Never have guessed about your views of the Skua!!
The Yokosuka D4Y Suisei didn't have folding wings.
If Weimar Republic succeeds, is Britain unprepared to face Japan?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Yokosuka D4Y Suisei didn't have folding wings.
- Thread starter
- #22
Admiral Beez
Major
Whoops, I meant the Aichi B7A as the IJN's first all-metal, folding wing, monoplane, retractible undercarriage dive bomber (also came with Barracuda-like torpedo capability).Never have guessed about your views of the Skua!!
The Yokosuka D4Y Suisei didn't have folding wings.
Last edited:
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
Fairey did offer a monoplane design. As you say, a more powerful engine was needed to lift a viable bomb load off the existing decks. Hence the Albacore got the alternative large wing area by using the biplane layout to lift 2,000lb of bombs etc. together with a useful amount of fuel off those decks at the speed the existing engines could attain by lift off. The Barracuda being able to do this with a monoplane wing of smaller area due to the extra power of the day.
And the use of high lift devices on the wing - the Fairey Youngman flaps that doubled up as dive brakes.
IIRC the requirement for the bomber to return and land with a torpedo was a real issue, torpedoes being very expensive thing for the budgets of 1930s.
- Thread starter
- #26
Admiral Beez
Major
I wonder if a Japan and PTO focused Admiralty would observe the 31,000 ton, 845 ft long Shōkaku-class then building and reconsider some of their assumptions for the Illustrious class. Wasn't Ark Royal and her larger CAG built with PTO ops in mind? And by pre-war 1941 once Britain has radar, and sees the huge Taihō and Essex classes, the Implacable-class may be deemed insufficient, with instead a jump to something like an early Audacious class. Which makes we wonder if Britain may follow Japan and quit the Washington Naval Treaty, igniting a new global naval race. And what are the Weimar Germans and Stalin making of all this?
Last edited:
All of which pre-supposes knowledge of Japanese plans in 1936 when the Illustrious class were designed with 4 laid down in 1937.
Here are the Japanese carriers under construction at that point:-
Soryu - laid down 20 Nov 1934, launched 23 Dec 1935, completed 29 Dec 1937. Her construction was treated as a military secret.
Hiryu - laid down 8 July 1936, launched 16 Nov 1937, completed 5 July 1939.
Only in June 1936 did the IJN determine that they would need 10 carriers (Hosho, Kaga, Akagi, Ryujo in service, Soryu & Hiryu building or about to start plus the conversion of the sub depot ships that would become Shoho & Zuiho plus 2 new hulls). So Shokaku & Zuikaku were part of their Third Naval Replenishment Programme of 1937 at which point design could begin.
Shokaku - laid down 12 Dec 1937, launched 1 June 1939, completed 8 Aug 1941.
Zuikaku - laid down 25 May 1938, launched 27 Nov 1939, completed 25 Sept 1941.
Very little was known about Soryu, Hiryu, & the Shokakus pre-war. For example none of these appear in Jane's Fighting Ships 1938. In the Oct 1942 edition of the USN ONI book on Japanese warships details on the Shokakus is noted as incomplete. Dimensions had clearly been worked out from photos taken at Coral Sea, but the displacement was still noted as 15,000 tons (I.e the same as the Soryus on which they were believed to be based despite the noted larger dimensions) and an aircraft capacity if 54-63 and not the actual 72 (+ 12 reserves).
As for Ark Royal it is true that she was designed with a view to operations against Japan. But she was designed between 1931 and 1935. As I noted in post #20 problem of intercepting attacking aircraft had become much more difficult in the intervening years due to increasing aircraft speeds, a trend that was likely to continue. Radar was still in the future (RN development began in Aug 1935 when the Third Sea Lord asked for the matter to be investigated. But the development had to tackle a completely different set of problems from the RAF - you couldn't fit a CH station with all its masts into a ship!!! It would have been a very brave individual who at that point would have forecast radar playing the part it did in WW2).
