The RN is not insane, they would never attempt that type. Thats the scenario the U--boat and mines were made for along with shore artillery
The Great War at Sea ... Take 13
- Thread starter Perky50
- Start date
Sadly, there's so real way to do coastal bombardments against Germany, Kiwi. They are too well protected.
Helgoland Bight and its environs are arguably has some of the heaviest densities of naval mines on the planet either in this tl or the original one. There is the option of the Baltic, but even there, with lots of shallow waters, shifting bars and other hazards, it really wouldn't deliver up the kind of result that would even come close to making it worthwhile for the RN to attempt. This does not even bring in the high probability of U-boats or torpedo craft, and the negative effect they would achieve in such actions.
I've noted you mentioned rivers before, and while they can look like a good option, here again you are driving into easily mined shallow waters, while exposing yourself to high angle howitzer fire from either bank if it happens to be handy. the major concern beyond that is also things such as the ability to manoeuver, the most important one being the ability to turn around. Other matters to raise concerns are as simple as the silt present in a northern European river. the movement of ships, particularly large ones, would stir this up, which in turn would play merry hell with the ships condenser intake. It was an ongoing chronic problem for the High Seas Fleet at their main anchorage on the Jade, and there are apparently reported cases of ships being delayed or even forced to return from missions due to these issues.
All told, it was geographic position of Germany and her acsess to the sea that would have the biggest impact on both sides. For the Germans it meant their approaches were easily protected from the British, but at the same time, their tactical deployments would have far less options open to them.
For the British it was the exact opposite of course, in defending against the High Seas Fleet, they could better concentrate their forces against a German advance, but to attack the German coastal area would be prohibitive to the point of being nearly suicidal.
That is why the German position in WW2 was so much better for them, for by taking both Norway and the French Atlantic ports the had Great Britain out flanked, forcing them to spread their forces too thin.
Just imagine if you will, a ww2 German sailing without holding Norway or France. Even with just sticking to carrier based attack planes, the RN would have Hood, King George V, Prince of Wales, Rodney, possibly Nelson, one or two Revenge class, two or three aircraft carriers and a bunch of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Even if the Germans threw in Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and what ever else they might have, they wouldn't be doing very well.
It really has very little to do with relative strength, rather it is more to do with Geographic limitations Mother nature had Germany penned in.
Hope that gives you a better idea. Any time you have a question, you're always welcome to ask!
Thanks for checking in, always great to see you here!
As always a great update, and my reaction to Fisher;
He was a man that would go "IMMA DO THE THING!!!" then actually do it and dare the world to say otherwise. The decomissioning of the older ships makes a lot of sense and i'd expect a lot of the pre-dreads to also be on that list along with most of the surviving Armoured Cruisers.
Its good the RN is adopting turreted 6-inchers again, the ones on the original County class armoured cruiser were seen as a bit of a failure due to them being steam powered and being jerky and difficult to train accurately. You could probably get something similar to a kind of...proto-Arethusa if you used the hull for the Enterprise class of CL. Sure they'd be smaller and lower in the water and you might have to put two turrets on the stern and one forwards due to the great mass of engines on the E's but it could probably be done.
The Hawkins (or Elizebethans) class would work well, and interesting they are going for single turret mounts, it would look like the IJN Furitaka class of CA from the sounds of it which fit 5 x 8-inch guns in single mounts. But 7 guns on that length of hull would probably be asking too much especially for a centerline, so 6 in twin turrets makes sense. Important thing is to have power assisted loading and ramming, as that was a BIG failing of those guns, the shells were way too damn heavy to sustained manual loading.
Loved the bit with the Royal family and I was shocked at the Prince of Wales's death but when I saw 'a Barvarian unit' I had thoughts that it might have included a certain Austrian asshole.
