Alternative WW1-WW2 RN capital ships

British capital design arguably reached its peak with the 'Queen Elizabeth' class 15" gunned ships of the early part of the Great War. The succeeding classes were all flawed in some respects: the 'R' class battleships were better protected, but too slow. The 15"-gunned battlecruisers and 'large light cruisers' were too fragile. The 16" Nelson class had an inefficient gun layout (it saved weight, but 'C' turret was of very limited use) and the guns had lighter shells than comparable weapons (hardly any heavier than the 15"). The 14" gunned 'King George V' class had a troublesome main armament which was outclassed by most of the opposition.

The purpose of this 'what if' exercise is to propose a battleship/battlecruiser programme, leading on from the 'QE' class, which would result in a better fleet than the historical one, within approximately the same resources.

Start date: 1912 – after first four of QE class committed but before R-class or other 15 inch ships.

WW1

Proposal 1: instead of completing the fifth QE class (Malaya) or the five Resolution class battleships, build four ships of a new Malaya class: improved QE with the same armament and speed, but larger to provide more comprehensive armour protection, plus 15" turrets modified to permit a higher angle of elevation.

Reason: higher speed compared with historical R class battleships make these much more useful in WW1 and WW2.

Names: Malaya, Hood, Anson, Howe

Proposal 2: instead of building Repulse, Renown, Hood, Courageous, Glorious, Furious; build four ships of an "improved Renown" class, with the same 6x15" armament, 30+ knots, and bigger overall to permit comprehensive armour protection to battleship standards.

Reason: battleship-level protection would make these far more useful ships in WW1 and (especially) WW2.

Names: Repulse, Renown, Resolution, Revenge

Washington Conference 1921

Proposal 3: instead of building 16" gun ships, develop a new L/45 15" to fire a super-heavy (2,240 lb) AP shell, as well as current shells. Also develop light, high-capacity HE shell for shore bombardment in all 15" guns. Fit gun into quad turrets (divided into two), with 35 degree elevation and good roof protection. Design 35,000 ton ship with two quad turrets forward in superfiring arrangement (viz Richelieu/Jean Bart). Weight and space saved over historical Nelsons used for machinery to achieve 28 knots. Secondary armament 12x6" as before, but twin 4" AA instead of single 4.7".

Reason: retaining 15" calibre assures commonality of most ammo with other ships, but super-heavy shell matches 16" guns in performance. More economical turret configuration releases space and weight for far more powerful machinery – higher speed very useful in WW2.

Names: Nelson, Rodney

Proposal 4: convert Tiger, Lion, Princess Royal to aircraft carriers.

London Conference 1935

Proposal 5: argue for 15" guns, build four ships which are updated Nelson class with two quad turrets, but 20x4.7" L/50 DP and machinery for 30+ knots.

Reason: basing design on existing ship and guns would greatly speed design, development and debugging. 4.7" better AA guns than 5.25". Four ships adequate; leaves more space/money for upgrading older ships.

Names: King George V, Prince of Wales, Duke of York, Royal Oak

Proposal 6: full rebuild of Renown class battlecruisers, with new machinery, better protection, 16x4.7" L/50 DP. 30+ knots retained.

Proposal 7: intermediate level improvements to Malaya class ships (anti-torpedo bulges, better AA armament, suppression of some 6")

Proposal 8: minimal improvements to QE class: gun elevation, AA guns.

Consequences in WW2

1. KGV class available sooner and reliable from the start. Commonality of ammo with other 15" ships, higher speed, better AA armament.
2. Nelson class has much higher speed, commonality of 15" ammo.
3. Modernised Renown class provides four very useful fast battlecruisers.
4. Improved Malaya class still useful battleships despite c.24 knot speed.
5. QE class useful in second-line roles; more so than historical R class.

 

Or aircaft carriers & ASW escourts.

 

I posted my proposals on several boards, and they prompted a wide range of responses and alternative suggestions. So I have picked out some of the key criticisms and made some responses to them:

WW1

Fisher would never have agreed to the changes.

Indeed he wouldn't. The basis of my proposals was to use hindsight to the full: put simply, if you had the power to go back and brainwash Fisher (and the others concerned with decision-making) to do exactly what you want, what would you have him do – assuming that you are limited to around the same total cost?

The proposals for bigger and better ships would have slowed down construction at a time when numbers were urgently needed.

They were perceived to be urgently needed at the time, but actually weren't, since none of the proposed changes would have come into effect in time for the only major battle – Jutland. The point of the changes is not to improve the RN's performance in WW1 (that would have been simply achieved by more thorough prewar testing of AP shells to ensure that they worked properly at oblique hit angles, plus imposing much better flash-safety discipline in turrets, and preferably replacing cordite with something less likely to explode when hit – as German guns used). The point is to avoid wasted expenditure on unsatisfactory ships in WW1, leaving the RN in a better position by the end of the war and also keeping the ships more useful into WW2.

The QEs were only intended as a small wing of faster ships: the speed of the battleline was meant to stay at 21 knots, thereby preserving the use of primarily coal-fired ships, oil supplies being unreliable – hence the historical R Class

Fair point – although AFAIK oil supplies were not, in the event, problematic.

The earlier introduction of small-tube boilers and geared turbines (first combined in big ships in the Courageous) would have enabled a significant increase in efficiency.

Fair point – the weight savings would make the proposed increases in speed and/or armour easier to achieve.

Change to building a class of Hoods earlier instead of the 'improved Renowns' (or even the 'improved QEs').

Ideal, but probably too much to ask for, as the high cost of each ship would have drastically limited the numbers built within the same fixed budget.


Washington Conference 1921

The Nelsons were the best battleships of their era, and the right solution at the time.

