Royal Navy Battleships had WW1 not broken out?

For some reason, the First World War does not break out. Peace continues, Fisher isn't recalled, and the Royal Navy continues to build Battleships.

In 1914, the Royal Navy had ordered a repeat Queen Elizabeth Class battleship and three more Revenge class ships. In this case, these ships would have been completed by about 1916/17.

What would the Royal Navy have ordered in 1915, or 1916? Would they have resumed Battlecruiser production? Would they have considered upgrading to a Battleship with 10 15-inch guns or going to 18-inch guns? Would they have continued to build Queen Elizabeth style Fast Battleships or Revenge class Slow Battleships, or both?

My personal opinion on the 1915 program would have included two more Battlecruisers to reinforce the fast wing - armour might have improved, while Armament would be 8 15-inch guns. Two more Battleships as well, maybe with Triple turrets involved to increase the amount of fire that could be brought onto the target.
 
I've heard it suggested here before that the 1915 program would be enlarged QE's, 5x2 15"/42, 25-26 knots, 6" guns mounted clear of spray, with the 1916 program being stopgap QE derived designs with 4x3 15"/42. Reason they are a stopgap is that Russia was going to lay down a lot of 3x4 16" armed BB's in 1915-16, and the 15" is in production while designing a new gun may slow down the response

1917 and 1918 programs would see an increase of caliber most likely, to what is a question, 16.5" would be keeping with the trend of British guns going up 1.5", 16" would be tit for tat with Russia, the US and Japan and 18" could indicate an attempt to leapfrog
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Hood as super QE might have been built and much more useful than OTL, and they would opt for bigger gun calibre after this class because SoDak would outclass it anyway. They might still develop 18 inch gun, because the Japanese would plan to build Number 13.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Britain would have to scrap much of the older fleet just to find the manpower.
Well, the pre dreadnought, the 12 inch gun tier and even the 13.5 inch type would be redundant and no longer needed by the time the new ships commissioned. They would be sold or scrapped.
 
I've heard it suggested here before that the 1915 program would be enlarged QE's, 5x2 15"/42, 25-26 knots, 6" guns mounted clear of spray, with the 1916 program being stopgap QE derived designs with 4x3 15"/42. Reason they are a stopgap is that Russia was going to lay down a lot of 3x4 16" armed BB's in 1915-16, and the 15" is in production while designing a new gun may slow down the response

I've seen the 5x15"/42 suggestion on here too, but I'm not convinced. It would basically be merging the Iron Duke and QE design philosophies, when part of the reason for the QE's had been a deliberate shift toward a different design concept. Part of the point in being armed with 15" guns was to have fewer harder hitting guns to maintain or increase the ships' total firepower while freeing up tonnage for other purposes, like the power plant for a higher maximum speed. Building a 5x15" ship would be a reversion away from that strategy, as it would either mean eliminating the "fast" part of "fast battleship" or a substantial increase in displacement and therefore cost. And all when the QE's were still better than any of their competition. In my opinion, the 1915 program would consist of a "refined" QE- faster, better lay out, essentially ironing out all of the flaws in the original QE's and tinkering with the design to be a more perfect fit to the fast battleship role. It's worth remembering here that the naval program is going to be heavily dependent on the political situation. Part of the deal Churchill struck with Lloyd George for the increase in the 1914 naval estimate was a substantial reduction in the 1915 and 1916 ones. I think that indicates that the Royal Navy will eschew an expensive new design, especially one which promises to either sacrifice capability, but still cost more than the QE's, or be even more expensive for not all that much gain. Additionally, the Royal Navy will be looking for ships that can be stretched further in terms of utility. Basically they need better value for their money, because they're facing a shortage in the number of ships available for non-home deployment due to the failure of the Canadian Naval Bill. To me, all of that will drive a desire to improve and enhance a good design they already have into an excellent one. However, all of that is dependent on the political situation keeping steady. Any number of things could happen to change it such as the Germans deciding to make another run at surpassing the British fleet and laying down a lot of ships or better ships, or conflict over Home Rule in Ulster, or news of Russia's considered 16" designs gets out and public opinion forces the government to fund a bigger program and purchase more powerful units, or the same thing could happen with Brazil, depending on if the the battleship they were rumored to be looking for in 1914 gets ordered and what it looks like. Or the opposite might happen and convince the government that the 1915 program is uneccesarily strong or large. The point being, the 1915 program depends on a number of things that could go either direction.

