Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[lukedalton]

Speaking of Italy, just avoiding the battle of Caporetto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto will mean a lot for the treasury as there is no need to buy again all the materials lost in the battle...that was an enourmous quantity

Even because there will not the exodus of civilian escaping the Austrian army (between 250.000 and 500.000 )and neither their depredation of everything of value in the zone and naturally food (that can be used by Italy instead so even that mean less strain for the civilian and the treasury) or the need to rebuild the zone postwar due to the destruction from both the invaders, the fighting and the retreating italians that started controlled destruction of bridges, railways, road, etc. etc. to slow the enemy.
There is also the psycological consequences, even today Caporetto is synonymous of total defeat in Italy and t frankly the neglet given by the army brass and the goverment to the prisoners and the people in the occupied land (so to not encourage people to surrender) had soured up a lot of the population postwar.
In any case less war will do a lot of good to the italian budget and political life.

More money mean that maybe the Caracciolo class is built or at least a couple of them

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regarding Slovenia, honestly it's hard to see Italy annex the whole place, frankly too many slavs and too hard to justify internationally, the 2 more probable option are:

1 - exchanged with MegaSer...ehm the future Jugoslavia; the part of Dalmatia assigned to us by the Treaty of London plus Fiume (and maybe Split/Spalato)
2 - given independence with Italy getting is OTL post WW1 border, naturally with an Italian King/Prince and some nice treaty with Italy regarding defense and trade, in that case Fiume can remain to her.

Naturally there is the possibility that with Germany still going strong, Italy keeping Slovenia (independent but in his sphere) his seen as the lesser evil

Plus there is Albania, Serbia (Jugoslavia) and Greece want a piece of it and Italy want a protectorate of the place

 

[Thoresby]

before the Depression (its probably hard coded in economically by this point).

There will be a depression, or at least a major downturn - as you say, I suspect pretty much inevitable after a war boom, then an uneven post-war boom.

Some sort of late-twenties/early thirties recession is inevitable, I would put a true depression as <25% odds of happening and something on the scale of the Great Depression at <5%. In OTL you had a huge US industrial boom contemporaneous with a European supply side crunch during the war. Then post war you had the Depression of 1920 which hit the US harder than Europe as European production came back on stream and started to compete in export markets (e.g. South America/Asia) where they had been absent from during the war and the US economy re-orientated but didn't really dent all the new US industrial capacity. Then in the early 20's the US was able to boom again on the back of economic turmoil in Europe with the British struggling to get back onto the Gold Standard and then the general strike and German hyper-inflation. Finally by the late twenties Europe was back on stream and the huge US bubble was still going. Result the Wall Street Crash which was exacerbated by idiotic US economic policy. Here the US war time boom as been smaller, Britain is going to be able to get back onto the Gold Standard much more easily and Germany is highly unlikely to undergo hyperinflation. That means the US is going to have a much harder time in export markets and it's economic growth in twenties is going to be considerably slower with the excess capacity built up during the war being gradually worked through. The crucial ingredients for the Great Depression just aren't there and incidentally the US economy is smaller throughout the 20's and less able than OTL to fund the USN and depending on when the treaty conference is it's threat to be able to just spend more than anyone else is a bit less plausible.
On the subject of recessions a post war one as economies re-orientate is inevitable and probably already happening at this point in the story and then another one a decade or so down the line is also unavoidable but it shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary.

On the 10-year horizon, the British battleline looks like this: 14-15 BB (5 QE, 4 Royal, 5-6 new builds), 6 BC (3 Admiral, 2 Renown, Furious), maybe with some older 13.5" BB or BC in second-line roles. If the Americans have been building at 2 ships a year, they will have 20 ships with 16" guns or larger, plus whatever they decide to keep from their WW1 construction. And the British cannot afford to match that construction rate.

I'd therefore say that extra single-digit millions for the Navy could be fairly reasonable in years to come.
Low double-digit would be possible, but as you say, they'd need a better reason than 'we want to outbuild the Americans'.
For comparision, Hood cost a little over £5M, and in the story with lower inflation, that's probably more like £4.5M.

