WI Hood built as Fast Battleship

I have much respect for Admiral John Jellicoe, however one of his the biggest gripes I have is apparently ordering the Admiral Class Battleship to be built as battlecruiser after Jutland. Say the Admiralty ignores him and builds Hood as a super-Dreadnaught (examples of Super-Dreadnaught 1916: Warspite and her sisters)


What are the effects from the Washington Naval Treaty onwards?
 
When I read the title, I assumed by "Fast Battleship" you meant G3 class, since they had a lot in common with 1940s fast BBs despite being classified as battlecruisers.
 
I have much respect for Admiral John Jellicoe, however one of his the biggest gripes I have is apparently ordering the Admiral Class Battleship to be built as battlecruiser after Jutland. Say the Admiralty ignores him and builds Hood as a super-Dreadnaught (examples of Super-Dreadnaught 1916: Warspite and her sisters)


What are the effects from the Washington Naval Treaty onwards?

The Hood was already as well armoured as the Queens - but learnings from Jutland and then post war tests carried out on German Battleships meant that the Admirals were already obsolete in the slipway and the other 3 units not as advanced in their construction as Hood were initially suspended to free up capacity for DDs and Freighters and then post war - cancelled (the pace of development having already overtaken them).

Had Britain gone on to build Fast Battleships I suspect that these would be the 4 x 48,400 ton G3 'Battle Cruisers' - although they would have had superior armour to anything afloat and would have been armed with the same 9 x 16 guns as the Nelson and Rodney.

Only the 6 Pre Washington Treaty South Daks had they been built - having benefited from British design and the same war experience data that damned the the other 3 Admirals would have been as well armoured (although slower but with more fire power)
 
Say the Admiralty ignores him and builds Hood as a super-Dreadnaught (examples of Super-Dreadnaught 1916: Warspite and her sisters)

What are the effects from the Washington Naval Treaty onwards?
Nothing. Britain now has eleven 15" armed battleships instead of ten, in addition to two 15" battlecruisers.

What impact are you expecting one battleship to have on the WNT?
 
Is there a realistic way to get all four Admiral class built, in whichever form? Are we looking at merely repeat Warspites, or something faster and better armoured? (If still maintaining the 40,000 tons displacement presumably you can have them at 26-27kt but much more heavily armoured).
 
Is there a realistic way to get all four Admiral class built, in whichever form?
Sure. Keep them as improved-Queen Elizabeths per the original specification, begin construction earlier in 1916. Don't suspend construction in 1917/19 per OTL. For this to occur we need the Renown class battlescruisers to be considered a failure - perhaps they make it to Jutland and blow up?

Are we looking at merely repeat Warspites, or something faster and better armoured?
Warspite was a unit of the QE class. The Admiral class battleship was intended as an improved QE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral-class_battlecruiser

The design should: "take the armament, armour and engine power of Queen Elizabeth as the standard and build around them a hull which...should embody all the latest protection and improvements against underwater attack.

The Admiralty....asked for a revised version of 'A' of the same draught, beam, armour and armament, but shortened and with the same speed as the Queen Elizabeth.


I would argue that completing the Admirals to Hood's battlecruiser design would be better, as the RN had enough <25 knot battleships to go round in WW2. A benefit of carrying on with production of the Admiral battlecruisers is the availability of four 860 ft hulls for conversion to aircraft carriers in the 1930s.
 
I would argue that completing the Admirals to Hood's battlecruiser design would be better, as the RN had enough <25 knot battleships to go round in WW2. A benefit of carrying on with production of the Admiral battlecruisers is the availability of four 860 ft hulls for conversion to aircraft carriers in the 1930s.

Ah, now we're talking. Two such CV conversion instead of Glorious and Courageous would be quite formidable, on par with the Lexingtons and the Akagi and Kaga as rebuilt. Presumably, some or all 3 remaining Admirals will not be quite finished by the time of WT, so they could have two converted to CV and another one finished as a sister ship to Hood. Of course, would this prevent the building of the Nelsons (probably not), and also, what will happen with the two follies not converted to CV. Getting sold to someone?

Sure. Keep them as improved-Queen Elizabeths per the original specification, begin construction earlier in 1916. Don't suspend construction in 1917/19 per OTL. For this to occur we need the Renown class battlescruisers to be considered a failure - perhaps they make it to Jutland and blow up?

