Questions about an Alternate RN and RAN WW1 Fleets?

[Caryina2642]

Scenario
RAN

• HMAS Australian and HMS New Zealand were built as Lion Class instead of indefatigable Class Battlecruisers
• 1913 naval order proposed by PM Joesph Cook of 1x Battleship/Battlecruiser, 3x Destroyers, 2x Submarines and 1x Supply Ship Happens

RN

• HMS Tiger is built as an only an oil firing ship
• 9x Queen Elizabeth Class 28knots (Using small tube boilers) Fast Battleships are built (5x original ships, HMS Agincourt isn’t a modified design just a standard QE BB and the Canadian 1913 naval bill pass)
• 8x R Class 24 Knots (Using small tube boilers and oil firing) Battleships are built
• 2x Super Tiger Class built as the R Class Battlecruisers

Questions
RAN

• What is the effect of Australia being a Lion Class? How does the East Asian Squadron react?
• How does the 1913 order look, 2nd Tiger BC for the Battlecruisers and was the 3 destroyers the 2nd batch of river class or going to be the 3rd batch?
• Would Australia still have submarines after WW1 with having 2 more subs?

RN

• How does USA, Germany, France, Italy, Austro-Hungary, Japan and Russia react to these ships being built?
• Who owns/operates the 3 ships canada funds for, were they intended for RCN or the RN?
• How fast would an oil only firing HMS tiger be?

WW1

• How does this effect WW1?
• How many of these ships be available for the Battle of Jutland?
• Does Jutland become a Trafalgar of WW1 where the RN destroys the High Seas Fleet?
• If the High Seas Fleet is Destroyed, how does this change the War. How do the freed-up destroyers change the U-Boat war? With the High Seas Fleet gone does this allow the RN to clear the minefields under the protection of the BB’s?
• Does the RN try to push into the Baltic in this Scenario?
• How do the admiral class look in this scenario? Are they 3x2 18inch gun ships?

Post WW1

• How does this change Washington Treaty?
• If Hood is an 18inch gun ship does she get rearmed with 15inch guns?

 

[Dilandu]

HMAS Australian and HMS New Zealand were built as Lion Class instead of indefatigable Class Battlecruisers

There are one big problem there. The 343-mm/45 gun of Lion class was highly protected secret of Royal Navy. In 1909-1910, it officially didn't exist at all; the official designation was "12-inch Type A" gun. Up until Lion was launched in mid-1910, the existence of 343-mm gun was not made public.

I.e. the Australian government would not be made aware than Lion is armed with 343-mm guns in 1909-1910s. For them, it would be just next 12-inch battlecruiser, of somewhat improved type. So they would hardly be interested in ordering her.

• 9x Queen Elizabeth Class 28knots (Using small tube boilers) Fast Battleships are built (5x original ships, HMS Agincourt isn’t a modified design just a standard QE BB and the Canadian 1913 naval bill pass)
• 8x R Class 24 Knots (Using small tube boilers and oil firing) Battleships are built
• 2x Super Tiger Class built as the R Class Battlecruisers

Where would they found so many 15-inch guns and armor plates? You are basically talking about continuing the peacetime arm race during wartime, when the nation industry was seriously stressed by other needs. Just producing the required number of 15-inch turrets would be impossible till 1920s. And the cost of such program would be overwhelming.

 

[DWG]

Scenario
RAN

• HMAS Australian and HMS New Zealand were built as Lion Class instead of indefatigable Class Battlecruisers

This makes sense in terms of order dates, but you have to find a way of handling the funding (£2m/ship), which isn't quite enough to stretch to Lions (c £2.1m) instead of Indefatigables.

RN

• 9x Queen Elizabeth Class 28knots (Using small tube boilers) Fast Battleships are built (5x original ships, HMS Agincourt isn’t a modified design just a standard QE BB and the Canadian 1913 naval bill pass)
• 8x R Class 24 Knots (Using small tube boilers and oil firing) Battleships are built
• 2x Super Tiger Class built as the R Class Battlecruisers

This is definitely having your cake and eating it. 19 ships over 3(?) years, vs Churchill's planned 21 over 5. The standard order was 3 battleships and a battlecruiser per year. The 1912-13 four ship order used QEs for both, and the fifth QE was funded by the Federated Malay States. 1913-14 was to be the planned five ship year, and the options were 1 improved Tiger + 4 repeat/improved (15") Iron Dukes (ie R Class), 1 repeat Tiger + 3 repeat QEs, or 2 improved Tigers and 2 improved Iron Dukes. Churchill's preference was the QEs, but that only gave him 4 ships, the cheaper improved Iron Dukes were the only option that let him buy five hulls. 1914-15 was to be 3 x QE (for a complete battle squadron) + 1xR, but then changed to 1xQE+ 3xR, and then eliminated the two dockyard ships (one of each) on the outbreak of war.

