Defence of Britain's Asia-Pacific possessions - at the cheapest possible cost of course

[Shortround6]

I would certainly agree that work would need to be done to these ships. The Washington Naval Treaty expired in 1936. Only France, America and Britain signed the follow up 2nd London Naval Treaty, both Italy and Japan declined. The Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935 was not affected by it. Hitler tore it up in 1939.

Now the question becomes, IF you do work to these ships, what else doesn't get done or what doesn't get built?
Is an improved (to what standard?) Iron Duke worth a few less destroyers? or a heavy cruiser? or a light cruiser?
Or are the QEs delayed in getting their refits while the Iron Dukes get theirs?

 

[Shortround6]

They couldn't just be "laid up"; they needed to be demilitarized in accord with the relevant international treaties to which the UK was bound. After that, they'd still need to be maintained because, as noted by Neil Young, rust never sleeps. As an aside, the Kuomintang, the party of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣中正) was not "national socialist"; it was nationalist, but republican (not Republican). One wonders how world history would have changed had the Qing (Manchu) dynasty been sufficiently competent to have resisted foreign intervention, especially the opium wars started by the most powerful and aggressive drug cartels in history.

I suspect that restoring Hong Kong would actually be fairly low on China's list of priorities; higher would be removing Japan and the USSR/Russia from Chinese territory and revoking the various foreign concessions in cities like Shanghai.

They would not need to be "demilitarized" Until the KGV is completed. However you are quite right in that the work of demilitarizing them and then rebuilding them would be prohibitive over just a few year period.

from the Washington treaty, the London or other treaties may differ.

b) A vessel shall be considered incapable of further warlike service when there shall have been removed and landed, or else destroyed in the ship:

(1) All guns and essential portions of guns, fire-control tops and revolving parts of all barbettes and turrets;

(2) All machinery for working hydraulic or electric mountings;

(3) All fire-control instruments and range-finders;

(4) All ammunition, explosives and mines;

(5) All torpedoes, warheads and torpedo tubes;

(6) All wireless telegraphy installations;

(7) The conning tower and all side armour, or alternatively all main propelling machinery;

and (8) All landing and flying-off platforms and all other aviation accessories.

Now 4 and 5 are pretty easy as are 6 & 8 but 1, 2, 3 and 7 are not going to be easy or cheap.

 

[Kevin J]

Now the question becomes, IF you do work to these ships, what else doesn't get done or what doesn't get built?
Is an improved (to what standard?) Iron Duke worth a few less destroyers? or a heavy cruiser? or a light cruiser?
Or are the QEs delayed in getting their refits while the Iron Dukes get theirs?

The QE's get their refits 1929-33, so the Iron Dukes could be scheduled in from 1933-37.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The QE's get their refits 1929-33, so the Iron Dukes could be scheduled in from 1933-37.

The Iron Dukes are worse than the Revenge class. They're a waste of men, resources and money.

If we're keeping anything from WW1 it's the last two Admiral class battlecruiser hulls under construction. Make them into fast fleet CVs. But Washington Treaty will block you.

 

[Kevin J]

The Iron Dukes are worse than the Revenge class. They're a waste of men, resources and money.

If we're keeping anything from WW1 it's the last two Admiral class battlecruiser hulls under construction. Make them into fast fleet CVs. But Washington Treaty will block you.

What an interesting idea. Actually the Washington treaty doesn't block you. It will allow you to complete two such ships. I like the idea. Having all three would be absolutely wonderful, but I expect the battleships Nelson and Rodney would never be built or we'd have to scrap the Iron Duke class in the mid twenties to have these battlecruisers as aircraft carriers. Tiger would have to go too.
So the RN could be established as:-
Home Fleet, Scotland. Revenge class. Courageous class. Argus.
Force H, Gibraltar. Nelson class.
Force V, Gibraltar. Hood. Furious.
Mediterranean and Red Sea Fleet, Malta and Alexandria. QE class, Eagle and Hermes.
Far East Fleet, Singapore. Renown class. Admiral class carriers.
The RN is also allowed 2 demilitarised battleships.

