1930s Royal Navy Sanity options

[Some Bloke]

Following the theme of these threads:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1939s-british-army-sanity-options.410890/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1930s-air-ministry-surprise-sanity-options.410175/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...1930-39-a-british-naval-aviation-wank.410908/

First, the Admiralty doesn't abandon High Pressure steam plants after the problems with HMS Acheron.
Instead they take a more measured approach, maybe deciding (initially) that they aren't suitable for small
ships and put them on larger ones at first.

Given the fact that France had already finalised the design for the 15 inch guns of the Richilieu Class battleships before the Second London Naval treaty had been signed, there is a precedent for setting
15 inches as the limit on gun calibre.

IOTL the initial King George V design was for 3x3 15 inch guns and a top speed of 27 knots.
From what I've read, one of the main advantages of the High Pressure steam plants was fuel efficiency,
meaning less tonnage dedicated to fuel storage, freeing up tonnage either for more powerful engines, or a better hull for speed and handling. I'd say this would probably improve speed by a knot or two, but I'm not an expert.

Other orders/changes
HMS Hood given a Warspite style rebuild, high pressure steam plant allowing
for more armour without compromising speed. Classed as a Battleship
after the rebuilt.

A fully armoured 3x3 8 inch gunned heavy cruiser (Benbow class)
replacing the Hawkins class.

Earlier, more comprehensive rebuild plan for the County Class Cruisers.

Faster Steam Gun Boats, and more are built.

Any ideas on improving Light Cruisers and Destroyers?

Given how similar OTL's Mark III 4.5 inch gun was to the Mark I, maybe don't bother with this particular
redesign and instead concentrate on adapting the design for a destoyer mount. Maybe these first appear on the M class and feature on some War Emergency variants.
Late war destroyer, Tribal hull with high pressure plant, 3x2 4.5 inch guns and an improved AAA plan.

 

[PMN1]

Tony Williams wrote an good article on RN medium calibre guns.

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/MCGWW2.html

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As new battleships are going to be laid down on 1st January 1937 whatever design is chosen. Freeze the design of your choice a year earlier than OTL and order the long lead items, i.e. the machinery and armour, but most importantly of all the main gun turrets one year earlier than OTL. The beauty of this is that the same amount of money as OTL is spent, but is spread over a greater number of years.

The overriding problem with the KGVs wasn't their armament it was the length of time they took to build. The changes of armament increased that time. Order the armament a year earlier and then KGV and PoW will be built in the specified 3.5 years and be delivered on 1st July 1940. DoY, Howe and Anson would be delivered between November 1940 and January 1941.

Result: 5 modern battleships when you need them.

It will be easy peasy to keep the gun limit at 16" because it was the British that had it reduced to 14" in the first place. As usual they wanted to keep the cost of the ships down to so that they could be built in the numbers required. This turned out to be a false economy.

If it was me I'd stick to nine 15" but change the secondary armament to twenty 4.5". Or I would go up to sixteen 6" in eight twin DP mountings. I think the gun turrets would weigh negligibly more but have the same elevation, turning rates and rate of fire as the OTL twin 5.25" but a heavier shell.

Allied to that I would have persisted with high angle mountings for cruisers after the disappointing results with the HA 8" turrets for the County and York classes. The mountings fitted to the Leander to Southampton classes would not be satisfactory either, but they would finally get it right with the Edinburgh and Colony classes. Instead of the OTL Dido a modified Amphion with eight 6" in four twin DP turrets would be built.

 

[Archibald]

British cruisers always struck me as uninpressives. Why couldn't GB build something like Algeria, or Tone, or Des Moines ?

 

[hipper]

Following the theme of these threads:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1939s-british-army-sanity-options.410890/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/1930s-air-ministry-surprise-sanity-options.410175/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...1930-39-a-british-naval-aviation-wank.410908/

First, the Admiralty doesn't abandon High Pressure steam plants after the problems with HMS Acheron.
Instead they take a more measured approach, maybe deciding (initially) that they aren't suitable for small
ships and put them on larger ones at first.

the USN used economisers (heat exchangers) double reduction gearing, hull shape. fuel volume and high pressure steam to gain their high endurance figures

the RN optimised their heavy ships for speed and armour rather than economy at medium speeds - there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches but to say that High pressure steam would turn the KGV into a South Dakota is overegging things

the real sanity option is to enlarge the size of the RFA and equip it for alongside refuelling using rubber hoses. that would make the biggest difference in at sea endurance for the RN.

