The Austere Class Battleships

Chapter 1 - "HMS Austere"
This is an itch I have been needing to scratch for some time now - I got the idea from Antony Williams ATL/ASB WW2 novel 'The Foresight War' and applied my fascination of the G3/N3 and O3 designs of Battleships coupled with the Naval treaty limitations of the day and also the problems of austerity that impacted British designs on rearmament in the 1930s.

The idea of building 18 'Austere Battleships' in the late 30s and early 40s has lots of holes in it - some so big you could drive a 35,000 ton battleship through it.

But as I said - I had an itch ;)

So without further ado I present to you the 1933 KGV or 'Austere Class' Battleship design.


Between 1928 and 1931 the then DNC's (Sir William Berry and then Sir Arthur Johns) developed plans for a new class of fast battleship that could be affordable built by British Shipyards in large numbers to replace those pre-Jutland designed warships that would soon be reaching 20 years of age and therefore due for replacement.

One of the problems that Britain faced was that with little or no Capital ship construction since the completion of the Battleships Nelson and Rodney, those industries vital for the building of such warships were beginning to wither and disappear.

For example only 9 large 'erecting' pits capable of building or servicing large turrets remained in the entire country and the ability to produce Armour plate was significantly reduced from what was available in 1916 with the closure of several specialist armour making companies.

So without government support or building more capital ships there was a risk that Britain would soon be left without the ability to replace its aging fleet.

The idea that Sir William and then Sir Arthur came up with was to create a 35,000 Ton (dry) 'treaty' design using the latest proven technology and design concepts capable of 30 plus knots.

And to build enough of them to provide enough Capital ships to be able to protect Imperial interests.

One idea to keep the costs as low as possible was to reuse of the proven Mk1 twin 15” gun turrets as between the cost of new turrets on a new class of ship represented a large % of the cost and necessary development times would not see new weapon systems available for some years further delaying any replacement ships.

Also the triple 16” guns on the Nelson and Rodney had proven to be a disappointment with their performance not much better than the latest 15” Green boy shells from the older BL 15-inch Mark I rifles and the reliability of the 16” system was far far worse and planning regarding the deep refitting of the existing battleships such as HMS Warspite included revising the turret layout to Mk1 (N) standard which for example improved the anti-flash and safety features and reversed the shell and powder handling rooms thus putting the ‘powder’ magazine lower in the ship and in practice less likely to be subjected to the exploding battle cruiser issues that plagued some RN vessels at Jutland.

Even more radically was the idea to only arm each of these new vessels with 3 turrets in the now familiar O3 configuration found on the Nelson class Battleship giving them only 6 main guns which flew in the face of the then established schools of gunner that said that 8 guns were the minimum required for a battleship engagement.

The DNC countered that the 2 Battle cruisers Renown and Repulse frequently came top in gunnery competition scores and that the design would allow more ships to be built making it far more likely that the RN would outnumber any enemy in a surface engagement.

The inclusion of spotting aircraft and superior and larger directors was expected to make the accuracy of the guns superior to that enjoyed by earlier ships. The later inclusion of radar – whose application was unrealised at this time, justified this compromise as the weight savings allowed the ship to carry a much heavier Dual Purpose battery and a greater tonnage of machinery compared to the Nelson class.

Lastly the ships would include a repeat of the all or nothing armour design concept used on the Nelson and Rodney along with the large mostly un-armoured ‘octagonal‘ superstructure (commonly called the Queen’s Ann Mansion) which provided spacious working areas outside of the ships citadel – with only the Trunking to the main director and the ‘fighting bridge’ itself being armoured.

And large calibre shell that hit the structure would 'pass through' the relatively light construction not triggering the fuse of the shell or the delay being such that it would have not been slowed and have cleared the structure before detonating.

A main director was mounted at the very top of the structure increasing the likelihood of it remaining clear of spray from heavy seas and shell splashes etc as well as increasing its horizon

Unlike the Nelson class the Austere class would have a double hanger and double ended catapult aft of the Superstructure with a pair of Cranes that doubled up as ships boat cranes and for use during reloading of the ships 15” and 4.5” magazines.

Technically 3 aircraft could be carried - in practice never more than 2

Armed with 3 x 815 ton Mk1 (N) turrets each with 2 x BL 15-inch Mark I rifles – 120 Rounds were carried per gun (for a total of 720 Rounds).

Secondary guns were intended to be a new 5.25 twin DP mounting but delays to this program, along with known failures in the earlier 'abandoned' 5.1" (13 cm) gun program, as well as troublesome experiences with the in service 4.7" (12 cm) Mark XII both of which had used fixed single piece ammunition. The Crews of the Nelson and Rodney had experienced all sorts of issues with the single piece ammunition of the 4.7" (12 cm) Mark XII which include very heavy ammunition handling and ammunition that broke into shell and case during the loading cycle all leading to a slower than desired ROF and the DNC was keen not to repeat those 'mistakes'.

