• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

G3 Battle Cruiser and N3 Battleship

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Another suggestion is that they were to be another "Admiral" class and carry the names HMS Nelson, HMS Rodney, HMS Anson, and HMS Howe.
That is a direct quote from Wiki, and so far as I am aware, is a suggestion made only on Wiki recently, apart from http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=35041
For Anson look through all the posts until near the bottom.
This is how rumours get started.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
221
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
smurf said:
Another suggestion is that they were to be another "Admiral" class and carry the names HMS Nelson, HMS Rodney, HMS Anson, and HMS Howe.
That is a direct quote from Wiki, and so far as I am aware, is a suggestion made only on Wiki recently, apart from http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=35041
For Anson look through all the posts until near the bottom.
This is how rumours get started.
Another example that information written on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. It appears that model builder Alex McFadian's choice of naming his G3 battlecruiser model HMS Anson has led to speculation that the other members of the G3 battlecruiser class might have been named for Royal Navy admirals and influenced the recent edits to the Wikipedia article.

Although it should be pointed out that HMS Hood's cancelled sister ships were named HMS Howe, HMS Rodney, and HMS Anson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_class_battlecruiser

The speculative names HMS Invincible, HMS Indomitable, HMS Inflexible and HMS Indefatigable appear to have been taken from Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 by Siegfried Beyer (Doubleday and Company; Garden City, New York, 1973).
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
20
red admiral said:
Firefly, the midships turret enabled the armoured length to be reduced, saving weight, which meant that thicker armour could be used. Room for engines and turbines on G3 was also a concern. In the 30s with advances in making boilers/turbines smaller they reverted to the conventional ABX arrangement.
What advances in machinery were made in the 30's to allow that change?
 

Imber

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Firt time post but a long term watcher.

Another example that information written on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. It appears that model builder Alex McFadian's choice of naming his G3 battlecruiser model HMS Anson has led to speculation that the other members of the G3 battlecruiser class might have been named for Royal Navy admirals and influenced the recent edits to the Wikipedia article.
Might have some information to clarify this.

As a teenager in the late 60's / 70's went through the Airfix 1/600 range building up the inevitable fleet of WWII capital ships. At one point my father presented me with his Daily Telegrapph Royal Navy Fleet poster of WWII. I think is was from 1940 as Royal Oak was not featured.

It was dog eared even then and flaky where folded, when opened it was about 36 x 24''. I still have it in an attic somewhere but after four housemoves exactly where is a bit flaky.

All the main capital ships were drawn in detail, black on grey on a blue brackground, with the lesser classes represented as escourts around the fringes with the numbers in class. The fleet was positioned as if on manoeuvre as a single unit.

The KGV class was there, about four rows back, and, at the end were Anson and Rowe as larger versions with triple turrets but reduced by perspective so detail was a litle fuzzy.

Also remember it was in the 1940's so civilian morale and disinformation was important, perhaps it was important to let people beleive in them even if they weren't in the build program.
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
563
Reaction score
16
What advances in machinery were made in the 30's to allow that change?
Nothing radical so far as I'm aware, just incremental improvements over time. I seem to remember reading that the new better boilers/turbines were developed around 1930 and first went into the rebuilt QEs.

I'd be wary of the stats and picture from Conways as posted by Triton above. The sketches from Raven and Roberts are probably better. I never got around to the full stats on G3, I'll have to get on that.
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
The KGV class was there, about four rows back, and, at the end were Anson and Rowe as larger versions with triple turrets but reduced by perspective so detail was a litle fuzzy.

Also remember it was in the 1940's so civilian morale and disinformation was important, perhaps it was important to let people beleive in them even if they weren't in the build program.
Anson and Howe were under construction at the time and as KGV class ships had the same 10 x 14" (2x4 1x2) as the others.

I suspect that the publishers were told or discovered that the Lion class ships which were being (or about to be) laid down would have 9 x 16" (3x3) and so they put two and two together and came up with 5!
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Another example that information written on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. It appears that model builder Alex McFadian's choice of naming his G3 battlecruiser model HMS Anson has led to speculation that the other members of the G3 battlecruiser class might have been named for Royal Navy admirals and influenced the recent edits to the Wikipedia article.