The question is what does that extra money buy over OTL, in OTL the RN built 3 carrier (35k tons*), 2 battleships (70k) and 15 heavy cruisers (150k) for 255,000 tons of large ship construction over the decade or 25.5k tons per year. Now 10k tons costs roughly £1 million give or take so how much of that extra money is going to be available for new construction and how much is going to be spent keeping ships that were decommissioned in OTL in service. If the RN is smart and takes the ten year rule on board and recognises that no capital ship with less than 15" guns is viable and gets rid of them ASAP. It then spends 40% of the extra money on it's physical infrastructure, improving dry docks etc. That leaves 50% to be spent on new construction with the last 10% used for running that new construction once it's been built. Now 40% of say £8 million is £4m or 40,000 tons of new construction, now about half of that is going to be spent on smaller ships, destroyers, subs light cruisers etc. but half of that is 20k tons which added to the OTL capital ship construction budget takes you to a bit over 45k tons per year available for larger ship construction, or in other words a Washington displacement battleship and a heavy cruiser every year for the entire decade.

*the carriers were rebuilds some I'm counting them as half their actual tonnage.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Why would they want the worlds biggest fleet? The US is a continental power.

Better tell the Americans then. Since at least 1898 they’d been planning to be a Pacific power at a minimum, with a clear eye on Atlantic parity, given their most likely adversary would be an European Power.

 

[CV(N)-6]

More money mean that maybe the Caracciolo class is built or at least a couple of them

With all the new construction by the other powers, I think at least one Caracciolo will be built as a BB, and one possible motivator other than the new construction is that the French are still outclassed by the 8 German BB's, so they'll probably build a Normandie.

 

[sts-200]

Speaking of Italy, just avoiding the battle of Caporetto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto will mean a lot for the treasury as there is no need to buy again all the materials lost in the battle...that was an enourmous quantity

Even because there will not the exodus of civilian escaping the Austrian army (between 250.000 and 500.000 )and neither their depredation of everything of value in the zone and naturally food (that can be used by Italy instead so even that mean less strain for the civilian and the treasury) or the need to rebuild the zone postwar due to the destruction from both the invaders, the fighting and the retreating italians that started controlled destruction of bridges, railways, road, etc. etc. to slow the enemy.
There is also the psycological consequences, even today Caporetto is synonymous of total defeat in Italy and t frankly the neglet given by the army brass and the goverment to the prisoners and the people in the occupied land (so to not encourage people to surrender) had soured up a lot of the population postwar.
In any case less war will do a lot of good to the italian budget and political life.

More money mean that maybe the Caracciolo class is built or at least a couple of them

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regarding Slovenia, honestly it's hard to see Italy annex the whole place, frankly too many slavs and too hard to justify internationally, the 2 more probable option are:

1 - exchanged with MegaSer...ehm the future Jugoslavia; the part of Dalmatia assigned to us by the Treaty of London plus Fiume (and maybe Split/Spalato)
2 - given independence with Italy getting is OTL post WW1 border, naturally with an Italian King/Prince and some nice treaty with Italy regarding defense and trade, in that case Fiume can remain to her.

Naturally there is the possibility that with Germany still going strong, Italy keeping Slovenia (independent but in his sphere) his seen as the lesser evil

Plus there is Albania, Serbia (Jugoslavia) and Greece want a piece of it and Italy want a protectorate of the place

Caracciolo will be completed. We're up to 1920, so that will be quite soon...
The other three were suspended during the war, and they're just finishing the one for now.

I agree Italy is in a difficult position with her invaded Slovenian lands, and some sort of trade/protectorate might be on the cards.
However, I can confidently predict plenty of tension in the Med and Adriatic, with the Italians, French, Serbs, Greeks and Ottomans all having potentially meaningful naval forces, in addition to the British looking over everyone's shoulders.

 

[sts-200]

With all the new construction by the other powers, I think at least one Caracciolo will be built as a BB, and one possible motivator other than the new construction is that the French are still outclassed by the 8 German BB's, so they'll probably build a Normandie.

The French will start building again in 1924, partly in response to ... another Mediterranean power.
It won't be a Normandie.

Before that, they'll have proven difficult to deal with and be making decidedly grumpy noises about Germany.

