Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[Ramp-Rat]

The amount of maintenance that a ship requires, especially a warship, only increases with increased usage. By the end of WWII IOTL, the British Triblal class destroyers because of their hard usage during the war, despite being relatively young were effectively worn out and only fit for the scrapyard. The majority of ships built before the war were very soon after the end of the conflict scrapped, and some of the war builds had a very short post war life. As for the Lions and Vanguard, the primary reason they were so delayed was the need to allocate the slipways to carriers, as there was only a limited number of very large slipways available. If ITTL, POW is not sunk and Britain ends the war with five KG5 Battleships available, I believe that there is far more chance of one or two of the Malta class carriers being built alongside the the two Audacious class Ark Royal and Eagle, giving Britain four large attack carriers in the post war world. As for the Lions and Vanguard, despite the wishes of the big gun Admirals and the old romantic Winston, with luck sane heads will prevail, and it will be the big carriers and hopefully the jet aircraft to fly off them that will be the priority. Thus by 1948, Britain has 5 matched battleships and four large carriers to project sea power in the post war world.

RR.

 

[kelgar04]

I'm sceptical the WW2 carrier Ark Royal received much maintenance after she hit the sea bed in the original timeline in November 1941. Ditto the battleship Prince of Wales after the Imperial Japanese sank it in December 1941.
I think at least one of these ships is still afloat in this timeline, and will require maintenance it never needed (on account of being out of the war, permanently) in the original timeline.

Okay, let me rephrase, those ships might need a couple of months of maintenance, but for that, will give at least a couple of years of service, thus, their not being sunk is a net benefit. Besides, boiler maintenance isn't nearly as expensive as repair work.

Problem is ships major maintenance takes time and ships cam take up dock space for a great deal of time depending on what needs to be done and what goes wrong during drydocking. So they could be potentially sat in dry or wet dock for months on end especially if they need to cut the Hull to get at equipment and they there is the whole mess of refloating the ship as well as getting her ready before dock.

In a war you need to consider other than very basics to keep her floating and fighting a lot of stuff will get pushed down the queue because it won't be seen as urgent especially if they are needed for some critical operation.

Some of the pressure maybe off compared to OTL like the supply situation for Malta may have eased somewhat with North Africa effectively in DUKE and Allied Hands. However with more ships needing to go east to fight the IJN as well as needing to keep the Italians in the bottle as well as what passes for the German surface force. It may force them to make technical sacrifices to keep the ships as potential war asserts.

 

[MattII]

It's still a lot quicker than laying down new ships!

Another point is that the British are asking for less in LL. I mean, how many M3 Lees did they order this time? Just 300 wasn't it (as compared to 2,887 OTL)? 2,587 M3s costs just shy of $143 Million in period money. And they mass just shy of 70K tonnes. If you ask me, that's a pretty damn good good saving!

 

[kelgar04]

It's still a lot quicker than laying down new ships!

Eh TBH Matt it depends, you need to move the spares and they have to compete with new builds. Adding to this you need to factor in moving the spares to locations widely dispersed as well not in the same continent. Like a ship in say Scapa Flow would have an easier time getting spares than one would in say Freetown because you need to move them. Also need to consider as well issues that could crop up moving them to the location, when the next convoy to that area is scheduled.

Adding to this need to look at the fact that stuff will break in the interim as well and there is a limit to what a good turner and fitter can make off had.

Edit: As well as how economical it is for the war effort.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Also if the RN did not lose AR, PW and R, then the pressure on the rest of the fleet is reduced and it should be easier to allocate dockyard time for the necessary refits.

 

[steamboy]

That and you can send them over to the USA for refit/repair/servicing too.

 

[MarcH]

When it comes to refitting and or repairing ships there are a few things that need to be considered.

The first is the question of if it is absolutely necessary or just something the Navy would like to do. A ship may not be operating at peak performance but if it is still capable of doing a job in war time then keeping it at sea can be beneficial. That is not to say you neglect maintenance or ignore major issues, just that working a ship hard is expected in war time.

The second thing is that it is not just Britain where ships can be repaired. Depending on where damaged ships are Australia and America can both offer repairs. In addition Singapore, while not really useable right now could at some point be secure enough also. America in particular will be more than happy to help keep capital ships afloat so all those new RN Battleships and Carriers that are still afloat ITTL will be repairable in America.