If you really want to understand the problem of defending a fleet from air attack inter-war and how different navies sought to tackle it, I'd recommend
"Fighters over the Fleet. Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War" and
"Naval Anti-aircraft Guns & Gunnery" both by Norman Friedman
Both subjects are interlinked.
And again, as I've mentioned before, be wary of referring to the RN intending to operate in the "Pacific" inter-war. It means different things to Britain and the USA. It was not the broad expanses of the Pacific between the US West Coast and the Philippines that the USN envisaged. It was the South and East China Seas and the waters immediately around Formosa / Taiwan the southern part of the Japanese home islands with a view to imposing an old fashioned blockade in the final stages, based on Singapore, Hong Kong and a forward base to be seized somewhere probably in the Ryuyku Islands (near Okinawa). The difference in distances affected the choices in ship design in each navy.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
Admiral Beez
Major
Assuming peace in Europe until Dec 1941, what changes do we foresee in the Royal Navy's fleet composition. On peacetime budget and manpower levels it would become increasingly difficult to keep the older large warships in commission, such as the Courageous trio, the five Revenge-class and the older cruisers like the Danae and Hawkins classes. I don't know if their smaller size presents any savings, but one of Argus, Hermes and Eagle might be found to still be useful on colonial service, though Argus must have been worn out. As it was, in July 1938 Hermes became a training ship.
Last edited:
Firstly, reconstructions of old ships were not seen by the RN as a replacement for new construction. They were seen as a means of extending ship life until new construction came along. So as the fleet was aging there would have to be an ongoing replacement programme so the RN would probably have first bite at the cherry when it came to funding of the 3 services. Then you have to take account of the age of replacement terms built into the Treaty system (all being from completion). The ages given are from the 1936 London Treaty.
Capital ships - 26 years.
There were various scrapping alternatives offered at various times from 1931 onwards. But the outcome had to take into account ship age under the Treaties. Then there was the reconstruction programme that favoured the QEs over the Rs.
So while in theory the QE could be replaced in 1941/42 the decision was taken to reconstruct 3 so extending their lives into the late 1940s.
In 1935, Revenge, Royal Sov & Resolution were believed to be good until 1940/41 without a large refit. Malaya (having had a large repair) was good until 1944. Repulse (again having had a large repair) was good until 1943/44 provided her engines held out. It was intended to start taking the R class out of service around 1940 as the KGVs began to complete, but they couldn't be scrapped until 1942/43 and the same applied to Repulse.
Hood would have been reconstructed between 1941 & 1944. Rodeny would have had a 2 year reconstruction from about late 1940 to late 1941 with Nelson following between ec 1940 & Dec 1942. These were all dependent on the completion of earlier reconstructions and the forst pair of KGVs. Worldwide commitments meant the RN was never going to allow more that 3 capital ships to be under long term reconstruction at the one time.
New construction would have rolled on over time until all the old ships had been replaced.
Carriers - 20 years (but Argus, Eagle & Hermes and perhaps Furious depending on interpretation could be replaced anytime)
Through most of the 1930s the RN only had 4 carriers in service (F,C&G plus Hermes and Eagle rotating on the Far East station). When Ark arrived on the scene, Furious was refitted nad became a training carrier in mid-1939. Argus was officially an auxiliary after her 1936-38 refit when she was reboilered (boilers came from old V & W class destroyers being scrapped) and would probably have remained in service until Unicorn (part of the 1938 Programme and which took a long time to design) entered service as her design incorporated tasks that Argus was employed in.
As discussed before on other threads, RN planning in mid-1939 looking forward to 1942 shows no sign of Eagle at all, so clearly it was intended that she should be the first of the old carriers to go. Her machinery was only good until about 1941/42. In peacetime Hermes, Furious & Glorious were to be in reserve with Courageous either in reserve or as the training carrier. In the event of war in the Far East only, as envisaged by this what if, Furious would become the training carrier in home waters with the other 3 in trade protection roles judging by their reduced proposed air groups - Hermes in Jamaica, Courageous at Trincomalee & Glorious at Singapore. At that stage the last of the new carriers was due to enter service around mid-1942. So you would probably have seen some juggling between the front line and reserve as new ships entered service.