The new gun used a heavy 4.5” shell with a separate Case

The new guns proved capable of up to 15 RPM per gun (under trial conditions) although this tailed off to about 10-12 RPM at higher elevations.

The weapons had a maximum elevation of 80 degrees and its shells could reach an altitude of 41,000 feet (12,500 m).

Used in the surface role they had an effective range of 20,750 yards (18,970 m) and at 10,000 yards could penetrate 2.5” of armour.

It was always feared that this would not serve and that a heavier gun would be needed to deal with the expected larger, faster and higher flying aircraft as well as having to deal with Destroyers capable of firing torpedoes with longer ranges but in practice the weapon proved suitable for the conditions of the 2nd Great War.

So the new Twin 4.5-in (11.4 cm) Mark I was chosen – with 8 turrets fitted - 4 each side 2 forward and 2 rearward of the Catapult on each side.

This gun would go onto become the principle DP gun for all future Battleships and Fleet / light fleet Carriers, the Principle gun system for all fleet DDs post 1935 (The K,L,M,O and P classes) as well as the Dido class Light Cruisers and the final version of the gun would still be in service in the 1980s

Each pair was served by a director (2 mounted on the fwd superstructure and 2 mounted aft)

400 rounds were carried per gun for a total of 6400 shells

6 (initially 4) x 8 barrelled 40mm QF 2-pounder Mark VIII were installed 1 each side of the Bridge super structure forward and 1 each side aft of the funnels. Later on during the building of the first 6 units 2 more weapons were added 1 on top of the super firing B turret and one towards the stern.

The First batch of 6 Ships had 4 x 4 Vickers .50 cal mountings 2 each side of the Bridge super structure but these did not meet the desired capabilities and so by June 1940 (on the eve of Britain’s participation of the 2nd Great war) all had each been replaced by single mount 2 Pounder Pom Pom on the KGV/Austere class BBs

As the 2nd Great War progressed and aircraft became increasingly more effective against ships, more weapons were added to increase a given vessels AA capability – these were generally 20mm Oerlikon guns, single mount Pom Poms and towards the end of the war single, twin and quad 40mm Bofors became increasingly common.

Like all surviving warships of WW2 they eventually became literally festooned with automatic light AAA.

But that was the as of yet unknown future

The Daily Mail got wind of the proposed design in April 1933 and sneeringly called them 'The Austere class' and the name stuck.

A popular press led resistance to the 'Austere class' gained momentum the 'fear' (which of course is good for newspaper sales) being that the Royal Navy would enter the next decade with the weakest Battleships of the main powers.

However with at least 12 of the Navy's oldest commissioned Battleship/Battle Cruisers reaching 'block obsolescence' by the mid 30s and with Italy and Japan rebuilding their older ships and with Germany planning 2 fast Battleships armed with 15” guns (actually they would be armed with 11” guns) the government agreed to the DNCs design and triggering the 20 year rule and started on an ambitious 10 year plan to replace the Royal Navy's aging battlefleet rather than refitting the existing pre Jutland designs

The first 3 hulls were laid down in Sept of 1933 and 2 ships HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Warspite (the oldest hulls) were decommissioned in April 1934.

With 16 Turrets now available (4 spares left over from the Curious class BC's, 4 to be taken from monitors and the 8 from those 2 Battleships) the first 9 were rebuilt to MK1 (N) Standard by Feb 1935 and fitted to the first 3 KGV hulls which were all commissioned during 1937 (Sadly Sir Arthur Johns died before the first ship was commissioned but he did live to see the first 6 be launched).

These were

HMS King George V

HMS King Edward VIII

HMS Queen Mary

The next 3 hulls were laid down in Sept 1934 and HMS Valiant and HMS Revenge got the chop in April 1935 and again their turrets began the process of being rebuilt to Mk1 (N) Standard adding to the pool of Turrets which were fitted to those 3 '2nd batch' hulls in 1936 – all 3 of which were commissioned during 1938

These were

HMS Howe

HMS Jellicoe (Name agreed after the death of Admiral Jellicoe in Nov 1935)

HMS Anson

The next '4' hulls were laid down in Sept 1935 and HMS Barham and HMS Malaya got the chop in April 1936 and again their turrets began the process of being rebuilt to Mk1 (N) Standard which were added to the pool of reconditioned turrets fitted to those 4 '3rd batch' hulls in 1937 – all 4 of which were commissioned during 1939

These were

HMS Lion (Renamed HMS Beattie at launch after the death of Admiral Beattie)

HMS Conqueror

HMS Temeraire

HMS Bellerophon

The next '4' hulls were laid down in Sept 1936 and this time 3 ships HMS Royal Oak, HMS Royal Sovereign and HMS Resolution went to the breakers in April 1937 and again their turrets began the process of being rebuilt to Mk1 (N) Standard which were added to the pool of reconditioned turrets fitted to those 4 '4th batch' hulls in 1937 – all 4 of which were commissioned during 1940 – (with Tiger and Thunderer rushed into service late in 1940 after the 2nd Great War had begun)

These were

HMS Lion

HMS Vanguard

HMS Tiger

HMS Thunderer

The next '4' hulls were laid down in Sept 1937 and this time 3 ships HMS Ramillies, HMS Renown and HMS Repulse went to the breakers in April 1938 and again their turrets began the process of being rebuilt to Mk1 (N) Standard which were added to the pool of reconditioned turrets fitted to those 4 '5th batch' hulls between 1939 and 1943 – all 4 of which were commissioned between 1941 and early 1944 (completion of this last batch were delayed due to competing and heavy demands on British ship building and associated industries)

HMS Princess Royal

HMS Prince of Wales

HMS St Vincent

HMS Dreadnought

As chance would have it HMS Dreadnought who was finally commissioned in May 1944 would be the very last Dreadnought battleship ever made (USS Wisconsin last of the 4 Iowa class or 2nd batch South Dakota class was commissioned 3 weeks before Dreadnought in April 44)

HMS Hood by then the oldest capital ship in the fleet and hard worked in the late 30s and first years of the 2nd Great War was due to have deep refit in 1936 and then 1938 but the need to have her rush from flash point to flash point in the late 30s kept her in commission with only minor necessary refits to keep her in service able to be carried out. But with so many 'Austere class' ships commissioned by 1941 the plan was to have a major deep refit take place in the US late the same year but after being heavily damaged during the opening clashes during the 1st Battle of Jan Mayan Island by Tirpitz and Gneisenau (during the attempted breakout) with her worn out condition and damage taken into consideration she was deemed beyond economical repair (much to the anguish of many) and her surviving 3 MK2 turrets were used in the 3 Roberts class monitors from 1944 and the hull was finally scrapped in 1946 at the war's end.

On a footnote – a large number of 6” guns (of which about 120 odd were removed from the 5 Queen Elizabeth class and 5 Revenge class ships) and after reconditioning were reused in a number of shore batteries around the Empire and are often named after the ship that 'donated' them.

The 3 'Warspite batteries' for example can still be found around the City of Kota Bhara in Malaya and the 3 'Royal Sovereign' batteries were but 3 of 12 such batteries stood up in Malta – 1 of those Batteries is still preserved on the Island.

In the next episode the Austere class at war.
 
Hope you don't mind a few (well ok lots) questions....
....
Between 1928 and 1931 the then DNC's (Sir William Berry and then Sir Arthur Johns) developed plans for a new class of fast battleship that could be affordable built by British Shipyards in large numbers to replace those pre-Jutland designed warships that would soon be reaching 20 years of age and therefore due for replacement.
Good so no LNT? note 28 means that British armaments/shipbuilding is in a better place than 37.....

... those industries vital for the building of such warships were beginning to wither and disappear. For example only 9 large 'erecting' pits capable of building or servicing large turrets remained in the entire country and the ability to produce Armour plate was significantly reduced from what was available in 1916 with the closure of several specialist armour making companies.
Have they all shut by 28.... and is it only 9 pits?

The idea that Sir William and then Sir Arthur came up with was to create a 35,000 Ton (dry) 'treaty' design using the latest proven technology and design concepts capable of 30 plus knots.
This will be very tight with 4x2 old 15" twin....if not impossible without cheating or skimping on protection (not acceptable post Jutland).

And to build enough of them to provide enough Capital ships to be able to protect Imperial interests.
Any WNT number limits? At least till 37 is it 15 ships like OTL WNT build scheduled? (1931 C, D? AB are N&R http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.php)

One idea to keep the costs as low as possible was to reuse of the proven Mk1 twin 15” gun turrets as between the cost of new turrets on a new class of ship represented a large % of the cost and necessary development times would not see new weapon systems available for some years further delaying any replacement ships.
This cripples the gun and mount industrial base and if we are starting in 28 we have time to develop gun/mounts for 31 easily.

Also the triple 16” guns on the Nelson and Rodney had proven to be a disappointment with their performance not much better than the latest 15” Green boy shells from the older BL 15-inch Mark I rifles and the reliability of the 16” system was far far worse and planning regarding the deep refitting of the existing battleships such as HMS Warspite included revising the turret layout to Mk1 (N) standard which for example improved the anti-flash and safety features and reversed the shell and powder handling rooms thus putting the ‘powder’ magazine lower in the ship and in practice less likely to be subjected to the exploding battle cruiser issues that plagued some RN vessels at Jutland.
If you are building new you will not be refitting and Im not sure the planing had started by then?

Even more radically was the idea to only arm each of these new vessels with 3 turrets in the now familiar O3 configuration found on the Nelson class Battleship giving them only 6 main guns which flew in the face of the then established schools of gunner that said that 8 guns were the minimum required for a battleship engagement.
Gun school will hate you, but does solve the tonnage limit And RN did not like the O3 for silly and good reasons, ie steering and bottom mines.

..and 4.5” magazines.
Early DP development?

Secondary guns were intended to be a new 5.25 twin DP mounting but delays to this program, along with known failures in the earlier 'abandoned' 5.1" (13 cm) gun program, as well as troublesome experiences with the in service 4.7" (12 cm) Mark XII both of which had used fixed single piece ammunition. The Crews of the Nelson and Rodney had experienced all sorts of issues with the single piece ammunition of the 4.7" (12 cm) Mark XII which include very heavy ammunition handling and ammunition that broke into shell and case during the loading cycle all leading to a slower than desired ROF and the DNC was keen not to repeat those 'mistakes'.
All very early for 28 start? 5.1 was built in 1931....

The new gun used a heavy 4.5” shell with a separate Case
Yayyy but full of hindsight...

as well as the Dido class Light Cruisers
Not sure it can fill the role unless you want to make them AA only ships 55-58lb v 80lb shell will not allow them to fight 100lb CLs....

6 (initially 4) x 8 barrelled 40mm QF 2-pounder Mark VIII were installed 1 each side of the Bridge super structure forward and 1 each side aft of the funnels. Later on during the building of the first 6 units 2 more weapons were added 1 on top of the super firing B turret and one towards the stern.
Nice especially if they actually fitted on completion not years later?

....However with at least 12 of the Navy's oldest commissioned Battleship/Battle Cruisers reaching 'block obsolescence' by the mid 30s and with Italy and Japan rebuilding their older ships and with Germany planning 2 fast Battleships armed with 15” guns (actually they would be armed with 11” guns) the government agreed to the DNCs design and triggering the 20 year rule and started on an ambitious 10 year plan to replace the Royal Navy's aging battlefleet rather than refitting the existing pre Jutland designs
We are talking 1928 start? Why would IJN/USN (and to lesser extent RM/MN due to cash issues) rebuild when RN builds new? Germany is also under VT in 28-31....building 6x 11" "10,000t" PBs....

The first 3 hulls were laid down in Sept of 1933 and 2 ships HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Warspite (the oldest hulls) were decommissioned in April 1934.
Why WNT allows 31 laid down and RN had 8 spare turrets from LLC/monitors so it can gap at least the first 2 ships? Would Rs not get pulled first rather than QEs, depending on refit dates in reality?

With 16 Turrets now available (4 spares left over from the Curious class BC's, 4 to be taken from monitors and the 8 from those 2 Battleships) the first 9 were rebuilt to MK1 (N) Standard by Feb 1935 and fitted to the first 3 KGV hulls which were all commissioned during 1937 (Sadly Sir Arthur Johns died before the first ship was commissioned but he did live to see the first 6 be launched).
This is way to slow, 8 spare mounts can be rebuilt early to learn from and no LNT means they can start laying down in 31 for 34 completion C&D and then according to build scheduled two more in 35, one in 36 and two in 37, one in 38, two in 39 (all laid down 3 years before) at some point IJN walking would probably break the scheduled say 36?

Your build rate is much faster and started later that will push up cost and reduce the ships available early on.

Also learning from one to the next batch) ie by 37 you have 3 v 7 allowed by WNT scheduled, by 38 you have 6 v 8, by 39 10 v 10 , by 40 14 v 11 presumably doesn't matter due to war but it does men construction wise after 1935 (batch 3 of 4 ships) you will be over the allowed build rate of WNT? Is this OK and if so why stay under 35,000t?
 
Hope you don't mind a few (well ok lots) questions....

No I forbid it ;)

Good so no LNT? note 28 means that British armaments/shipbuilding is in a better place than 37.....

The decision is made in 1933 not 1928. The LNT goes pretty much as planned - I believe that I have stayed within its terms?

Have they all shut by 28.... and is it only 9 pits?

I understand that by 1933 this was the case - yes

This will be very tight with 4x2 old 15" twin....if not impossible without cheating or skimping on protection (not acceptable post Jutland).

