Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ideal World War Two RN
earlm    5/4/2008 3:13:32 PM
With hindsight what should the RN have done to be the best force possible for WW2? 1. Obtain better AA fire control from US. 2. Obtain US carrier based aircraft through lend lease. 3. Introduce a dual purpose 4.5-5" gun. (US 5"/38?) 4. Scrap the R class. 5. Save money on KGV and arm them with R class turrets with higher elevation. 6. Modernize Hood 7. Modernize Repulse
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT
larryjcr    to Tancred   8/20/2008 5:56:07 PM
Most of what you have in your post, I agree with entirely.  This thing has been an intellectual exercise, and I wouldn't want to try and come up with a geo-political scenario to support it.  That's why I've been writing in the sense of assuming an  open sea action rather than something with either or both sides supported by land based forces.
 
The one point I would argue with you is one that I just posted about to Stevo above.  The idea that radar would magically negate the IJNs advantages in night optics, weapons and tactical doctrin by allowing the RN to 'choose the range'.  As I mentioned, surface search radar in Dec. 1941 had severe technical limitations.  The close proximity of land masses in the Guadalcanal area made them much worse, but an engagement in the East Indies or close off the coast of Malaya would include similar problems.  The big thing was the display system of the radar sets.  They gave range in the form of a baseline spike on an oscilliscope (probably spelled that wrong) display, and bearing had to be determined by 'steering' the antenna to find maximum return strength.  This was somewhat time consuming and had to be performed for EACH contact.  It wasn't like the contacts on a circular scope being repeatedly sweapt out and automatically showing positional relationships and movement speed and direction.  Little wonder that the Japanese night optics did at least as well, and all to often, much better.
 
Quote    Reply

juan grande       8/20/2008 6:38:54 PM

@ juan grande (18/8 11.46AM)

1)

You have proof that the British AA directors were bad? Just because the ships needed different electrical systems means nothing, the RN used DC and their ships may have used different voltages to the american ships.

2)

Altering the landing gear of the spitfire to swing outwards rather then inwards to give them a wider spacing between the wheels, and with a wing modification to give it folding wings (the spit had a few different wing designs) would make it a decent carrier fighter, the problem with the seafire and sea hurricane is that they were modified in a hurry due to the need to get fighters on ships for convoy defense in the atlantic.

3)

A lot of the Dido's got a 4.5" gun instead of the 5.25", they were much more capable ships.

4)

Sure, a convoy with battleships escort was invulnerable to german surface raiders because if they were damaged fighting the battleship they were a long way from home.

5)

KGV were originally planned to have 9 15" guns, but they could not be fitted on the displacement limit from the London Treaty while still having the requisite armour protection, hence the 14" guns.

6)

We don't know that since it never happened, if hood had been rebuilt, personally i would have been as happy going against bismark in her as if i were in any of the other ships, Hood was as heavily armoured as the RN battleships with the exception of the, KGV's and possibly HMS Queen Elizabeth which was modernized between 1939 and 1941.

7)

The Renown, the other ship of the same class as Repulse was heavily modernised in the late 1930's with the replacement of the original secondary armourment with 20 4.5" DP guns in 10 twin turrets, if the war against germany hadn't started, Repulse probably would have had the same rebuild.



@ larryjcr (19/8 3.49AM)

He also stated an example of combat training between the Hurricanes and the American aircraft midway through the war, where it was found to have greater maneuverablility. Hurricanes built after october 1940 had 12x.303, and from mid 1941, they were built with 4x20mm cannon, 400 of these were converted to sea hurricanes.



@ larryjcr (19/8 4:52 AM)

RE: Cruisers

The leanders and Arethusa Class were easily matches for the IJN light cruisers, even the Dido's with their 5.25" guns (which had light guns due to being AA cruisers) could probably come out on top. There were 13 county class cruisers, 2 Hawkins class with 7.9" guns, 2 Exeter class cruisers and 10 Town class cruisers in service in december 1941, these ships had radar fitted unlike the Japanese, and so could dictate the time and location of the engagement more then the japanese ships could. Remember that the japanese faced the same displacement rules as all the treaty cruisers, so any increase in armourment had to come at the price of a reduction of something else (armour). The older ships may have been outmatched by the newer japanese ships, however there were 27 of them versus  the 18 japanese ships and the other British light cruisers would have helped as well. This isnt even mentioning the fact that they would probably be accompanied during a fleet engagement by Repulse and Renown as they were more cruiser then battleship.