Cruisers - if laid down before Jan 1920, 16 years. If laid down after that 20 years.
The problem here is that the RN needed numbers and had a lot dating back to WW1 designs. The inter-war number was set at 70 but really needed to be 100. In 1939 there were 64 Commonwealth cruisers with 27 dating back to WW1 designs (i.e. everything before the Kents and all of which could be replaced after 1936). some of the older ships were going to reserve as new ones completed. The rearmament programmes were supposed to provide about 7 new cruisers per year from about 1939/40. And the old ones had exceptionally poor AA armaments. So a new cruiser building programme had to go on.
In 1935/36 decisions were being made about converting the C class to AA cruisers (numbers varied over time) followed by the D class (with 4.5" guns and cancelled on the outbreak of WW2) to improve the air defence of the fleet. To comply with the 1930 London Treaty Effingham had been converted to a light cruiser 1936-38 while Hawkins and Frobisher had been disarmed (although plans existed briefly to give them 5.25" guns. It seems unlikely that this would have been pursued). Given the weakness of fleet AA defence many of these plans would have continued but would not have completed until around 1942. So again ships moving in and out of reconstruction over time.
Destroyers - if laid down before Jan 1920, 16 years. If laid down after that 20 years.
As noted in other threads fleet destroyer development would have continued with more L/M class or larger to tackle the perceived thrat from the Japanese ships. Older ships would have been placed in reserve. While the WAIR Programme of conversions of the V & W class might have continued (again its origins lay in the 1935/36 need to upgrade the AA protection of merchant shipping) there would have been no need for a programme of escort destroyers developed at short notice into the Hunts. The same would apply to the uparming of the interwar sloops.
Submarines - 13 years
Gradual replacement of the O/P/R class fleet submarines with the T class would have continued. But there would have been no need for for more S class byond those ordered in the early 1930s. A few more U class for training but not the mass build that occurred from 1939 in the War Programmes.
- Thread starter
- #30
Admiral Beez
Major
Unless their refit can add speed, I'm not sure how useful the slow 23-knot (max) Nelson and Rodney will be in the PTO. Though the IJN's Ise and Fuso classes are no faster, so perhaps the Nelson's have a place alongside a slow battleline of QEs.
OTOH, the >30-knot Repulse, Renown and Hood would be useful alongside the fast carriers, and I'd encourage all three to have updated and expanded AA, and be given extended endurance, especially the short-ranged Repulse.
I'm not sure what to do with the Revenge class, would any deep refit or modernization address their deficits? Too bad there isn't the money, material or yard resources to pull their turrets and make some Vanguards. But we'll do well enough if Britain can complete the five KGVs and six Illustrious/Implacables in quick order.
OTOH, the >30-knot Repulse, Renown and Hood would be useful alongside the fast carriers, and I'd encourage all three to have updated and expanded AA, and be given extended endurance, especially the short-ranged Repulse.
I'm not sure what to do with the Revenge class, would any deep refit or modernization address their deficits? Too bad there isn't the money, material or yard resources to pull their turrets and make some Vanguards. But we'll do well enough if Britain can complete the five KGVs and six Illustrious/Implacables in quick order.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Try doing your own research.
twenty 4.5in AA guns in twin turrets with four dual purpose gun directors. The new machinery allowed for two of the old boiler rooms to be converted to 4.5in ammunition magazines.
three quad 2pdr mounts, each mount had it's own gun director. In 1939-40 that was as good as it got for ANY battleship anywhere in the world.
This also took just under 3 years. It also cost 3 times the original cost of the ship.
You can update and expand AA without the other changes but it is still going to cost money and time.
A number of people have posted the RN plans for refit's and rebuilds during the 30s and early 40s (plans without the war).