The deployment of small action groups again makes sense, the HSF has basically ceased to exist as a threat and these small cruiser groups would do the best work chasing after anything the Germans sent out or hunting submarines. One important thing as well is all the losses to torpedoes through progressive flooding. The RN never really seemed to have that good a grasp of internal subdevision and lost a fair few ships to progressive flooding (Ark Royal for example), combined with things like a lack of generators and pumps. So an increased attention to detail for underwater damage now could have dividends in the future.
I don't have that programme to design warships but you could probably make a rather formidable cruiser killer with 9.2 inch guns on 17,000 tonnes. But the Admiralty NEEDS to adopt high pressure engines and boilers. Post war pretty much everyone else did and it really did help with performance and weight saving whilst the Admiralty insisted on keeping its older style and heavier boilers, sacrificing weight for what was percived as reliablility. And whilst the Germans had lots of technical issues with their high pressure plants the USN never did and their engines were bloody efficient, greatly increasing the range of their ships.
And speaking of range. Oil. I assume that the UK is eyeing the middle east quite pointedly because of this.
He was a man that would go "IMMA DO THE THING!!!" then actually do it and dare the world to say otherwise. The decomissioning of the older ships makes a lot of sense and i'd expect a lot of the pre-dreads to also be on that list along with most of the surviving Armoured Cruisers.
Its good the RN is adopting turreted 6-inchers again, the ones on the original County class armoured cruiser were seen as a bit of a failure due to them being steam powered and being jerky and difficult to train accurately. You could probably get something similar to a kind of...proto-Arethusa if you used the hull for the Enterprise class of CL. Sure they'd be smaller and lower in the water and you might have to put two turrets on the stern and one forwards due to the great mass of engines on the E's but it could probably be done.
The Hawkins (or Elizebethans) class would work well, and interesting they are going for single turret mounts, it would look like the IJN Furitaka class of CA from the sounds of it which fit 5 x 8-inch guns in single mounts. But 7 guns on that length of hull would probably be asking too much especially for a centerline, so 6 in twin turrets makes sense. Important thing is to have power assisted loading and ramming, as that was a BIG failing of those guns, the shells were way too damn heavy to sustained manual loading.
Loved the bit with the Royal family and I was shocked at the Prince of Wales's death but when I saw 'a Barvarian unit' I had thoughts that it might have included a certain Austrian asshole.
The deployment of small action groups again makes sense, the HSF has basically ceased to exist as a threat and these small cruiser groups would do the best work chasing after anything the Germans sent out or hunting submarines. One important thing as well is all the losses to torpedoes through progressive flooding. The RN never really seemed to have that good a grasp of internal subdevision and lost a fair few ships to progressive flooding (Ark Royal for example), combined with things like a lack of generators and pumps. So an increased attention to detail for underwater damage now could have dividends in the future.
I don't have that programme to design warships but you could probably make a rather formidable cruiser killer with 9.2 inch guns on 17,000 tonnes. But the Admiralty NEEDS to adopt high pressure engines and boilers. Post war pretty much everyone else did and it really did help with performance and weight saving whilst the Admiralty insisted on keeping its older style and heavier boilers, sacrificing weight for what was percived as reliablility. And whilst the Germans had lots of technical issues with their high pressure plants the USN never did and their engines were bloody efficient, greatly increasing the range of their ships.
And speaking of range. Oil. I assume that the UK is eyeing the middle east quite pointedly because of this.
When did the other countries adopt high pressure power plants? I know the RN tested and abandoned on the Destroyer Acheron in the 30s.
The USN adopted them, or at least refined their boilers so they were lighter and more efficient. With the Acheron experiment the RN backed away from it, as it was bloody complex compared to what they had done before but if they'd have kept with it I'm sure it would have been refined. The USN IIRC had high pressure machinery for its DDs, and I think the Iowa's got it? I can't really check now as I'm at work and my books are a good few miles away and I can't brows wikipedia too openly.