 

[Shortround6]

It might have been the reverse. The Iron Dukes are older and presumably (always tricky) their machinery (boilers,etc) in worse shape. It becomes a question of which ships (somewhat based on condition) get a modest refit and which get more extensive ones. Keeping the Iron Dukes as is (coal fired boilers) while the GEs get extensive refits really opens the gap in their capabilities. In 1932-37 do you rebuild the 1912-1914 Iron Dukes or rebuild the 1913-1917 Revenge class (which use the same guns as the QEs and the Battle cruisers)?
If the Iron Dukes were to be kept they should have gotten some sort of rebuild in the late 20s-early 30s to change the boilers, even if the turbines were left alone. Fuel storage needs a complete revamp and the British had screwed up when they went to oil fuel by not figuring in the protection the coal bunkers gave to high angle fire on the QE's and R's.

 

[Shortround6]

What an interesting idea. Actually the Washington treaty doesn't block you. It will allow you to complete two such ships. I like the idea. Having all three would be absolutely wonderful, but I expect the battleships Nelson and Rodney would never be built or we'd have to scrap the Iron Duke class in the mid twenties to have these battlecruisers as aircraft carriers. Tiger would have to go too.
So the RN could be established as:-
Home Fleet, Scotland. Revenge class. Courageous class. Argus.
Force H, Gibraltar. Nelson class.
Force V, Gibraltar. Hood. Furious.
Mediterranean and Red Sea Fleet, Malta and Alexandria. QE class, Eagle and Hermes.
Far East Fleet, Singapore. Renown class. Admiral class carriers.

I am not sure about this.

Article VII
The total tonnage for aircraft carriers of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for the British Empire 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for France 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Italy 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Japan 81,000 tons (82,296 metric tons).



Article VIII
The replacement of aircraft carriers shall be effected only as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, provided, however, that all aircraft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 1921, shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard to its age.



Article IX
No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded,build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight.

Article IX was the one that allowed the US and Japan to build their large carriers. However the Article was of little use to the French and italians as they had no such large ships under construction (or at least anywhere near the state needed). I have no idea how far along the Hood's sisters were, If only 5-10% complete it was probably easier to scrap in place and start over rather than try to work such a small amount of material built to an old design into a "new" ship.

From Wiki

Saratoga 8 March 1922. Construction had been suspended, pending her conversion to an aircraft carrier.
Boilers, turbines, armor and guns are all ordered when the ship is ordered and before laying down. In fact sometimes the guns and mounts take longer to build than the hull.

In any case the Battleship tonnage (capital ship) and the carrier tonnage are separate categories and there is no swapping back and forth.

Article X
No aircraft carrier of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres). Without prejudice to the provisions of Article IX, if the armament carried includes guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre the total number of guns carried, except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed ten. If alternatively the armament contains no guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre, the number of guns is not limited. In either case the number of anti-aircraft guns and of guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres) is not limited.

This article stops any shenanigans about aircraft carriers (or seaplane carriers) running around with 4-8 large caliber guns and just enough aircraft or aircraft facilities for the owning nation to claim it is a carrier.

Article XII
No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).

I could very well be wrong but I am reading the treaty in such a way that the Furious is not counted as new construction and can be replaced, however the British converted the Glorious and the Courageous after the treaty. Had they "converted" two of the admirals The British might have hit their total tonnage or gone over

 

[Kevin J]

I am not sure about this.

Article VII
The total tonnage for aircraft carriers of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for the British Empire 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for France 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Italy 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Japan 81,000 tons (82,296 metric tons).



Article VIII
The replacement of aircraft carriers shall be effected only as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, provided, however, that all aircraft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 1921, shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard to its age.



Article IX
No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded,build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight.