The speculative names HMS Invincible, HMS Indomitable, HMS Inflexible and HMS Indefatigable appear to have been taken from Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970 by Siegfried Beyer (Doubleday and Company; Garden City, New York, 1973).
As you say that is how rumours start!

The first reference I saw to the 'I' names was in Oscar Parkes British Battleships (Seely Service & Co. 1957):-

"It was generally understood that they would perpetuate the four 'I' names of our first battlecruisers, but these(sic) were never officially given them, and they were just known by their numbers"

(The numbers he refers to I believe are the ones on the building contracts 1-4. I forget which yard was allocated which number)

Parkes was in British Naval intelligence in WW1 and from 1920-1935 was editor of Janes Fighting Ships so I guess he probably knew plenty of people 'in the know'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2025887/?page=1
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
What advances in machinery were made in the 30's to allow that change?
The best comparison is probably between the G3's and KGV's as they were both fast and therefore higher powered designs unlike Nelson/Rodney.

G3 boiler rooms 9150 sq. ft. enginerooms 8370 sq. ft. - total 17520 sq. ft. - 160,000 shp. = 9.13hp/sq. ft.

KGV boiler rooms 4400 sq. ft. enginerooms 4524 sq. ft. - (8924 sq. ft + harbour machinery room 1144 sq. ft.) total 10068 sq. ft. - 130,000 shp. = 12.91 hp/sq. ft.

The plant in the G3's was designed to work at 250 psi with little or no superheat, the KGV's were designed for 400 psi and moderate superheat.
(Though as Campbell said the enginerooms of the G3's were larger than necessary. I think they could have been made 20-25 feet shorter saving roughly 1000-1500 sq. ft. !!!!)

Saving 40% in floor area means a substantial saving in deck armour and a lesser saving in belt armour and torpedo protection, so the hull can be made smaller or can carry more/bigger weapons.

If the RN had carried on with the development of higher steam conditions and superheat in the 1920's maybe they could have built the Lion class within the 35,000 ton limit?
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
If the G3's had been built how would they have been refitted/reconstructed during WWII.

Given the historic AAA additions to actual ships where would any such mounts be fitted, the only positions that seem viable fwd are the turret tops of B and Q(?) turrets, although aft a veritable forest of AAA could be fitted.

Regards.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,034
Reaction score
205
AKS said:
(Though as Campbell said the enginerooms of the G3's were larger than necessary. I think they could have been made 20-25 feet shorter saving roughly 1000-1500 sq. ft. !!!!)
Maybe the designers were making provision for a later conversion to a turboelectric system?
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Grey Havoc said:
Maybe the designers were making provision for a later conversion to a turboelectric system?
No! :) I'm sure I saw a contemporary comment about turbo-electric propulsion for these ships. (Can't remember where at the moment but I think maybe it was in the Warship Vol. 1 article.) The upshot was that it would involve a larger volume, weight, greater cost and no particular advantage in reliability. Do some reading on the US Lexington and Saratoga especially re. action damage and you will see that this is a fair assessment in the 1920's.
The RN considered turbo-electric propulsion many times in warship design and each time came to the same conclusion. Only on a few warship types did they decide that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

It's difficult to work out from the available documents the reasoning why the Engineer in Chief insisted on such relatively large engineroom spaces for the G3's but it's almost like he was working to some sort of formula. I guess he was looking at access for maintenance.
For what ever reason it is possible that as much as 3000 tons could have been saved from the displacement or used to increase the armour protection if they had used a ratio of volume/hp similar to HMS Emerald as the DNC had planned.
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
JohnR said:
If the G3's had been built how would they have been refitted/reconstructed during WWII.

Given the historic AAA additions to actual ships where would any such mounts be fitted, the only positions that seem viable fwd are the turret tops of B and Q(?) turrets, although aft a veritable forest of AAA could be fitted.
When thinking of reconstruction and/or refits I work on what happened to Nelson/Rodney. ie not much!
Nelson did have 20mm mounts fitted on top of the conning tower in place of the armoured rangefinder hood.