 

[sts-200]

Some sort of late-twenties/early thirties recession is inevitable, I would put a true depression as <25% odds of happening and something on the scale of the Great Depression at <5%. In OTL you had a huge US industrial boom contemporaneous with a European supply side crunch during the war. Then post war you had the Depression of 1920 which hit the US harder than Europe as European production came back on stream and started to compete in export markets (e.g. South America/Asia) where they had been absent from during the war and the US economy re-orientated but didn't really dent all the new US industrial capacity. Then in the early 20's the US was able to boom again on the back of economic turmoil in Europe with the British struggling to get back onto the Gold Standard and then the general strike and German hyper-inflation. Finally by the late twenties Europe was back on stream and the huge US bubble was still going. Result the Wall Street Crash which was exacerbated by idiotic US economic policy. Here the US war time boom as been smaller, Britain is going to be able to get back onto the Gold Standard much more easily and Germany is highly unlikely to undergo hyperinflation. That means the US is going to have a much harder time in export markets and it's economic growth in twenties is going to be considerably slower with the excess capacity built up during the war being gradually worked through. The crucial ingredients for the Great Depression just aren't there and incidentally the US economy is smaller throughout the 20's and less able than OTL to fund the USN and depending on when the treaty conference is it's threat to be able to just spend more than anyone else is a bit less plausible.
On the subject of recessions a post war one as economies re-orientate is inevitable and probably already happening at this point in the story and then another one a decade or so down the line is also unavoidable but it shouldn't be anything out of the ordinary.


The question is what does that extra money buy over OTL, in OTL the RN built 3 carrier (35k tons*), 2 battleships (70k) and 15 heavy cruisers (150k) for 255,000 tons of large ship construction over the decade or 25.5k tons per year. Now 10k tons costs roughly £1 million give or take so how much of that extra money is going to be available for new construction and how much is going to be spent keeping ships that were decommissioned in OTL in service. If the RN is smart and takes the ten year rule on board and recognises that no capital ship with less than 15" guns is viable and gets rid of them ASAP. It then spends 40% of the extra money on it's physical infrastructure, improving dry docks etc. That leaves 50% to be spent on new construction with the last 10% used for running that new construction once it's been built. Now 40% of say £8 million is £4m or 40,000 tons of new construction, now about half of that is going to be spent on smaller ships, destroyers, subs light cruisers etc. but half of that is 20k tons which added to the OTL capital ship construction budget takes you to a bit over 45k tons per year available for larger ship construction, or in other words a Washington displacement battleship and a heavy cruiser every year for the entire decade.

*the carriers were rebuilds some I'm counting them as half their actual tonnage.

An excellent summary of both the likelyhood of a depression and the sort of choices the RN is going to face in years to come.
As you say, the underlying factors are slightly different, and Treaties are going to affect by economics just as much as prestige.

 

[jlckansas]

Why would they want the worlds biggest fleet? The US is a continental power. They make their bread and butter at home. The tragedy of the commons means the RN polices the sea for free. The US public isn't ready to step up to be the world police yet.
A big USN is a vanity project as much as a bigger RN. Will the public pay for it?

The US is not a continental power at this time. They are turning themselves into a two ocean power to protect both the continental US and it’s overseas possessions. Also it’s about trade, next to the UK they are the one power who understands overseas trade with the China Lobby starting in the late 1890’s and trade with Europe. The US Navy was looked at as the first line of defense since the founding of the US.

 

[Thoresby]

Taking my numbers earlier of an extra £8 million for the RN budget of which 40% is allocated to infrastructure that means there is £3.2 million more being spent per year or £32 million more by 1930. Now Singapore Naval Dockyard started construction in 1923 and took 15 years and £60 million and amongst other things that provided a 1000 foot drydock and a Admiralty IX floating drydock which I can't find the details of now but from memory was 800 foot. Now while the spend on Singapore wasn't consistent (it started out high, basically stopped in the late 20's and then restarted in 1931 after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria I think in this tl a decent chunk of that extra money is going to be spent on accelerating the construction of Singapore. Let's say half or £16 million. Now what can you do with the other £16 million? If the RN is looking to future proof their built infrastructure a 1000 foot drydock in the Mediterranean would be very useful. Malta already had a 850 foot dock and I don't know if expanding it was possible but considering that the King George VI dock at Singapore cost £8 million to build from scratch the RN can probably find the money in this tl to build a new one if it needs to. A dock at Rosyth would be ideal but the commercial one in Southampton can do in a pinch. At this point you have 1000 foot docks supporting your three major fleets, which means you can build 1000 foot ships, if you can get the Canadians to pay for another dock at Halifax then that would be even better. None of this would plausibly come on stream until post 1930 but a 1930's RN with a bigger budget, 1000ft docks at it's key bases, continued experience of building battleships and the industry that comes with that could build a real monster.

 

[Merrick]

The US Navy was looked at as the first line of defense since the founding of the US.

