What's the situation of the Royal Navy if the WW2 broke out in 1944, not 1939?

U

Username666

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
25 January 2021
Messages
62
Reaction score
19
Last edited:
For a start, France would not have fallen, Nazi Germany would have gone broke and with a little "luck" (not sure that word is appropriate) somebody would have send Hitler to a well-deserved eternal bonefire in Hell (best day in The Devil life).

Not only would the RN be far stronger - so would the MN. Richelieu class battleship would be twice or thrice many (Languedoc, Gascogne, Alsace...); old clunky and cranky Bearn would be replaced by Joffre & Painlevé; with moar Algeria CLs called Saint Louis. And of course Strasbourg & Dunkerque. Plus the superfast DDs at almost 40 kt.
1939 French Navy was not only the one and only French military service fully ready for war. The fleet was one of the best France ever had in its history - only matched by Louis XIV days. Even today the fleet numbers suffer in comparison, if only because nuclear stuff is so expensive - carrier(s) and submarines.
And all this courtesy of such egotic morons as Darlan and De Laborde. One of the most dismal paradoxes that also explains that fleet ugly end in Toulon, 1942.
Darlan was pretty good at building the fleet, but as soon as he dipped a toe in politics - late June 1940 - he was a disaster in the making. By December 1942 he was shot dead (as a Pétain darling) - and so was the fleet: at the bottom of Toulon harbor.
 
Last edited:
In reality Nazi Germany was always going to war well before 1944.
Hitler had wanted war in 1938 and felt cheated out of it post-Munich.
And the German economy under the Nazi regime was not built to last more than a very short period without territorial expansion.
Even a failure to declare war on Germany after the Poland invasion would have still likely seen Hitler intentionally push his Western opponents into War in 1940 (he has to try to eliminate them before he turns on the Soviet Union before USSR recovers and become too strong).
And that’s before consideration Japan and their own short timescale/ perceived window of maximum opportunity driving their action way before 1944.
The UK and France wouldn’t get to choose the timing of the coming conflicts and they will come way before 1944 anyway.

And even all if that wasn’t true the UK (ditto France) would have faced its own economic problems (and limitations) re: rearmament well before 1944.
Would the likely required economic support from, and increased economic dependence on and effective subordination to, the US really been doable or acceptable in a non-war time scenario?

Unfortunately for those that seem to particularly fantasise about it, with the benefits of hindsight it appears highly likely that neither the UK or France would have been able to successfully bring their pre-war naval plans to full fruition.
And from experience on the site coming up with increasingly eye-of-the-needle what-if scenarios where they could have has increasingly less and less to do with understanding actual history and more and more to do with self-gratification and self-regard, a heightened nostalgia for literally what never was or realistically could be.

And I’m aware of the irony of saying that on a Secret Projects forum, nor am I claiming absolute immunity/ invulnerability from the same basic reflex.
 
Last edited:
As a matter of fact, France twice started building scores of big battleships - 1913 and 1939 - and never finished both series. 14-18 left a row of unfinished Normandie class battleships, of which only one could be salvaged as Béarn. The 1939 generation was a bit luckier and finished two - Richelieu & Jean Bart. The irony being Jean Bart was almost finished as carrier, just like Béarn before it.

Another issue was that Cash&carry was burning gold reserves at the speed of light. By 1941-42 if Lend-lease does not happen, France gold reserves would be toast. This is an issue we briefly explored in FFO - the period from July 1940 to Pearl Harbor and Uncle Sam industrial fury.
 
kaiserd said:
In reality Nazi Germany was always going to war well before 1944.
Hitler had wanted war in 1938 and felt cheated out of it post-Munich.
And the German economy under the Nazi regime was not built to last more than a very short period without territorial expansion.
Even a failure to declare war on Germany after the Poland invasion would have still likely seen Hitler intentionally push his Western opponents into War in 1940 (he has to try to eliminate them before he turns on the Soviet Union before USSR recovers and become too strong).
And that’s before consideration Japan and their own short timescale/ perceived window of maximum opportunity driving their action way before 1944.
The UK and France wouldn’t get to choose the timing of the coming conflicts and they will come way before 1944 anyway.

And even all if that wasn’t true the UK (ditto France) would have faced its own economic problems (and limitations) re: rearmament well before 1944.
Would the likely required economic support from, and increased economic dependence on and effective subordination to, the US really been doable or acceptable in a non-war time scenario?