- Thread starter
- #32
Admiral Beez
Major
Why do we speak to each other like this? Instead of a dismissive, you could have led with a contribution.
Why are online forum users rude?
Answer (1 of 2): Not all online forum users are rude. But I believe the anonymity of online forums makes it much easier for people to post their thoughts without fear of repercussions, other than matching rudeness from another forum member. One big problem with forums/social media is that they a...
Or if you did not like my post; just ignore it.
You can find various RN proposals from 1939 kicking around covering various scenarios, some of which name specific ships and some of which don't. As a refresh this is the one from May 1939 for war in the Far East in 1942.
Capital ships - 12 at Singapore plus 9 in home waters or reserve. Total 21. So it envisages the 15 from inter-war, 5xKGV and 1 Lion.
Now another looking forward to simultaneous war with in Europe and the Far East in March 1944.
Germany:
5xnew capital ships (incl Bismarck & Tirpitz)
2xScharnhorst
3xDeutschland
Total 10
Theoretically the last would be covered by RN heavy cruisers of which there was considered to be a shortage with 5xHipper/Prinz Eugen also in the mix. The Italians would be covered from home waters and by the French. Hence more 8" cruisers planned early war that came to nothing.
Britain:
2xLion (1939 Programme ships)
5xKGV
Hood, Renown & Repulse
Total 10
But Hood might still be under reconstruction, and Repulse, who knows what work might have been done to her early war. I read many different versions. Probably at least an upgrade to and unidentified number of twin 4" AA in place of secondary and single 4" AA.
Far East:
Japan:
4xnew battleships (expected to exceed 35,000 tons 16" guns so nothing like the Yamatos turned out)
2xnew 12" battlecruisers (never built)
2xNagato
4xFuso/Ise
4xKongo
Total 16
The RN disposition:-
Far East-
2xLion (1938 Programme ships)
2xNelson (theoretically modernised by then)
3xmodernised QE
2xunmodernised QE
3xR
Total = 12
The Nelrods were considered capable of dealing with the 16" Nagatos. This deficiency in the Far East was used to justify Vanguard, but it may or may not have ready by spring 1944.
You can find details of some of the proposals for Hood reconstruction here. Plans were never finalised.
Plans for the Nelrods were also never finalised and various options existed over time depending on time and money available forvthe reconstruction. The items on the list of options included new machinery (increase speed by 2 knots but would increase reconstruction time from 2 to 2.5-3 years); new armour; replacement of secondary and existing AA armament with 6-10 new 5.25" DP; new directors; new bridge; new light AA etc etc. Hopes of a reconstruction continued into the early Post war period for this pair.
Capital ships - 12 at Singapore plus 9 in home waters or reserve. Total 21. So it envisages the 15 from inter-war, 5xKGV and 1 Lion.
Now another looking forward to simultaneous war with in Europe and the Far East in March 1944.
Germany:
5xnew capital ships (incl Bismarck & Tirpitz)
2xScharnhorst
3xDeutschland
Total 10
Theoretically the last would be covered by RN heavy cruisers of which there was considered to be a shortage with 5xHipper/Prinz Eugen also in the mix. The Italians would be covered from home waters and by the French. Hence more 8" cruisers planned early war that came to nothing.
Britain:
2xLion (1939 Programme ships)
5xKGV
Hood, Renown & Repulse
Total 10
But Hood might still be under reconstruction, and Repulse, who knows what work might have been done to her early war. I read many different versions. Probably at least an upgrade to and unidentified number of twin 4" AA in place of secondary and single 4" AA.
Far East:
Japan:
4xnew battleships (expected to exceed 35,000 tons 16" guns so nothing like the Yamatos turned out)
2xnew 12" battlecruisers (never built)
2xNagato
4xFuso/Ise
4xKongo
Total 16
The RN disposition:-
Far East-
2xLion (1938 Programme ships)
2xNelson (theoretically modernised by then)
3xmodernised QE
2xunmodernised QE
3xR
Total = 12
The Nelrods were considered capable of dealing with the 16" Nagatos. This deficiency in the Far East was used to justify Vanguard, but it may or may not have ready by spring 1944.