Now, that said, I think we can see a few likely long term trends in Britain's naval programs. First, there will be a shift away from huge numbers of battleships to fewer more individually capable ships and a greater emphasis on light units to support them. Capital ships had been increasing in cost at an astronomical rate, in the past couple of years so the government would be eager to try and minimize those increases. As an example, the move to 15" gus had increased the price of capital ships by about 30%. That's twice the increase in price caused by the move from 13.5" to 15". So it will be clear to just about everyone involved that the trend won't be changing any time soon without a sea change (pun most certainly intended) in ship design. That incentives ways to maximize the military capability of the fleet for the money spent. Which means building more light and supporting units to buttress the epensive battleships and developing techniques to allow greater mutual support between fleet elements. That will make the whole fleet not only more effective, but more cost efficient. So I think we'd see significantly more money going toward cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. For the former, I think that would take the form of many more light cruisers and efforts to push the capabilities of armoured cruisers. Maybe an early development of the proto-heavy cruiser? For the latter, it would take the form of substantially more in general, but especially on developing types of submarines that could function in some way work as an arm of the main fleet. Unfortunately, that will likely lead to an alt-K-class. Though perhaps someone will think of a better alternative. Lastly, I think there will be very strong interest in utilizing aircraft at sea from the Royal Navy. Their most pressing problem is having a worldwide empire and never enough ships to go around. Aircraft help solve that by giving the units equipped with them the ability to scout a much larger area, and acquire the information faster. That means a given number of ships can cover a greater area, and improves the navy's efficiency. However, aircraft also help with the expected problem of facing the German fleet in the North Sea because it aides in the detection of the enemy ships, which is a great help to the Grand Fleet effectively maneuvring and intercepting. Lastly, I'd just like to buttress my contention that the Royal Navy would move toward combining captial ships and supporting units by noting that in 1914, the Navy planned to disband the Battlecruiser Force and create a number of "Scouting Forces" that would consist of a battlecruiser and a number of smaller ships that would each act as a distinct unit.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I've seen the 5x15"/42 suggestion on here too, but I'm not convinced. It would basically be merging the Iron Duke and QE design philosophies, when part of the reason for the QE's had been a deliberate shift toward a different design concept. Part of the point in being armed with 15" guns was to have fewer harder hitting guns to maintain or increase the ships' total firepower while freeing up tonnage for other purposes, like the power plant for a higher maximum speed. Building a 5x15" ship would be a reversion away from that strategy, as it would either mean eliminating the "fast" part of "fast battleship" or a substantial increase in displacement and therefore cost. And all when the QE's were still better than any of their competition. In my opinion, the 1915 program would consist of a "refined" QE- faster, better lay out, essentially ironing out all of the flaws in the original QE's and tinkering with the design to be a more perfect fit to the fast battleship role. It's worth remembering here that the naval program is going to be heavily dependent on the political situation. Part of the deal Churchill struck with Lloyd George for the increase in the 1914 naval estimate was a substantial reduction in the 1915 and 1916 ones. I think that indicates that the Royal Navy will eschew an expensive new design, especially one which promises to either sacrifice capability, but still cost more than the QE's, or be even more expensive for not all that much gain. Additionally, the Royal Navy will be looking for ships that can be stretched further in terms of utility. Basically they need better value for their money, because they're facing a shortage in the number of ships available for non-home deployment due to the failure of the Canadian Naval Bill. To me, all of that will drive a desire to improve and enhance a good design they already have into an excellent one. However, all of that is dependent on the political situation keeping steady. Any number of things could happen to change it such as the Germans deciding to make another run at surpassing the British fleet and laying down a lot of ships or better ships, or conflict over Home Rule in Ulster, or news of Russia's considered 16" designs gets out and public opinion forces the government to fund a bigger program and purchase more powerful units, or the same thing could happen with Brazil, depending on if the the battleship they were rumored to be looking for in 1914 gets ordered and what it looks like. Or the opposite might happen and convince the government that the 1915 program is uneccesarily strong or large. The point being, the 1915 program depends on a number of things that could go either direction.