Unfortunately for those that seem to particularly fantasise about it, with the benefits of hindsight it appears highly likely that neither the UK or France would have been able to successfully bring their pre-war naval plans to full fruition.
And from experience on the site coming up with increasingly eye-of-the-needle what-if scenarios where they could have has increasingly less and less to do with understanding actual history and more and more to do with self-gratification and self-regard, a heightened nostalgia for literally what never was or realistically could be.
Click to expand...

The UK economy was growing, the debt to GDP ratio falling and the annual naval programmes being built in line with the force structure agreed by the cabinet, all of which contradicts your post.

We have covered this across a couple of topics:


 
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
kaiserd said:
In reality Nazi Germany was always going to war well before 1944.
Hitler had wanted war in 1938 and felt cheated out of it post-Munich.
And the German economy under the Nazi regime was not built to last more than a very short period without territorial expansion.
Even a failure to declare war on Germany after the Poland invasion would have still likely seen Hitler intentionally push his Western opponents into War in 1940 (he has to try to eliminate them before he turns on the Soviet Union before USSR recovers and become too strong).
And that’s before consideration Japan and their own short timescale/ perceived window of maximum opportunity driving their action way before 1944.
The UK and France wouldn’t get to choose the timing of the coming conflicts and they will come way before 1944 anyway.

And even all if that wasn’t true the UK (ditto France) would have faced its own economic problems (and limitations) re: rearmament well before 1944.
Would the likely required economic support from, and increased economic dependence on and effective subordination to, the US really been doable or acceptable in a non-war time scenario?

Unfortunately for those that seem to particularly fantasise about it, with the benefits of hindsight it appears highly likely that neither the UK or France would have been able to successfully bring their pre-war naval plans to full fruition.
And from experience on the site coming up with increasingly eye-of-the-needle what-if scenarios where they could have has increasingly less and less to do with understanding actual history and more and more to do with self-gratification and self-regard, a heightened nostalgia for literally what never was or realistically could be.
Click to expand...

The UK economy was growing, the debt to GDP ratio falling and the annual naval programmes being built in line with the force structure agreed by the cabinet, all of which contradicts your post.

We have covered this across a couple of topics:


Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't know that the same topic had been posted in the past. If I have time, I'll read it!
 
It's very hard to posit a later WWII start without determining a Point of Departure from the Original Timeline, and determining what would happen instead in the Alternate Timeline.

Presumably you're proposing that Germany doesn't attack France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg until 1944. If the events in Denmark and Norway also don't occur until four or five years later, the Kriegsmarine's serious losses in the latter actions are avoided, but likely so is a measure of the Kriegsmarine's grappling with their fleet's totally inadequate AA capabilities.

What would be happening in the Atlantic submarine actions? Was all of that action pushed back ~ five years as well?

What was Italy doing in North and East Africa? Were the British / Allied campaigns vs. the Italians also pushed back five years?

When was Poland attacked? When did Czechoslovakia occur, or did it occur at all?

What happened in regard to USSR westward ambitions? Were those also set back by five years?

What was happening in the Far East? Was Japan's initiation of their half of the war also pushed back? How did they...and Germany and Italy, too...deal with their shortages of strategic materials and insufficiency of home-country production capacity in relation to their national ambitions?

My initial take would be that the Allies would be more advantaged by a delayed start-year, because they had so many more projects and capabilities not quite ready to go in 1940, compared to the Germans, and for the French many of those projects would never be finished. Of course, it's hard to know what of Germany's OTL wartime developments would come to fruition in the ATL, and similarly what the next generation beyond the disrupted 1940 Allied projects would have been in the ATL, in both cases without the pressures of the OTL war.

Your specific question was in regard to the Royal Navy. I think it's likely that the RN would have benefited eventually in regard to AA capabilities, though not immediately, as tradition was strong and the Vickers 0.5 HMGs and pom-poms had been deemed sufficient and so it would have been hard to admit they were obsolete. But, if the Hazemeyer mount's development had remained with the Dutch, it's likely that there would have been much more motivation to make it work, and it would have become obvious to the Brits soon that the status quo was no longer adequate.