If time and money had been available I guess they would have roughly the same work done as Renown plus a few of the things planned for Nelson/Rodney.
New boilers/engines/auxilaries. Lighter in weight and better endurance, plus allowing better subdivision, additional fuel stowage and magazine spaces. The funnels would probably have ended up a little further aft as a result. (Renown)
New fire control + radar. (Renown)
New heavyweight 16" & 6" shells. (Maybe)
Addition to bottom of main belt to deflect shells outward (Nelson/Rodney)
Armour added to lower deck forward. (Nelson)
Aircraft facilities (Not sure how or if they would do this).
Maybe the 4.7" guns would have been removed and replaced with twin 4".
Pom-poms later replaced with 40mm Bofors.
Lots of 20mm fitted as the war progressed.
Maybe the torpedo tubes would have been removed. (Never worked out what use they were in a battleship/battlecruiser designed to fight at medium/long range!)
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know where I can find a set of plans for the g-3 battle cruiser? I am contemplating scratch building a 1/200 scale model of it.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
100
AKS said:
When thinking of reconstruction and/or refits I work on what happened to Nelson/Rodney. ie not much!
Nelson did have 20mm mounts fitted on top of the conning tower in place of the armoured rangefinder hood.
Actually it had been planned to perform much more substantial upgrades to Rodney and Nelson but the outbreak of war got in the way. The consensus was that the best approach was a one-for-one replacement of the 6" gun turrets with 5.25" weapons, new machinery for an extra 2 knots and some minor armour improvements.

A G3 would actually have quite a bit of scope for improvement in a 1940s rebuild, the 16x 6" could become 16x5.25" removing the need for the 4.7" and freeing up space for additional light weapons. Also, the design was at the limits of its hydrodynamic performance so more power was not necessary thus machinery improvements could be used solely to increase fuel efficiency (thus extending range) and saving weight for additional protection- beyond the substantial amount already fitted.
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
I have always considered that the G3's could have had a massive light AAA battery aft; dependent on any provision for aircraft. However it would have been very difficult to place AAA mounts forward due to the blast effect of the main guns. The only suitable location in my opinion would have been on the roofs of B and P/Q turrets (never have know the designation of the mid ship turret I've seen it designated as both).

Regards.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Nick Sumner said:
chuck4 said:
Does anyone know where I can find a set of plans for the g-3 battle cruiser? I am contemplating scratch building a 1/200 scale model of it.
Have you seen this?

http://wmunderway.8m.com/gallery59/gallery59.htm

Yes, I've seen photos of that model. Thanks. Since November, trumpeter has announced a 1/200 Nelson/Rodney. I expect that kit would provide many useful parts, such as deck furniture, the gun turrets and mounts, main bridge tower, and tripod mast, but I still need a dimensionally accurate set of drawings for the hull and basic superstructure plans.
 

Nick Sumner

Yabba dabba DOOOOOM!
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
448
Reaction score
21
chuck4 said:
Nick Sumner said:
chuck4 said:
Does anyone know where I can find a set of plans for the g-3 battle cruiser? I am contemplating scratch building a 1/200 scale model of it.
Have you seen this?

http://wmunderway.8m.com/gallery59/gallery59.htm

Yes, I've seen photos of that model. Thanks. Since November, trumpeter has announced a 1/200 Nelson/Rodney. I expect that kit would provide many useful parts, such as deck furniture, the gun turrets and mounts, main bridge tower, and tripod mast, but I still need a dimensionally accurate set of drawings for the hull and basic superstructure plans.
Your best bet is the ships plans section of the NMM at Greenwich.

http://www.rmg.co.uk/researchers/collections/by-type/ship-plans

There will be a charge but talk to Andrew Choong if he's not too busy, great bloke and incredibly knowledgeable.
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
chuck4 said:
Does anyone know where I can find a set of plans for the g-3 battle cruiser? I am contemplating scratch building a 1/200 scale model of it.
In the hope you are still looking in sometimes Chuck.

I'm afaraid the ONLY plans I ever found for the G3's are the official ones held at the National Maritime Museum.
They are actually at the Brass Foundry at Woolwich and at around 10 feet long and in colour they are a fine example of the draughtsmans art.

I hate to think what it would cost to get a copy these days - especially as I think they will still only supply full sized copies which would possibly make the price something like £50 or more per sheet!