Given the fact that France had already finalised the design for the 15 inch guns of the Richilieu Class battleships before the Second London Naval treaty had been signed, there is a precedent for setting
15 inches as the limit on gun calibre.

the limit was political and designed to maximise the advantage of the RN in having a large number of 15" guns at sea - it was I agree a nitwit idea since none else used 14" guns making the limit 16" would be unexceptional but 9 x 16" is hard to fit on a 35,000 tonne Battleship with RN levels of protection.

IOTL the initial King George V design was for 3x3 15 inch guns and a top speed of 27 knots. From what I've read, one of the main advantages of the High Pressure steam plants was fuel efficiency,
meaning less tonnage dedicated to fuel storage, freeing up tonnage either for more powerful engines, or a better hull for speed and handling. I'd say this would probably improve speed by a knot or two, but I'm not an expert.

there are few experts on the board, including me! but the POW made 29 knots when intercepting the Bismarck. Meaningful increases fuel economy would have added weight to the machinery and made the ship slower with the Italians and Germans emphasising speed the RN needed all the fast Battleships they could get.

Other orders/changes
HMS Hood given a Warspite style rebuild, high pressure steam plant allowing
for more armour without compromising speed. Classed as a Battleship
after the rebuilt. .

such a good idea, but a modern steam plant would restore Hood to 32 knots without too much effort and having a ship that could run down the twins would be ideal for the RN in 1940.

[/QUOTE] A fully armoured 3x3 8 inch gunned heavy cruiser (Benbow class)
replacing the Hawkins class.

Earlier, more comprehensive rebuild plan for the County Class Cruisers. [/QUOTE]

more cruisers are what is needed rather than bigger more expensive ones.

Faster Steam Gun Boats, and more are built.

Any ideas on improving Light Cruisers and Destroyers?

Given how similar OTL's Mark III 4.5 inch gun was to the Mark I, maybe don't bother with this particular
redesign and instead concentrate on adapting the design for a destoyer mount. Maybe these first appear on the M class and feature on some War Emergency variants.
Late war destroyer, Tribal hull with high pressure plant, 3x2 4.5 inch guns and an improved AAA plan.

A slightly earlier slightly faster and more weatherly Corvette design would be ideal - call it the River class, order a flotilla in 1936 commissioned in 1938 work ut the flaws in time for large scale mass production in 1939. Ideally order lots In 1938.

use the power plants of 1/2 the Dido class as to build some light aircraft carriers (auxiliaries) laid down in 1938
use the Munich crisis to convert one merchant liner into a aircraft carrier in 1938. Use that as a template
convert some tankers and grain ships as merchant aircraft carriers in 1940
form some auxiliary Fleet air arm squadrons in the 1930's to provide increased depth to the FAA
get the FA back from the RAF as early as possible

going for a 3x2 Tribal class with 4.5" seems like a no brainer - but the requirement for volume destroyer production will mean your emergency war destroyers end up with a hodge podge guns unless you make some hefty orders in the late 1930's which OTL the treasury put the kybosh on.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

How about a common 'O3' style layout Cruiser design With a triple 'A' + Superimposed B forward and an X midships turret - aviation facilities and secondaries aft

This shortens the area necessary for the main Belt and deck armour allowing more weight for machinary etc

Say an 8K ton design for the 6" light and a 10K ton design for the 8" heavy design

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If it's a spend as much money as you like thread. Then I would implement the Admiralty's 1924 Programme in full. This was 10 year modernisation programme, which as well as the aircraft carriers I frequently bang on about included:

1. 80 submarines (60 overseas, 12 cruisers and 8 fleet) to be built at the rate of 10 a year from 1924. In the event the building rate was 6 submarines a year and then it was cut back to 3 a year for the first half of the 1930s. 80 submarines appears as the target in many of the Admiralty's plans so my guess the service life of a submarine was set at 10 years;
2. 40 County class cruisers to be laid down at the rate of 8 per year from 1924. Only 13 Counties and 2 Yorks were built over this period;
3. The target was 70 cruisers of which 60 had to be less than 15 years of age (the LNT increased the service life to 20 years). That required an average building rate of 4 ships a year. The actual average between 1924 and 1935 was 3 per year;
4. 2 prototype destroyers to be ordered in 1924 and a production design to be developed from them. These were actually built;
5. 15 destroyer flotillas (1935 ships) to be laid down from 1926. 10 to be laid down at the rate of 2 per year 1926-30 and then followed by 5 at the rate of one per year 1931-35. In the event only 77 A to I class and the first flotilla of Tribal class were built. At this time the service life of a destroyer flotilla was set at 12 years so building 2 flotillas a year for 12 years produces a force of 24 flotillas. For a war against German and Japan the estimated requirement was 22 flotillas.