Its 3 x 2 x 15" not 4 x but the turrets are basically rebuilt to the MK1 (N) standard as per the OTL Warspite, Valiant, Queen Elizabeth and Renown rebuilds - so with all the lessons learned etc

From Navweaps

During modernizations carried out during the 1930s, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite and Renown had their turrets lifted off the ship and sent to the Vickers-Armstrong ordnance works at Elswick for modifications to increase the maximum elevation from 20 degrees up to 30 degrees. Besides altering the elevation machinery, this was accomplished by enlarging the gun ports, raising the slide trunnions 8.75 in (22.2 cm) and moving them back 7.25 in (18.4 cm). The guns and slides were moved forward relative to the trunnions by the same amount. This change gave the necessary clearance in the gun wells but the gunloading cage rails had to be moved forward in order to reach the new breech position. There was a penalty in that a 12 ton (12.2 mt) balance weight had to be fitted to the rear collar of each gun. The elevation cylinders and elevation walking pipes also had to be redesigned to accommodate these positional changes and pneumatic run-out was fitted to eliminate the "stalling" problem at higher elevations. Sighting hoods were removed and sighting ports were added in their place, which increased the practical firing arcs. Modified mountings can be easily identified by the "hooded" armor fittings used to cover the larger gun port openings. These modified Mark I and Mark I* turrets were redesignated as Mark I/N and Mark I*/N, respectively.

Warspite with just such a modernised turret scored the longest or joint longest hit ever achieved in battle

During the battle Warspite achieved one of the longest range gunnery hits from a moving ship to a moving target in history, hitting Giulio Cesare at a range of approximately 24 km (26,000 yd), the other being a shot from Scharnhorst which hit Glorious at approximately the same distance in June 1940.

Any WNT number limits? At least till 37 is it 15 ships like OTL WNT build scheduled? (1931 C, D? AB are N&R http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.php)

I believe that I have conformed roughly to the WNT plan of decommissioning ships and at no point before April 1937 does Britain have more than 15 Ships (note I work for an international bank so my sums are probably wrong)

This cripples the gun and mount industrial base and if we are starting in 28 we have time to develop gun/mounts for 31 easily.

I had envisaged the problems with the 16" guns and turrets of NelRod had led to the school of thought that resulted in the MK1 Twin 15" turret redesign for the deep refitted ships during the 30s - see notes above.

If you are building new you will not be refitting and Im not sure the planing had started by then?

Warspites refit took place between March 1934 and March 1937 she underwent a major reconstruction in Portsmouth at a cost of £2,363,000 - the First 'Austeres' are laid down in Sept 1933 instead of any rebuilds

Gun school will hate you, but does solve the tonnage limit And RN did not like the O3 for silly and good reasons, ie steering and bottom mines.

Nelson and Rodney were the only battleships never to have bumped the boom gate vessel as they passed through Hoxa Sound!


Early DP development?

All very early for 28 start? 5.1 was built in 1931....

The final design is not until late 33 when they are laid down - the only surprising thing is that this did not happen OTL

Yayyy but full of hindsight...

Again not really - the lessons were already learned by 1933 - and then somehow forgotten and had to be relearned again!

Not sure it can fill the role unless you want to make them AA only ships 55-58lb v 80lb shell will not allow them to fight 100lb CLs....

The RN had established that it did not take a great deal of damage to a warship to rapidly degrade its performance - better to hit a target more frequently than to hit it less. And we are talking 55 pound shells over and 80 pound shell with roughly twice the effective RPM and an extra pair of guns (effectively an extra 2 pairs of guns as most of the Light Escort Crusiers ended up with just the 4 Twins) over the OTL Didos. It was always going to be a compromise one way or another - I've chosen smaller, more, higher ROF, faster train and reliability

Nice especially if they actually fitted on completion not years later?

There will still be shortages etc but with an increased need in the mod 30s I would expect the dependent industries to be more capable of fulfilling orders etc ITTL


We are talking 1928 start? Why would IJN/USN (and to lesser extent RM/MN due to cash issues) rebuild when RN builds new? Germany is also under VT in 28-31....building 6x 11" "10,000t" PBs....

No its a 1933 start with the first 3 being commissioned in 1937. Kongo, Kirishima and Haruna had all begun deep refits that made them 'fast Battleships' in 1933 or earlier, Fuso and Yamashiro had also began the first of 2 major refits in the early 30s, Hyūga was modernized in 1934–36 and Ise in 1935–37, Nagato and Mutsu deep refitted between 1933 and 1937 - so almost all of Japans capital ships were already being or about to be rebuilt. Japan could certainly consider building new warships but could she start much before she did? The Yamato class was laid down from 1937 and I cannot see this happening much before it did. I cannot see them building an Austere class can you?

The PBs being built by Germany certainly focused minds but at the same time having lots of fast battleships capable of catching them answers that question. With a AGNA pretty much like OTL we might see Germany trying to build more Capital ships which would actually suit Britain down to the ground as they struggled to build the fleet that they did build.