You can find details of some of the proposals for Hood reconstruction here. Plans were never finalised.
Plans for the Nelrods were also never finalised and various options existed over time depending on time and money available forvthe reconstruction. The items on the list of options included new machinery (increase speed by 2 knots but would increase reconstruction time from 2 to 2.5-3 years); new armour; replacement of secondary and existing AA armament with 6-10 new 5.25" DP; new directors; new bridge; new light AA etc etc. Hopes of a reconstruction continued into the early Post war period for this pair.
Well it is frustrating that we cover the same old ground over multiple threads, without the ability to carry what is learned from one into another!Why do we speak to each other like this? Instead of a dismissive, you could have led with a contribution.
Why are online forum users rude?
Answer (1 of 2): Not all online forum users are rude. But I believe the anonymity of online forums makes it much easier for people to post their thoughts without fear of repercussions, other than matching rudeness from another forum member. One big problem with forums/social media is that they a...www.quora.com
Or if you did not like my post; just ignore it.
- Thread starter
- #35
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. But we don't learn anything by dismissing others. Build them up, don't knock them down. But that's probably a minority opinion.
I think I'm done here, but carry on. Cheers all.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
re
There was some idea of modifying some(all?) of the surviving 'R' class to a form of Monitor, with the addition of huge torpedo/mine bulges, additional deck armour, additional AD radars and AA weapons, and updated FC systems suitable for shore bombardment. I have never run across any of the detailed estimates (their were some basic estimates/plans of different modification levels done up) but there were quick&dirty ideas (remove 2x 15" turrets and add a modest bulge, along with additional AA and radars) as well as more sophisticated upgrades (various numbers of 15" turrets, huge bulges, heavy cruiser AA outfit, complete radar suite, updated engineering, etc).
There was some idea of modifying some(all?) of the surviving 'R' class to a form of Monitor, with the addition of huge torpedo/mine bulges, additional deck armour, additional AD radars and AA weapons, and updated FC systems suitable for shore bombardment. I have never run across any of the detailed estimates (their were some basic estimates/plans of different modification levels done up) but there were quick&dirty ideas (remove 2x 15" turrets and add a modest bulge, along with additional AA and radars) as well as more sophisticated upgrades (various numbers of 15" turrets, huge bulges, heavy cruiser AA outfit, complete radar suite, updated engineering, etc).
All to do with Churchill's hair brained scheme to send a squadron into the Baltic in 1940. Operation Catherine. Churchill was then First Lord of the Admiralty. Fortunately, by highlighting all the difficulties, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Pound, made Churchill see the folly of the idea and it came to nothing.
Catherine | Operations & Codenames of WWII
The RN decided in the mid-1930s that, after the large refit given to Royal Oak, they were not suitable for major reconstruction. The QEs despite being older, were preferred.
Shortround6
Major General
Quite right.
A few things enter into the thinking on this. The QEs were a few years older and had seen more use in WW I meaning more wear and tear on the machinery. Individual ships varied but the QEs needed machinery overhaul/replacement sooner than the Rs.
The QEs were designed for 25kts and 75,000hp while the Rs had 40,000hp, much smaller machinery spaces. The Rs could certainly have been improved but the results would not have been as dramatic. A rebuilt R might have saved about 1/2 the machinery weight that a rebuilt QEs saved and the British were trying to stick to the treaties and there was 3000ton limit on improvements. A QE could put an extra 1000 tons into armor (or other improvements) over a rebuilt R due to the weight savings of the new machinery.
With limited dockyard space, money, and only able to work on a few ships at once to avoid weakening the fleet at any given time the QEs were going to give more effective ships in the long run.
Plans also change with time and 1922 Washington treaty ship life limits affected what ships were upgraded and when. By the mid 30s and the treaties fading replacing the older, less effective ships like the Rs was more attractive than rebuilding.