This. The US faces no plausible land threat (even the British have the Empire to worry about). So unless they fall for Billy Mitchell fantasies about long-range bombers, the US Navy will be the senior service and the recipient of most of the defence dollars. Isolationism does not mean pacifism - OTL isolationists generally accepted the need for a strong fleet to ensure the US stayed good and isolated, while interventionists wanted a fleet so they could, well, intervene.

The pre-war US (not in a naval race with anyone and facing no obvious threat) commissioned 8(!) dreadnoughts in 1910-12. They followed up with 11 14"-gunned ships in 1914-20 (the last two were delayed by the war). Post-war they moved straight on to 4 16"-gunned Colorados and then to the South Dakotas and Lexingtons (OTL 6 of each, I don't think they've ordered all of them yet in this TL). This TL, they're planning on building at 2 per year, and worried that it might not be enough.

Thoresby's excellent analysis suggests the RN could afford one new capital ship (BB/BC/CV) a year without unbalancing the fleet or panicking the Treasury (assuming nothing happens to rock the boat, like a depression, a sterling crisis or an anti-military Labour government). I do think, though that he underestimates the running costs - I couldn't find an RN pay scale for 1920, but a quick Google put able seaman's wages around £10/week, which suggests that every extra battleship will be adding the thick end of half-a-million pounds a year to the wage bill. Long-range cruisers will be an RN priority (and a USN one too - the pre-WW1 USN was very top-heavy in battleships) at least in the first half of the decade, and relative to their tonnage, heavy cruisers are more expensive to build and man than battleships.

Building 8-10 battleships in the 1920s rather than 5-6 pushes out the date when the US takes a decisive lead, but the trend will still be fairly obvious.
The US may give up and scale back when it's obvious the British are not churning out superbattleships at pre-war rates, they may decide that a de-facto understanding with the RN is the best option for both parties, there may be a formal treaty (with much dickering over limits before signing and cheating afterwards, particularly if the French, Dutch and Italians are involved as well as the Japanese). Or an Anglophobe isolationist faction may look at the Anglo-Japanese alliance and and demand a two-power standard. We shall see.

 

[jlckansas]

Taking my numbers earlier of an extra £8 million for the RN budget of which 40% is allocated to infrastructure that means there is £3.2 million more being spent per year or £32 million more by 1930. Now Singapore Naval Dockyard started construction in 1923 and took 15 years and £60 million and amongst other things that provided a 1000 foot drydock and a Admiralty IX floating drydock which I can't find the details of now but from memory was 800 foot. Now while the spend on Singapore wasn't consistent (it started out high, basically stopped in the late 20's and then restarted in 1931 after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria I think in this tl a decent chunk of that extra money is going to be spent on accelerating the construction of Singapore. Let's say half or £16 million. Now what can you do with the other £16 million? If the RN is looking to future proof their built infrastructure a 1000 foot drydock in the Mediterranean would be very useful. Malta already had a 850 foot dock and I don't know if expanding it was possible but considering that the King George VI dock at Singapore cost £8 million to build from scratch the RN can probably find the money in this tl to build a new one if it needs to. A dock at Rosyth would be ideal but the commercial one in Southampton can do in a pinch. At this point you have 1000 foot docks supporting your three major fleets, which means you can build 1000 foot ships, if you can get the Canadians to pay for another dock at Halifax then that would be even better. None of this would plausibly come on stream until post 1930 but a 1930's RN with a bigger budget, 1000ft docks at it's key bases, continued experience of building battleships and the industry that comes with that could build a real monster.

Esquilmont on the west coast of Canada would be an ideal place for a civilian/military 1000 foot dock. If the RN could take it over in the time of war but otherwise used for others it would work.
On the US front they built the California at Mare Island in San Francisco Bay, they would be able to use those facilities to build more if they wanted to. There is also the gulf coast including the bays of Texas that can be used for everything up to CA’s right now and with some expansion even BB’s.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

This. The US faces no plausible land threat (even the British have the Empire to worry about). So unless they fall for Billy Mitchell fantasies about long-range bombers, the US Navy will be the senior service and the recipient of most of the defence dollars. Isolationism does not mean pacifism - OTL isolationists generally accepted the need for a strong fleet to ensure the US stayed good and isolated, while interventionists wanted a fleet so they could, well, intervene.