The USA is an interesting one - maybe start the NoCal class earlier to provide a foil to the Kongos? Perhaps a larger number of them - 4 or maybe even 6? Could be part of an Anti Austerity program to create jobs etc to help recover from the great Depression?

Why WNT allows 31 laid down and RN had 8 spare turrets from LLC/monitors so it can gap at least the first 2 ships? Would Rs not get pulled first rather than QEs, depending on refit dates in reality?

I was simply using the original Commission dates to work out who got the chop first - the QEs were older than the Rs - its not a perfect science but its what I had to use. In practice I doubt it mattered. But there is also the 20 year WNT rule which I also sort of confirmed to. I did make a meeping noise when I scrapped Warspite.

This is way to slow, 8 spare mounts can be rebuilt early to learn from and no LNT means they can start laying down in 31 for 34 completion C&D and then according to build scheduled two more in 35, one in 36 and two in 37, one in 38, two in 39 (all laid down 3 years before) at some point IJN walking would probably break the scheduled say 36?

There is still the limitations imposed by the shrivelled industry, need to spread the cost over a longer period and also while not specifically mentioned I was also having Britain building new carriers from 1935 to replace the 3 Experimental and this was a 28,000 Ton fleet carrier design and a 18,000 light fleet design that I discussed in a previous thread (will link later) which are laid down 1 a year of each type to give the RN 5 Fleets 5 light fleets and the 3 Curious class carriers which will be converted to Aircraft Maintenance ships with the older ships down away with / converted to other tasks by 1942 (assuming no war of course!). As the carriers also need armour and engines, guns etc this would also impose a limitation on the supporting industries. There si also the matter of the Cruiser program - I suspect that Czechoslovakia's armour industry is still involved ITTL as it was OTL.

Your build rate is much faster and started later that will push up cost and reduce the ships available early on.

Governments dither and OTL they dithered more than this and many ships of the RN despite minor refits had entered block obsolescence when war began. I was also going to much about with the 2nd National Government looking to kickstart the British economy - including ship building (I have among other ideas a complex ship yard modernisation scheme backed up by a 'buy back scheme' that during the 30s improves the efficiency of ship yards, improves the ships they are building, improving the efficiency of the merchant fleets, putting more people back to work and learning modern skills such as welding etc etc).

Also looking around with my 1933 glasses on Japan is rebuilding all of her ships, Italy some of hers and Germany is only just getting back into the big ship business - I think it's the perfect time to do it.

Also learning from one to the next batch) ie by 37 you have 3 v 7 allowed by WNT scheduled, by 38 you have 6 v 8, by 39 10 v 10 , by 40 14 v 11 presumably doesn't matter due to war but it does men construction wise after 1935 (batch 3 of 4 ships) you will be over the allowed build rate of WNT? Is this OK and if so why stay under 35,000t?

I was assuming that the same attitudes would be prevalent in that Britain would be looking to impose a 35,000 ton limit on battleships (with an obvious gun limit of 15" instead of 14") in the 1936 LNT and not a total number limit so they stick with the 35,000 ton design right up to 1937 when the last 4 are laid down.

Also with the 20 year rule the 12 ships of the QEs, Revenge class and both Renowns are all due for replacement between 1934 and 1937

Plans to build more 'larger ships' are overtaken by events and as it is the last 'Austere class' HMS Dreadnought is not commissioned until 1944 at which point with the 2nd Entente on the Up and with so many modern Battleships available and with even the most die hard gun admiral having to face the fact that Battleships just might be becoming obsolete no more are built.
 
The decision is made in 1933 not 1928. The LNT goes pretty much as planned - I believe that I have stayed within its terms?
No (1)LNT banned new ships from 1930-end of 36 so 1st Jan 37 is first date to lay down as OTL......?

No its a 1933 start with the first 3 being commissioned in 1937. Kongo, Kirishima and Haruna had all begun deep refits that made them 'fast Battleships' in 1933 or earlier, Fuso and Yamashiro had also began the first of 2 major refits in the early 30s, Hyūga was modernized in 1934–36 and Ise in 1935–37, Nagato and Mutsu deep refitted between 1933 and 1937 - so almost all of Japans capital ships were already being or about to be rebuilt. Japan could certainly consider building new warships but could she start much before she did? The Yamato class was laid down from 1937 and I cannot see this happening much before it did. I cannot see them building an Austere class can you?

The PBs being built by Germany certainly focused minds but at the same time having lots of fast battleships capable of catching them answers that question. With a AGNA pretty much like OTL we might see Germany trying to build more Capital ships which would actually suit Britain down to the ground as they struggled to build the fleet that they did build.