Both of those things should help keep Britain in a net positive compared to OTL for yard space.

It should also be remembered that the Mediterranean going quiet much earlier than in OTL will reduce ship losses for all types of ship. Some ships that would not have needed repair or refit work in OTL did need replacing due to them being sunk. Those same ships can now continue to do their jobs reducing strain further.

All that being said, I doubt the lions see the light of day even ITTL. Vanguard is a possibility as it should be faster to build and the RN will be more committed to big fleet actions in the far east. The Implacable's could also be completed earlier than OTL but that remains to be seen. The OTL issue of needing things like landing craft that delayed ships completing will exist ITTL as well only that they are likely to start much earlier if they already haven't.

 

[MattII]

Eh TBH Matt it depends, you need to move the spares and they have to compete with new builds. Adding to this you need to factor in moving the spares to locations widely dispersed as well not in the same continent. Like a ship in say Scapa Flow would have an easier time getting spares than one would in say Freetown because you need to move them. Also need to consider as well issues that could crop up moving them to the location, when the next convoy to that area is scheduled.

Refits take months, new builds take years. Besides, refits only take place in a few locations, but more hulls means you can keep more areas covered while some ships are refitting.

Adding to this need to look at the fact that stuff will break in the interim as well and there is a limit to what a good turner and fitter can make off had.

A turner and fitter can't build a new hull.

Edit: As well as how economical it is for the war effort.

A worn-out ship can be refitted, a sunk one needs to be replaced, which means all the same part, plus probably many others, as well as many hundreds or thousands of tons of hull and other structure.

 

[steamboy]

Well there's only so much refitting that can be done baring in mind, lots of hard use and sailing wears out the structure of the ship, its why the Furious was all but laid up in 1944, and one of the reasons why the Warspite wasn't saved as you would basically need to rebuild sections of the hull (in addition to fixing the patched up damage she had), the Renown was also utterly exhausted by the Wars end and was whilst in good condition visibily and fully modernized, her machinery and hull were just worn out.

 

[MattII]

More ships means less wear on each one, plus with the war being a bit quieter, they're also running up less wear anyway. Plus, a ship that's considered beyond economic repair can at least be stripped down for her still serviceable parts. Not so with a sunken ship.

 

[kelgar04]

Refits take months, new builds take years. Besides, refits only take place in a few locations, but more hulls means you can keep more areas covered while some ships are refitting.

Assuming nothing goes wrong with the refit or repair fires in that sort of situation are not fun to deal with. As well as how good the work crews and their managers are.

A worn-out ship can be refitted, a sunk one needs to be replaced, which means all the same part, plus probably many others, as well as many hundreds or thousands of tons of hull and other structure.

Old hulls yes but depends on how old the ship is as well. Like the best sort of ship is one that's in thr middle of its life while one at the end of its life you can only do so much without just habing to gut her in dock. T many refits and retrofits throw up unforeseen problems relating to things like stability and technical issues steming from getting it into places and where its located also there is the issue of keeping the plans upto date which will effect a lot.

 

[MattII]

Assuming nothing goes wrong with the refit or repair fires in that sort of situation are not fun to deal with. As well as how good the work crews and their managers are.

Assuming, yes. Most refits don't go too wrong.

Old hulls yes but depends on how old the ship is as well. Like the best sort of ship is one that's in thr middle of its life while one at the end of its life you can only do so much without just habing to gut her in dock. T many refits and retrofits throw up unforeseen problems relating to things like stability and technical issues steming from getting it into places and where its located also there is the issue of keeping the plans upto date which will effect a lot.

HMS Gloucester was less than 2½ years into service when she was sunk, and HMS Fiji was only a hair over a year.

Why does it seem like everyone here is arguing that ships getting sunk is somehow better than those ships still being afloat?

 

[kelgar04]

Assuming, yes. Most refits don't go too wrong.

Oh they do but the crews and work squads are able to adapt to it and the delay is usually a few hour to a day unless its a major fuck up like dropping the shaft in the dock or leaving the seachests lids off when refloating the ship.

Pulling from RL here.

Why does it seem like everyone here is arguing that ships getting sunk is somehow better than those ships still being afloat?

Not arguing that but Refits and Retro fits are a pain in the ass and rarely keep to schedule and come with their own little pains they are however nessary for good operarion of the vessels if they are something sane and planned out well along with actually achive the stated aim and not taking forever to implement.