True for the time, but not with an eye to the future: they were too slow. I have written more about interwar British battleship design here: Untitled Document

The British only got permission to build the Nelsons because other navies had 16" ships, also the RN would never have accepted a smaller (15") calibre.

That was part of the reason for proposing super-heavy shells: it would have enabled the RN to argue that were matching the capabilities of the 16" guns, just doing so with a slightly smaller calibre.

Two quad turrets would have caused problems and left the ship vulnerable to losing half its armament from one hit (or even all of it, with a bomb hit between them).

When designing battleships within a fixed limit, difficult choices had to be made concerning the balance between armament weight, armour weight and machinery weight (speed). To get more speed from the Nelsons (highly desirable for WW2 effectiveness) it was necessary to save substantial weight somewhere, and there was more room to do so with the armament than with armour. Two quads (especially 15" rather than 16") would have enabled such a saving, so would IMO have been worth the risk. Besides, the risk could have been minimised by doing as the French did and spacing out the turrets, plus subdividing them.

The quad turrets probably would have suffered teething problems, but there would have been plenty of time to debug them (as actually happened with the Nelson's triples) and by carrying the same design forward in 1935, the historical KGV's problems could have been avoided.

Tiger, Lion, Princess Royal were too small and worn out to be worth converting to aircraft carriers.

That could well be, but they still might have made useful platforms for developing carrier doctrine and for early WW2 use.

Which twin 4" for Nelson?

Not an existing design but an earlier development of something like the WW2 mounting.

London Conference 1935

Surprisingly few comments here:

The planned reconstruction programme of WW1 ships was greater than could be managed historically, and would have been unaffordable.

Perhaps. But if the available resources from the late 1920s onwards had been carefully targeted, it might have been manageable.

What 4.7" DP twin?

Readers of The Foresight War will recognise this one! What I had in mind was a new HA mounting instead of the historical 4.5" and 5.25" twin mountings, based on the 62 lb shell as used in the historical 4.7" L/50. There's more on this subject here: Untitled Document

 

Thanks for posting this thread, Tony - in case you think we're a load of dummies, I'll confess that this is of great interest to me but I just don't have the depth of knowledge on the subject to offer a meaningful contribution o).

I have often wondered at the effectiveness of the KGV-class and have always had a personal feeling that, for their time, the QE-class were the finest warships built.....

 

I'm not sure these recommendations are much of an improvement. While they do "tidy up" things a bit they also really stretch the original thinking that went into what was built historically. I would propose this alternative:

Historically, six QE's were to be built. The sixth, Agincourt was cancelled due to the start of WW 1. I see no need to change this historically. Five QE's is a good fast column.

With the 'R' class the primary reason they were slower was due to uncertainty over the supply of oil and the conservative Admirality went back to mixed firing in these ships. It would be hard to fault them from the perspective of the time and the possible immenace of war.
Historically, eight 'R's' were to be laid down. Three were cancelled on the start of WW 1: Reknown, Repulse, and Resistance.
Again, this is really needs no historical change. Build them as historically happened.

With Repulse and Reknown add the third Resistance to the group as substitutes for more 'R' class battleships. Drop building the three large light cruisers (Glorious, Furious, Courageous) at all. Move Hood up about a year instead. This might allow for a second Hood type battlecruiser to complete, say Anson.

Post war with the Washington Naval Treaty:

The British should argue for a moritorium on new construction and instead go for allowing more extensive modification of existing vessels. The US would likely have gone along with this as certainly the Italians and Japanese would have.
Instead of building any new battleships the British do major reconstructions on their existing ones. The 'R' class is brought up to QE standards by installation of new machinery as is done to the QE's themselves. This gives the British a ten ship battleline by the late 20's early 30's capable of a uniform 25 or so knots.
Their battlecruisers are likewise improved with better machinery and Tiger is retained as the 13.5" unit in service. This gives the British five 15" and one 13.5" battlecruisers capable of about 30 knots.
All receive bulges and more deck protection. In AA armament a 4.5" is chosen as the standard fleet wide (including destroyer armament).
The carrier conversions like Eagle are scrapped in favor of totally new construction. Trying to convert older battleships or battlecruisers to carriers is far less desirable than building them from whole cloth properly. This means the RN starts WW 2 with far better and more capable carriers than the polyglot of marginal oddities they originally had.

London Naval Conference:

I agree arguing for the 15" standard from the British perspective. Basically, use the same gun with a better shell and possibly somewhat upgraded velocity through using stronger metals and better design. Stick with the two gun turret and eight gun main battery. Put more weight into armor and torpedo defense systems.
Stick with a 4.5" AA gun, say the 4.5" BD mount. Make this standard on all BB and BC.

Results:

The British have a uniform battleline of say, 15 battleships all with 15" guns and 25 to 28 knot speeds. Their battlecruisers are 30 knot+ ships and there are enough to screen the existing carriers.
The biggest advantage is that now, like the US, the British have a good reliable, in service AA gun in the 4.5" on all their ships. This eliminates the single biggest weakness they origianlly had: A lack of a good uniform AA gun on vessels.
The cost savings in the inter-war era is much greater when all the RN has to do is rebuild existing vessels rather than build new ones. The number of rebuilds and their nature will keep the dockyards busier than building a very limited number of new ships as well.
Eliminating carrier conversions results in better carriers. Let's say the British by 1939 have six or seven carriers similar to Ark Royal (about 22,000 tons) with a single hanger deck and limited flight deck armor capable of carrying about 50 aircraft. All can do about 30 knots. This is far better than having such marginal stuff as the Hermes or Eagle still in service.

repost of my reply on 1jma.dk