British G3 Battlecruisers: How Good Were They?

Were the proposed G3 class of battlecruiser a good design.

I've seen arguements both for and against them. Some people claim they were prototype fast battleships while others think they would have been high maintainance dock queens.

So on balance who is right and would the RN have been better off with or without them?
 
The British used the terms 'Battlecruiser' basically for what we would call a fast battleship. The WWII King George V class were called battlecruisers when they were original ordered and laid down.

How good could have been the G3s? This question has sprung again and again since the first incarnation of this board. Every indication points to them being pretty excellent warships - on paper. A lot of people point to problems that the Nelson class had since they were extremely trimmed versions of the G3. Once launched there could have been all sorts of problems, but for the time period of 1920-1930s they certainly would have been powerful ships.
 

sharlin

Banned
Their armour scheme was certinally first class, and would have been until at least the Yamato strutted onto the screen. Massively thick decks, up to 7 inches would have stopped damn near anything of the time, but perhaps not the US super heavy shells they developed for their later 16 inch gunned BBs. At 32 knots they would have been fast too.

Yes there would be problems, the odd layout of the 3rd turret would have restricted its arc and would have probably caused some nasty blast issues with the superstructure if it tried to fire anything other than abeam. The Turrets on the nelsons were identical to the G3s but they were made lighter to save weight in the nelsons, with all the structual issues and fragility it entailed but as was mentioned these were mostly overcome.
But it would not have been an issue in the G3s quite as bad as the Nelrods.

If built they would have been better than the USN's South Dakotas because of their higher speed and thicker armour, sans the 3 less guns and their lighter shells, the IJN ships were also better armed but were not that modern in design, with a somewhat dated layout and casemated guns.
 
I know a lot of people comment about the turret arrangement of both the G3 (3-3-A-3-A) and the Nelsons (3-3-3-A) but there really is nothing wrong with them. The British really came thru with an original design that delivered a lot with the limitations they were facing.

As Beatty had commented about 'British ships never running away' when was the directly aft firing arc a game changer in a naval engagement. The ships were usually to be part of a battleline and they never would have been operating alone. However there were few one on one warship duels and how realistic are naval wargames?
 
Top