There would be no 1930 LNT or at least one that allowed the British Empire 700,000 tons of cruisers (40 Counties and 30 Edinburghs effectively) and a destroyer quota large enough to continue building destroyers at the rate of 2 flotillas a year.

 

[Thomas1195]

If it's a spend as much money as you like thread. Then I would implement the Admiralty's 1924 Programme in full. This was 10 year modernisation programme, which as well as the aircraft carriers I frequently bang on about included:

1. 80 submarines (60 overseas, 12 cruisers and 8 fleet) to be built at the rate of 10 a year from 1924. In the event the building rate was 6 submarines a year and then it was cut back to 3 a year for the first half of the 1930s. 80 submarines appears as the target in many of the Admiralty's plans so my guess the service life of a submarine was set at 10 years;
2. 40 County class cruisers to be laid down at the rate of 8 per year from 1924. Only 13 Counties and 2 Yorks were built over this period;
3. The target was 70 cruisers of which 60 had to be less than 15 years of age (the LNT increased the service life to 20 years). That required an average building rate of 4 ships a year. The actual average between 1924 and 1935 was 3 per year;
4. 2 prototype destroyers to be ordered in 1924 and a production design to be developed from them. These were actually built;
5. 15 destroyer flotillas (1935 ships) to be laid down from 1926. 10 to be laid down at the rate of 2 per year 1926-30 and then followed by 5 at the rate of one per year 1931-35. In the event only 77 A to I class and the first flotilla of Tribal class were built. At this time the service life of a destroyer flotilla was set at 12 years so building 2 flotillas a year for 12 years produces a force of 24 flotillas. For a war against German and Japan the estimated requirement was 22 flotillas.

There would be no 1930 LNT or at least one that allowed the British Empire 700,000 tons of cruisers (40 Counties and 30 Edinburghs effectively) and a destroyer quota large enough to continue building destroyers at the rate of 2 flotillas a year.

Well, you would need a much better British economic performance during 1919-1938. OTL average growth was only 2.1% during the whole period. If it was 4.1-5.1%, then fine.

Also, IOTL, both Labour and Tories committed to austerity, while Liberal committed to spending on national infrastructure development and reforms. So, you would not find enough money for this kind of naval program at least until after the Great Depression.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, you would need a much better British economic performance during 1919-1938. OTL average growth was only 2.1% during the whole period. If it was 4.1-5.1%, then fine.

Also, IOTL, both Labour and Tories committed to austerity, while Liberal committed to spending on national infrastructure development. So, you would not find enough money for this kind of naval program at least until after the Great Depression.

Which is exactly what happened and I did preface my post as, "If this is a spend as much money as you like thread," to qualify it.

The original estimated cost of the program was £262.5 million.

Although (as you incessantly remind us) the performance UK economy wasn't great it was the huge National Debt repayments and the over enthusiastic British disarmament lobby that were the overriding impediments.

 

[Some Bloke]

If we can go as far back as the 30s maybe have the J3 designed with an all or nothing armour scheme. This forms the basis of the Nelson class resulting in a 26 knot 3x3 15 inch gunned battleship. Use a small tubed Queen Elizabeth powerplant rather than designing one from scratch and they'll probably be cheaper too.

Maybe the initial savings allow the Royal Marines to retain their Artillery arm.

 

[Astrodragon]

A few comments.

No steam gunboats, they were fragile and useless. Dont rebuild the County class, it overstrained the hull. If you want a heavy cruiser, look at Belfast with 8x8" guns.

Agree on 9x15" for KGV class.HP steam would help, but only a knot or two (the biggest bonus is to endurance); RN steam plants, particularly on the big ships, could be driven harder than other navies.