The French Marine Nationale had concluded in the late 1930s that their AA status quo was inadequate, and they were working toward a new generation of capabilities to replace the Hotchkiss 13.2mm HMGs and old semiautomatic 37mm cannon. Hotchkiss 25mm autocannon, of a later version than the Japanese Model 96 licensed copies, already were scheduled for retrofit to the new Le Hardi class, and in 1940-41 that would have been a decent improvement, but the following generation...with the much-higher-RPM Hotchkiss Mle 1940J 25mm twin and Mle 1935 37mm twin autocannons...would have been a considerable leap forward as of 1941-42, compared to what everyone else had fielded. It's likely that such progress by the French would have been a goading factor for the British as well.
 
JWilly said:
It's very hard to posit a later WWII start without determining a Point of Departure from the Original Timeline, and determining what would happen instead in the Alternate Timeline.

Presumably you're proposing that Germany doesn't attack France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg until 1944. If the events in Denmark and Norway also don't occur until four or five years later, the Kriegsmarine's serious losses in the latter actions are avoided, but likely so is a measure of the Kriegsmarine's grappling with their fleet's totally inadequate AA capabilities.

What would be happening in the Atlantic submarine actions? Was all of that action pushed back ~ five years as well?

What was Italy doing in North and East Africa? Were the British / Allied campaigns vs. the Italians also pushed back five years?

When was Poland attacked? When did Czechoslovakia occur, or did it occur at all?

What happened in regard to USSR westward ambitions? Were those also set back by five years?

What was happening in the Far East? Was Japan's initiation of their half of the war also pushed back? How did they...and Germany and Italy, too...deal with their shortages of strategic materials and insufficiency of home-country production capacity in relation to their national ambitions?

My initial take would be that the Allies would be more advantaged by a delayed start-year, because they had so many more projects and capabilities not quite ready to go in 1940, compared to the Germans, and for the French many of those projects would never be finished. Of course, it's hard to know what of Germany's OTL wartime developments would come to fruition in the ATL, and similarly what the next generation beyond the disrupted 1940 Allied projects would have been in the ATL, in both cases without the pressures of the OTL war.

Your specific question was in regard to the Royal Navy. I think it's likely that the RN would have benefited eventually in regard to AA capabilities, though not immediately, as tradition was strong and the Vickers 0.5 HMGs and pom-poms had been deemed sufficient and so it would have been hard to admit they were obsolete. But, if the Hazemeyer mount's development had remained with the Dutch, it's likely that there would have been much more motivation to make it work, and it would have become obvious to the Brits soon that the status quo was no longer adequate.

The French Marine Nationale had concluded in the late 1930s that their AA status quo was inadequate, and they were working toward a new generation of capabilities to replace the Hotchkiss 13.2mm HMGs and old semiautomatic 37mm cannon. Hotchkiss 25mm autocannon, of a later version than the Japanese Model 96 licensed copies, already were scheduled for retrofit to the new Le Hardi class, and in 1940-41 that would have been a decent improvement, but the following generation...with the much-higher-RPM Hotchkiss Mle 1940J 25mm twin and Mle 1935 37mm twin autocannons...would have been a considerable leap forward as of 1941-42, compared to what everyone else had fielded. It's likely that such progress by the French would have been a goading factor for the British as well.
Click to expand...
Well, like most alternative histories, the answer seems to depend on who you imagine. Because, as you mentioned, there are too many variables.

Anyway, thank you for your good advice! I didn't think much about AA while thinking about the alternative history that I'm thinking about, but you made me think again.
 
The other "fantasy" element is Hitler's Plan Z.
There used to be an entertaining website called Furashita's fleet which had all the "unbuilt" super ships from the RN G3s to the Montanas and Super Yamatos.
A number of board wargames in the 1990s included such ships
If anyone is interested I can post links to the games on the excellent Boardgamegeek site which includes scans of the counters.
 
I will re-visit this discussion after ai check through the MANY downloads and notes I have acquired and made over the years regarding various Nations Naval construction plans…
However, I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that to complete Germanys ‘Z’ Plan in the stated timescale would have strained German steel production capacity and seriously impacted on armour med vehicle production plans for the Army.
As regards the ‘amazing’ aircraft planned/produced by Germany, along with most other ‘wonder weapons’ these would not occur in this sort of timeline as a lot were regarded as ‘science projects’ of no real military value.
 