About the range of the Dido's, at 16 knots they had a similar range to the much larger QE class battleships, so i dont think range wouldbe a problem



@ prometheus

I believe the plan of the was to place a powerful fleet in singapore and use it to destroy any invasion attempts of malaya or australia. They did not plan for a fleet action, at least initially



@ doggtag

Earlier construction of the graving dock at garden island in sydney, when completed in 1945 it was the largest drydock in the southern hemisphere and was big enough that it could fit the largest ships aroung.



@jaun grande

the full extent of the structural damage taken by the illustrious class was not known until postwar surveys of the ships to discover their potential for upgrades with angled decks. How are the RN cruisers barely adequate? As for the repair time of the british yards, the problem was manpower, as the ships had to repair merchant ships damaged during the crossing of the atlantic in the convoys as well. For example, during WW2, harland and wolff in belfast built 6 Aircraft
 
Quote    Reply

juan grande       8/20/2008 7:03:16 PM
RN would have been much better off to have bought a few Essex-class carriers and dropped their carrier building entirely.  then then could concentrate on full-size fleet escorts.  Even if the US wasn't willing to part with an Essex during the war, the RN probably could have pulled it off after the war when we had fresh carriers (Shangra-La, Tarawa) that had no miles on them.
As an addendum to my earlier posting.....  Hood did have good side aromor but her deck was very weak.  One inch of armor on the main deck and 3/4 inch on the upper deck.  The main battery magazines had extra armor over them but the killer shot (some historians believe it came from Prinz Eugen's 8" battery, not even Bismarck) pierced the 1" armor and exploded near the torpedo room and 4" ready ammo.  The Hood was the equivilent of a ditzy cheerleader:  she was good looking, had a great figure, everybody wanted her but you know you couldn't date her for more than a week before you were tired of her attitude.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       8/20/2008 9:56:52 PM

Will respond in a series rather than one big post.

1. One of the old 'C' class cruisers was rebuilt in the US as a CLAA with 5"/38 guns and the associated FCS.  The RN was very positively impressed compared to their own DP gun systems and wanted more, however US production of the guns and FCS units was not high enough to quite meet our own needs and so could transfer very few.  Note that about half of the US built DEs were armed with 3" guns rather than 5" due to lack of supply.

 

2.  The landing gear of the Spitfire was mounted on the fuselage structure instead of the wing to reduce airframe weight.  It allowed for much lighter wing structure since it was not subjected to the impact stresses from the gear on landings.  Same thing was done in the Bf109 for the same reason.  Inward folding gear would have to be mounted to the wing structure, and, especially for a carrier a/c with very high landing forces, would mean a total redesign of both the wing and the connecting fuselage structures.  The result (time and resources required for the project aside) would be a much heavier a/c, and certainly no longer a Spitfire at all.  Even then, unless the cockpit were raised and the cowling seriously reshaped, it would still have all the drawbacks in the actual approach.  This is why the FAA preferred Corsairs, in spite of its own drawbacks in forward visibility, for actual combat use.  Trying to make the needed changes in an a/c as small as the Spitfire would have driven weight way up, and defeated the purpose to trying to do it in the first place.

 

3. Several of the DIDOs were completed with 4.5" guns vice the design 5.25", but this was due to a shortage of the 5.25" guns, not to any belief that the 4.5" was better.  Note that, with the exception of one ship that was lost while still carrying the 4.5s, ALL the DIDOs completed with 4.5" guns were eventually re-armed with 5.25s. 

1. I'm aware that one of them was rebuilt, however i am also aware that it was a very extensive rebuild because the systems of the american and british equipment was not compatible (electricity voltage etc).
 
2. Not the easiest upgrade, but considering the Spitfire used several completely different wings during the war, possible.
 