Article IX was the one that allowed the US and Japan to build their large carriers. However the Article was of little use to the French and italians as they had no such large ships under construction (or at least anywhere near the state needed). I have no idea how far along the Hood's sisters were, If only 5-10% complete it was probably easier to scrap in place and start over rather than try to work such a small amount of material built to an old design into a "new" ship.

From Wiki
View attachment 565541
Saratoga 8 March 1922. Construction had been suspended, pending her conversion to an aircraft carrier.
Boilers, turbines, armor and guns are all ordered when the ship is ordered and before laying down. In fact sometimes the guns and mounts take longer to build than the hull.

In any case the Battleship tonnage (capital ship) and the carrier tonnage are separate categories and there is no swapping back and forth.

Article X
No aircraft carrier of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres). Without prejudice to the provisions of Article IX, if the armament carried includes guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre the total number of guns carried, except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed ten. If alternatively the armament contains no guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre, the number of guns is not limited. In either case the number of anti-aircraft guns and of guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres) is not limited.

This article stops any shenanigans about aircraft carriers (or seaplane carriers) running around with 4-8 large caliber guns and just enough aircraft or aircraft facilities for the owning nation to claim it is a carrier.

Article XII
No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres).

I could very well be wrong but I am reading the treaty in such a way that the Furious is not counted as new construction and can be replaced, however the British converted the Glorious and the Courageous after the treaty. Had they "converted" two of the admirals The British might have hit their total tonnage or gone over

I'd say that the Washington Treaty leaves us a couple of carriers short to effectively defend the Empire.

 

[Shortround6]

It is also a question of money, political will and cost effectiveness?

There is also the question of timing, in early 1922 the Italians could at least be described as friendly and an ex ally. Mussolini doesn't rise to power until Oct 1922.

The Eagle was not a particularly good bargain as an aircraft carrier. It sucked up a lot of tonnage for not very many aircraft. It was also slow.

Under the Washington treaty it could have been replaced at anytime had the British wanted to spend the money.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Under the Washington treaty it could have been replaced at anytime had the British wanted to spend the money.

Scrap Eagle, Hermes, Argus and if necessary Furious to get both Admiral CVs.

Britain could be flying Beaufighter off this beast.

https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/forum/hms-hood-aircraft-carrier-conversion-late-ww2-look/?p=1

 

[Shortround6]

Something to consider when looking at the Washington treaty and aircraft carriers.
This was the standard RAF carrier fighter of 1921-22

The Gloster Nightjar (ex Nieuport) with a 230hp rotary engine.
it was replace by this in 1923

and this would continue as the first line carrier fighter until about 1930.
The primary strike aircraft was the Sopwith Cuckoo

with a 200hp engine. Range was about 335 statute miles and please note it is a single seat aircraft with no guns.
It was replaced in 1923 by the Blackburn Dart.

a more inappropriately named aircraft would be hard to find. But the Dart was the first line torpedo bomber for most the 20s.
It wa supplemented in the recconasance and strike role by the Fairey IIID.

Although much better known as a floatplane small numbers did serve on board the Hermes, Eagle, Furious and Argus during the 20s.
It could carry four 112lb bombs in the strike role.

When contemplating how many more (or how big) British carriers of the 20s should be in light of the Washington treaty, these are your fleet defence and strike aircraft.

Carriers on Hood size hulls require a lot of hindsight (or foresight on the designers) and years before they would become powerful units.

I am still wondering about how far along the Hood's sisters were or are we talking about building a carrier on the basis of a few tons of hull bottom plate?

 

[Kevin J]

Scrap Eagle, Hermes, Argus and if necessary Furious to get both Admiral CVs.

Britain could be flying Beaufighter off this beast.

https://www.airfix.com/uk-en/forum/hms-hood-aircraft-carrier-conversion-late-ww2-look/?p=1

Now we're talking.

