WI: Hood sisters built as 8x18 inch naval guns

Same as Scharnhost, with more deck armour. Sounds fine. But can we replace armour when refitting?
With more modern armour? Well, Hoods belt was riveted on so it shouldn't be a problem.
I presume this is the refit where her guns are rebored, from 15' to 18'.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes as long as you don't mind sinking her, Hood was in OTL (and ITTL) going to be already loaded down beyond the margins in her design so at some point her hull will not take it easily...
Well, at least make their armour thicker than R when completing them
 
Yes as long as you don't mind sinking her, Hood was in OTL (and ITTL) going to be already loaded down beyond the margins in her design so at some point her hull will not take it easily...
I don't mean a larger amount of armour to the ship, but a more modern type of armour, which would be more effective.
It might actually be lighter..
 
Imagining Bismarck going out and facing 2 18 inch Hoods plus a 15 inch PoW

Oh, and the 15 inch guns on these Hoods in this case could be immediately used for the upcoming KGV, after the Hood were reequipped with their original 18 inch guns

So are we imagining something similar to what the IJN pulled with the Mogami's?
Replacing Triple 15 inch with Twin 18 inch?
(And using the spare guns and turrets for the KGV's)
Weight wise its just about possible, the 15-inch Mark I was 101 tons, the 18 inch Mark 2 was 132-161 tons per gun. (Depending on which experimental model was chosen)
 
What
So are we imagining something similar to what the IJN pulled with the Mogami's?
Replacing Triple 15 inch with Twin 18 inch?
(And using the spare guns and turrets for the KGV's)
Weight wise its just about possible, the 15-inch Mark I was 101 tons, the 18 inch Mark 2 was 132-161 tons per gun. (Depending on which experimental model was chosen)
What would be the weight of a 12,15' salvo, compared to 8,18'?
 
What

What would be the weight of a 12,15' salvo, compared to 8,18'?

The 15 Inch Shell was 1938lb so 12*15 would be 23,256lb per salvo.
The 18 Inch Shell was more problematic, with proposals ranging from 2837 to 3320lb, so between 22,696 and 26,560 per salvo.
(But with each individual round having greater range and penetration).
 
They don't exist, and there's no time to develop them. Remember the Hoods are only laid down to counter German BCs with suspected 15.2 inch guns. Of course there are only 3 18" inch Mark 1s, hence the 15" armament on Hood. If you're building a 1920s battlecruiser/fast battleship go with the G3s, they're far superior.
 
They don't exist, and there's no time to develop them. Remember the Hoods are only laid down to counter German BCs with suspected 15.2 inch guns. Of course there are only 3 18" inch Mark 1s, hence the 15" armament on Hood. If you're building a 1920s battlecruiser/fast battleship go with the G3s, they're far superior.

Right. And once the Mackensens went away, so did much of the motive for the Admirals.

Perhaps one WNT compromise could be to allow each of the three powers to have two capital ships up to 45K or 50K tons displacement (France and Italy might be permitted one each). Britain has Hood; she could build a G3 for the other - or she can scrap Hood, and build two G3's. The latter would be, in line with your observation, the better move (the G3 being well superior to any possible Admiral ship); but the penny-pinchers in Whitehall will opt to keep Hood. America and Japan would obviously complete two Lexingtons and Amagis, respectively. This might or might not butterfly away the NelRods.

Still not a good move, though. The Lexingtons ended up having more value to the U.S. as fleet carriers than as battlecruisers, just as Akagi, Courageous and Glorious did for Japan and the UK. You can upgrade naval aircraft far more easily than you can battlecruisers. The US and Japan will eventually build keel-up carriers to supply the deficit, but that will happen later, they'll be smaller, and the learning curve in carrier ops will be pushed out.
 
Would USN not prefer a South Dakota? and she had 6 Lex building so can simply finish others as CVs...

Fair question, and it is one you could ask about the Tosas, too.

But I really think America and Japan would prioritize the battlecruisers. They'll want something responsive to the G3's.

I'm assuming that we're getting the Washington Naval Treaty here in some form, so choices have to be made. America isn't going to get the full 1916 buildout she has underway, and it's in Britain's and Japan's interest that it doesn't, because they cannot afford to match it.