Drop the idea of airplanes on ships. That's why you have carriers. Use the space for more light AA

Forget the idea of a 10-torpedo salvo on the T-class, and introduce a weldable steel hull for the later boats in the class.

Cheat more. It was well known other nations were cheating, stop sticking so closely to the treaty.

Rebuild Hood early (she has to go in around 34, otherwise she's seen as too valuable). Modify Courageous and Glorious to a single flight deck, and see what can be done about better subdivision against underwater damage. They arent worth a full rebuild.

Get the FAA away from the RAF as early as possible. Shell the AM if necessary. Point out the USN can work with a single pilot in the fighters, why cant we? Develop a suitable fighter (the 2-man divebomber is an emergency fighter fallback). Point out that a high performance radial fighter fills an RAFrequirement, and gives a fallback if something goes wrong with the Merlin.

Assume we need 0.5" at least, 20mm cannon preferably, to take out large shadowers. Press the development.

Lose the idea of an armoured flight deck, instead build a better protected Ark Royal. Insist on 25kt as the Carrier displacement.

Re-institute the idea of convoy escorts, and start training escort groups to handle this. Build some River-class ships between the wars, diesel powered. Work out the bugs and make them suitable for mass production. Include training in the Atlantic, not just the Channel.

Develop a light carrierfor use in trade protection. About 28kt also allows it to work with the BB's and give them recon capability. Build them cheap, dont keep adding stuff (thats what the fleet carriers are for).

Investigate the RAF anti-submarine bombs (useless), and depth charged (RDX and streamlined).

Faster development of naval radar would be wonderful.

Destroyers- move tolongitudinal frames earlier (and kick the shipyards). High pressuer steam has a lot of benefits. Look at a standard type of design aroun 1800-2000t as a general purpose ship. 8x4.5" (or 6x4.5" in the AA versionwith more light AA), depth charges (hedgehog to come),hull optimised for endurance, plus a bit more fuel so it can work across the Atlantic. Plan to mass-roduce thenin wartime.

Most of this doesn't requre huge changes or investment. Some of them (no armoured deck carriers) actually helps with the shortage of armour plate.

 

[jsb]

British cruisers always struck me as uninpressives. Why couldn't GB build something like Algeria, or Tone, or Des Moines ?

Algeria, is she that much better than the earlier much more common County's, better protection but slower with similar armament?
or Tone, well over weight
or Des Moines far to late....

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IMHO the only unimpressive thing about the British interwar cruisers is that only 37 ships of the County to Edinburgh classes were built necessitating the retention of over age ships to make up the numbers. Even then with 63 in September 1939 the Royal Navies were still 7 short of the 70 required for a war against one great power and the 100 required for a war against two.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Agree on 9x15" for KGV class.

Why? There isn't a single encounter in WW2 where the KGV were at a serious disadvantage with their ten 14" guns. Against Bismarck, PoW was able to wreck Bismarck's mission (would one less gun result in the important hit not occurring), while KGV was able to pummel the German. Against Scharnhorst, DoY was more than up to the task. What the PoW could have used is a more initially reliable gun of whatever size, but she was just out of the builders, which yard techs still on board.

If using 15" guns from the Revenge class can get the KGV ships into service faster then sure, but otherwise a 15" armed KGV makes no difference.

 

[steamboy]

With the Cruisers the RN produced some very good ones in the Towns and the Crown Colony types (which were smaller Towns). The County's did not react well to being rebuilt, the HMS London was given a full rebuild and it was quite the failure due to the additional stress on the hull causing her to leak and become a dockyard queen, its also expensive to do so massive a rebuild on them, and you'd want the whole class.

The RN didn't like 8-inch gunned heavy cruisers because it needed more and cheaper ships, so the 6-inch was the weapon of choice. A Town could probably handle any IJN or KM cruiser in a gun fight and they were a fine design. If you needed a CA, use their hull and give them 9 x 8-inch guns in 3 turrets.

The problem with the Admiralty type boilers is that whilst they were very reliable, they were also less efficient than their USN equivalents whilst also being heavier and bulkier. If the RN had adopted similar measures to the USN in regards to its boilers the KGVs would have had a greater range, which was always a big problem with the class.

Changes i'd make.