Pirate Pete said:
I will re-visit this discussion after ai check through the MANY downloads and notes I have acquired and made over the years regarding various Nations Naval construction plans…
However, I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that to complete Germanys ‘Z’ Plan in the stated timescale would have strained German steel production capacity and seriously impacted on armour med vehicle production plans for the Army.
As regards the ‘amazing’ aircraft planned/produced by Germany, along with most other ‘wonder weapons’ these would not occur in this sort of timeline as a lot were regarded as ‘science projects’ of no real military value.
Click to expand...
I also think it's ridiculous about Plan Z. Rather, it would be more realistic that Royal Navy built six Lion-class ships in 1939.

By the way, I'd like to thank those who responded to this. If it weren't for your answer, I couldn't have been redesign the alternative history that I had personally envisioned.
 
This Post is going to 'ramble' a bit...I have taken information from various sources which give information on (some of) the various Navies pre-WW2 Plans.
First the Royal Navy's 'wish list' was the 'New Standard Fleet which was planned (I think more like wished for) force levels of:
20 Capital Ships, 15 Aircraft Carriers (of which 3 would be at long notice with no aircraft), 100 Cruisers (large and small), 22 Destroyer Flotillas (something in the region of 186 ships), and 82 Submarines. Plus various Minelayers, Sloops (A/A and A/S) and Coastal Sloops.
The new building programme stretched from 1936 through to 1945, so, If War comes in 1944, In Capital Ships, theoretically, there would have been (possibly) 12 new ships (5 King George V, 6 Lion plus Vanguard), plus of course the already extant Capital Ships, Hood, 2 Nelsons, Renown, 2/3 Queen Elizabeths, and, perhaps also Repulse.

Germany had their infamous 'Z'-Plan, which was intended to complete by 1948, so a 1944 war date will badly impact that, that is of course presuming that the intended programme could be constructed on anything like the timetable projected.
That Would have given Germany: 10 Battleships (inc Sharnhorst and Gneisenau), Originally 12 'P' class Armoured ships, later replaced by the three O,P,Q class Battlecruisers, so 13 Capital Ships. The 3 Deutschland Class 'Armoured' ships, 4 Aircraft Carriers, 5 Heavy Cruisers, 22 Light Cruisers, 22 Reconnaissance Cruisers, 68 Destroyers, 90 Torpedo Boats, 249 Submarines plus other 'minor' warships.
I think, in addition to Bismarck, Tirpitz, Schanhorst and Gnesenau, they would be lucky to have completed 4 of the 'H'-class Battleships and 2(?) of the three Battlecruisers. I have my doubts that the 'planned' re-armament of Sharnhorst and Gneisenau would be completed by 1944 also...

Japan seems to have planned something like 7 new Capital Ships (5 Yamato class and 2 'Super' Yamato's), 2 Battlecruisers (B64/5's), 8 Large Aircraft Carriers and 23 Light Aircraft Carriers (some of the light ones being conversions from fast Liners and Cargo Ships), 2 Heavy and 19 Light Cruisers, plus 94 Destroyers.
Again, a 1944 outbreak would only see 4 Yamato's complete, no Battlecruisers, 3 Large Aircraft Carriers, 4, perhaps 6 Light Carriers, NONE of the Heavy cruisers and about 10 of the Light Cruisers. Of course they would have the 4 Kongo class ships, 2 Hyuga’s, 2 Yamashiro’s and the 2 Nagato’s to complete their Battleship line-up, plus Carriers such as Kaga abd Akagi. Not wuite sure when the Shokaku class were programmed.

Italy had ambitious plans, probably without doubt, completely unrealistic...
They planned for a two-seas fleet of:
9 Battleships, 3 Aircraft Carriers, 36 Cruisers, 142 Destroyers and 84 Submarines.
The original 'plan' was drawn up in 1935 with a target date of 1942!
Bearing in mind that the Roma did not complete until 1942 and the Impero was never finished, along with many of the planned 'cruisers', I don't see too much of a change, apart from the Impero being completed, and perhaps 2 of the Carriers. Italian Heavy Industry was not particularly well developed at the time, and I can foresee many bottlenecks in the production lines.
In addition to the Littorio’s, they would have the 4 Dulio’s and Cesare ships rebuit. That would leave a ninth capital ship unfinished, I am guessing it would be a repeat Littorio to simplify construction. Tgen tgere are the carious pre-war ‘tin-clad’ Light Cruisers, although they would have the Zara ckass Heavy Cruisers, plus sone others.