3. As far as i can find, two Dido's were completed with 4.5" guns, both were lost while still fitted with them.

 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       8/20/2008 9:58:51 PM

ref: 19/8 3.49 AM

First question I'd have is what is meant by "more maneuverable"? 

 

Too often, that's taken to mean just, 'who can turn most tightly' which than translates to: who has the lowest stall speed.  Both the Wildcat and the Hurricain were pretty good at this, having both low stall speeds.  The Hurricain had a lower stall speed, but the Wildcat had much better stall characteristics, and so could be flown closer to stall with less fear the a/c would try and kill you if you made a mistake.  In Brown's words: "the plane could be maneuvered to its limits with impunity."  It's one thing to match turns in training, with plenty of altitude for recovery.  It's another thing in combat, where a Wildcat would have a much better chance of recovering before the enemy had a chance to kill you, than a Hurricain did.

 

Beyond turn rate, maneuverability also should include a/c agility:  the ability to convert from one move to another, such as, to reverse from a left vertical turn to a right vertical turn.  This is a factor of roll rate and pitch rate of the a/c.

 

Brown's comparisons were that the Wildcat had better overall maneuverability than the Sea Hurricain (which a lost at least a little from the RAF version due to increased weight), but that the Grumman needed a good deal of physical work from the pilot to get its best, due to heavier controls.  It also had much better combat visibiltiy than the Hurricain.

 

As to the Hurricain II versions of the Sea H., the cannon armed version had one SEVERE draw back.  The 4x20mm guns had only 90 round per gun.  Thats a whopping SEVEN SECONDS of fire.  I think that I'd rather have the 4x.50s for 33 seconds.  Carrier fighters often are defending their own ship -- the place they have to land -- and that doesn't leave the option of pulling out of a fight after one or two squirts.

Please don't talk about maneuverability at stall speed, ever heard the saying "Speed is life" Any fighter flying at close to stall speed would be a sitting duck to an enemy fighter.

 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       8/20/2008 10:09:34 PM


In response for my statements....


1)  the Mk 37 director with the Mk22/12 radar system was BY FAR the best AA/DP system available to any navy throughout the course of WWII.  The addition of the Mk 51 for 40mm, 3", and even 5" control came a decent second place.  RN never had an equal to the Mk 37 and especially not to the Mk 51 for local FC.

 

2)  Changing the entrie landing gear system on a Spitfire is not just something that could easily be done.  The main killer of the Spitfire was that its structure wasn't nearly as strong as a purpose-built carrier plane and the Spitfire, in all versions, had horrible range.  The early model Spits could barely make it across the Channel.  I wouldn't want to be a Seafire pilot and have to escort a long mission.  The Spit was a great aircraft but was never intended to fly off a carrier deck.

 

3)  You are correct that many Didos had 4.5" guns but only because the 5.25" guns weren't available due to manufacturing issues.  They won that be default but the RN did realize that the 4.5" was a better suited gun.

 

4) no argument with you on convoy BB escort

 

5)  KGVs were actually designed for three quadruple 14" turrets but the original discussion question was to remove R-class BB turrets ( twin 15" turrets) to place onboard instead of the quad/twin 14" turrets.

 

6)  Hood had little deck armor.  That was her downfall.

 

7)  Had Repulse been rebuilt as was Renown, she may have had a chance.  But, then again, Prince of Wales had similar weaponry and was equally overwhelmed.



 

1) You have difinitive proof of that?
 
2) Replied already
 
3) Replied already
 
4) So why scrap the R's and use the turrets for KGV's?
 
5) I believe they considered both, but ended up building with 10 14" guns when they realised they would go over the displacement limit of 35,000t otherwise.
 
6) The rebuild of Hood was to include the addition of more deck armour as this deficiency of her was well known to the RN. IIRC, Hollands original plan was to close on Bismark head on to get in close quicker, where her thick side belts would take the hits rather then her vulnerable deck.
 
7) True, To bad they didn't have the land based air cover.