I bought my set 25 years ago and you could get them at a reduced size in those days which reduced to cost substantially - it was still £160!
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
JFC Fuller said:
Actually it had been planned to perform much more substantial upgrades to Rodney and Nelson but the outbreak of war got in the way. The consensus was that the best approach was a one-for-one replacement of the 6" gun turrets with 5.25" weapons, new machinery for an extra 2 knots and some minor armour improvements.

A G3 would actually have quite a bit of scope for improvement in a 1940s rebuild, the 16x 6" could become 16x5.25" removing the need for the 4.7" and freeing up space for additional light weapons. Also, the design was at the limits of its hydrodynamic performance so more power was not necessary thus machinery improvements could be used solely to increase fuel efficiency (thus extending range) and saving weight for additional protection- beyond the substantial amount already fitted.
I have seen the dates for the reconstruction program somewhere which went on to the Hood in 1941-3 and I think it was the Malaya next in 1942.
Rodney probably would have followed around the time the last of the KGV class was in service and the R class would have been scrapped at the same time.
So that would be 1943-4 for Rodney (she was considered to be a dog in 1939!) so similarly the first of the G3s.


I doubt they would have tried to get any more speed out of them. To go from 32 knots (if they ever did make that!) to 34 knots requires a power increase of 20%, 160,000 to 192,000 shp.
In the case of the Renown they wanted a little extra speed to make sure she could keep up with the new aircraft carriers which she was intended to ride shotgun over, hence fitting the same 4.5” DP guns. I think it more likely they would have aimed for the same 160,000 shp output and figured anything extra would be a bonus.


I’m sure they would have concentrated on improved the subdivision and improve the ammunition stowage as in the original design space was tight for the this especially the 6" guns.
The ships covers indicate what a balancing act the whole design was.
I have always wished there was an N3 cover - I've spent hours trying to work out how to get 18" turrets into a shortened G3.
In fact it was so tight I think that the DNC might have finally won the battle to get rid of the torpedo tubes!

For the replacement of the engines/boilers look at what they did to Renown when when they reconstructed her. They left the bulkhead between the Boiler rooms and Engine rooms where it was.
Bearing in mind Renown had bulky large tube boilers originally - not the more compact small tube ones like Hood & the G3s.

They fitted the more compact boilers forward of this bulkhead so leaving more space at the forward end.
There would not be such a saving in length as Renown but it would have left enough room to fit magazines suitable for AA weapons like 4"guns? or pom-poms - later converted to 20mm/40mm stowage?


Due to the large engine rooms aft of this bulkhead - the new ones could have been around 20% smaller!
Vanguard had 130,000 shp - to get 160,000 I figure adding about 3-4 feet to the length of each of her engine rooms would be about right.
That moves the after end of the engine rooms forward roughly 14-15 feet adding about 20% to the volume of the after magazines.
Plus the new engine rooms could have been about 5 feet further inboard.

If the gun makers could have built enough guns then yes I'm sure they would have converted them to 16 x 5.25" maybe even 20 x 5.25".
They could easily have fitted 3 turrets each side aft and there would have been sufficient ammunition stowage with the enlarged magazines and change to single calbre DP guns.
They would not have done it forward as the (old) 6" magazines were too small anyway - see the G3 covers for the comments.
Getting rid of the 6" & 4.7" guns would have freed up deck space for at least a couple more pom-pom mounts, though by 1943 I'm sure the pom-pom would have been on the way out.
Instead they could have fitted a forrest of 20 & 40mm mounts.

It's had to know what the total weight saving would have been, but throwing out the old boilers/engines could have been as much as 2000 tons! The 6" & 4.7" guns maybe another 500 tons.


What would they have done with the weight? Easy! Exactly as Nelson - an armoured deck forward and extensions to the lower edge of the main belt.
Comments were often made about doing this in Nelson and Rodney prior to WW2.


Now with new fire control and the ammunition supply arrangements for the 16" turrets made to work properly the Bismark would have been toast!
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
204
Reaction score
5
.


Both Nelson and Warspite were intended to (and were booked up for) extensive refits in the USA in 1943.


Warspite was to get a general refit and in addition an extra four number twin 4-inch turrets (making a total of 8) and 4 number Mark VI directors, a couple of extra quad pom-poms (on B- and X-turrets) and a couple of new quad US bofors.