High pressure plants were in service during the great war ... just not with the RN
The Royal Navy's problems getting in to High pressure steam was more related to inner heirarchy politics, as well as in their bidding process, than for any other scientific reasoning.
... both of these issues were somewhat interrelated with the demands of the navy's 'elites' that engineering officers should be classified as 'trades' ... i.e. they could not hold ship command positions, and their authority would only be in force within their departments. These rules had been repealed before WW1, but these changes were repealed in the 'Great Betrayal' of 1925, when the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty was Admiral David 'What are all those commoners doing here?' Beatty.
... it seems there was a certain grouping of officers in the upper end of the RN that felt that as Engineering types could not have a proper amount of time up in the sunshine they should not only never command a ship, but also never exert control out side their own department.they were considered to be civilian trades, even though they were sea going assignments.
Another interesting aspect of this time, as well as some time after was that promising Officers were discouraged from specializing in Engineering. As well, at the same time, officer candidates who were worrying about makig the passing grade, would 'dodge into' engineering to make sure they were in.
The result of this choice was that through about a ten to 15 year period, a lot of the high end engineering talent left the Royal Navy. By the time WW2 rolled around, the Navy, through special trade school type efforts were just beginning to make good their losses ... but still with no change in the status of the officers in engineering.
... but hey, on the bright side, those elite groups, like Beatty's pals, didn't have to worry about competing for a rung on the command ladder, with some lowly engineering type.
This was further compounded by the Royal Navy's bidding process which laid out the size and 'TYPE' of boiler, from which you get a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. People will go on about how this was based on a better talent pool across the pond, than what was found in ol'Blighty, but it really wasn't. The USN would go small tube/high pressure mainly by putting out simple bids to the manufacturers stating the wanted motive units producing X number of ship horsepower, and as it was competitive, the would get the best bang for the buck, which had become small tube high pressure boilers.
When the RN, would put out bids as well. because like their American cousins, they believed in free enterprise as well, and they would state that they put in their simple bids that they wanted ADMIRALTY THREE DRUM BOILERS providing steam for their power units producing X number of ship horsepower, and as their process too was competitive, they as well would get the best bang for their buck in ADMIRALTY THREE DRUM BOILERS!
Now compound this challenge by the fact that you're brightest minds in engineering, pissed off because you're treating them like the guy who pops over to unplug your Loo, has bugged out to work for Holland-America or Coca-cola, or who ever else that will treat him with a bit of respect considering his training and knowledge, who do you have left to not only tell you that small tube boilers might be a good thing to look into, but also to help work the bugs out when you do decide to get curious?
As Bloke has so kindly noted HMS Acheron was the test bed with high pressure boilers that helped deliver a 20% fuel savings in operation , but were 'problematic'.
Why were the 'problematic'?
Hmmmm
I wonder if it had anything to do with the 'Great Betrayal' of some 5 plus years before?
So there you go ... some people wonder why I like to get rid of Beatty/Milne/Churchill etc early in my TL's .... I'll tell you why .... SMALL TUBE BOILERS .... AND THAT'S JUST A START!
Sorry for being overly dramatic and a tad whiny and sarcastic .... but JEEEEEZ!
Thanks for checking in!
The Royal Navy's problems getting in to High pressure steam was more related to inner heirarchy politics, as well as in their bidding process, than for any other scientific reasoning.
... both of these issues were somewhat interrelated with the demands of the navy's 'elites' that engineering officers should be classified as 'trades' ... i.e. they could not hold ship command positions, and their authority would only be in force within their departments. These rules had been repealed before WW1, but these changes were repealed in the 'Great Betrayal' of 1925, when the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty was Admiral David 'What are all those commoners doing here?' Beatty.
... it seems there was a certain grouping of officers in the upper end of the RN that felt that as Engineering types could not have a proper amount of time up in the sunshine they should not only never command a ship, but also never exert control out side their own department.they were considered to be civilian trades, even though they were sea going assignments.