The United States had already started something of a replacement building programme, but WITHOUT the outbreak of war in 1939 and the subsequent fall of France in 1940, I do not see them carrying out the later 'Two-Ocean' Navy Bill as it was finally presented. Even the 1939 proposed increase, after the outbreak of war in the real world was cut-back by Congress. Without a war until 1944, there would be a much MUCH slower build-up of the USN, and nothing of the scale that actually came about, forget what was proposed! In fact, up until 1939, only the 2 North Carolina class and the 4 South Dakota's had been authorised!

For France, I haven't been able to lay my hands on specific plans (can anyone else enlighten?). Although we would probably see their fleet as being 2 Dunkerques, and 4 Richelieu's, The first of the 'Alsace' class were not scheduled to start to complete before 1946. As regards Carriers, there would be the 2 Joffre class, Cruisers would also include the 3 De Grasse class Light Cruisers and possibly a couple of the 3 proposed St. Louis class Heavy Cruisers in addition to the already extant French fleet. I would expect all of the old 'Dreadnought' Battleships to have been retired by this time.

All-in-all, although Britain would not gave a ‘massive’ fleet, a lot of the planned new ships would appear as there would mot be the construction hiatus caused by tge outbreak of war in 1939. For example, tge Illustrious class carriers would probably be completed and to a more homogeneous design, plus Vanguard would be completed earlier.

Well - That's my ramblings for the time being...
 
Last edited:
Pirate Pete said:
This Post is going to 'ramble' a bit...I have taken information from various sources which give information on (some of) the various Navies pre-WW2 Plans.
First the Royal Navy's 'wish list' was the 'New Standard Fleet which was planned (I think more like wished for) force levels of:
20 Capital Ships, 15 Aircraft Carriers (of which 3 would be at long notice with no aircraft), 100 Cruisers (large and small), 22 Destroyer Flotillas (something in the region of 186 ships), and 82 Submarines. Plus various Minelayers, Sloops (A/A and A/S) and Coastal Sloops.
The new building programme stretched from 1936 through to 1945, so, If War comes in 1944, In Capital Ships, theoretically, there would have been (possibly) 12 new ships (5 King George V, 6 Lion plus Vanguard), plus of course the already extant Capital Ships, Hood, 2 Nelsons, Renown, 2/3 Queen Elizabeths, and, perhaps also Repulse.

Germany had their infamous 'Z'-Plan, which was intended to complete by 1948, so a 1944 war date will badly impact that, that is of course presuming that the intended programme could be constructed on anything like the timetable projected.
That Would have given Germany: 10 Battleships (inc Sharnhorst and Gneisenau), Originally 12 'P' class Armoured ships, later replaced by the three O,P,Q class Battlecruisers, so 13 Capital Ships. The 3 Deutschland Class 'Armoured' ships, 4 Aircraft Carriers, 5 Heavy Cruisers, 22 Light Cruisers, 22 Reconnaissance Cruisers, 68 Destroyers, 90 Torpedo Boats, 249 Submarines plus other 'minor' warships.
I think, in addition to Bismarck, Tirpitz, Schanhorst and Gnesenau, they would be lucky to have completed 4 of the 'H'-class Battleships and 2(?) of the three Battlecruisers. I have my doubts that the 'planned' re-armament of Sharnhorst and Gneisenau would be completed by 1944 also...

Japan seems to have planned something like 7 new Capital Ships (5 Yamato class and 2 'Super' Yamato's), 2 Battlecruisers (B64/5's), 8 Large Aircraft Carriers and 23 Light Aircraft Carriers (some of the light ones being conversions from fast Liners and Cargo Ships), 2 Heavy and 19 Light Cruisers, plus 94 Destroyers.
Again, a 1944 outbreak would only see 4 Yamato's complete, no Battlecruisers, 3 Large Aircraft Carriers, 4, perhaps 6 Light Carriers, NONE of the Heavy cruisers and about 10 of the Light Cruisers. Of course they would have the 4 Kongo class ships, 2 Hyuga’s, 2 Yamashiro’s and the 2 Nagato’s to complete their Battleship line-up, plus Carriers such as Kaga abd Akagi. Not wuite sure when the Shokaku class were programmed.