The USA is an interesting one - maybe start the NoCal class earlier to provide a foil to the Kongos? Perhaps a larger number of them - 4 or maybe even 6? Could be part of an Anti Austerity program to create jobs etc to help recover from the great Depression?
This will all change if (1)LNT is different or none existent and if not RN cant do anything...?

I was assuming that the same attitudes would be prevalent in that Britain would be looking to impose a 35,000 ton limit on battleships (with an obvious gun limit of 15" instead of 14") in the 1936 LNT and not a total number limit so they stick with the 35,000 ton design right up to 1937 when the last 4 are laid down...
No way would USN/IJN go for 15" limit as they are only 14" and 16"......
 
No LNT banned new ships from 1930-end of 36 so 1st Jan 37 is first date to lay down as OTL......?

This will all change if LNT is different or none existent and if not RN cant do anything...?

No way would USN/IJN go for 15" limit as they are only 14" and 16"......

Ahh yes I knew I'd over looked something - fine ITTL then the LNT allows new build but only for ships older than 20 years from Commissioning rather than a complete blanket ban

For example there was a 2nd Geneva Conference in 1932 - have the British get the rules changed then? Perhaps have the Manchurian Crisis be a bigger deal than OTL and this is one of the reasons for the change?

The USA would like OTL insist on an escalator clause to any TTL 2nd LNT and given that the IJN have buggered off already by this point......makes little difference if new ships have 15" or 16"

OTL the US had agreed to 14" for new builds I am quite sure that had the British pushed instead for 15" then they would go for that instead (and then under the same circumstances trigger the escalator clause)

These naval Treaties are hard work, but then they were the SALT talks of their day
 
Ahh yes I knew I'd over looked something - fine ITTL then the LNT allows new build but only for ships older than 20 years from Commissioning rather than a complete blanket ban

For example there was a 2nd Geneva Conference in 1932 - have the British get the rules changed then? Perhaps have the Manchurian Crisis be a bigger deal than OTL and this is one of the reasons for the change?

The USA would like OTL insist on an escalator clause to any TTL 2nd LNT and given that the IJN have buggered off already by this point......makes little difference if new ships have 15" or 16"

OTL the US had agreed to 14" for new builds I am quite sure that had the British pushed instead for 15" then they would go for that instead (and then under the same circumstances trigger the escalator clause)

These naval Treaties are hard work, but then they were the SALT talks of their day
Not sure USN (or IJN) would be happy as British ships are mostly older ie QE and R as a block v the standards built each year during WWI and after..... I think a build rate like WNT would be the only way to agree?

Not sure you would get an orderly deal, if the LNT collapses due to Manchurian Crisis its likley to be a no deal (ie treaty collapse) and anyway if its 32 you cant start designs before that like in your story?

No if RN gets 15" then USN (+IJN) will want 16" from the start and at that point the old 15" is questionable for new ships if they are going to last for 20 years?
 
Not sure USN (or IJN) would be happy as British ships are mostly older ie QE and R as a block v the standards built each year during WWI and after..... I think a build rate like WNT would be the only way to agree?

Not sure you would get an orderly deal, if the LNT collapses due to Manchurian Crisis its likley to be a no deal (ie treaty collapse) and anyway if its 32 you cant start designs before that like in your story?

No if RN gets 15" then USN (+IJN) will want 16" from the start and at that point the old 15" is questionable for new ships if they are going to last for 20 years?

Well it would give them the option and Japan is not far of either - straddling the same dates?

And as for the 15"/42 Cal guns - last battleship ever made had them!
 
And as for the 15"/42 Cal guns - last battleship ever made had them!
The real problem is that twins eat hull/citadel length and therefore on a real no cheating 35,000t you would get a far better ship by going to triples and if you do that you might as well go for a lighter better new 15" gun...... This also supports the industry better etc.

(note I think a 14" is just if not more likley in any treaty as USN/IJN will agree to it and a 16" limit will make RN gun club want 16" as well)
 
This is an itch I have been needing to scratch for some time now - I got the idea from Antony Williams ATL/ASB WW2 novel 'The Foresight War' and applied my fascination of the G3/N3 and O3 designs of Battleships coupled with the Naval treaty limitations of the day and also the problems of austerity that impacted British designs on rearmament in the 1930s.

The idea of building 18 'Austere Battleships' in the late 30s and early 40s has lots of holes in it - some so big you could drive a 35,000 ton battleship through it.
Personally I think the best way is simply to have the RN/HMG panic earlier and go full out preparing fro WWII (this does fit with getting hindsight but not really so complete and from all the way from 1933(?) in "The Foresight War" as it leads to much better option like not losing BoF (or BoR/BoA/BoC/BoP).....!