Another interesting aspect of this time, as well as some time after was that promising Officers were discouraged from specializing in Engineering. As well, at the same time, officer candidates who were worrying about makig the passing grade, would 'dodge into' engineering to make sure they were in.
The result of this choice was that through about a ten to 15 year period, a lot of the high end engineering talent left the Royal Navy. By the time WW2 rolled around, the Navy, through special trade school type efforts were just beginning to make good their losses ... but still with no change in the status of the officers in engineering.
... but hey, on the bright side, those elite groups, like Beatty's pals, didn't have to worry about competing for a rung on the command ladder, with some lowly engineering type.
This was further compounded by the Royal Navy's bidding process which laid out the size and 'TYPE' of boiler, from which you get a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. People will go on about how this was based on a better talent pool across the pond, than what was found in ol'Blighty, but it really wasn't. The USN would go small tube/high pressure mainly by putting out simple bids to the manufacturers stating the wanted motive units producing X number of ship horsepower, and as it was competitive, the would get the best bang for the buck, which had become small tube high pressure boilers.
When the RN, would put out bids as well. because like their American cousins, they believed in free enterprise as well, and they would state that they put in their simple bids that they wanted ADMIRALTY THREE DRUM BOILERS providing steam for their power units producing X number of ship horsepower, and as their process too was competitive, they as well would get the best bang for their buck in ADMIRALTY THREE DRUM BOILERS!
Now compound this challenge by the fact that you're brightest minds in engineering, pissed off because you're treating them like the guy who pops over to unplug your Loo, has bugged out to work for Holland-America or Coca-cola, or who ever else that will treat him with a bit of respect considering his training and knowledge, who do you have left to not only tell you that small tube boilers might be a good thing to look into, but also to help work the bugs out when you do decide to get curious?
As Bloke has so kindly noted HMS Acheron was the test bed with high pressure boilers that helped deliver a 20% fuel savings in operation , but were 'problematic'.
Why were the 'problematic'?
Hmmmm
I wonder if it had anything to do with the 'Great Betrayal' of some 5 plus years before?
So there you go ... some people wonder why I like to get rid of Beatty/Milne/Churchill etc early in my TL's .... I'll tell you why .... SMALL TUBE BOILERS .... AND THAT'S JUST A START!
Sorry for being overly dramatic and a tad whiny and sarcastic .... but JEEEEEZ!
Thanks for checking in!
My understanding , I may be wrong(but please don't tell anyone that .... I oddly give the appearances of being right reasonably often) ....where was I ... oh yeah, I could be mistaken, but I have been led to believe that as far back as USS California they had high pressure boilers ... turbo electric drive to boot ...
... but you know, Beatty ...
one more thing for Steamboy ... The Japanese Furutaka ... it had six single mounts originally ... 7.9" if I remember correctly ... look close at your pic you posted, you can see it jammed under the south end of the catapult.
... apologies for being a bit of a gun mount fascist! ( marches away stiffly ... whistling )
... apologies for being a bit of a gun mount fascist! ( marches away stiffly ... whistling )
With Beatty discredited (or at least sidelined by Jellicoe)
and major administrative reform underway during WWI, the RN will probably introduce high pressure
steam plants at some point, maybe even before Acheron gets commissioned. 3x3 gunned armoured County Class Cruisers anyone?
Lead ship is HMS Arkhamshire, natch. :-D
and major administrative reform underway during WWI, the RN will probably introduce high pressure
steam plants at some point, maybe even before Acheron gets commissioned. 3x3 gunned armoured County Class Cruisers anyone?
Lead ship is HMS Arkhamshire, natch. :-D
Last edited:
Ahh yes sorry, I didn't spot the 4th mount hidden under the catapult. They really crammed them in there :s
Speaking of cruisers I was thinking about Fisher's large cruiser/small battlecruiser.