Adding to aide other than Refits you have the more standard Overhauls are done on ships equipment along with general maintained which prolongs equipment life especially if its good maintenance.

Mostly just get a little bit irked when people assume that Refits and retrofits are something that are easy to do or something that we can get done quickly.

 

[MattII]

Not arguing that but Refits and Retro fits are a pain in the ass and rarely keep to schedule and come with their own little pains they are however nessary for good operarion of the vessels if they are something sane and planned out well along with actually achive the stated aim and not taking forever to implement.

Adding to aide other than Refits you have the more standard Overhauls are done on ships equipment along with general maintained which prolongs equipment life especially if its good maintenance.

Mostly just get a little bit irked when people assume that Refits and retrofits are something that are easy to do or something that we can get done quickly.

I never said they were easy, just they're usually quicker and cheaper (in materials, if nothing else) than building a new ship. Plus having more ships reduces the wear-and-tear on each vessel, if only slightly.

 

[kelgar04]

I never said they were easy, just they're usually quicker and cheaper (in materials, if nothing else) than building a new ship. Plus having more ships reduces the wear-and-tear on each vessel, if only slightly.

Ugh sorry probably came off as an ass then.

 

[pjmidd]

I never said they were easy, just they're usually quicker and cheaper (in materials, if nothing else) than building a new ship. Plus having more ships reduces the wear-and-tear on each vessel, if only slightly.

This is why ships get declared total constructive losses, the ship's state is assessed, time/cost/usefulness tallied and the call made on if replacing is better than repairing/refit.

 

[MattII]

This is why ships get declared total constructive losses, the ship's state is assessed, time/cost/usefulness tallied and the call made on if replacing is better than repairing/refit.

Even then, there's quite a number of rather-expensive-to-replace parts (turrets, etc) that can be stripped off to equip a new ship. A ship that's been sunk offers none of that.

 

[wally]

If I am remembering right, in OTL there was a 6 month delay in warship building in 1942 as of the panic that 25% of britsh dry cargo ships needed to be repaired as Battle of Atlantic. Does quicker victory in north africa affect this? Only thing I can think of is that with Benghazi and Crete under British control the supply runs to Malta are quicker and with less loss. Also easier to replace the planes there. Plus less raw resources used to rebulid the 8th Army several times. So does this give more ships/planes for Battle of Atlantic? No idea.

Also the light carriers are a design descision in 1941 so they still be build as is. What FNA falling in 1942 does give is access to high quality Iron ore that is better that shipped from USA and easier to ship back UK. Which means big warships build from 1943 onwards will last longer.

Nice move with Batan falling earlier, that will stop waste of resources from any plans Winston had to help there.

 

[kelgar04]

Even then, there's quite a number of rather-expensive-to-replace parts (turrets, etc) that can be stripped off to equip a new ship. A ship that's been sunk offers none of that.

Need to do a technical assessment see what can still be used straight, what needs refurbishment and what can be scraped, as well matched to the class of ship but it is very doable.

 

[MattII]

If I am remembering right, in OTL there was a 6 month delay in warship building in 1942 as of the panic that 25% of britsh dry cargo ships needed to be repaired as Battle of Atlantic. Does quicker victory in north africa affect this?

Quite possibly. Britain is saving ~$143M on not buying a bunch of second-rate American tanks (the M3 Lees), as well as having ~70K tonnes extra lifting capacity they can use for other stuff.

Only thing I can think of is that with Benghazi and Crete under British control the supply runs to Malta are quicker and with less loss. Also easier to replace the planes there. Plus less raw resources used to rebulid the 8th Army several times. So does this give more ships/planes for Battle of Atlantic? No idea.

No need to run the gauntlet from Gibraltar, so fewer ships (and fewer losses), plus Malta doesn't need nearly as much delivered anyway, since it's no longer sitting on a vital Axis shipping route, and undergoing continual attack.

Also the light carriers are a design descision in 1941 so they still be build as is. What FNA falling in 1942 does give is access to high quality Iron ore that is better that shipped from USA and easier to ship back UK. Which means big warships build from 1943 onwards will last longer.

Hopefully they can get them out a little bit quicker now.

Nice move with Batan falling earlier, that will stop waste of resources from any plans Winston had to help there.

It does make me wonder what will actually happen to those prisoners. I mean, it's not like the Burma Railway is going to be a thing, is it?