AHC/WI: Faster Nelson class?

Steel is cheap, and extra displacement the same.
If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying to win, as goes the saying in the Sports World.
I think it's more a case that as the only new Battleships built from scratch following the Washington Treaty their construction was under intense international scrutiny. Any cheating would have been caught.
If the UK gets caught bending the rules then the US, Japan and others will all start cheating too (yes, they probably will anyway but they definitely will if the UK cheats), then the UK has to react to the new foreign designs with their own designs, then the foreigners will react to them and you're back in the same arms race the treaties were supposed to stop. The UK can't afford to be in an arms race, especially not with the US, and they can't afford to fall behind foreign navies.

I agree that steel's cheap and I agree there's a risk they would have been caught if they'd tried cheating. That's why they literally can't afford to even think about trying.
 
Last edited:
At the times, the Brits were trying to claim the moral high ground, so they really wanted to be seen obeying the rules to the letter.

They gamed the system in other ways: they scammed everyone else into accepting rules that favored the Brits.

For example, the rules defining "standard displacement" for battleships actually favored the Brits and the Nelsons were designed to take full advantages of these rules
 
At the times, the Brits were trying to claim the moral high ground, so they really wanted to be seen obeying the rules to the letter.

They gamed the system in other ways: they scammed everyone else into accepting rules that favored the Brits.

For example, the rules defining "standard displacement" for battleships actually favored the Brits and the Nelsons were designed to take full advantages of these rules
They cheated without cheating.
Belts on the Counties being the obvious one to point to, and standard displacement as you've said. Would likely see more of that 'technically not cheating' if they wanted to game the treaty.
 
At the times, the Brits were trying to claim the moral high ground, so they really wanted to be seen obeying the rules to the letter.

They gamed the system in other ways: they scammed everyone else into accepting rules that favored the Brits.

For example, the rules defining "standard displacement" for battleships actually favored the Brits and the Nelsons were designed to take full advantages of these rules
I am not sure if that is a fair comment

Japan for example after the 1923 earthquake was probably relieved as the nation was in poor state for any arms race

The USA also were not interested in financing a larger fleet

So it favoured all the major players
 
They cheated without cheating.
Belts on the Counties being the obvious one to point to, and standard displacement as you've said. Would likely see more of that 'technically not cheating' if they wanted to game the treaty.

Take a look at Drachinifel's video on the WNT, it is very interresting


He explain how everyone cheated the spirit of the treaty while obeying the letter (by making sure the exact wording allowed them to finesse around the intent of the rules)
 
Take a look at Drachinifel's video on the WNT, it is very interresting


He explain how everyone cheated the spirit of the treaty while obeying the letter (by making sure the exact wording allowed them to finesse around the intent of the rules)
I've seen it before.
Navigating through wording is quite standard in such a treaty (most treaties worth a damn really), this is more the difference between blatant cheating and technically obeying it with a wink and a nod ie the difference between a 10k cruiser that is more like 14k and a 10k cruiser that is 10k but has a suspicious looking indent where a belt would go and sits very high in the water..
 
I am not sure if that is a fair comment

Japan for example after the 1923 earthquake was probably relieved as the nation was in poor state for any arms race

The USA also were not interested in financing a larger fleet

So it favoured all the major players
As a note on the Japanese there is some evidence some of their cheating was simply bad math. They lacked the manpower and experience to consistently predict ship weights the way the British and Americans could. How many times did a ship have to go back to the yards for strengthening? That is not ideal, there are better ways to cheat.
 
As a note on the Japanese there is some evidence some of their cheating was simply bad math.
Also most actual cheating was very late in time period, cheating on N&R would set a big example, but with hindsight then asking about Lex and Sara real displacement might be the way to go......!
 
And quads being an even bigger mechanical leap than triples, which matters when this was the first time the Royal Navy had put a triple or larger turret to sea ever.
 
They were supposed to be 33,000 std, but the USN decided that the 3000 ton modernisation allowance applied to them, so they were really 36,000 std.
 
As a note on the Japanese there is some evidence some of their cheating was simply bad math. They lacked the manpower and experience to consistently predict ship weights the way the British and Americans could. How many times did a ship have to go back to the yards for strengthening? That is not ideal, there are better ways to cheat.
This makes a lot of sense - they only relatively recently started making their own capital ships

The first of the British designed Kongo class had been built in Barrow-in-Furness by Vickers (the other 3 built in Japan but with Vickers help)
 
Richelieu had an internal subdivision in the main turrets such that each was basically two 2-gun turrets spliced together; the only thing they shared was the barbette. I don't think the British designed theirs that way though.
My rational side worries that a single hit can still affect half the main armament.
My non-rational side cares that twin and triple turrets look good, while quads are ugly.
 
And quads being an even bigger mechanical leap than triples, which matters when this was the first time the Royal Navy had put a triple or larger turret to sea ever.
Isn’t a quad more like 2x2 so in a way simpler than triples. IIRC often the 4x2’s would prefer to fire half salvos anyway which would be entirely different on triplets but not a real change with quads?
Richelieu had an internal subdivision in the main turrets such that each was basically two 2-gun turrets spliced together; the only thing they shared was the barbette. I don't think the British designed theirs that way though.
Do we have the British quad designs?
 
Top