The pre-war US (not in a naval race with anyone and facing no obvious threat) commissioned 8(!) dreadnoughts in 1910-12. They followed up with 11 14"-gunned ships in 1914-20 (the last two were delayed by the war). Post-war they moved straight on to 4 16"-gunned Colorados and then to the South Dakotas and Lexingtons (OTL 6 of each, I don't think they've ordered all of them yet in this TL). This TL, they're planning on building at 2 per year, and worried that it might not be enough.

Thoresby's excellent analysis suggests the RN could afford one new capital ship (BB/BC/CV) a year without unbalancing the fleet or panicking the Treasury (assuming nothing happens to rock the boat, like a depression, a sterling crisis or an anti-military Labour government). I do think, though that he underestimates the running costs - I couldn't find an RN pay scale for 1920, but a quick Google put able seaman's wages around £10/week, which suggests that every extra battleship will be adding the thick end of half-a-million pounds a year to the wage bill. Long-range cruisers will be an RN priority (and a USN one too - the pre-WW1 USN was very top-heavy in battleships) at least in the first half of the decade, and relative to their tonnage, heavy cruisers are more expensive to build and man than battleships.

Building 8-10 battleships in the 1920s rather than 5-6 pushes out the date when the US takes a decisive lead, but the trend will still be fairly obvious.
The US may give up and scale back when it's obvious the British are not churning out superbattleships at pre-war rates, they may decide that a de-facto understanding with the RN is the best option for both parties, there may be a formal treaty (with much dickering over limits before signing and cheating afterwards, particularly if the French, Dutch and Italians are involved as well as the Japanese). Or an Anglophobe isolationist faction may look at the Anglo-Japanese alliance and and demand a two-power standard. We shall see.

I doubt if an Able Seaman was earning £10 a week in the 1920s. £5 a week was seen as a reasonable wage in 1945 and a student nurse was paid forty shillings. At the beginning of the 1970s my father was on £25 a week and thought to be well paid.

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

Esquilmont on the west coast of Canada would be an ideal place for a civilian/military 1000 foot dock. If the RN could take it over in the time of war but otherwise used for others it would work.
On the US front they built the California at Mare Island in San Francisco Bay, they would be able to use those facilities to build more if they wanted to. There is also the gulf coast including the bays of Texas that can be used for everything up to CA’s right now and with some expansion even BB’s.

They'd have to come to some kind of an agreement with the Canadians given the fact that the Royal Navy boldly packed up their bags, disbanded the Pacific Squadron and moonwalked all the way out of Canada, meaning the Canadians had to foot the bill for upkeep and facility operations. The Canadians did in fact build a 1200ft x 135ft x 30ft drydock in the mid 1920's in Esquimalt alongside having two similar docks on the East Coast. If we're going off IRL, such a dock will already exist.

 

[Mike D]

I doubt if an Able Seaman was earning £10 a week in the 1920s. £5 a week was seen as a reasonable wage in 1945 and a student nurse was paid forty shillings. At the beginning of the 1970s my father was on £25 a week and thought to be well paid.

From memory the Army only went above a shilling a day during WW1 (for privates in the infantry at least).

 

[Thoresby]

I do think, though that he underestimates the running costs

Pay is a relatively small amount of the cost of running a warship, fuel, ammunition and other supplies used in training and spare parts are other big items. However in OTL the RN only kept about half the "active" battlefleet fully crewed and operational* and by international standards that was high mostly because battleships were fairly useless for peacetime duties, they weren't even that great at showing the flag because they often couldn't get in to harbours. Even those that were fully crewed didn't spend that much time at sea, one of the reasons why battleship posting were unpopular was you spent far more time on working parties re painting the dockyard gates or whatever than if you were in a destroyer crew. So running costs wouldn't scale precisely with battlefleet size but would lag.

*Unlike cruisers and destroyer's which had a much higher peacetime operational tempo especially in the RN which explains why smaller ships wore out much faster and generally had shorter operational lives.

 

[sts-200]

In round figures, the RN in the early 20s had a budget of £55M, and spent about £25M on equipment/facilities, the remaining £30M on items ultimately to do with manpower.
At the time, the RN was around 100,000 men, so an average sailor cost about £300/yr.
Note that isn't what he was paid, it's what he cost to employ, feed, educate etc...

Vote 1 (wages) was typically around £14-15M.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Taking my numbers earlier of an extra £8 million for the RN budget of which 40% is allocated to infrastructure that means there is £3.2 million more being spent per year or £32 million more by 1930. Now Singapore Naval Dockyard started construction in 1923 and took 15 years and £60 million and amongst other things that provided a 1000 foot drydock and a Admiralty IX floating drydock which I can't find the details of now but from memory was 800 foot. Now while the spend on Singapore wasn't consistent (it started out high, basically stopped in the late 20's and then restarted in 1931 after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria I think in this tl a decent chunk of that extra money is going to be spent on accelerating the construction of Singapore. Let's say half or £16 million. Now what can you do with the other £16 million? If the RN is looking to future proof their built infrastructure a 1000 foot drydock in the Mediterranean would be very useful. Malta already had a 850 foot dock and I don't know if expanding it was possible but considering that the King George VI dock at Singapore cost £8 million to build from scratch the RN can probably find the money in this tl to build a new one if it needs to. A dock at Rosyth would be ideal but the commercial one in Southampton can do in a pinch. At this point you have 1000 foot docks supporting your three major fleets, which means you can build 1000 foot ships, if you can get the Canadians to pay for another dock at Halifax then that would be even better. None of this would plausibly come on stream until post 1930 but a 1930's RN with a bigger budget, 1000ft docks at it's key bases, continued experience of building battleships and the industry that comes with that could build a real monster.

There was a floating dock that was sunk at Malta (AFD 8) - that in hindsight should have been moved to Alex

The lack of AFD 8 at Alex prevented ships larger than the QEs and Royals being based there (i.e. No Hood or KGV's)

Perhaps more suitable AFD's built in this period?

There was another one in Singapore - that was sunk twice in ww2

No idea of cost but AFD 4 built in 1912 (680' 32,000 ton capacity) cost an estimated £267,000

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Esquilmont on the west coast of Canada would be an ideal place for a civilian/military 1000 foot dock. If the RN could take it over in the time of war but otherwise used for others it would work.
On the US front they built the California at Mare Island in San Francisco Bay, they would be able to use those facilities to build more if they wanted to. There is also the gulf coast including the bays of Texas that can be used for everything up to CA’s right now and with some expansion even BB’s.

To be fair the main material limitations on how many capital ships the RN and USN can build are how many guns and turrets can be built; armor production capacity, and machinery production not how many building slips are available. Money is of course an entirely different question

There was a floating dock that was sunk at Malta (AFD 8) - that in hindsight should have been moved to Alex

The lack of AFD 8 at Alex prevented ships larger than the QEs and Royals being based there (i.e. No Hood or KGV's)

Perhaps more suitable AFD's built in this period?

There was another one in Singapore - that was sunk twice in ww2

No idea of cost but AFD 4 built in 1912 (680' 32,000 ton capacity) cost an estimated £267,000

alas AFD 8 probally won't be in the service of the RN in this timeline as it was orginally German and handed over as war reparations. Still j totally agree that both AFD 8 and its counterpart in Singapore should have been moved to Alexandria and Ceylon in late 1939 and no later than August 1941 respectively

 

[Thoresby]

To be fair the main material limitations on how many capital ships the RN and USN can build are how many guns and turrets can be built

True but the main limit on the size of ships is your docks. There is no point building a ship that can't be drydocked for urgent repairs at all of your main fleet bases (UK, Malta/Alex and Singapore), at this point in story the UK can't build anything longer than Hood for that reason which is okay for now but ship size is only going on one direction and they need to start planning for the battleships and carriers of the thirties and forties.

Floating docks are better than nothing and extremely useful if you're fighting in the Pacific and want a repair capacity at your forward staging post but they are inferior in every other way to a proper drydock with a big crane and the full set of shoreside facilities. If you've money in your budget and aren't planning on fighting for a few years I can't think of a better spend.

EDIT: And on further investigation I implied that it would be considerably more expensive to do than it actually would. While the KGVI dock at Singapore cost nearly £8million that was building not just the dock but all the associated cranes, railways etc. from scratch in the middle of a swamp a long way from the core of the Empire. Southern Railways built 1200 foot King George V dock at Southampton complete with massive crane for only a bit more than £2 million. Now that's a commercial build to commercial standards so I suspect a RN Dock that size even somewhere where all the ancillaries are already in place would cost more, maybe even 50% more but it would be affordable.

 

[sts-200]

Singapore is a classic of that circular argument regarding facilities that dogged the RN from 1905 on.

What use is a base if you don't have the ships to fill it ?
or
Why shouldn't we have bigger, newer bases that allow us to deploy our current and future fleets at a moment's notice ?