If in 1936 at 2LNT negotiations they panic once they realise that IJN and other axis are not going to join and decide to fully commit for the escalator then they can go for a 15" x8 40,000t ships and simply call it a 14"/35,000t for a least the first year....

If we are starting on 1 Jan 37 and realise that anything after 41 doesn't really matter then 15" Vanguard do make a lot of sense but we would probably only get say 2-4 of them fast due to other production limits such as belt and deck production, they still might be better (and especially earlier) than OTL KVG so would be worth it and the more understood guns would save time on commissioning.

This could be helped a lot if the admiralty had done some sneaky tricks and say rebuilt more of the 15" twins than in OTL pretending to be working on QEs/Rs/R&R/H rebuilds all perfectly legally, as well as stockpiling parts, armour and turbine & gear cutting capacity.
 
Even with a 15” gun chosen, personally I would have had new guns built using modern techniques like the later 14” guns on the King George V Class.

You should just about have enough weight margins to put triple turrets on board. Especially if you can use small tube boilers and design the ships for welded construction (which would have other benefits in WW2).
 
There actually was a BL 15" Mk.II in the works immediately after WWI. It would have been L/45 rather than L/42 and of built-up rather than wire-wound construction and substantially lighter than the Mk. I. It was canceled when it was decided to go with 16" guns for first the G3s and then Nelsol/Rodnol.

Stick some of those in a triple mount (as on the J2 design) and refine the Green Boy and a HE shell with a nice big bursting charge, and you save weight on more and better barrels, and HM Exchequer has to pay for one less mount per ship.
 
Lighter barrels, same shells (if you want), triple turrets so 9 guns versus 8 of the Ships being replaced on a shorter citadel length. The hull would need to be wider though, so to get the speed you either need a longer hull or more HP.
 
No (1)LNT banned new ships from 1930-end of 36 so 1st Jan 37 is first date to lay down as OTL......?

This will all change if (1)LNT is different or none existent and if not RN cant do anything...?

No way would USN/IJN go for 15" limit as they are only 14" and 16"......
Wouldn't it be better to just stick by Washington so all countries can start replacing their battleships? The treaty was to expire in December 36, so you can basically build your treaty Vanguard or 15" KGV design, possibly using the 3,000 ton refit limit for the treaty Vanguards.
I don't think you can have a Vanguard doing 30 knots with decent armour. At the same time they managed to cram everything into the Nelsons so well they were actually underweight.
Still I'd go for 28 knots, same with the 15" KGV's. Once the treaty expires in what's basically Jan 1937 start building Lions or whatever you want really.
Even with a 15” gun chosen, personally I would have had new guns built using modern techniques like the later 14” guns on the King George V Class.

You should just about have enough weight margins to put triple turrets on board. Especially if you can use small tube boilers and design the ships for welded construction (which would have other benefits in WW2).
If you get British shipbuilders welding in the late 20s and 30s, and doing it well, which I'm sure they would, it has big effects on obviously shipbuilding through the 30s and the war, but postwar too, because British shipbuilding won't still be riveting hulls together when everyone else is welding. One if the factors that contributed to the decline if the shipbuilding industry in GB, couldn't stay competitive.
There actually was a BL 15" Mk.II in the works immediately after WWI. It would have been L/45 rather than L/42 and of built-up rather than wire-wound construction and substantially lighter than the Mk. I. It was canceled when it was decided to go with 16" guns for first the G3s and then Nelsol/Rodnol.

Stick some of those in a triple mount (as on the J2 design) and refine the Green Boy and a HE shell with a nice big bursting charge, and you save weight on more and better barrels, and HM Exchequer has to pay for one less mount per ship.
Didn't Hood have a halfway between the mk.I and mk.II?
Development wouldn't be too long then
 
What's your estimated standard displacement for the Austere class? I couldn't see it, but admittedly I have skimmed through the thread.

IIRC the British Government spent a lot of time between the WNT and the 2nd LNT arguing for a further reduction in the maximum size of capital ships from 35,000 tons to 25,000 tons and a reduction in the maximum gun calibre from 16" to 15".

The POD ITTL could possibly be an Alternative First London Naval Treaty. That is the signatories were able to resume capital ship construction from 1st January 1931 on certain conditions. That is:
  1. They have to follow the replacement schedules set out in the Washington Naval Treaty;
  2. The maximum gun calibre is 15 inches;
  3. The maximum standard displacement is 30,000 tons.
In common with OTL the British Delegation (AFAIK) argued for a reduction to 25,000 tons and 12" guns, but the other delegations would only accept a reduction to 30,000 tons and 15".
 
Last edited:
WNT had building planned out to 1942, and that included replacements for the 1920s construction some countries were allowed.
This is the Treaty's schedule for the British Empire.

WNT British Empire Replacement Schedule.png
 
Top