Hood and Repulse get refitted, even if its at the cost of one of the QE's not getting upgraded fully. Or heck, just stop at the Warspite level of upgrade and don't go the whole hog as was done with Valiant and Queen Elisabeth.

Don't modernise any of the Counties, its just not much use. Also don't waste money turning the Hawkin's class into 6-inch gunned ships, keep as is, again it saves money.

Don't go with the AFD carrier idea, just build repeat Ark Royals or incremental improvements of that class as soon as possible and try to avoid dropping the tonnage of carriers.

Re the Ark design, don't have the big drop down on rear of the flight deck as it lessens space where you can spot a flight.

KGV - 9 x 15-inch guns 20 x 4.5-inch secondaries. No aircraft facilities, you've got radar and carriers. A sheer on the bow, getting rid of that stupid ass requirement to be able to fire A-turret right ahead at 0 elevation.

Ahead throwing AS weapons - For the love of god keep this going instead of stopping because it was a bit tricky.

Pom-pom - Develop tracer ammo.

Purchase the license for the 20mm olerikon gun for ships.

Set on a standardized 4-inch and set of 4.5-inch mounts for destroyers and small ships. Punch the AM in the mouth and tell them that aircraft have gotten better and carry out your own tests to prove this to try move away from the love affair the RN had with LA mounts on its destroyers until the Battles came along in 1944. For the 4-inch mount have a single and double barrelled Mark XIX mounting for them and these can be for Emergency War Destroyers. Larger fleet units like the J, K and Tribal classes get a dual 4.5-inch mount preferably enclosed and cable of HA fire.

Look at updating the pom-pom mount, its low muzzle velocity was a big draw back so perhaps lengthen the barrels for increased MV. Also look at making a half grand piano so only 4 guns and these could go on destroyers or cruisers.

With the Dido class, build them but with only 8 x 5.25 inch guns in re-worked and enlarged turrets. These mounts were good but because a lot of the loading process was done by hand it slowed their ROF considerably due to the crew getting tired. They were also small and quite cramped, which again hampered efficiency. No floatplane or torpedo facilities, instead fit them with 20mm and pom-pom mounts to turn them into dedicated CL-AA's.

Look at paying off some of the C/D type cruisers, they really are of little use and are too slow and vulnerable in the face of modern threats. If possible, look at arming them with dual 4-inch mounts so you get a 10 gun CL-AA. Also give the 6-inch guns from the decommissioned ships to either the army or put them on costal defences in Cyprus, Gibraltar and Singapore.

Throw a pint in the RAF's face before dragging them outside to have fisticuffs over who gets control of the FAA. The dead hand of the RAF and their ideas needs to be cast aside.

 

[steamboy]

Why? There isn't a single encounter in WW2 where the KGV were at a serious disadvantage with their ten 14" guns. Against Bismarck, PoW was able to wreck Bismarck's mission (would one less gun result in the important hit not occurring), while KGV was able to pummel the German. Against Scharnhorst, DoY was more than up to the task. What the PoW could have used is a more initially reliable gun of whatever size, but she was just out of the builders, which yard techs still on board.

If using 15" guns from the Revenge class can get the KGV ships into service faster then sure, but otherwise a 15" armed KGV makes no difference.

I think the stigma against the 14-inch gun (which as you pointed out was perfectly good) was due to the overly complex turret layout and their reliability issues that were never fully resolved. This is partly because the RN went anti-flash mad with LOTS of turret protection post Jutland. Thats why the Nelsons turrets were initially so problematic, they were unreliable and had a slow ROF compared to the 15-inch mounts because of all the safety and anti-flash interlocks they had to protect against a hit on the turret causing turret fires. It also didn't help that the Nelson's turrets were actually made really quite light and didn't stand up well to the stresses they were exposed to.

The obcession with anti-flash protection carried onto the KGVs and the quad turret was horribly complex.

One thing to also go for, wielding, I don't care what trade union bosses you have to make dissapear but the dockyards NEED to modernise and the RN can kind of force them by going "We want weilding on our ships construction."


I've got Nelson to Vanguard around here somewhere, i'll look at that for more ideas.

 

[naraic]

As new battleships are going to be laid down on 1st January 1937 whatever design is chosen. Freeze the design of your choice a year earlier than OTL and order the long lead items, i.e. the machinery and armour, but most importantly of all the main gun turrets one year earlier than OTL. The beauty of this is that the same amount of money as OTL is spent, but is spread over a greater number of years.