Nelson, likewise was to get a general refit and a complete replacement of her secondary and AA armament with US weapons. She would have Mark 37 directors and twin 5-inch turrets (a US sources states eight in number).


.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
100
ADM 1/15437 may be of interest, I haven't seen it yet (yesterdays trip concerned Renown's status/plans in 1945) but its listed as "Future of HM Ships NELSON and RODNEY" and dated 1943.

Nelson got one last big refit prior to going to the East Indies (IIRC in the US) and emerged with 4 quad bofors (one on either beam and two in place of the armoured hood) in addition to her octuple pom-poms. She also got masses of 20mm with gun shields.

There are vague references to at least a desire to either rearm or modernise Rodney in 1945 though I doubt even much in the way of even thinking about what should be done to her was undertaken- she does not seem to have even been considered (in 1945) for Far East service.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
710
Reaction score
188
From British Battleships 1919-1945 by R. A. Burt:



Also for HMS Hood:


 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
phil gollin said:
Nelson, likewise was to get a general refit and a complete replacement of her secondary and AA armament with US weapons. She would have Mark 37 directors and twin 5-inch turrets (a US sources states eight in number).
The original 5" gun conversions were planned and/or completed prior to the US entry into the war.

From early 1942 the US started to rapidly expand their navy, requiring large numbers of 5" guns an Mk.37 directors.
Any fits to RN warships probably used equipment already promised and/or being manufactured.

The one surprise is that the Mk. 37 directors were still supplied although in dribs and drabs.
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
204
Reaction score
5
.


No.


The pre-war proposals were for using 5.25-inch guns. In 1942 the US agreed to fully refit Warspite and Nelson (Warspite with extra 4-inch twins and Nelson with US 5-inch). These refits were planned and designed at BAD(W) (British Admiralty Delegation (Washington)).


The two are totally different, although I am sure that the BAD(W) designs used lots of earlier design ideas, but as nothing (??????) remains of the BAD(W) designs other than the very basic, we don't know.


I have a vague hope that Friedman MIGHT have dug out something on the BAD(W) designs from the US archives for his battleship book due out at the end of the month, but I doubt that he has.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
26
D.K. Brown's "Nelson to Vanguard" has some good information on both the proposed Hood and Nelson/Rodney pre-war modernisations. Hood is as described above (new tower, new machinery, eight x twin 5.25", six x pompoms, transverse fixed catapult, etc.) but there was some serious doubts about whether the already over-loaded Hood could take it all. For the Nelson class there were three modernisation proposals all with removal of the 4.7" and 6" guns. One would have seen eight x twin 5.25", two x pompoms and a catapult on the middle 16" turret (X) with hangars either side of the barbette. Second had 10 x twin 4.5" two x pompoms and the catapult and hangars aft on the shelter deck. The third proposal had six x twin 5.25" (maybe in the 6" turret barbettes?), two x pompoms and catapul and hangar as proposal one (on and beside the X turret).
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
710
Reaction score
188
At the old Warship Projects forum which is now dead, there were drawings posted showing the Nelson with these kind of changes you described above. Sadly I did not save them nor I can find them again :(
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
100
Yup. IIRC the best source for NelRod was/is Man o' War 3: Battleships Rodney & Nelson by Alan Raven & John Roberts. I have a copy at another location but won't be there for while.

The loss of the Never Were Warships forum was terrible, we had some really great content there.
 

SlickDriver

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
I have Man 'O War 3 that I have scanned. I can PM parts if anybody needs something from there.
 

AKS

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
phil gollin said:
In 1942 the US agreed to fully refit Warspite and Nelson (Warspite with extra 4-inch twins and Nelson with US 5-inch). These refits were planned and designed at BAD(W) (British Admiralty Delegation (Washington)).
Interesting - I knew about Warspite but did not know about the proposal for Nelson.
I was thinking of the older D & F class cruisers several of which were fitted with US 5" guns and fire control.

I can see why Nelson was not done.

The conversion would have taken at least 6 months, probably more and both the US and UK were short of battleships until mid 1943.
After that the Italians were finished and the UK only had a few large German ships to worry about. The US of course was concentrating on carriers.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
100
Neither ship was done because the US basically told the Brits to get lost. The US could not see why it's yard capacity should be used undertaking refits on elderly UK battleships.
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
204
Reaction score
5
.


Yes. Starting in 1943 (arguably since the beginning of the war) the USA was in an economic war with the UK, using the war to gain commercial advantage. Things got really ridiculous in December 1944 when lend-lease got a major cut back.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
755
Reaction score
91
phil gollin said:
.


Yes. Starting in 1943 (arguably since the beginning of the war) the USA was in an economic war with the UK, using the war to gain commercial advantage. Things got really ridiculous in December 1944 when lend-lease got a major cut back.
Don't see the link to your statements ("economic war" a very over-blown description for the US looking to somewhat scale back their subsidization of the UK when the end of the European War was in sight) to the preceding comments above.

The reducing need for / utility of such refits (in US yards, presumably after use in D-Day bombardments) meant their cancellation were entirely logical; events before and after proved that such refits would have been a waste of US and/or UK resources.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
100
There are documents on this in the UK archives and the message was clear, the US did not believe it could justify performing such work on UK ships given the existing strains on its own shipyard capacity (particular reference is made electrical engineers). The documents also refer to a policy in the US at this time that limited battleship work to what could be done during normal refits/battle damage repairs, what was wanted in the Nelson/Warspite rebuilds was clearly beyond this.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
26
phil gollin said:
.


Yes. Starting in 1943 (arguably since the beginning of the war) the USA was in an economic war with the UK, using the war to gain commercial advantage. Things got really ridiculous in December 1944 when lend-lease got a major cut back.
WTF? Its going off topic but the idea the US was out to get the UK is a bit rich. The UK suffered two major financial blows in WWII, both caused by the Japanese. That is their attack and their surrender. The capturing of Malaya, the most profitable British colony before and after the war, was a huge blow to British accounts with the USA. Also the rapid and unexpected surrender of the Japanese a year or so before the war's predicted schedule saw the immediate termination of Lend-Lease. This was a major blow because the planed weaning of the economy off American free stuff had not had the time that everyone thought they had to be put into place.

If the USA really wanted to wage an economic war with the UK then they would have stuck to their original neutrality laws and prohibited warlike trade to all belligerents. Which at the time also prohibited trade to countries that had been attacked! In this case the UK would have still won the war and even beaten Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia fighting together as an alliance. The British financial, technological, imperial and global trade base were still stronger than all these powers put together. It just would have taken a few more years and REALLY bankrupted the UK.

So instead of post war "austerity" and the reduction of the wealth gap between the British and the rest of the would via the rest of the world catching up you would have had a post war British military superpower with physical control over 2/3s of the world with an impoverished homeland as poor as the rest of the world but remembering when they used to be much richer. What would have happened then would probably have been the exact opposite of our post war history.
 

phil gollin

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
204
Reaction score
5
No the big restriction in Lend-Lease started at Christmas 1944 - this, together with various other economic measures such as the initial failure of the US to help in feeding liberated Western Europe meant that parts of inner city UK started showing signs of malnutrition at the end of winter 1945.
 

Nick Sumner

Yabba dabba DOOOOOM!
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
448
Reaction score
21
The issue of the USA's policies with regards to the British is a complex and potentially contentious one. It is a subject best approached with great caution. I do not want to start an Anglo American flame war on this board! Lend Lease was dollar diplomacy. The administration of L-L to Britain can be contrasted unfavourably with that of L-L to the Soviet Union. The Americans meddled in many aspects of the British economy, insisting on audits and on the British paying for all that they could even while the war was on. Their actions limited and reduced the overall size of the British economy, the British resented this though permitted the situation to continue because they had no other choice. Churchill famously remarked “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” This was in stark contrast to the approach to the Soviets; when Lend Lease started to Russia the same form of administrative control was suggested to Stalin. It was rudely rebuffed, Stalin’s position being that “We will fight the Nazis whether you help us or not.”

Critiscising the administration of lend – lease is not difficult but any critiscism must be seen in context. Lend-Lease was the brain child of Roosevelt, however it was administered by accountants who were charged with preserving the economic health of the United States, NOT that of Britain. Furthermore it was seen by Harry Dexter White (One of the senior economists in the US Treasury and Morganthau’s right hand man) as a lever to reduce British economic power. White was anti British, a utopian and a closet communist who spied for the Soviet Union. Many in the US government also firmly believed that the British Empire would be a more direct threat to world peace post war than the Soviet Union, in consequence, reducing British power was a policy goal of the US administration and Ameican aid to Britain was used to pursue that goal.

(One of the great differences between US and British government. British government is top down. Policy is set at the highest level, then implemented. In the US policy is modified by every layer of government through which it passes.)

Some books that I have found insightful from the British perspective are the supplements to the Official History of the Second World War;

British War Economy, K.Hancock & M. Gowing
British War Production M.M. Postan & D. Hay
Financial Policy 1939-45, R.S. Sayers
North American Supply, H. Duncan Hall

And

British Imperialism 1688 -2000, PJ Cain and AG Hopkins (The best economic history of Britain that I know of)
The Battle of Breton Woods, B Steil
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
755
Reaction score
91
Nick Sumner said:
The issue of the USA's policies with regards to the British is a complex and potentially contentious one. It is a subject best approached with great caution. I do not want to start an Anglo American flame war on this board! Lend Lease was dollar diplomacy. The administration of L-L to Britain can be contrasted unfavourably with that of L-L to the Soviet Union. The Americans meddled in many aspects of the British economy, insisting on audits and on the British paying for all that they could even while the war was on. Their actions limited and reduced the overall size of the British economy, the British resented this though permitted the situation to continue because they had no other choice. Churchill famously remarked “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” This was in stark contrast to the approach to the Soviets; when Lend Lease started to Russia the same form of administrative control was suggested to Stalin. It was rudely rebuffed, Stalin’s position being that “We will fight the Nazis whether you help us or not.”

Critiscising the administration of lend – lease is not difficult but any critiscism must be seen in context. Lend-Lease was the brain child of Roosevelt, however it was administered by accountants who were charged with preserving the economic health of the United States, NOT that of Britain. Furthermore it was seen by Harry Dexter White (One of the senior economists in the US Treasury and Morganthau’s right hand man) as a lever to reduce British economic power. White was anti British, a utopian and a closet communist who spied for the Soviet Union. Many in the US government also firmly believed that the British Empire would be a more direct threat to world peace post war than the Soviet Union, in consequence, reducing British power was a policy goal of the US administration and Ameican aid to Britain was used to pursue that goal.

(One of the great differences between US and British government. British government is top down. Policy is set at the highest level, then implemented. In the US policy is modified by every layer of government through which it passes.)

Some books that I have found insightful from the British perspective are the supplements to the Official History of the Second World War;

British War Economy, K.Hancock & M. Gowing
British War Production M.M. Postan & D. Hay
Financial Policy 1939-45, R.S. Sayers
North American Supply, H. Duncan Hall

And

British Imperialism 1688 -2000, PJ Cain and AG Hopkins (The best economic history of Britain that I know of)
The Battle of Breton Woods, B Steil
While not necessarily disagreeing with anything you are saying I would warn others against exaggerating the malice in any US decision making or over emphasising the role such decisions played in British Imperial Decline.

In many different aspects the British Empire was a busted-flush by the end WW2.
It seems unfair and misguided to blame the US for how they reduced the extent to which they propped you up when the central issue was how badly you needed to be propped up in the first place (and where the underlying economic/financial damage probably dated from WW1).
It's a bit of a revionist cop-out to blame someone, anyone other than yourselves or to portray it as something that was done to you by another power, particularly the US.

Going back to the actual subject apart from carrier protection (for which the refits were still to slow) or shore bombardment (for which they might have useful but not materially so than their non-refitted versions or younger contemporaries) what was the point of further refits of old war-worn ships so late in the war?
The quick moth-balling of all but the Vanguard shows in cruel relief what the Royal Navy really thought on this subject.
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
955
Reaction score
22
kaiserd said:
The quick moth-balling of all but the Vanguard shows in cruel relief what the Royal Navy really thought on this subject.

Economics - hard to keep ships in service when the manpower and money is either required elsewhere, or deficient. Something similar affected the US's response to the outbreak of the Korean War: far too many capabilities left to wither when growing the post-war economy was the goal.


Also, I think some of the KGVs were kept in service (or perhaps returned to service) in the immediate post-war period.
 
Top