A Different War - Alternate WNT Scenario Discussion

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Which is why I didn't quite understand yours and Kereguelen's previous posts, but that's neither here nor there. My point was that the Japs had decided on war before Prince of Wales and Repulse steamed into Singapore, so the time for "show of force" was looooooong past.

Which I think the Admiralty had recognized, and Churchill had not---he had actually been quite dismissive of war planning against Japan in the 1920s. So it actually sounds like we both agree!

Anyway, ships.

[Terminus]

Yah, ships. I'm not familiar with the J3 class; got any more specific info on them?

[JuanG]

The J3 point sound interesting....with new 15in guns, and the K2/3 design for the remaining tonnage, the RN would be standardized completely on a 15in main battery, meaning the new construction in the late 30s would almost certainly be using 15in too.

I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

I would also appreciate more info if you have it, otherwise I'll have to wait till next later this week to get my hands on some proper refence materials.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

The J3 point sound interesting....with new 15in guns, and the K2/3 design for the remaining tonnage, the RN would be standardized completely on a 15in main battery, meaning the new construction in the late 30s would almost certainly be using 15in too.

I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

I would also appreciate more info if you have it, otherwise I'll have to wait till next later this week to get my hands on some proper refence materials.

Happy to help!

The J3 would have been 810 feet long pp, 860 pp, with a beam of 104 feet. Her maximum draught was 30 ft. Estimated displacement was 43,100 tons. She was to have generated 151,000 shp for 32 knots, with 3895 tons of fuel. Armament was to have been 9 x 15-inch (3 x triple turrets, two forwards, one aft), 16 x 6-inch (presumably though not explicitly stated to be in eight twin mountings), 6 x 4.7-inch (in six single HA mountings), and four pom-poms. As designed, they were to have two torpedo tubes.

Armor belt was 12 inches with 12-inch bulkheads, 12-inch turret barbettes, and 15-inch turret facings with 12-inch sides and 8-inch roofs. Conning tower was to be armored, with 10, 12, and 15 inch plating, depending on the area, and an 8-inch thick armored roof. Deck armor was between 1.25-4 inches thick.

British Battleships of WWII has a sketch on p/ 96; she looks a little like Renown, with a smaller superstructure.

Any use?

[Terminus]

You don't think the 6-inchers would have been casemated? When was the J3 designed?

[ny59giants]

It was always my impression that Churchill bullied the Admiralty to deploy the tiny Force Z, under the delusion that it would be enough to deter Jap aggression. It certainly wouldn't be the first time he did something like that. Suppose I could be wrong.

I didn't realize how much influence he had after WW I on the make up of the Middle East, for better or worse. I just finished a book about the Middle East and how it changed from WW I to present and his role in parts of it.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

ORIGINAL: JuanG

The J3 point sound interesting....with new 15in guns, and the K2/3 design for the remaining tonnage, the RN would be standardized completely on a 15in main battery, meaning the new construction in the late 30s would almost certainly be using 15in too.

I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

I would also appreciate more info if you have it, otherwise I'll have to wait till next later this week to get my hands on some proper refence materials.

Happy to help!

The J3 would have been 810 feet long pp, 860 pp, with a beam of 104 feet. Her maximum draught was 30 ft. Estimated displacement was 43,100 tons. She was to have generated 151,000 shp for 32 knots, with 3895 tons of fuel. Armament was to have been 9 x 15-inch (3 x triple turrets, two forwards, one aft), 16 x 6-inch (presumably though not explicitly stated to be in eight twin mountings), 6 x 4.7-inch (in six single HA mountings), and four pom-poms. As designed, they were to have two torpedo tubes.

Armor belt was 12 inches with 12-inch bulkheads, 12-inch turret barbettes, and 15-inch turret facings with 12-inch sides and 8-inch roofs. Conning tower was to be armored, with 10, 12, and 15 inch plating, depending on the area, and an 8-inch thick armored roof. Deck armor was between 1.25-4 inches thick.

British Battleships of WWII has a sketch on p/ 96; she looks a little like Renown, with a smaller superstructure.

Any use?

Thank you very much. As I said I'll get my hands on that book later this week, but that gives a good overview for now.

Were the 15in to be of a new design or of the same 15in/42 Mk I as in the preceding ships?

Any idea on the range with that bunkerage?

Are the secondaries arranged on the sides all at deck level, or are the center ones superfiring over the extreme ones?

You don't think the 6-inchers would have been casemated? When was the J3 designed?

Given that almost all of the contemporary designs to the G3/N3 ect including the Nelsons featured turreted secondaries, I dont find this at all strange.



Anyone have anything else to add with regards to the original questions? #3 in particular has me wondering. If the USN does mount a 16in/50 on the treaty BBs, do the escalator clause BBs get a 16in/52 or 16in/55? Would there even be an Iowa-like fast BB with the two Lexingtons in service as carrier escorts?