Italy had ambitious plans, probably without doubt, completely unrealistic...
They planned for a two-seas fleet of:
9 Battleships, 3 Aircraft Carriers, 36 Cruisers, 142 Destroyers and 84 Submarines.
The original 'plan' was drawn up in 1935 with a target date of 1942!
Bearing in mind that the Roma did not complete until 1942 and the Impero was never finished, along with many of the planned 'cruisers', I don't see too much of a change, apart from the Impero being completed, and perhaps 2 of the Carriers. Italian Heavy Industry was not particularly well developed at the time, and I can foresee many bottlenecks in the production lines.
In addition to the Littorio’s, they would have the 4 Dulio’s and Cesare ships rebuit. That would leave a ninth capital ship unfinished, I am guessing it would be a repeat Littorio to simplify construction. Tgen tgere are the carious pre-war ‘tin-clad’ Light Cruisers, although they would have the Zara ckass Heavy Cruisers, plus sone others.

The United States had already started something of a replacement building programme, but WITHOUT the outbreak of war in 1939 and the subsequent fall of France in 1940, I do not see them carrying out the later 'Two-Ocean' Navy Bill as it was finally presented. Even the 1939 proposed increase, after the outbreak of war in the real world was cut-back by Congress. Without a war until 1944, there would be a much MUCH slower build-up of the USN, and nothing of the scale that actually came about, forget what was proposed! In fact, up until 1939, only the 2 North Carolina class and the 4 South Dakota's had been authorised!

For France, I haven't been able to lay my hands on specific plans (can anyone else enlighten?). Although we would probably see their fleet as being 2 Dunkerques, and 4 Richelieu's, The first of the 'Alsace' class were not scheduled to start to complete before 1946. As regards Carriers, there would be the 2 Joffre class, Cruisers would also include the 3 De Grasse class Light Cruisers and possibly a couple of the 3 proposed St. Louis class Heavy Cruisers in addition to the already extant French fleet. I would expect all of the old 'Dreadnought' Battleships to have been retired by this time.

All-in-all, although Britain would not gave a ‘massive’ fleet, a lot of the planned new ships would appear as there would mot be the construction hiatus caused by tge outbreak of war in 1939. For example, tge Illustrious class carriers would probably be completed and to a more homogeneous design, plus Vanguard would be completed earlier.

Well - That's my ramblings for the time being...
Click to expand...
I usually use a translator to write here because my English is not good enough, so I think that's why I came out rambling in this post.

Anyway, thank you for good advice!
 
Pirate Pete said:
plus Vanguard would be completed earlier.
Click to expand...
My understanding of Vanguard is that she was a war emergency measure. Take away the war as it was in the OTL and you take away Vanguard, at least as she was originally conceived. Of course it might be that her concept is too robust for history to pass by - i.e. if you build the Lions you probably scrap the R-class, and then you're left with a bunch of perfectly good 15-inch Mark 1 twin turret sets looking for a home, with the added benefit that they are already set up in an ABXY configuration and don't need modification for superfiring as two of Vanguard's barbettes did. Most probably Vanguard gets Courageous' and Glorious' guns and becomes lead ship, while the R-class ships are recycled with their original guns (modified for increased elevation) in new hulls with the same name.
 
War didn’t just break out of its own accord in 1939. There were about 5 years + of increasing tensions in world affairs leading up to it, and those tensions accelerated rapidly after Munich in 1938. As I see it things to consider:-

Finance - if War is seen as less likely in 1939, there has to be less tension in world affairs. Does that mean the Treasury being more resistant to armament spending generally? Perhaps some projects get postponed or stretched out. Much of what follows is impacted by this one factor.

Then we come to the practicalities of Battleship construction. Admiralty studies from 1938 showed that in terms of heavy guns, gun mounts, and armour the most that could be ordered was 2 Battleships pa with a third every 3 years.

Over £2m was spent to increase armour production facilities from 1936, but still 12,500 tons had to ordered from Czechoslovakia for carriers and cruisers. But you have increasing competition from the Army for tanks and the RAF who began to fit armour plate to aircraft. How soon do their modernisations start and what impact do they have on Admiralty requirements.