Now, that said, I think we can see a few likely long term trends in Britain's naval programs. First, there will be a shift away from huge numbers of battleships to fewer more individually capable ships and a greater emphasis on light units to support them. Capital ships had been increasing in cost at an astronomical rate, in the past couple of years so the government would be eager to try and minimize those increases. As an example, the move to 15" gus had increased the price of capital ships by about 30%. That's twice the increase in price caused by the move from 13.5" to 15". So it will be clear to just about everyone involved that the trend won't be changing any time soon without a sea change (pun most certainly intended) in ship design. That incentives ways to maximize the military capability of the fleet for the money spent. Which means building more light and supporting units to buttress the epensive battleships and developing techniques to allow greater mutual support between fleet elements. That will make the whole fleet not only more effective, but more cost efficient. So I think we'd see significantly more money going toward cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. For the former, I think that would take the form of many more light cruisers and efforts to push the capabilities of armoured cruisers. Maybe an early development of the proto-heavy cruiser? For the latter, it would take the form of substantially more in general, but especially on developing types of submarines that could function in some way work as an arm of the main fleet. Unfortunately, that will likely lead to an alt-K-class. Though perhaps someone will think of a better alternative. Lastly, I think there will be very strong interest in utilizing aircraft at sea from the Royal Navy. Their most pressing problem is having a worldwide empire and never enough ships to go around. Aircraft help solve that by giving the units equipped with them the ability to scout a much larger area, and acquire the information faster. That means a given number of ships can cover a greater area, and improves the navy's efficiency. However, aircraft also help with the expected problem of facing the German fleet in the North Sea because it aides in the detection of the enemy ships, which is a great help to the Grand Fleet effectively maneuvring and intercepting. Lastly, I'd just like to buttress my contention that the Royal Navy would move toward combining captial ships and supporting units by noting that in 1914, the Navy planned to disband the Battlecruiser Force and create a number of "Scouting Forces" that would consist of a battlecruiser and a number of smaller ships that would each act as a distinct unit.

When, by 1916 Britain would have to go for better BB class to match the 16 inch gun US and Japanese designs which were superior to QE.
 
For some reason, the First World War does not break out. Peace continues, Fisher isn't recalled, and the Royal Navy continues to build Battleships.

In 1914, the Royal Navy had ordered a repeat Queen Elizabeth Class battleship and three more Revenge class ships. In this case, these ships would have been completed by about 1916/17.

What would the Royal Navy have ordered in 1915, or 1916? Would they have resumed Battlecruiser production? Would they have considered upgrading to a Battleship with 10 15-inch guns or going to 18-inch guns? Would they have continued to build Queen Elizabeth style Fast Battleships or Revenge class Slow Battleships, or both?

My personal opinion on the 1915 program would have included two more Battlecruisers to reinforce the fast wing - armour might have improved, while Armament would be 8 15-inch guns. Two more Battleships as well, maybe with Triple turrets involved to increase the amount of fire that could be brought onto the target.
I haven't read the thread so I apologise if this duplicates earlier comments.

I don't know about the designs, but the numbers built would depend upon the number and type of battleships the Germans built. At that time the formula for battleships was either what the Germans built plus 40% or what the Germans built plus 60%. The idea was that the average British strength after allowing for refits had to be the same as the maximum possible German strength in case the Germans scheduled their refits to give them more serviceable battleships than the Royal Navy.

5 Queen Elisabeth class were ordered in 1912-13 and 5 Revenge class were ordered in 1913-14 because IIRC the Germans ordered 2 battleships and a battlecruiers in those years. It was one Queen Elisabeth and 3 Revenge class in 1914-15 because IIRC the Germans only ordered one battleship and one battle cruiser.

OTOH in the Mediterranean the other Central Powers were expanding their fleets. IIRC the Austrians had a programme to increase their fleet from 12 to 16 battleships by 1920, which would have included 8 dreadnoughts. The Italians had 4 Francesco Caracciolo class under construction. Although the French were allies they had a plan to increase their fleet to 40 battleships by 1920.

And offstage are the Americans. Do they still want a fleet that is second to none and do they still have their 1916 Programme?
 
When, by 1916 Britain would have to go for better BB class to match the 16 inch gun US and Japanese designs which were superior to QE.

Quite possibly. But that fits with the trend towards a smaller, more powerful battleline supported by lighter units. In fact, it exacerbates it. Everytime gun caliber increases that drives up the cost of the ships because it necessitates bigger ships, with more armour and more powerful propulsion systems. Moreover, the costs increased exponentially. The price of a 15" ship was something like 30% greater than a 13.5", which in turn was about 15-20% more than a 12". So a 16" ship will cost even more, and at a time of rising social expenditures. Unless somethng happens in the international sphere to commit the British government to an increaed naval program.

As an aside, I've seen it argued over on the warships1 board that Britain might consider skipping a 16" gun entirely and go strait from 15" to 18" sometime around 1917-1918. The logic would be appealing, as it would be an attempt to break the cycle of slowly increasing gun calibers and ship sizes by going strait to the logical end point. However, I'm not convinced that Britain would actually do that. The risk is that instead of ending the arms race it would just inflame it to new levels, and at a much greater cost. Although perhaps we might see a 16" and 18" gun developed in parallel to enable flexibility. It lets them arm their ships with guns that can match the newest foreign ships either way, and insures them against the risk of the 18" not working or taking longer than expected to develop. Just some thoughts.
 
I haven't read the thread so I apologise if this duplicates earlier comments.

I don't know about the designs, but the numbers built would depend upon the number and type of battleships the Germans built. At that time the formula for battleships was either what the Germans built plus 40% or what the Germans built plus 60%. The idea was that the average British strength after allowing for refits had to be the same as the maximum possible German strength in case the Germans scheduled their refits to give them more serviceable battleships than the Royal Navy.

5 Queen Elisabeth class were ordered in 1912-13 and 5 Revenge class were ordered in 1913-14 because IIRC the Germans ordered 2 battleships and a battlecruiers in those years. It was one Queen Elisabeth and 3 Revenge class in 1914-15 because IIRC the Germans only ordered one battleship and one battle cruiser.

OTOH in the Mediterranean the other Central Powers were expanding their fleets. IIRC the Austrians had a programme to increase their fleet from 12 to 16 battleships by 1920, which would have included 8 dreadnoughts. The Italians had 4 Francesco Caracciolo class under construction. Although the French were allies they had a plan to increase their fleet to 40 battleships by 1920.

And offstage are the Americans. Do they still want a fleet that is second to none and do they still have their 1916 Programme?

Interesting. So would the 1915 program include some fast Battleships, or even improved Battlecruisers, to counter the Mackensen class? Super Queen Elizabeths seem quite likely?

At the same time, what would be the chance of a formal arms limitation treaty, even if the most it does is introduce Tonnage and Calibre restrictions?
 
Now, that said, I think we can see a few likely long term trends in Britain's naval programs. First, there will be a shift away from huge numbers of battleships to fewer more individually capable ships and a greater emphasis on light units to support them.

To my eye this appears a sound look forward if one considers that the Washington Naval Treaty seems to create this same paradigm of a limited but qualitative Battleship fleet (adding Carriers to the mix post-war) and limiting qualitative but not necessarily quantity of lighter forces from Cruisers on down. Without wartime experiences the Carrier might take longer to gain a place as aircraft take longer to develop and submarines also take longer to mature as a potent weapon but the increased costs might compel a treaty akin to WNT in the 1916 to 1920 time frame, with the limits reflecting an accommodation of German, A-H and Ottoman Navies and Japan being a wild card in Asia.