 

[Kevin J]

Something to consider when looking at the Washington treaty and aircraft carriers.
This was the standard RAF carrier fighter of 1921-22
View attachment 565563
The Gloster Nightjar (ex Nieuport) with a 230hp rotary engine.
it was replace by this in 1923
View attachment 565564
and this would continue as the first line carrier fighter until about 1930.
The primary strike aircraft was the Sopwith Cuckoo
View attachment 565565
with a 200hp engine. Range was about 335 statute miles and please note it is a single seat aircraft with no guns.
It was replaced in 1923 by the Blackburn Dart.
View attachment 565566
a more inappropriately named aircraft would be hard to find. But the Dart was the first line torpedo bomber for most the 20s.
It wa supplemented in the recconasance and strike role by the Fairey IIID.
View attachment 565567
Although much better known as a floatplane small numbers did serve on board the Hermes, Eagle, Furious and Argus during the 20s.
It could carry four 112lb bombs in the strike role.

When contemplating how many more (or how big) British carriers of the 20s should be in light of the Washington treaty, these are your fleet defence and strike aircraft.

Carriers on Hood size hulls require a lot of hindsight (or foresight on the designers) and years before they would become powerful units.

I am still wondering about how far along the Hood's sisters were or are we talking about building a carrier on the basis of a few tons of hull bottom plate?

Probably, so Blake was laid down in 1944 and completed in 1961. The Admiralty class suspended in 1917, I think about 5-10% complete, so on that basis, we could have completed them by about 1934, the 3 of them replacing the Iron Duke class and Tiger.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Carriers on Hood size hulls require a lot of hindsight (or foresight on the designers) and years before they would become powerful units.

Same as the two Lexington class (laid down 1920, 37,000 std tons, 888 ft long) and Japan's Akagi class (1920, 37,000 std tons, 855 ft long). The US and Japan were getting >850ft, 30+ knot carriers converted from postponed battlecruisers. It only makes sense that Britain do the same with the Admirals. Make Oz pay for one, call it HMS Australia if necessary.

I am still wondering about how far along the Hood's sisters were or are we talking about building a carrier on the basis of a few tons of hull bottom plate?

That's a good question, as they were suspended only five months from being laid down. I'll see what Google can tell us.

 

[Kevin J]

Same as the two Lexington class (laid down 1920, 37,000 std tons, 888 ft long) and Japan's Akagi class (1920, 37,000 std tons, 855 ft long). The US and Japan were getting >850ft, 30+ knot carriers converted from postponed battlecruisers. It only makes sense that Britain do the same with the Admirals. Make Oz pay for one, call it HMS Australia if necessary.That's a good question, as they were suspended only five months from being laid down. I'll see what Google can tell us.

Better still, name them Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the names of their WW1 era ships which they paid for. They have 17 years to cough up and pay so it shouldn't be a problem. Now with a carried fleet like that, the RN should be invincible in the Asia Pacific theatre.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'd love to have seen the Hawker Typhoon in large-scale service in Malaya. Assuming it can keep its tail on and engine running can you imagine the fright of these 400 mph beasts diving at you with four 20mm cannon firing. At low level and if using the Typhoon's speed and mass advantage the Ki-43 shouldn't pose an insurmountable problem.

Even on the ground it would have given many a Betty, Mavis and Nell rear gunner nightmares.

 

[Just Schmidt]

IDK, do we give every politician a free pass, assuming they made the best decisions at the time based on their information and understanding of the situation and competing priorities? Is that how we're supposed to remember Colin Powell and his WMD claims?

Is Britain losing the entire empire a temporary set back?