In relation to this could armour plate stockpiling have begun in the early 1930s. If so we avoid the new for the Czech order which was a real kick in the teeth for British industry (there was two or three armour factories spending every year to maintain capacity that closed in 1932-1934) for Britain to have to go and buy abroad in 1935.

 

[Thomas1195]

Although (as you incessantly remind us) the performance UK economy wasn't great it was the huge National Debt repayments and the over enthusiastic British disarmament lobby that were the overriding impediments.

A Britain with average growth of 4.1-5.1% would have greater capacity for both debt repayment and public spending including naval spending, due to much higher tax revenue. Also, not returning to Gold in 1925 (one of the conditions to achieve this level of growth) would allow Britain to print more money.

Suddenly I remember Lloyd George's quote: "a fully equiped Duke costs more than two Dreadnoughts". Hammering a big Land Value Tax on the landed gentry, while cutting (earned) Income Tax and Business rate would generate much more tax revenues both directly and and indirectly by encouraging productive economic activities.


Result: simple, larger budget available for naval construction.


About naval construction plan:

40 County class cruisers to be laid down at the rate of 8 per year from 1924. Only 13 Counties and 2 Yorks were built over this period;

Why not Hawkins/Benbow or some kind of cheaper classes with greater number?

Get the FAA away from the RAF as early as possible. Shell the AM if necessary. Point out the USN can work with a single pilot in the fighters, why cant we? Develop a suitable fighter (the 2-man divebomber is an emergency fighter fallback). Point out that a high performance radial fighter fills an RAFrequirement, and gives a fallback if something goes wrong with the Merlin.

Assume we need 0.5" at least, 20mm cannon preferably, to take out large shadowers. Press the development.

Lose the idea of an armoured flight deck, instead build a better protected Ark Royal. Insist on 25kt as the Carrier displacement.

Re-institute the idea of convoy escorts, and start training escort groups to handle this. Build some River-class ships between the wars, diesel powered. Work out the bugs and make them suitable for mass production. Include training in the Atlantic, not just the Channel.

Develop a light carrierfor use in trade protection. About 28kt also allows it to work with the BB's and give them recon capability. Build them cheap, dont keep adding stuff (thats what the fleet carriers are for).

Investigate the RAF anti-submarine bombs (useless), and depth charged (RDX and streamlined).

Faster development of naval radar would be wonderful.

Destroyers- move tolongitudinal frames earlier (and kick the shipyards). High pressuer steam has a lot of benefits. Look at a standard type of design aroun 1800-2000t as a general purpose ship. 8x4.5" (or 6x4.5" in the AA versionwith more light AA), depth charges (hedgehog to come),hull optimised for endurance, plus a bit more fuel so it can work across the Atlantic. Plan to mass-roduce thenin wartime.

Agree with all of these. But you need to secure a stable oil supply for diesel engines.

One thing to also go for, wielding, I don't care what trade union bosses you have to make dissapear but the dockyards NEED to modernise and the RN can kind of force them by going "We want weilding on our ships construction."

Well well, totally agree. Either having Mond-Turner talk succeed or the proposal in 1928 Yellow Book implemented would solve industrial unrest and bound the interest of the trade unions to the success of the businesses.

In relation to this could armour plate stockpiling have begun in the early 1930s. If so we avoid the new for the Czech order which was a real kick in the teeth for British industry (there was two or three armour factories spending every year to maintain capacity that closed in 1932-1934) for Britain to have to go and buy abroad in 1935.

An earlier adoption prefabrication would make this proposal more practical, because this method allow you build ship components from different locations. So, you can build guns, armour plates, engines...separately.

Again, trade unions opposed new practices.

 

[Athelstane]

Get the FAA away from the RAF as early as possible

It sure would be neat if someone did a timeline on this.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why not Hawkins/Benbow or some kind of cheaper classes with greater number?

Because Stephen Roskill said so in his book British Naval Policy Between the Wars!

That and the Washington Naval Treaty. 10,000 tons and 8" guns.

That and the WNT and the Americans building cruisers of 10,000 tons with 8" guns.

That and the WNT and the Americans building cruisers of 10,000 tons with 8" guns and the Japanese building cruisers of 10,000 tons with 8" guns.