8 x 9.2 inch guns 255 tonnes per turret (based on the USS Tenassee class, just 25 tonnes lighter due to the lighter guns) vs 450 – 500 tonnes for a 12-inch turret. I was unable to find how heavy the Defence/Nelson’s dual 9.2 turrets were so I had to guesstimate. They are probably heavier than the older turrets but this could be explained away with enhanced anti-flash protection worked into the turret. Ammo is a thing, the 50cal 9.2’s according to navweaps were not that great a weapon and were somewhat inaccurate due to them having a very high velocity round. Whilst the RN’s breaking out the greenboy’s for the battlefleet a new round could be developed for the 9.2. Keep the calibre but fire a heavier shell, this would reduce the velocity and maybe help with the inaccuracy of the guns. Or just use the older 47cal weapons which were more accurate but were also an older gun.
Although saying that, if Fisher’s snuck a 16.5 and 18-inch gun under the radar, perhaps there’s a new 9.2 there too.
Secondaries – It’s a Fisher design so perhaps his beloved triple 4-inch mounts, with a 17,000 tonne design (probably closer to 18,500 once fully loaded) you could probably put a trio on each of the broadsides for a 9-gun secondary armament. Not sure about torpedoes, the hulls would probably be a bit too tall for normal mounts so submerged tubes could feature.
Some HA 6 or 12-lb guns for anti-aircraft defence, perhaps say a quartet of them as well as a ‘just in case’.
Engines – Small tube boilers are going to pretty much be a must and of course oil firing. Speed around 29 – 30 knots, and possibly 32 knots when pushed. If these things are to be a kind of scaled down Courageous then you could get the small tube boilers from them. But with a shorter and fatter hull you’d probably not fit as many in so she’d naturally be slower.
Armoured belt – probably around a 6-inch belt to protect against hostile gunfire from cruiser scale weaponry and it would offer decent protection against their own calibre gun fire at longer ranges. I don’t know if Fisher and co would adopt an all-or-nothing armour scheme and when expected to take on destroyers/cruisers with fast firing guns it might not be that useful so the older armour scheme with a belt and then plating over the hull would probably be retained. This could well result in them having an armour scheme not too dissimilar to the Invincible class BC’s and they did well when faced with 8.2-inch rounds so this would work for these new CA’s.
The design could also start incorporating some of the lessons learned about underwater damage and flooding to hopefully fix the RN’s rather poor track record with (not very) watertight bulkheads and internal subdivision. Its way too early to ask for the engineering spaces to be divided to help protect from torpedo damage, but the hull could be bulged out slightly.
Proto County’s with 7.5 inch guns
6 x 7.5 inch guns in 3 dual mounts. Turret weight – This is a bit of an odd one, would the RN armour its turrets on these CA’s or would they be more akin to a Treaty cruiser. As there’s no data for a dual 7.5 I went with a weight of 220 tonnes which is as heavy as the turrets on the French CA Algerie a much later 30’s design. They are so heavy because of the differences in equipment and the desire to armour the turrets so they are at least proof against 6-inch gunfire, with a 4-inch turret face.
For secondaries, again it’s a Fisher, so 4 x triple 4-inch mounts, two on each side. Assuming these are based on the Hawkins esque hull you could probably fit some torpedoes on the upper hull,
Armour – On a weight of about 10,000 tonnes you could probably work in a 4-inch belt and if small tube boilers are adopted as per OTL Courageous then you’d probably have the weight to play with to do so.
Speed – I’d say around 30 knots if worked right, but I’m no ship designer and am just spitballing here.
Speaking of cruisers I was thinking about Fisher's large cruiser/small battlecruiser.