Production capacity for 16” guns was expected to be 22pa after completion of the 14” for KGV. In 1938/39 there were plans to increase this to 26pa by spending money to bring additional facilities on line.

16” gun mounting production was limited by the number of gun pits (3 at Barrow, 4 at Newcastle). For various reasons neither location could be expanded. So the plan was to expand the H&W plant at Scotstoun on the Clyde. The plan in 1938/39 was to spend £1.5-2m on 3 new pits for 16” mounts allowing a third 16” Battleship to be laid down in 1940.

And that is where the Vanguard proposal starts to appear. To reduce costs it was proposed to recycle old 15” turrets. That would involve reopening the old WW1 gun pits at Scotstoun first (filled in inter-war), estimated cost £600k. They dug out 4 of the 5 in the factory for Vanguard. But the Director of Naval Construction certainly did not favour a Vanguard considering it “extravagant” - more length required for 4 turrets, more hull weight and so more armour required to provide the same degree of protection.

Construction time in 1939 for the first pair of Lions was estimated at 42 months from being ordered (estimated completion dates in Sept 1939 was Aug 1942). But by July 1939 John Brown estimated 52 months in its tender for Conqueror ordered in Aug 1939 (see The Battleship Builders) having estimated 42 in its unsuccessful tender for the first pair. So estimated completion for her was to be Dec 1943. (A subsequent late 1941 Admiralty study showed estimated time to construct a Battleship was 54 months).

There was a proposal in early 1939 to build the planned second 1939 Lion (Thunderer historically due to be ordered in Nov 1939 from Fairfield so completion due around March 1944 on a 52 month build schedule) with recycled 15” guns. It was estimated that would have seen her completed by the end of 1943 (an estimated time saving of about 6 months). But the 16” guns and turrets would have been ordered as planned allowing a third Lion to be ordered in 1940. But that would mean the earliest of the 1940 Lions would only have completed around the end of 1944 / early 1945, depending on how early in the fiscal year the orders could be placed.

So the estimated completion dates for the Lions would have been:-

Lion & Temeraire - Aug 1942 (the Admiralty were ever optimistic)
Conqueror - Dec 1943
Thunderer - by Dec 1943 with 15” guns or maybe March 1944 with 16” guns
3 1940 Lions completing from late 1944 at the earliest.

The question then is, as it was back in 1938/39, whether having ships with 8x15” old guns a bare 6 months earlier than you could get ships with 9x16” modern guns worthwhile, when everyone else has moved, or is planning to move, to at least 16”.

Admiralty planning in mid-1939 looking forward to March 1944 would have seen them allocate the capital ships as follows v the expected opposition assuming war with both Germany & Japan (from Moore - Building for Victory):-

Home waters - 2x1939 Lion, 5xKGV, Hood, Renown & Repulse v 5 new German capital ships, 2xScharnhorst & 3xDeutschland

(That keeps the 2 newest ships close to home to allow work up and any problems encountered to be ironed out)

Far East - 2x1938 Lion, 2xNelson, 3xmodernised QE, Barham, Malaya & 3xR class v for Japan 4xnew capital ships, 2xnew 12” battlecruisers, 2xNagato, 4xFuso, 4xKongo battlecruiser.

A fast 15” Battleship design (I.e. a Vanguard) delivered quickly (but see above) would help counter numerical weakness against Japan, counter the new Japanese battlecruiser and counter the large numbers of 8” cruisers that might be encountered.

Plans only ever revolved around a single Vanguard type. Further use of recycled turrets from the R class was never more than a suggestion. IIRC Revenge would have been the first of the R class to be withdrawn due to her poor condition in 1939. Royal Oak was the best of the bunch having had more work done to her in the 1934-36 refit she was given.

When finally ordered in March 1941, Vanguard was expected to complete by the end of 1944 (I.e a projected c45 month build time). Had she been able to be ordered in April 1940 as the third 1940 Programme ship she might well have been able to complete in early 1944.

Had a decision been taken to build more Vanguards then the question is whether these would be in place of or in addition to more Lions. If the latter, then you need to consider the capacity of the renovated Scotstoun factory to handle the turrets sufficiently quickly to match proposed delivery times of the hulls. Normally, a brand new turret would spend about a year in the gun pit. I have never found data on how long it actually took to modernise the turrets for Vanguard, after the pits became available. They were being worked on in late 1945 but when did it start?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom