What if the King George V Class (1939) were completed as originally scheduled?

Once IJN declares on December 29, 1934 they will walk from WNT/2LNT RN wakes up and thinks that it can make a couple of kit battleships in a nice pile ready to go and it can hide this in the estimates from the later rebuilds.........
That would be a breach of the treaty Battleship holiday. It prohibited exactly that. Building parts specifically to be used later to build Battleships was classed as beginning construction of Battleships.
 
That would be a breach of the treaty Battleship holiday. It prohibited exactly that. Building parts specifically to be used later to build Battleships was classed as beginning construction of Battleships.
I think the "hide it" part made it quite clear the British don't care and want to be in the best possible place for it.
And can simply say these parts are for rebuilds
 
That would be a breach of the treaty Battleship holiday. It prohibited exactly that. Building parts specifically to be used later to build Battleships was classed as beginning construction of Battleships.
No its the keel..... parts are totally unregulated.....

The keels of such new construction may, except as otherwise provided in Article VIII and in the tables in Section II of this Part, be laid down not earlier than


That RN could have built lots of hulls fast is irrelevant, a pile of guns/mounts and armour is simply coastal defence parts until floated on a hull....
(Look at the OTL RN rebuilds and USN/IJN using parts from SD/Lex/Tosa class to rebuild ships or as coastal defence, even the IJN didn't get rid of the parts from disarming Hiyei)
 
I think the "hide it" part made it quite clear the British don't care and want to be in the best possible place for it.
And can simply say these parts are for rebuilds
The British Government has a long history of not blatantly cheating like that. It's not needed anyway as the original 10 year Battleship holiday expired in 32 and Britain had ships that were near the 20 year minimum age for replacing. They'd just decline to further extend the holiday, and be able to begin laying down ships in 1935. By 1937 they'd be legally allowed to lay down replacements for everything but Hood and the Nelrods.
 
The British Government has a long history of not blatantly cheating like that. It's not needed anyway as the original 10 year Battleship holiday expired in 32 and Britain had ships that were near the 20 year minimum age for replacing. They'd just decline to further extend the holiday, and be able to begin laying down ships in 1935. By 1937 they'd be legally allowed to lay down replacements for everything but Hood and the Nelrods.
And that would dramatically change how the second world war was fought at sea to say the very least especially when you add in the USNs response.
 
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.
Wasn't the problem that they needed a certain number of battleships to meet all of their commitments so that left very few free to be taken out of service? Considering the Abyssinia Crisis, Spanish Civil War, various European scares etc. could they afford to have HMS Hood out of action for four years during the period without hindsight of knowing when war would be declared?


Building parts specifically to be used later to build Battleships was classed as beginning construction of Battleships.
Presumanly building guns and turrets for coastal defences aren't covered? It requires more money, the bane of these types of thread, but it was an idea I had a while back to help keep industry ticking over.
 
Wasn't the problem that they needed a certain number of battleships to meet all of their commitments so that left very few free to be taken out of service? Considering the Abyssinia Crisis, Spanish Civil War, various European scares etc. could they afford to have HMS Hood out of action for four years during the period without hindsight of knowing when war would be declared?
The other thing is could justify a rebuild for the 3rd newest capital ship in the fleet while older vessels haven't had a rebuild yet.

Hindsight is 20/20.

In the 20s the Royal Navy wanted 3 Battlecruisers in service at all times. They had 4. They kept one in reserve or dedicated to training at all times unless one was under refit. If they had a war they wanted to go to 4 Battlecruisers.

As HMS Tiger was older and had seen harder action there was an attempt to husband her condition during the 20s.

Under wnt rules Tiger could not be replaced til 1933 or 1934. If she saw normal service in the 20s she would have been too worn out for a war in the early 30s.

Then in 1931 HMS Tiger was scrapped under the LNT.

No one knows what is going to happen. Hindsight is 20/20. No one knows when the war will be and who will serve in it.


Presumanly building guns and turrets for coastal defences aren't covered? It requires more money, the bane of these types of thread, but it was an idea I had a while back to help keep industry ticking over.
The problem is that the places where Britain wanted to put defenses they weren't allowed to as they were only allowed the home country.
 
The problem is that the places where Britain wanted to put defenses they weren't allowed to as they were only allowed the home country.
?
GB did not have any areas apart from HK (and insignificant pacific islands) that where banned by WNT what else apart from HMT/money is stopping them?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the places where Britain wanted to put defenses they weren't allowed to as they were only allowed the home country.
Were they? I know that the Washington Naval Treaty placed limits on coastal defences in the Pacific but even that still allowed improvements in Singapore since it's west of 110º east longitude, the coasts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and their possessions. Locations like Gibraltar or Malta appear to be completely outside its scope. Is there another clause in one of the treaties that I'm overlooking?
 
Were they? I know that the Washington Naval Treaty placed limits on coastal defences in the Pacific but even that still allowed improvements in Singapore since it's west of 110º east longitude, the coasts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and their possessions. Locations like Gibraltar or Malta appear to be completely outside its scope. Is there another clause in one of the treaties that I'm overlooking?
Not as far as I am aware.
 
Were they? I know that the Washington Naval Treaty placed limits on coastal defences in the Pacific but even that still allowed improvements in Singapore since it's west of 110º east longitude, the coasts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and their possessions. Locations like Gibraltar or Malta appear to be completely outside its scope. Is there another clause in one of the treaties that I'm overlooking?
Sorry my mistake.
 
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")
 
King George V and Illustrious classes.png

IOTL, when The Twins sailed from Kiel on 21st January 1941 King George V had been in commission for about 6 weeks and was not fully worked up. I haven't checked the dates, but IOTL and IIRC Illustrious was still at Malta having recently been severely damaged off Malta earlier in the month. Meanwhile Formidable was on her way to Alexandria to replace Illustrious.

ITTL King George V and Prince of Wales would have been fully worked up by 21st January 1941, Duke of York would have been in commission for about 10 weeks, Howe about 7 weeks and Anson for one day. All 4 Illustrious class ships had been completed and were fully worked up. My guess is that Formidable would have gone to the Mediterranean Fleet with Illustrious in Operation Hats. I think that Victorious and Indomitable would have been assigned to the Home Fleet.

So that's a Home Fleet that has 2 fully worked up KGV class ships, 2 partially worked up KGVs and 2 fully worked up Illustrious class (and unlike Victorious in May 1941 IOTL) with full-strength air groups.

If the German intelligence organisation had been able to provide Raeder with an accurate picture of Britain's naval strength and its deployment would he have ordered The Twins to sail? Would he have kept them in German as a fleet in being instead?
 
Top