My understanding was that the Imperial Fleet build up was bankrupting Germany and as we know the project was setting German on a strategic collision course with Britain, sometime between the 1905 "first" Moroccan crisis and 1916 I suspect the Reichstag would welcome a naval treaty even as the Kaiser and Tirpitz could not see past their egos and double down on bullying the British into "alliance". Would Germany accept a parity with France? How does Germany also gain recognition of its need for a strong fleet to counter Imperial Russia? Played adroitly I would think as the Russians pursue a bigger fleet and France refuses to curb its aspirations Germany gets a fleet parity something at or greater than 30% of the RN akin to the later developments and the Entente weakens as the British find France and Russia driving both a naval arms race and threatening its supremacy. Avoiding the war might see another shift in alliances, not a big one but perhaps enough to really butterfly the following decades. Whenever I toy with First World War departures I see just how tangled history can be.
 
Now, that said, I think we can see a few likely long term trends in Britain's naval programs. First, there will be a shift away from huge numbers of battleships to fewer more individually capable ships and a greater emphasis on light units to support them. Capital ships had been increasing in cost at an astronomical rate, in the past couple of years so the government would be eager to try and minimize those increases. As an example, the move to 15" gus had increased the price of capital ships by about 30%. That's twice the increase in price caused by the move from 13.5" to 15". So it will be clear to just about everyone involved that the trend won't be changing any time soon without a sea change (pun most certainly intended) in ship design. That incentives ways to maximize the military capability of the fleet for the money spent. Which means building more light and supporting units to buttress the epensive battleships and developing techniques to allow greater mutual support between fleet elements. That will make the whole fleet not only more effective, but more cost efficient. So I think we'd see significantly more money going toward cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. For the former, I think that would take the form of many more light cruisers and efforts to push the capabilities of armoured cruisers. Maybe an early development of the proto-heavy cruiser? For the latter, it would take the form of substantially more in general, but especially on developing types of submarines that could function in some way work as an arm of the main fleet. Unfortunately, that will likely lead to an alt-K-class. Though perhaps someone will think of a better alternative. Lastly, I think there will be very strong interest in utilizing aircraft at sea from the Royal Navy. Their most pressing problem is having a worldwide empire and never enough ships to go around. Aircraft help solve that by giving the units equipped with them the ability to scout a much larger area, and acquire the information faster. That means a given number of ships can cover a greater area, and improves the navy's efficiency. However, aircraft also help with the expected problem of facing the German fleet in the North Sea because it aides in the detection of the enemy ships, which is a great help to the Grand Fleet effectively maneuvring and intercepting. Lastly, I'd just like to buttress my contention that the Royal Navy would move toward combining captial ships and supporting units by noting that in 1914, the Navy planned to disband the Battlecruiser Force and create a number of "Scouting Forces" that would consist of a battlecruiser and a number of smaller ships that would each act as a distinct unit.

I agree here that cost will quickly start driving alternatives to the big gunned battleships. Submarines and Aircraft are much cheaper to produce and as their capabilities expand they will become the preferred method of the "lessor" nations. If WWI does not happen, I would see more regional conflicts happen and those become the testing grounds of these new weapons.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe Renown and Repulses as BBs, 4 Hood as super QEs, and gun calibre would go up to 18 inch gun for the next generation or even the last of the 4 Hood (because they had designs for these guns, not for 16 inch version). But the total number of BBs would fall.
 
Is there any chance that the carrier lobby can convince the RN that this expenditure on bigger and bigger battleships is a waste of money, when a dozen Sopwith Cuckoos from Furious can rather easily sink the best of them.

Sopwith_Cuckoo.jpg
 
Is there any chance that the carrier lobby can convince the RN that this expenditure on bigger and bigger battleships is a waste of money, when a dozen Sopwith Cuckoos from Furious can rather easily sink the best of them.

If they can prove the concept works then I would say yes. But they need to sink a capital ship, not just a cruiser. And getting one to come out won't be easy...
 
If they can prove the concept works then I would say yes. But they need to sink a capital ship, not just a cruiser. And getting one to come out won't be easy...
ITTL, they'll be lots of older dreadnoughts for SINKEX. Start with a 12" ship as proof of concept, and them move onto an Orion or KGV class. If Audacious' sinking from a single mine is any indication, she won't withstand a determined Cuculidae.
 
Top