British Rearmament Before World War 2

Replace foresight with delusion on behalf of the Admiralty.

Scrapping every cruiser would not only be a non starter, but a death wish. By arbitrarily removing battleships and cruisers, you remove shore bombardment, surface action, trade protection, substantive AA firepower and more.

The enemy won’t oblige eccentric choices in any event.
 
Many of the "posters" seem to be unaware that the Point of Departure in 1st January 1935 or are ignoring it. Here's the opening post.
I’m probably treading over old ground here so I apologise.

But I was curious how people here would go about British Rearmament, Planning and organisation before world war 2 for both the Army, Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force?

Assuming the POD is 1935 how much can get done? Will it be enough to prevent the fall of France assuming the follow the same operation, tactical and strategic focuses and deficiencies they had OTL. Also will this change who things kick off in the desert and the Far East?

edit: adding to this can there be anything done to enhance the British and Commonwealths intelligence efforts.
 
“With perfect hindsight it is hard to ignore the need for more 300ft, twin screw 20knot escorts early in the war, though having said that

It seems pretty clear to me the RN and Dominion navies should have ordered more Sloops – 1930-1936.

They are essentially unlimited by the London treaty. Their cost is very low - in the 100-200,000 pounds band.
I think it's far better to simply save the old DDs scraped by 1LNT, ie S & R class. Simply inset a rule that over age DDs can be saved so long as they are modified down to 20Kn for use as sloops like training ships rules but for colonial policing duties with say only one boiler room still intact and totally not like TL v&W long-range escort conversions...... USN would probably accept due to its old flush deck ships being available as well and It's going to be cheaper than anything new?
*Bring forward the carrier program – laying down Ark Royal in 1931 rather than 1935 – 4 million pounds, to be followed by a second new carrier with the benefit of Ark Royal experience as per historic in the 1934 estimate.

*Building up FAA numbers and aircrew reserves - $? Here – Chatfield roughly costed operational embarked aircraft including replacement, maintenance and operating costs at 15,000 pounds per annum. – prices forming an additional squadron in 31, 33, 34, 35 at 2 million pounds. Aircraft are dear.
I think you can do more than 1 CV extra after all most of the RN CV tonnage is experimental and with hindsight you can replace it for 1 Jan 37 and keep both anyway.
Get rid of all but a couple of the battleships and put the savings into a fleet of fast escort carriers. The increased demand for additional pilots and planes would require a good pipeline for training and manufacturing. Talk Canada into doing the same. When the war starts the uboats will be lucky to make it past the channel. Increased air power can shut down industry on the Rhine. Good luck getting the RN to accept the changes and the politicians to fund them.
Scraping BB simply leads to a nighttime surface fight in Med or off Norway that in 1940 you can't win with OTL aircraft....?
but the Erie would have been a better deterrent against potential surface raiders than what the RN used up using for escorts.
a couple Eries frees up the crews and ships that were otherwise manning the old battleships for other roles
I dont think an Erie is worth much against a real cruiser it's far too small and 4 6" hand worked guns on a small ship will simply die fast to even an 8 gun Leander?
Scrap the battleships (average complement 1,300/1,400) and replace them with an extra 15 Ark Royal/Illustrious class instead?
Scrap the 66 Cruisers (average complement 800) and replace them with an extra 264 Destroyers?

It depends though on the cost, the UK's shipyard capacity . . . . and a bit of foresight on behalf of the Admiralty.
What do you do when you need BBs (any time at night/bad weather early war) or long range ocean ships to hunt enemy Cruisers?
 
This leads back to – IMHO – one of the main issues that dogged the RN 1939-1942. Its not the Treaties, its not so much the ten year rule, though the ravages of that were bad – it was rescinded in 1935 and its worse excesses made good 1935-1936 through some supplementary estimates. The worst problem the RN faced between the wars was the drop in its annual estimate from the early mid 20’s plateau of 57-61 million pounds per annum from 1923-1928 (pretty much the Beatty years) through a trough of 1928-1935 with a nadir in 1932 of 50.5 million pounds.

Maintaining the estimates at 57 million pounds through 1928-1935 results in a cumulative additional expenditure of 22 million pounds.
You have actually said thet the ten year rule was not a main issue and then say the issue is the drop in estimates from 1923-1935.

Isn't that drop EXACTLY due to the ten year rule.
 
You have actually said thet the ten year rule was not a main issue and then say the issue is the drop in estimates from 1923-1935.

Isn't that drop EXACTLY due to the ten year rule.
Sort of but the reason for keeping it beyond 1931 was the recession following the Wall Street Crash and a series of bank failures.
 
I’m probably treading over old ground here so I apologise.

But I was curious how people here would go about British Rearmament, Planning and organisation before world war 2 for both the Army, Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force?

Assuming the POD is 1935 how much can get done? Will it be enough to prevent the fall of France assuming the follow the same operation, tactical and strategic focuses and deficiencies they had OTL. Also will this change who things kick off in the desert and the Far East?

edit: adding to this can there be anything done to enhance the British and Commonwealths intelligence efforts.

Sorry, I know you said "1935" but just for clarity, is this pre or post the Anglo-German Naval Agreement (June 1935)?
 