You can just about stretch to 9+8 assuming the Canadians have a complete political volte-face on their QEs, the problem is justifying the two BCs.

Questions
RAN

• What is the effect of Australia being a Lion Class? How does the East Asian Squadron react?

No differently to how they reacted to the Kongos.

• Would Australia still have submarines after WW1 with having 2 more subs?

The issue was willingness to fund the RAN submarine arm as budgets tightened, two more subs worsens the problem rather than helping.

 

[LightningFan1959]

I don't really see why the RAN and New Zealand contribution to the RN couldn't be Lions, certainly Dr. Clarke, as part of his recent look into an AU where Australia and NZ keep their battkecruiers didn't discount it as a possibility (even if he gave them some rather different ships).

 

[Dilandu]

This makes sense in terms of order dates, but you have to find a way of handling the funding (£2m/ship), which isn't quite enough to stretch to Lions (c £2.1m) instead of Indefatigables.

As I noted, it's not exactly that simple, because 13.5-inch gun gun was top secret and officially did not exist. Up until it was revealed to public (IRRC, in late half of 1910), the Lion-class were officially armed with "12-inch Type A gun", which was hinted to be improved version of problematic 12-inch/50 gun. So Australian attempts to order Lion-class would likely be rebuffed by RN, because they didn't want any leaks about their new weapons. At most, a "downgraded" version of Lion with eight 12-inch guns might be prepared specifically for RAN.

 

[Dilandu]

I don't really see why the RAN and New Zealand contribution to the RN couldn't be Lions, certainly Dr. Clarke, as part of his recent look into an AU where Australia and NZ keep their battkecruiers didn't discount it as a possibility (even if he gave them some rather different ships).

Because the 13.5-inch gun, the backbone of Lion-class battlecruiser project, in 1909-1910 officially did not exist. Royal Navy keep this gun secret; officially, Lion-class were armed with 12-inch guns of improved type. I rather doubt that they would allow Australians to get a peek on their new weapon, since even shipyards which constructed Lion-class units weren't informed about new guns until well into construction. For RN it wasn't much of problem, since they were home customers. For RAN it would be a problem, since they are export customers.

 

[Caryina2642]

For RAN it would be a problem, since they are export customers.

Is the RAN really an export customer during this time of history cause really they are apart of the empire and the RAN is just the Australian part of the RN during this period. Though even then a 12inch armed lion is a better ship the what australia got OTL.

You can just about stretch to 9+8 assuming the Canadians have a complete political volte-face on their QEs, the problem is justifying the two BCs.

Could you go like or am i wrong?

• 1912-13: 4x QEs + 1x QE Malaya Gift
• 1913-14: 4x Rs + 1 Super Tiger BC. 3x QEs RCN + 1 QE (Make a 6 ship fast battle squadron) & 1x Tiger BC RAN
• 1914-15: 4x Rx + 1 Super Tiger BC
• 1915-16: 4x Admirals how ever they look in this scenario

How many of these ships would be ready in time for jutland?

The issue was willingness to fund the RAN submarine arm as budgets tightened, two more subs worsens the problem rather than helping.

PM Joesph Cook was quite willing to fund it, he was actually going ahead of schedule on the Henderson Plan, if he didnt call a double dissalution election in 1913 (Which he lost) it woud have most likely happend if he could pass it through the senate

 

[Dilandu]

Is the RAN really an export customer during this time of history cause really they are apart of the empire and the RAN is just the Australian part of the RN during this period. Though even then a 12inch armed lion is a better ship the what australia got OTL.

Their status would be more complicated, but the main problem is not RAN, it's Australian government. While upper ranks of Australian government (minister rank and above) and high command of RAN knew the reality about "type A gun", this information was not available for Australian parliament. It would be impossible to persuade Australian parliament to vote for new type of battlecruiser (more costly one) without at least partially disclosing the data about new gun. And I rather doubt that Australian parliament would be willing to buy a cat in a bag.

So no, the Lion-class for Australia woud not be possible due to secrecy reasons until at least mid-1911 (more likely 1912, when HMS Orion was commissioned and new gun revealed to public). A three year delay would be too much for Australians. At most, a "downgraded" Lion with 12-inch guns could be possible.

 

[DWG]

As I noted, it's not exactly that simple, because 13.5-inch gun gun was top secret and officially did not exist. Up until it was revealed to public (IRRC, in late half of 1910), the Lion-class were officially armed with "12-inch Type A gun", which was hinted to be improved version of problematic 12-inch/50 gun. So Australian attempts to order Lion-class would likely be rebuffed by RN, because they didn't want any leaks about their new weapons. At most, a "downgraded" version of Lion with eight 12-inch guns might be prepared specifically for RAN.

I don't think that would be an issue, the RAN was essentially administered as a branch of the RN, so it's no more revealing secrets than ordering it for the RN was. The guns were government furnished equipment IIRC, so the Australians didn't need to know the details.

 

[DWG]

Could you go like or am i wrong?

• 1913-14: 4x Rs + 1 Super Tiger BC. 3x QEs RCN + 1 QE (Make a 6 ship fast battle squadron) & 1x Tiger BC RAN

That's six UK funded ships you're trying to fund from a budget for five. You need to find an extra £2m from somewhere. Building slips and gun pits might also be an issue, because no matter how the Canadian government might have tried to sell the QEs to Parliament, they weren't getting built in Canada.

PM Joesph Cook was quite willing to fund it, he was actually going ahead of schedule on the Henderson Plan, if he didnt call a double dissalution election in 1913 (Which he lost) it woud have most likely happend if he could pass it through the senate

Wrong PM, it's not Cook in 1913, but Billy Hughes in 1921/22 who has to decide whether to keep the J Class in service if you're looking at a RAN submarine service post WWI, which was your initial question.

 

[Dilandu]

I don't think that would be an issue, the RAN was essentially administered as a branch of the RN, so it's no more revealing secrets than ordering it for the RN was. The guns were government furnished equipment IIRC, so the Australians didn't need to know the details.

I'm seriously not sure it would work, considering that Australian parliament must be persuaded to order a battlecruiser of new, more costly type, without even being allowed to see its specifications. I'm pretty sure RN would not release 13.5-inch guns specs to general public, so the only way to do it would basically to fool parliament presenting them a specs for one ship and actually ordering another. Not sure it could work; Australians weren't exactly very rich, and they would start to ask questions why exactly new battlecruiser cost so much. And there surely would be a great scandal, when it would be found that new battlecruiser is build not to the approved design. Who exactly amongst Australian admirals would be ready to serve as scapegoat?

 

[DWG]

I'm seriously not sure it would work, considering that Australian parliament must be persuaded to order a battlecruiser of new, more costly type, without even being allowed to see its specifications. I'm pretty sure RN would not release 13.5-inch guns specs to general public, so the only way to do it would basically to fool parliament presenting them a specs for one ship and actually ordering another. Not sure it could work; Australians weren't exactly very rich, and they would start to ask questions why exactly new battlecruiser cost so much. And there surely would be a great scandal, when it would be found that new battlecruiser is build not to the approved design.

If they could persuade the UK parliament to order the Lions without looking at its specifications, why would the Australian parliament be any different?

I think you may have the wrong mental model for how the process worked. Parliament didn't go into detail on design, they were merely told Ships X Y and Z would be ordered at a certain cost. For instance (and this is more detail than in the actual debate on the 1912-13 Naval Estimates) :
"
Mr. ASHLEY

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the estimated average cost, without armament and ordnance stores, of the battleships of the "Orion" class built by contract; what was the cost of the "Orion"; and what was the estimated cost of the battle cruiser "Lion," built at Devonport Dockyard, and of the "Princess Royal," built by contract?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)

The average estimated cost of the three contract-built battleships of the "Orion" class, including establishment and incidental charges, is £1,730,668. The approximate cost of the "Orion," including establishment and incidental charges, is £1,705,410. The estimated cost of the "Lion," including establishment and incidental charges, is £1,939,408; and of the "Princess Royal," as shown in the Navy Estimates for 1912–13, £1,893,586. These figures are approximate only. The exact cost cannot be determined until the ships have been completed and the accounts made up.

Mr. ASHLEY

Is there any explanation why dockyard-built ships cost substantially more than those built by contract?

Mr. CHURCHILL

l am sure there is an explanation, but I could not go into it in answer to a question."

Who exactly amongst Australian admirals would be ready to serve as scapegoat?

Presumably Rear Admiral Sir William Cresswell as head of the RAN - I'm not certain if there were any other Australian admirals at that point, most of the Australian Naval Board was RN officers.

 

[Dilandu]

If they could persuade the UK parliament to order the Lions without looking at its specifications, why would the Australian parliament be any different?

Well, I assume that Australian have much less money so more likely to inquire exactly for what those money are supposed to be spent. But I admit, I may be wrong there.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, I assume that Australian have much less money so more likely to inquire exactly for what those money are supposed to be spent. But I admit, I may be wrong there.

I agree, the RN BC order is part of a much larger annual warship buy that MPs have been making year after year since 1889. Most MPs would have voted on similar warship building plans numerous times without disaster befalling them.

The RAN order means Australia goes from essentially having no Navy to being in the 2nd rank regionally, it was a one-off big buy with much more a stake s would garner much more scrutiny.

 

[Apophenia]

• ... the Canadian 1913 naval bill pass) ...
• Who owns/operates the 3 ships canada funds for, were they intended for RCN or the RN?

There seems to be some misunderstandings in this discussion on the nature of Canada's 1913 Naval Aid Bill. That bill was to directly fund the construction of 3 x dreadnoughts for the Royal Navy. There was no intention to build such capital ships in Canada (indeed, the capability to build capital ships on Canadian ways did not exist).

On the legal side, the Naval Aid Bill was intended to displace Canada's 1910 Naval Service Act. In other words, the funding of those 3 x RN dreadnoughts was meant to satisfy Canada's naval defence commitments to the Empire. As such, the 2-year old Royal Canadian Navy would probably cease to exist.

By way of background, the previous Canadian government had placed limits on direct aid to the RN. At the inaugural Imperial Conference in the Summer of 1911, PM Sir Wilfrid Laurier - accompanied by his Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Frederick Borden - had given conditional support for naval aid but this was tied to political autonomy (a concept opposed by his Australian and NZ opposites, Fisher and Ward).

However, the Laurier government fell in Oct 1911, replaced by a Conservative government led by Sir Frederick's cousin, Robert Borden. The latter proposed the Naval Aid Bill in Dec 1912 at the behest of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill (ironically, then a Liberal). In May 1913, Borden's bill was defeated in the Senate. In part that was because the Senate was then Liberal-led. But it was also because senators continued to support the concept of a Royal Canadian Navy.

 

[Caryina2642]

Wrong PM, it's not Cook in 1913, but Billy Hughes in 1921/22 who has to decide whether to keep the J Class in service if you're looking at a RAN submarine service post WWI, which was your initial question.

No cook had proposed in a speech in 1913 that they would buy another battlecruiser, 3 destroyers, 2 submarines and a supply ship by 1916. This would mean depending on the year they were delivered the ran wouls still have 2 submarines in 1916 instead of 0. If these 2 submarines survive the war how does that effect things?

 

[Caryina2642]

That's six UK funded ships you're trying to fund from a budget for five. You need to find an extra £2m from somewhere. Building slips and gun pits might also be an issue, because no matter how the Canadian government might have tried to sell the QEs to Parliament, they weren't getting built in Canada.

Difficult but not impossible i would say during this time period. I dont think Dr Clake has said there where Battleship shipyards that were going broke cause they didnt have enough work.

 

[DWG]

No cook had proposed in a speech in 1913 that they would buy another battlecruiser, 3 destroyers, 2 submarines and a supply ship by 1916. This would mean depending on the year they were delivered the ran wouls still have 2 submarines in 1916 instead of 0. If these 2 submarines survive the war how does that effect things?

You still run into the government imposed cuts in 1921/22, first with half the force laid up to cut costs, which is where you would probably lose any 1913 subs (as they'd be older than the Js), and then the entire force axed.

 

[Caryina2642]

You still run into the government imposed cuts in 1921/22, first with half the force laid up to cut costs, which is where you would probably lose any 1913 subs (as they'd be older than the Js), and then the entire force axed.

Possibly that depends if WW1 stays the same, though in this scenario i doubt that. Jutland would most likely become a total british victory, allowing the RN to clear the minefields and do a close blokeade, as well as freeeing up the grand fleet destroyers for convoy escort against the U Boats. Most likely the war ends in 1917 which has untold effects

 

[DWG]

Difficult but not impossible

A QE was just over £2m. The entire construction vote under the 1913-14 Estimates (Vote 8, Section 2 (shipbuilding)+ Vote 9 (guns and munitions)) was £5,851,600 + £5,306,000, or just over £11m. So you need to find an 18.2% increase.

 

[DWG]

Possibly that depends if WW1 stays the same, though in this scenario i doubt that. Jutland would most likely become a total british victory, allowing the RN to clear the minefields and do a close blokeade, as well as freeeing up the grand fleet destroyers for convoy escort against the U Boats. Most likely the war ends in 1917 which has untold effects

When First Sea Lord Admiral A K Wilson proposed close blockade in a pre-war meeting, Asquith had Churchill sack him as a dangerous idiot. The total defeat of the High Seas Fleet in some alternate Jutland would not change that as the risk to close blockade is enemy light forces, particularly the German submarine fleet, not the enemy battlefleet.

WRT Jutland, only two of the Revenge class were ready in time, which essentially means almost none of your additional ships can reasonably be ready in time as they all fall later in the construction sequence. Giving Beatty an extra battlecruiser won't make him suddenly competent. If he couldn't make any useful use of the Fifth Battle Squadron with the 4 QEs, he's not going to make any difference with a single 15" BC.