There is a difference to giving every politician a free pass and demanding that they make no mistake at all, that indeed they are to correctly guess (as Shortround has emphasized a decade or two ahead), what EXACT intentions, capabilities and strategies the one out of several possible enemies will employ. And further assuming that the same enemies does not in turn make changes to their production and strategies. We have the benefit of hindsight and far better knowledge of capabilities than anybody at the time, even if we should remeber that we can be wrong too. Of course politicians were sometimes dumb, and certainly mistakes were made. Exactly because of that trying to make do at the lowest possible cost, as opposed to the lowest reasonable or 'safe' cost, is hubris, some room for error should always be included. Don't get me wrong, intellectual excersizes can be both fun and educational, but seventy years after the event there is a limit to how much we on basis of these can demand the original actors to change the way they acted and thought. Indeed a limit to how much of the possible was really Possible.

Indeed you are right that the setback was only temporary in military terms, whereas politically the loss of face suffered proved fatal for the Empire. On the other hand this was not the only factor behind this, we cannot be certain the Empire would still be in place today had the Japanese not achieved the initial success they did. Empires themselves tend to be temporary.

 

[Kevin J]

There is a difference to giving every politician a free pass and demanding that they make no mistake at all, that indeed they are to correctly guess (as Shortround has emphasized a decade or two ahead), what EXACT intentions, capabilities and strategies the one out of several possible enemies will employ. And further assuming that the same enemies does not in turn make changes to their production and strategies. We have the benefit of hindsight and far better knowledge of capabilities than anybody at the time, even if we should remeber that we can be wrong too. Of course politicians were sometimes dumb, and certainly mistakes were made. Exactly because of that trying to make do at the lowest possible cost, as opposed to the lowest reasonable or 'safe' cost, is hubris, some room for error should always be included. Don't get me wrong, intellectual excersizes can be both fun and educational, but seventy years after the event there is a limit to how much we on basis of these can demand the original actors to change the way they acted and thought. Indeed a limit to how much of the possible was really Possible.

Indeed you are right that the setback was only temporary in military terms, whereas politically the loss of face suffered proved fatal for the Empire. On the other hand this was not the only factor behind this, we cannot be certain the Empire would still be in place today had the Japanese not achieved the initial success they did. Empires themselves tend to be temporary.

I would argue that most of the Empire is still in place, an Anglo-American Empire maintained with hard power alongside the (British) Commonwealth maintained by soft power. Then there are the protectorate where our troops, mainly American, are stationed; so EU, Japan, Korea to name but a few.

 

[swampyankee]

There is a difference to giving every politician a free pass and demanding that they make no mistake at all, that indeed they are to correctly guess (as Shortround has emphasized a decade or two ahead), what EXACT intentions, capabilities and strategies the one out of several possible enemies will employ. And further assuming that the same enemies does not in turn make changes to their production and strategies. We have the benefit of hindsight and far better knowledge of capabilities than anybody at the time, even if we should remeber that we can be wrong too. Of course politicians were sometimes dumb, and certainly mistakes were made. Exactly because of that trying to make do at the lowest possible cost, as opposed to the lowest reasonable or 'safe' cost, is hubris, some room for error should always be included. Don't get me wrong, intellectual excersizes can be both fun and educational, but seventy years after the event there is a limit to how much we on basis of these can demand the original actors to change the way they acted and thought. Indeed a limit to how much of the possible was really Possible.

Indeed you are right that the setback was only temporary in military terms, whereas politically the loss of face suffered proved fatal for the Empire. On the other hand this was not the only factor behind this, we cannot be certain the Empire would still be in place today had the Japanese not achieved the initial success they did. Empires themselves tend to be temporary.

The Indian independence movement predated WW2; it wasn't driven by some imperial "loss of face"; it was driven by decades of imperial policy largely devoted to economic exploitation of the sub-continent. Similar logic would probably apply to imperial possessions in Africa.

 

[Kevin J]

The Indian independence movement predated WW2; it wasn't driven by some imperial "loss of face"; it was driven by decades of imperial policy largely devoted to economic exploitation of the sub-continent. Similar logic would probably apply to imperial possessions in Africa.

There were very few bits of Africa that made a profit for us. India, of course, was a cash cow to be milked.