8 x 9.2 inch guns 255 tonnes per turret (based on the USS Tenassee class, just 25 tonnes lighter due to the lighter guns) vs 450 – 500 tonnes for a 12-inch turret. I was unable to find how heavy the Defence/Nelson’s dual 9.2 turrets were so I had to guesstimate. They are probably heavier than the older turrets but this could be explained away with enhanced anti-flash protection worked into the turret. Ammo is a thing, the 50cal 9.2’s according to navweaps were not that great a weapon and were somewhat inaccurate due to them having a very high velocity round. Whilst the RN’s breaking out the greenboy’s for the battlefleet a new round could be developed for the 9.2. Keep the calibre but fire a heavier shell, this would reduce the velocity and maybe help with the inaccuracy of the guns. Or just use the older 47cal weapons which were more accurate but were also an older gun.
Although saying that, if Fisher’s snuck a 16.5 and 18-inch gun under the radar, perhaps there’s a new 9.2 there too.
Secondaries – It’s a Fisher design so perhaps his beloved triple 4-inch mounts, with a 17,000 tonne design (probably closer to 18,500 once fully loaded) you could probably put a trio on each of the broadsides for a 9-gun secondary armament. Not sure about torpedoes, the hulls would probably be a bit too tall for normal mounts so submerged tubes could feature.
Some HA 6 or 12-lb guns for anti-aircraft defence, perhaps say a quartet of them as well as a ‘just in case’.
Engines – Small tube boilers are going to pretty much be a must and of course oil firing. Speed around 29 – 30 knots, and possibly 32 knots when pushed. If these things are to be a kind of scaled down Courageous then you could get the small tube boilers from them. But with a shorter and fatter hull you’d probably not fit as many in so she’d naturally be slower.
Armoured belt – probably around a 6-inch belt to protect against hostile gunfire from cruiser scale weaponry and it would offer decent protection against their own calibre gun fire at longer ranges. I don’t know if Fisher and co would adopt an all-or-nothing armour scheme and when expected to take on destroyers/cruisers with fast firing guns it might not be that useful so the older armour scheme with a belt and then plating over the hull would probably be retained. This could well result in them having an armour scheme not too dissimilar to the Invincible class BC’s and they did well when faced with 8.2-inch rounds so this would work for these new CA’s.
The design could also start incorporating some of the lessons learned about underwater damage and flooding to hopefully fix the RN’s rather poor track record with (not very) watertight bulkheads and internal subdivision. Its way too early to ask for the engineering spaces to be divided to help protect from torpedo damage, but the hull could be bulged out slightly.
Proto County’s with 7.5 inch guns
6 x 7.5 inch guns in 3 dual mounts. Turret weight – This is a bit of an odd one, would the RN armour its turrets on these CA’s or would they be more akin to a Treaty cruiser. As there’s no data for a dual 7.5 I went with a weight of 220 tonnes which is as heavy as the turrets on the French CA Algerie a much later 30’s design. They are so heavy because of the differences in equipment and the desire to armour the turrets so they are at least proof against 6-inch gunfire, with a 4-inch turret face.
For secondaries, again it’s a Fisher, so 4 x triple 4-inch mounts, two on each side. Assuming these are based on the Hawkins esque hull you could probably fit some torpedoes on the upper hull,
Armour – On a weight of about 10,000 tonnes you could probably work in a 4-inch belt and if small tube boilers are adopted as per OTL Courageous then you’d probably have the weight to play with to do so.
Speed – I’d say around 30 knots if worked right, but I’m no ship designer and am just spitballing here.
Last edited:
Beatty makes a tremendous villain, but I think you need more than not having Beatty to get away from the fact that the RN shrank by well over half from its 1914 strength (never mind 1918) in a very short space of time. Shedding seamen was relatively easy, and a lot of junior officers would have wanted to go anyway, but the RN was left with a vast oversupply of mid-ranking officers chasing ever-fewer commands. The pressure to tighten restrictions on command track was a lot more than Beatty being a snob - an engineer who tops out at L/CDR (E) has plenty of civilian prospects when he hits mandatory retirement for that rank at 45, what does a Navigator or Gunnery Officer do? If Beatty doesn't speak up to create a plausible career path for 'the fighting officers who won us the war and now deserve a fair crack at promotion' hundreds of other officers will.
