/N, respectively."

The problem lies within the turret in creating the space to accomodate the rotation of the breech downwards as the gun elevates. And then you need to realign all the loading gear. These works involved the turrets being returned to the factories to be reworked. And to exploit the increased elevation thee ships received new Admiralty Fire Control Tables and DCTs.

Friedman noted Royal Sovereign's list of defects on arrival at Philadelphia was long. Note my comment about the state of her shell and cordite hoists on her return to Britain. The RN Warship History site has a further comment about that from when she arrived at Philadelphia in Oct 1942:-

"Shell and cordite handling gear from the magazines to the 15in turrets was found to be badly worn and in need of replacement but the Americans refused to carry out this work."
Given that the US would have needed to strip down the turrets to increase the elevation why would they refuse to do a proper job and fix the hoists?

The armour plates on the turret were 11-13in thick armour grade steel. Cutting any of it away would not have been an easy task to carry out in site.

Friedman notes that there was a proposal in 1940 with approval given in 1941 to modify those capital ships other than Hood and the 4 reconstructions to increase the gun elevation from 20° to 30°, install new AFCT and DCT (demand meant these wouldn't be available until 1943) and to take the new longer shells which itself involved modification of the turret machinery and strengthening the ships' structures to cope with the increased forces. Resolution was to be the lead ship for this. But due to a lack of capacity in British yards she was sent to the USA for refit instead. He notes however that the work to increase the elevation of her guns was never carried out.

Burt has details of all the various modifications carried out to these ships in wartime. The closest he gets is a note in relation to Resolution that a "Proposed increase in 15in elevation to 30° never carried out."

The RN Warship History site has a claim that Resolution had the elevation of the guns in her A & B turrets increased from 20.25° to 30.25° in a US refit in April to Sept 1941, but again the photographic evidence does not support that, and is contradicted by Friedman and Burt. She went to Reserve on her return from the Indian Ocean in Sept 1943. This is her in 1942 after a pom-pom was mounted on B turret.

View attachment 757361


After completing the refit of Royal Sovereign in Sept 1943 the USA refused to carry out any further refits on ships of this class (Friedman)

Yes, I was in the re-reading process of that.......But remember that 5 degrees is not 10 degrees, and not a big difference in elevation at the base; whether or not there was enough leeway for the rotation mechanism to allow for that, I have not read anything related to that. Though ''shaving'' the thickness of the top would compromise the intergity of the protection, it wouldn't be out of this world for that possibility. But I guess, in the case of the Tiger, the procedure could be removed.....

 

[Dilandu]

But I guess, in the case of the Tiger, the procedure could be removed.....

Yep. It would took a lot of time & add significantly more strain on already-overwhelmed British wartime industry. If the goal is to push the Tiger out to sea as fast as possible, no such time-consuming operations could be performed.

 

[zoeafr]

Yep. It would took a lot of time & add significantly more strain on already-overwhelmed British wartime industry. If the goal is to push the Tiger out to sea as fast as possible, no such time-consuming operations could be performed.

What else would you change?

 

[zoeafr]

What else would you change?

What would be your vision on pushing the ship out, and fitted for duty as soon as possible?

 

[Owens Z]

Hypothetically;
Tiger is transferred to the RAN as either 1) part of the WNT settlement, OR, 2) in an alt. post-LNT scenario where the escalator clause is triggered earlier than in OTL and the RN transfers Tiger to the RAN once Hood comes out of refit...
Thoughts? Anyone care to contribute?

In his different thread about a speculative post-scuttling career for battlecruiser HMAS Australia, Oberon_706 expressed interest in battlecruiser HMS Tiger, whether reconstructed or not, being transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in the 1930s as its flagship, and thereafter seeing busy service in the Indian and Pacific Oceans during WW2. As you all know, Tiger was not affected by the Washington Naval Treaty (took effect 1923), but she was selected by the British (mistakenly, in my opinion) to be scrapped after the London Naval Treaty of 1930. A transfer to Australia instead would have required some lawyerly renegotiation in London, but not impossible. A complication is that, due to the limitations of Australia's shipbuilding industry in the 1930s, even a "moderate, middle way" reconstruction of HMAS Tiger as called for in the first post of this thread would have to be accomplished outside the country.

 

[zoeafr]

In his different thread about a speculative post-scuttling career for battlecruiser HMAS Australia, Oberon_706 expressed interest in battlecruiser HMS Tiger, whether reconstructed or not, being transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in the 1930s as its flagship, and thereafter seeing busy service in the Indian and Pacific Oceans during WW2. As you all know, Tiger was not affected by the Washington Naval Treaty (took effect 1923), but she was selected by the British (mistakenly, in my opinion) to be scrapped after the London Naval Treaty of 1930. A transfer to Australia instead would have required some lawyerly renegotiation in London, but not impossible. A complication is that, due to the limitations of Australia's shipbuilding industry in the 1930s, even a "moderate, middle way" reconstruction of HMAS Tiger as called for in the first post of this thread would have to be accomplished outside the country.

In his different thread about a speculative post-scuttling career for battlecruiser HMAS Australia, Oberon_706 expressed interest in battlecruiser HMS Tiger, whether reconstructed or not, being transferred to the Royal Australian Navy in the 1930s as its flagship, and thereafter seeing busy service in the Indian and Pacific Oceans during WW2. As you all know, Tiger was not affected by the Washington Naval Treaty (took effect 1923), but she was selected by the British (mistakenly, in my opinion) to be scrapped after the London Naval Treaty of 1930. A transfer to Australia instead would have required some lawyerly renegotiation in London, but not impossible. A complication is that, due to the limitations of Australia's shipbuilding industry in the 1930s, even a "moderate, middle way" reconstruction of HMAS Tiger as called for in the first post of this thread would have to be accomplished outside the country.

From the little I read about the HMAS Australia, sending the Tiger to Australian navy would not have changed the outcome; first, the Australian government did not allow much funding for upgrades as with the HMAS Australia, and the Tiger being considered a capital ship in the overall Royal navy quotas, trying to negotiate an exemption would have been seen by the signatories as a ''work around'' the rulings; therefore each one would have tried to find other types of exemptions for themselves... Japan would have had a field day with that...It's called opening a can of worms....But, with negotiations, nothing is impossible, if far fetched.....
As far as upgrades, if the funds and the will would have been there, the west coast of the U.S. could have provided a good place for that....