Renown's refit http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6163/t/Renown-s-refit.html en-us Copyright 2006, Yuku feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster) webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster) Fri, 09 May 2008 02:10:44 GMT Sun, 18 May 2008 16:14:13 GMT Yuku Feeds 1.0 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Yuku http://static.yuku.com//feed/bypass/images/button-yuku.png http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6163/t/Renown-s-refit.html Yuku - free hosted forums and profiles 88 31 {pics-1.1 "http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html" l gen true for "http://yuku.com" r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true for "http://yuku.com" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 )) Search Search Domain q http://yuku.com/search/direct/ <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79784/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79784 NewGolconda wrote:
ADM 1-10139 Battleship and Battle Cruiser Strength (1939).htm

7. It was noted that it was intended that REPULSE should be taken in hand for about 8 months (August 1941 to March 1942) for new fire control (low angle) and new 15" shell, and also to remove the present 4" secondary and H.A. armaments and replace them by a combined 4.5 inch H.A. and L.A. armament. (This work might have to... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (1Big Rich) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79784 Sun, 18 May 2008 16:14:09 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79369/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79369 feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79369 Wed, 14 May 2008 03:01:56 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79289/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79289 IMHO RN should have rebuilt Tiger and Repuse early and mid 30's.
Revenge could have been training ship and ID scrapped instead of Tiger. ]]> feeds@yuku.com (ramtank2) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79289 Tue, 13 May 2008 11:40:39 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79262/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79262
The Renown rebuild cost £3,088,008.
]]> feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79262 Tue, 13 May 2008 02:48:02 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79260/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79260 feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79260 Tue, 13 May 2008 02:03:59 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79259/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79259 ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Throd) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79259 Tue, 13 May 2008 01:25:06 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79220/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79220 feeds@yuku.com (PhilJD) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79220 Mon, 12 May 2008 13:45:32 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79210/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79210
7. It was noted that it was intended that REPULSE should be taken in hand for about 8 months (August 1941 to March 1942) for new fire control (low angle) and new 15" shell, and also to remove the present 4" secondary and H.A. armaments and replace them by a combined 4.5 inch H.A. and L.A. armament. (This work might have to be deferred until after completion of the fourth ship of the KING GEORGE V Class)
... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79210 Mon, 12 May 2008 09:43:07 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79113/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79113 "Fully refit Repulse in 1933-6 rather than Renown in 1936-9"

No one's implying that. To clarify; In 1936 Repulse wasn't substantially better than Renown so - omit the 1933-36 modernization of Repulse, keep Renown as she was in 1936, give Repulse the historical 1936-39 Renown reconstruction. The Admiralty saves a million pounds to spend on Revenge or some other ship badly in need of a refit.
]]> feeds@yuku.com (BC Renown) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79113 Sun, 11 May 2008 04:09:42 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79110/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79110 a. The Repulse would still have a shallower belt than Renown
b. Were the 4.5" DP guns available then?
]]> feeds@yuku.com (Throd) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79110 Sun, 11 May 2008 03:52:55 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79071/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79071
And indeed every decade before and since ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Moskit) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79071 Sat, 10 May 2008 16:20:05 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79060/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79060 feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79060 Sat, 10 May 2008 13:05:30 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79045/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79045
"The Assistant Chief of Naval Staff examined the DNC's recommendations and expressed a preference for the protection proposed [1923] for Renown rather than that of Repulse..."

One could argue that the one million pounds spent on the extensive modernization of Repulse during 1933-36, while improving the ship, did not make her substantially better than the pre-rebuild 1936 Renown and, it may have been better for the Admiralty to... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (BC Renown) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79045 Sat, 10 May 2008 05:42:06 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79038/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79038
"The 6-inch armoured belt was removed and replaced by a 9-inch belt placed about three feet higher than the original. The space between the lower edge of the belt and the armour shelf was fitted with tapered armour, 9 inches thick at the top edge and 2 inches thick at the lower edge." ]]> feeds@yuku.com (DonnieBaseball23) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79038 Sat, 10 May 2008 03:48:18 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79035/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79035 ]]> feeds@yuku.com (Throd) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79035 Sat, 10 May 2008 03:05:53 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/79034/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-79034
Raven and Roberts put thing in perspective on p. 206 of "British Battleships":

Between April 1933 and May 1936, Repulse was... ]]> feeds@yuku.com (1Big Rich) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/79034 Sat, 10 May 2008 02:24:38 GMT <![CDATA[ Re: Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/78947/t/Renown-s-refit.html#reply-78947
I think the modernisation priority went rather the other way. An unmodernised Repulse was still quite tactically usefull, ditto for the Hood, with the added complication of not beeing able to release her from the fleet till the KGV's joined. ]]> feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/sreply/78947 Fri, 09 May 2008 02:41:37 GMT <![CDATA[ Renown's refit ]]> http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6163/t/Renown-s-refit.html
Did the fact that Repulse did not have this improvement be the reason it only had a 2nd class refit in 1933? In many ways a fully modernised Repulse would be tactically more useful than of one of the modernised QEs.
]]> feeds@yuku.com (Throd) http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6163 Fri, 09 May 2008 02:10:44 GMT