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Steve   8/21/2008 10:15:18 AM
I can say that everything I've read said the Brit's had bad AA FCS...for reasons of parsimony they chose NON-tachymetric systems...the Mk 37 and the Mk 51 had aircraft target inputs added.  The result, from all I have read, is that US AA FCS was superior.  Add in the sub-optimal gun characteristics of the pom-pom and the various 4" and 4.5" and even 5.25" (round too large) guns and you have an, overall, poor standard for AAA.
 
Finally, throw in almost no carrier air cover and you have a RN that is pitifully prepared to fight the IJN or for that matter in the Mediterranean, or any where their opponent could place air power.
 
Someone, I can't remember who keeps bringing up the fact that Britain never planned on fighting without France.  And I grant that that is true and that it did massively alter the Mediterranean Balance of Naval Power, and put the U-boats much closer than the RN planned, BUT...without those French naval bases, Germany sank 11 Million tons of shipping, in WWI.  Certainly Britain would have been wise to expect a much better equipped German U-boat force in WWII would represent as large if not a a LARGER threat, even with France in the picture.  And yet Britain did not grasp this...and this was a major pre-war failing. 
 
Yes Horton and Walker and the RN and the RCN did rise to the occasion, and that brings great honour to their services, but the point is that mayhap they ought not have to had made such exertions or similar exertions much SOONER might have made the war much easier.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    Spitfire wing   8/21/2008 11:10:14 AM

The 'rebuilds' of the Spitfire wings largely involved rearranging internal structure to provide space for badly-needed improvements in armament.  Only the final redesign to the wing for the Mk20 series Spitfires involved a serious increase in the structural strenght of the wing, and even then, they were only increasing wing 'stiffness' not trying to build in a major 'hard point' that could take the kind of stresses you're talking about.  Attempting to 'redesign' the wing to provide sufficient structural strength to reposition the landing gear support points in the wing would require the TOTAL redesign of the entire structure as well as the section of the fuselage to which the wing is attatched.  It would require a massive increase in structural strength (especially for a carrier a/c which would have a much higher impact forces than a land plane) and almost certainly involve the abandonment of the basic, single-spar structure for a two spar structure. 

 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    maneuverability   8/21/2008 11:22:07 AM
Yes, I know understand the tactical importance of maintaining speed in combat.  Which is why trying to determine combat 'maneuverablility' on the basis of wing loading is not valid.  That WAS the point of that entire post of mine.  The failure to grasp that is the reason that the RAF pilots of Hurricains, and later of Spitfires, had so much trouble fighting the A6M, and, for that matter, the IJAs Ki-43.  After all, it wasn't really Zeros that wiped out the Hurricains in Malaya and Burma, it was mostly the Japanese Armies 'Oscars'.  The RAF pilots had been taught to 'turn their way to victory' which was why Mitchell pulled out so many stops to minimize airframe weight in the design of the Spitfire.  The trouble was that Jiro Horikoshi was willing to go even farther in the design of the A6M.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    To Tancred   8/21/2008 11:34:38 AM
Your point that there was never a WW2 battle involving both effective carrier forces and a battle line action is true enough.
 
Yamamoto expected exactly that at Midway.  He was trying to 'lure' the US Pacific Fleet into a decisive battle, and expected tham to send their battle line (Nimitz had seven OBBs available at the time) out along with the carriers in response to his attack.  Then, his carriers could destroy or cripple the US carriers and allow his faster battleships to dictate combat.  Nimitz, due to advance warning, set an ambush by Fletcher with the carriers, and left the OBBs on the US West coast where it wasn't burning fuel oil that had to be shipped out to Pearl.
 
At the Philippine Sea, Spruance formed his battle line in the hope that the Japanese would "offer engagement".  The Japanese had no intention of coming anywhere near close enough for a gun battle.  They were playing their only advantage: longer range aircraft.
 
The reason why there was not a carrier-battleship battle was that as long as there was air power, it dominated the situation.  The side that had gained air superiority would only engage in daylight, when it had the aid of aircraft, and the side at a disadvantage in the air, would avoid a gunfight except at night, when the ability of a/c to influence the action was very limited.
Since neither side ever had a great enough situational advantage to trap their opponant into a fight on their terms, there was no battle.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics