Hood indeed stripped her turbines chasing Strasbourg. Her refit brought her up to about 29 knots. That's on a 21 year old ship that has another 5,000 extra tons, compared to her original speed of 31 knots. I'd say hats pretty good.
Nonetheless, if I wanted to give Hood a refit I'd delay her midlife refit for whatever reason so she really needs it by 1934 35 and they decide to just go full rebuild instead.
You probably get her out by 1938 or 39.
This.
I don't really want to just make the thread a duplicate Austere Battleship thread, but let's say someone finds out the Littorios are way bigger and everyone says fuck the battleship ban.
So building starts around 35, where can we go from there?
That is possible.
But you'd need to outline how that affects other powers, including the butterflies from the Anglo-German Naval Agreement that followed it.
Now, the Navy did get it's share of rearmament money, and that could be wasted - I'm sorry, I meant spent - on new battleships.
But if the London Naval Treaty goes, then what happens in Japan and Washington ?
Arguably both of these events had abrogated
Washington and
1st London already.
Italy was already building 15" gun 35,000 ton (At least Officially!?) Battleships, and in theory Germany now had the legal right to build 5 16" gun Battleships. The AGNA was registered in
League of Nations Treaty Series on 12 July 1935, so it had the same weight as WNT and 1st LNT.
(Britain did NOT consult with any of its allies or treaty partners concerning its contents) And in theory superseded both, if people are already
legally building 15" (Or even 16") 35,000 ton ships why did
2nd London even occur?
Its provisions, and the escalator clauses, were redundant before the Treaty was ever signed. An argument that the RN had to at a minimum match the
Littorios, and whatever the Kriegsmarine eventually builds, suggests a low end requirement for 7-10 modern 15" gun ships.
(With appropriate & proportional building of Carriers and Cruisers ... there are more than enough slipways for 3 or 4 Capital Ships (BB & CV) to be laid down each year, more Aircraft Carriers might mean ditching the idea of Battleships with Aircraft and Catapults, saving space and weight. An earlier Light Carrier Program could do the same for Cruiser designs).
It would be easier to start, and construct more, Carriers since they have a shorter build time and do not require the big guns and heavy armour, however all the worlds navies are still big gun obsessed, so a 2 to 1 ratio of BB to CV is more likely, but a 1 to 1 ratio is possible for new shipbuilding. So even accounting for delays, with a 1935 start date, by September 1939, the RN could have 4 New Battleships and 2-4 New Carriers in service, and up to 6 more Battleships, and 3-6 Carriers, under construction. Hopefully the RN will have a fit of sanity and realise that Aircraft Capacity is the defining characteristic of an Aircraft Carrier and build accordingly. (An AFD Carrier with a 60+ plane capacity is probably do-able on 27,000 tons? ... with a later Deck-Park bringing it up to the 90+ plane sized US air-group).
The future Axis powers can do little to change things, Germany and Japan are already building at maximum capacity, the rate dictated by the available Slipways. What the Americans will do is anyone's guess? (One of the best lines in
Astrodragon's The Whale Has Wings refers to the Admiralty's inability to understand the USN building program, defined as "... some inscrutable American reason")