I did read a bit on wiki, something even better would be having them with 3 triple 38cm turrets, again when we get to WT this may or may not prevent building the Nelsons, but so what if they are not built Britain may be allowed in compensation one or two extra BBs as they won't have any with 40 cm guns. Maybe four Admirals as fast BBs with nine 38 cm guns will be more useful in WW2 than Hood and two Nelsons?
 


I would argue that completing the Admirals to Hood's battlecruiser design would be better, as the RN had enough <25 knot battleships to go round in WW2. A benefit of carrying on with production of the Admiral battlecruisers is the availability of four 860 ft hulls for conversion to aircraft carriers in the 1930s.

Which will no doubt come in handy to counter the inevitable Graf Zeppelin class.:D
 
One ships shouldn't effect the WNT unless its really big or has 18" guns (even then OTL Hood was way over the 35Kt limit and was exempted as a sole ship)

I think to change WNT much you need an earlier POD. What about if in 1914 after war is declared the admiralty orders to stop the R class and uses the parts to build a squadron of Hoods (very fast QEs) it would not change WWI much if any but by 1922 the RN would now have a much bigger number of fast ships. (that it would know where obsolescent but looked very powerful to others both civilian and foreign) Having say 5 40+Kt ships would probably change the treaty but even then it might not do much as everybody wanted a treaty to save money and they could always say that GB only has 15" guns to balance the tonnage advantage.
 
One ships shouldn't effect the WNT unless its really big or has 18" guns (even then OTL Hood was way over the 35Kt limit and was exempted as a sole ship)

I think to change WNT much you need an earlier POD. What about if in 1914 after war is declared the admiralty orders to stop the R class and uses the parts to build a squadron of Hoods (very fast QEs) it would not change WWI much if any but by 1922 the RN would now have a much bigger number of fast ships. (that it would know where obsolescent but looked very powerful to others both civilian and foreign) Having say 5 40+Kt ships would probably change the treaty but even then it might not do much as everybody wanted a treaty to save money and they could always say that GB only has 15" guns to balance the tonnage advantage.
How good were the rifles on the R class? For the QE class I know they were well regarded but the R's I know nothing about
 
AIUI, the RN's 15/L42 gun was the best guns of all time and the better of the 15" dreadnought guns, compared to the 15" guns used in the Bayern, Bismarck and Littorio classes. Not bad for a gun based on old tech.
 
AIUI, the RN's 15/L42 gun was the best guns of all time and the better of the 15" dreadnought guns, compared to the 15" guns used in the Bayern, Bismarck and Littorio classes. Not bad for a gun based on old tech.

Why is it better than the others ? Apart from amount of use making them more reliable ?
 

hipper

Banned
Why is it better than the others ? Apart from amount of use making them more reliable ?

The nice thing about the 15" gun was that it fired a relatively heavy projectle at a not too fast velocity, it was thus very accurate when fired at long range

at that long range because it was fired not too fast it was coming down at a steep angle. Thus it had very good deck penetration characteristics at the ranges battleships could actually hit each other. more powerful guns may have had better deck penetration ability but only at very long ranges.

so the 15" gun was very reliable, as accurate as the US 16" gun in the late 80's with one of the best deck penetration abilities at practical ranges. (less than 25,000 meters)

whats not to love.
 
The nice thing about the 15" gun was that it fired a relatively heavy projectle at a not too fast velocity, it was thus very accurate when fired at long range

at that long range because it was fired not too fast it was coming down at a steep angle. Thus it had very good deck penetration characteristics at the ranges battleships could actually hit each other. more powerful guns may have had better deck penetration ability but only at very long ranges.

so the 15" gun was very reliable, as accurate as the US 16" gun in the late 80's with one of the best deck penetration abilities at practical ranges. (less than 25,000 meters)

whats not to love.

Thank you, I'm thinking of making a multiple POD TL and this is really helping
 
Why is it better than the others ? Apart from amount of use making them more reliable ?
The Italian guns were reputed to be good, but suffered badly from poor dispersion due more to faulty ammunition than to gun performance.

The German guns on Bismarck apparently suffered from hoist issues, resulting in poor ROF of under 1 shell per minute. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

The German guns on Bayern seem to be well regarded, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-45_skc13.htm

I don't know much of the Richelieu-class battleship's 15" guns.
 
Top