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I dont see the RN scrapping the Revenges though, at most they would be placed into a reserve squadron like the older dreadnoughts in WWI. I can definately see them having lower priority for refits and rebuilds than the other ships though. And if the RN is prepared to go with a 9x15 design for the KGV equivalent in 1936, they could easily have 3-4 in service by 1939/1940.

My understanding is that the turret issues with the KGVs delayed them about nine months in the design and ordering phase; this would likely mean the first three would have been in a position to complete by early-mid 1940, if you don't assume that time was saved by not dickering over the guns and mountings to be used to begin with---my feeling is that KGV could have been ready by the end of 1939 in this scenario.

This also means that Anson and Howe could have gone to sea with their original names: Jellicoe and Beatty.

[Terminus]

Well, if the J3 is contemporary with G3, N3 and the other -3s, then obviously, this is true.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You don't think the 6-inchers would have been casemated? When was the J3 designed?

1923, but as both the G3 and the Nelsons were contemporary designs, and their 6-inchers were in twin turrets, it seems quite plausible to me. The RN had developed a low opinion of casemates during the Great War.

Were the 15in to be of a new design or of the same 15in/42 Mk I as in the preceding ships?

A new 15-inch 50 caliber gun firing either a 1690-lb or a 1920-lb shell. The hope was that it could penetrate 15-inch side armor or 7-inch deck armor, and elevation was to be 40 or 45 degrees.

Any idea on the range with that bunkerage?

Supposedly 7,000 nm at 16 knots.

Are the secondaries arranged on the sides all at deck level, or are the center ones superfiring over the extreme ones?

Four turrets (three to a side) appear to be forward and immediately abaft B turret, all at deck level, with four more (two to a side) amidships and one deck higher, with a pretty clear field of fire aft. It's hard to tell, because only the main turrets and general superstructure is shown in the sketch.

[HMS Resolution]

Here.

[HMS Resolution]

And here.

[JuanG]

Thanks for the sketches - nice looking ship.

I really wonder exactly what the arrangement might have been - clearly the +'s are for both the 4.7in and 6in guns.

Wonder what she would have looked like in 41 if she had gotten some yard time...


Interesting to hear they were going for a 15in/50 - Ill have to run some numbers on that, but it should be a pretty formidable weapon even with the same shells as the 15in/42.

[Terminus]

Never heard of a 15in/50. I thought they never went higher than a 15in/45.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Never heard of a 15in/50. I thought they never went higher than a 15in/45.

It was to be a new weapon, but it was never built.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Never heard of a 15in/50. I thought they never went higher than a 15in/45.

Well, from what Resolution said it seems they might have. As I dont have the source materials I cant confirm this for myself, but it would be an interesting shift. We know the 15in considered for the KGVs was a 45cal one, but maybe one of these obscure designs did plan to use something longer.

[HMS Resolution]

With the extra two 8-inch cruisers, will the British be building Surrey and Northumberland from the 1928 programme?
 
A few more thoughts on the development of WWII with such fast ships in the Royal Navy:
 
The British had a problem in the Mediterranean in that their ships weren't fast enough to catch up to the Italians, and so the Regina Marina's big ships could have as much or as little of the war as they liked. If Invincible and Indomitable went to Cunningham in 1940, he might have been able to force a far more decisive gun action, freeing up the three modernized Queen Elizabeths for the Eastern Fleet. The three older battlecruisers could have been retained in Home Waters for dealing with the pocket battleships, along with the KGVs for Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Rs could have then been used as convoy escorts in the Atlantic---maybe coming to the Eastern Fleet later in the war as a bombardment squadron for the Burma coast or the invasion of Japan.
 
Alternately, with newer ships, the RN might never have had the resources or the money to do more than cursory Barham and Malaya style renovations to the Queen Elizabeths. If this was the case, the British would have preferred not to send them if they could avoid it. (CAB 66/6/25, "Comparison of British and Japanese Fleets" is an interesting War Cabinet paper on the subject of the Eastern Fleet written in 1940, and it can be downloaded for free from the National Archives, or if you like, I can email you my PDF of it.)
 
 

[Terminus]

Always liked the Surrey. Put her in my own mod.

About the Barham and the Malaya; it sounds to me that this scenario might push them even further back in the queue for refit and refurbishment. Limited dockyard space and all that.

[HMS Resolution]

I'm inclined to agree; this would also mean that the R-class (well, Resolution, really) would not have had catapults or aircraft facilities, since those refits would probably never have been performed.

[Akos Gergely]

For Q #3: I don't think they would have gone to higher caliber length. The bored down 18"/48 Mark 1 was tested as 16"/56 Mark 4 in reality and it was found that barrel wear was extremely excessive (125 rounds only vs. double the amount in normal 50 cal length) and deck penetration suffered a lot which was just becoming important. On the other hand it was pretty much a killer weapon with very flat trajectories and awesome ranges (approaching 50kyards!!! at 40 degs elevation).

Made a little comparison table for all the british designs for easier reference:

RN WT Cherrytrees