Anyway, you could still keep the two CV hull conversions WNT clause - Japan had 4 in the slipways and America had 6 - so you just pick two of the others.

I think the whole thing is a bad idea, honestly. But since the G3's were brought up, I thought it worth exploring, since Purity is right that Britain is much better off having G3s over Hoods if she really wants a pair of monster battlecruisers.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Perhaps one WNT compromise could be to allow each of the three powers to have two capital ships up to 45K or 50K tons displacement (France and Italy might be permitted one each). Britain has Hood; she could build a G3 for the other - or she can scrap Hood, and build two G3's. The latter would be, in line with your observation, the better move (the G3 being well superior to any possible Admiral ship); but the penny-pinchers in Whitehall will opt to keep Hood. America and Japan would obviously complete two Lexingtons and Amagis, respectively. This might or might not butterfly away the NelRods.
And they would not want to design new 16 inch guns when they had already moved to 18. A 18 inch G3 might satisfy all, as long as the design was finalized early enough, before the second Hood could be completed (the construction progress of a 18 inch Hood program would be more pressing and more serious than OTL). Well, 1 Hood, 1 G3 and the rest become CVs, a very fun scenario.
 
But I really think America and Japan would prioritize the battlecruisers.
The history of the USN purchasing would suggest otherwise and Lexes are really bad battle cruisers with very thin belts.
I think USN buys 2x SD

The other problem with G3 is they are just huge even against the Lexes (48,000t v 43,000t) Tosa and Amagi are 39,000 and Kii only 42,000t (all weights approx normal not standard) so good luck getting them.
 
And they would not want to design new 16 inch guns when they had already moved to 18. A 18 inch G3 might satisfy all, as long as the design was finalized early enough, before the second Hood could be completed (the construction progress of a 18 inch Hood program would be more pressing and more serious than OTL). Well, 1 Hood, 1 G3 and the rest become CVs, a very fun scenario.

A K2 version of the G3 with 18" guns is certainly doable, though it would struggle to get under a 50K ton limit. (Of course, they would also have been too big for any dock the Brits had.) Maybe that's something that gets hammered out in negotiations.

But make no mistake: the moment Japan and the US learn of the 18" guns, they'll respond. Especially Japan.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
A K2 version of the G3 with 18" guns is certainly doable, though it would struggle to get under a 50K ton limit. (Of course, they would also have been too big for any dock the Brits had.) Maybe that's something that gets hammered out in negotiations.

But make no mistake: the moment Japan and the US learn of the 18" guns, they'll respond. Especially Japan.
DOnt worry, they would have much more incentive to hide it
 
An 18" Hood would have to be using Mark 1 40cal guns, which fired a 3320lb round.
And they would not want to design new 16 inch guns when they had already moved to 18. A 18 inch G3 might satisfy all, as long as the design was finalized early enough, before the second Hood could be completed (the construction progress of a 18 inch Hood program would be more pressing and more serious than OTL). Well, 1 Hood, 1 G3 and the rest become CVs, a very fun scenario.
Very fun indeed..
Super Hood and G3 at DS..
What would the G3 be named
Some of the options
Invincible,Indomitable, Indefatigable,or (My personal favorite) Saint Patrick, St George or St Andrew
 
The history of the USN purchasing would suggest otherwise and Lexes are really bad battle cruisers with very thin belts.
I think USN buys 2x SD

The other problem with G3 is they are just huge even against the Lexes (48,000t v 43,000t) Tosa and Amagi are 39,000 and Kii only 42,000t (all weights approx normal not standard) so good luck getting them.

Certainly the Lexes had their critics, and you're right, the armor belt isn't very satisfactory. A high price to pay for that speed.

But once we're at this point...how much good does a pair of South Dakotas really do for the U.S. over the existing Standard battleships it already has? It's a rather incremental improvement.

If the US has a 50K-ish limit, more likely it scraps everything in the slipways, and goes back to the drawing board to design something to take full advantage of the limits - a true fast battleship, adequately armored - and yes, they'd have to think about 18" guns once they became aware of what the Brits had. Of course, doing that kinda trashes the whole Standard system anyway, doesn't it? Now it has two fast battleships that are much faster than the rest of the battle line. That will be useful one day for escorting carrier task forces, but they wouldn't be thinking about that in 1921-22.
 
Top