Renown's refit

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Throd	Renown's refit	Lead	[-]
Posts: 564 ( 9-May-2008 02:10:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	When HMS Renown was refitted in 1923 its new 9" belt was fitted somewhat higher than Repulses to account for the extra weight making the ship run deep. Does anyone know how much higher, and was the main deck adjusted to meet its top? 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.
NewGolconda		#1	[-]
Posts: 3329 ( 9-May-2008 02:41:37) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"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." 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.
1Big Rich		#2	[-]
Posts: 1857 (10-May-2008 02:24:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Don't underestimate what the Admiralty did in the interwar period, especially in the '30s. They had 10 WWI-era battleships and three battlecruisers to keep up-to-date with changing requirements. The schedule has them leapfrogging around the fleet updating the battleships and the battlecruiser squadron. Raven and Roberts put thing in perspective on p. 206 of "British Battleships": Between April 1933 and May 1936, Repulse was reconstructed at Portsmouth. The work that was carried out was more extensive than that in earlier modernisations, and included additional deck armour over the engine rooms, a cross-deck catapult and aircraft hangars. Similar work was carried out on Malaya, which was taken in hand a year after Repulse, and these two ships represent the half-way point between the partial modernisations of ships such as Barham and Royal Oak and the complete reconstruction of Warspite, Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant I think if we consider what was done to Royal Oak and Barham modest or in R&R's term, partial modernizations, Repulse and Malaya as extensive modernizations, and what was done to the last quartet as rebuilds (including re-engining), it's easier to see how the Admiralty was keeping the battlefleet up-to-date. Without the war, the trend would have continued, with Nelson and Rodney getting an extensive modernization, and Hood getting a rebuild (including re-engining.) Finally, I think your mis characterizing what done to Repulse as a "2nd class refit". It was very extensive and involved, as evidenced by the 3+ years in yard hands. Regards, Your Text Signature ...
Throd		#3	[-]
Posts: 565 (10-May-2008 03:05:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I agree that the Repulses refit was substantial so perhaps "2nd class" was rather unfair in isolation. However in comparison to her sister it was inferior. No new engines, no tower bridge and the retention of the unsatisfactory triple 4" guns - not the DP armament Renown received. Further reading suggests that originally Renown would have been similar to Repulse but the RN then changed their minds.
DonnieBaseball23		#4	[-]
Posts: 35 (10-May-2008 03:48:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	From R&R, British Battleships p.142 re: Renown's 1923-26 refit: "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."
BC Renown		#5	[-]
Posts: 280 (10-May-2008 05:42:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Also from page 142 of R&R; "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 have skipped the 1933-36 modernization altogether and given Repulse the 1936-39 major reconstruction instead of Renown. Of course, this probably means Repulse becomes the flagship of Force H and Renown is sunk in the South China sea but, the Admiralty saves itself the time, effort, resources and cost of one extensive modernization.
DonnieBaseball23		#6	[-]
Posts: 36 (10-May-2008 13:05:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	It's too bad the Admiralty couldn't have squeezed a bit more money out of the Treasury in the 1930s. The modernizations of Repulse, Barham and Malaya took just as long (2.5-3 years) as the rebuilds of Warspite, Renown, et al. If you're going to have a ship in dry dock for that long, shame not to go all the way. Having all 5 QEs plus Renown & Repulse fully rebuilt would've been a big plus.
Moskit		#7	[-]
Posts: 976 (10-May-2008 16:20:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"It's too bad the Admiralty couldn't have squeezed a bit more money out of the Treasury in the 1930s." And indeed every decade before and since
Throd	Fully refit Repulse in 1933-6 rather than Renown in 1936-9	#8	[-]
Posts: 566 (11-May-2008 03:52:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Two problems with this a. The Repulse would still have a shallower belt than Renown b. Were the 4.5" DP guns available then?
BC Renown		#9	[-]
Posts: 281 (11-May-2008 04:09:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"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.
NewGolconda		#10	[-]
Posts: 3334 (12-May-2008 09:43:07) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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 be deferred until after completion of the fourth ship of the KING GEORGE V Class) REPULSE - to be taken in hand at Portsmouth for about eight months from August 1941 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. *** IMHO the most important modifications are the first ones mentioned, the DCT, AFCT and new shells are a considerable improvement in low angle fire control and ballistics, and it is the surface battle that justifies these ships. I am suprised by how quickly they think they can fit the 4.5in guns. Other ships list years.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Renown's refit

Renown's refit

Quick Reply