Meanwhile you can accuse Churchill of every administrative crime under the sun, but not really of being blind to the possibilities of new technology or the need for specialists to make it work. For a cavalryman he was pretty good at acknowledging the merits of professional and technical education - a low bar, I know. He had a mighty go at the purblindness of Oxford refusing to have an Engineering college when there was money being thrown around for one in the late '30s; we ended up with Nuffield College having a social science focus instead and Churchill was allegedly so annoyed he blocked its Royal Charter until his retirement. Which is a very sensible view to take of PPE students.
The 9.2 inch Cruiser killer would be a good ship. The 7.5 inch would be neither fish nor fowl
unless this becomes standard for a Light Cruiser (not likely). The would probably be sold
to other navies like Chile and Brazil.
The triple 4 inch mounts could probably get replaced with a dual mount 4.5 in due course.
unless this becomes standard for a Light Cruiser (not likely). The would probably be sold
to other navies like Chile and Brazil.
The triple 4 inch mounts could probably get replaced with a dual mount 4.5 in due course.
Last edited:
I used the 7.5 as a proto-county because there's not an 8-inch gun, well not yet. As you said correctly, its neither fish nor fowl but its better than giving it a 6-inch gun and putting a decent number of 9.2s on a 10k hull is simply going to be a nightmare. The RN had the right idea with the Hawkins but because of their guns in shields they were obsolete rather quickly. A successor class could basically be the same kind of design but have 8-inch guns and looks like a longer York class but the RN would still probably focus on producing more CL's than CAs. A larger CA could have two triples and one twin 8-inch mounts. And I'm not sure why I like the 3 turret layout, it just looks handsome I guess.
It may be true that an experienced engineering officer has plenty of civilian offers to look at,when compared to a navigator or gunnery officer, however to single out a technical branch, particularly one which held within it the better understanding and appreciation of the mechanics and structures that was the the physical backbone of the navy, simply because the chances for promotion were only due to "the fighting officers who won us the war and now deserve a fair crack at promotion"? Well I guess when I look at it again, there wouldn't be much of an upper deck bias in that statement, would there?
That's the funny thing about modern warfare. There's a lot that happens in it that very well might not, if it was not for the "non-fighting officers who did bugger all to win us the war and now simply need to be shown just how useless they truly are in our eyes by denying them any chance for promotion", the afore mentioned fighting officers would be still sitting at the pier trying to figure out how to start the damned boat.
That there was an over supply of officers was a given, and yes the Navy faced cuts to their budget starting in the neighborhood of 42% and getting more severe once it was rolling. The fact that as First Sea Lord Beatty would not come up with a balanced approach covering all branches of the navy that would see at least the solid core of a balanced structure that could be built up into something bigger when the need arose once more. At least one example of that being the callous discard of the engineering branch, simply reinforces Beatty as one who was more concerned of his kind, rather than the Royal Navy as a whole.
As to Churchill, he did have his place, however, it wasn't leading the Admiralty at that time.
I think if 'team Jellicoe' remains in charge then I think that the Navy will be better placed to assert control over their future and many things may happen differently - mind you the RN has often been punished for its successes.
Beatty will be a footnote at best in this TLs history -
What was out come of the propaganda war ?- historically because the Germans got home first they were able to break the story as a clear 'German Victory' - while Whitehall dithered and allowed the German version to be printed a day before the British Ships started to arrive home with a clear British picture.
Hopefully 'Jack' won't be spat at in the streets by an ignorant populace in this TL
Never knew about the Engineering issues or Beatty interference in 1925.
You learn something new everyday on this site
My opinion on B.goes down even more
( Not that I have a high opinion of his command ability in the first place)
Anyone who thought his ships where like hounds in one of his fox hunts has no place in command in the RN