You have actually said thet the ten year rule was not a main issue and then say the issue is the drop in estimates from 1923-1935.

Isn't that drop EXACTLY due to the ten year rule.
That section was marked as a quote from another chap. Even then, his point was the 28-35 extra dip, not the 23-28 TYR adjustment.
 
I dont think an Erie is worth much against a real cruiser it's far too small and 4 6" hand worked guns on a small ship will simply die fast to even an 8 gun Leander
The German Lights or PBs? Far better than any RN Destroyer could do, and still had Sonar and DC for U-Boats
Erie was nearly armored to the same level as Köln, and she couldn't keep out 6" gunfire.
An Erie doesn't need to sink a raider, just cause enough damage to end the raiding
 
The German Lights or PBs? Far better than any RN Destroyer could do, and still had Sonar and DC for U-Boats
Erie was nearly armored to the same level as Köln, and she couldn't keep out 6" gunfire.
An Erie doesn't need to sink a raider, just cause enough damage to end the raiding
Exactly

As Our Departed Friend McPherson might say ... "All a convoy escort needs is to mission kill the raider." Or even just pose a credible threat of such.

Which is why the old QE and R class WW1 battleships could deter any German warships other than Bismarck or Tirpitz. And why either would run from a Nelrod or probably a modernised US "Standard" or "Colorado".
 
As mentioned earlier, the Ocean Escort problem has an easy solution, assuming money was made available.

The LNT Article 8 (aka the Gunboat rule) allowed for an UNLIMITED number of vessels between 600 & 2,000 tons. Ships under the Article were not allowed torpedo tubes, were allowed a main battery of no more than four 6"/155mm guns and max speed of 20 knots. In short perfect Ocean Escorts.. Obviously there would be some creativity with the design to allow space/weight for things like "K guns", but the key was there was absolutely no limit on construction. This would allow for an a light frigate like the Flower class corvette or the Grimsby class sloop, except several knots faster and much better armed. This sort of design was eventually built in massive numbers They were, however, permitted to have either one centerline aircraft catapult or two broadside Cats, with a maximum limit of three aircraft carried.

Oddly the opening was not really taken advantage of. The U.S. delegation was the party that championed the Article, yet the U.S. only built two ships of the Eire class.

This sort of design was eventually built in massive numbers by the U.S. with the introduction of the 51 ship Evarts, and 72 ship Cannon classes of DDE, although these DDE class was considerable smaller, at less than 1,400 tons and less well armed with only 3x1 3" guns.

For the UK I never understood why they didn't use that option for more "colonial" policing operations pre-war, even leaving out their usefulness in a major war.
 
The German Lights or PBs? Far better than any RN Destroyer could do, and still had Sonar and DC for U-Boats
Erie was nearly armored to the same level as Köln, and she couldn't keep out 6" gunfire.
An Erie doesn't need to sink a raider, just cause enough damage to end the raiding
I dont think an Erie would beat a large DD 4x6" guns will not beat 6x5" or 8x 4.7" and she is not really that well protected to survive 5/4.7" shells? The extra speed will also be a huge advantage at any range for surface combat and holding down subs and then getting back to a convoy?

Even if the Koln are bad CLs (and they are) anything with larger salvos will win at a range that 4 guns can't fight effectively., and really a German raider is probably a PB or Hipper?
For the UK I never understood why they didn't use that option for more "colonial" policing operations pre-war, even leaving out their usefulness in a major war.
Why when they wanted to save money over anything else and did not even fill the allowed CV tonnage? And anyway merchants are better for colonial use due to size and range over any 2000t ship and most of all cost!
 
Realistically; just find a way to shunt OTL forward a year or two.

The writing on the wall was, or at least should have been, by the Munich Crisis, blindingly obvious.

Yet Britain did not introduce even limited Conscription until May 1939? Why this was not introduced by September 1938 is a mystery, there are much earlier POD's that would work. The Anschluss, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Spanish Civil War, the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, or the Re-Militarisation of the Rhineland. All of which should have provoked a minimum of effort in re-armament.
Not necessarily much, but a small percentage with each event. Which is also much easier to get the real enemy, HM Treasury, to agree to. Especially if the increased industrial investment is spun as jobs creation, and actually as a means to increase revenue.
 
There are still the circumstances of operating in bad weather or the far north, both of which remained troublesome for carriers until the advent of all-weather aircraft. Even in far more salubrious climes, without a big change, British aircraft carriers are carrying somewhat fewer aircraft than the top line USN and IJN and rather less able planes to boot.

However, even if they were all somehow transmogrified into Essexes with 1944 air groups, that would not be sufficient. For a top line Fleet, one did need a balanced force of the four major types for fleet operations.

It is rather moot as there wasn’t the theoretical support for a carrier-only Fleet, nor the political support, on top of the technology and doctrinal issues.
 
Oddly the opening was not really taken advantage of. The U.S. delegation was the party that championed the Article, yet the U.S. only built two ships of the Eire class.

This sort of design was eventually built in massive numbers by the U.S. with the introduction of the 51 ship Evarts, and 72 ship Cannon classes of DDE, although these DDE class was considerable smaller, at less than 1,400 tons and less well armed with only 3x1 3" guns.

It would have been a massive gamechanger in the BotA if a decent number of these were available.
 
Top