WI: Hood sisters built as 8x18 inch naval guns

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.
But put it this way, would you rather have two slow ships that the older US ships can keep up with, or two faster more modern ships that would either be slowed by the rest of the fleet, or have to go out on their own.
The British don't have that problem as the have Hood,Saint Patrick(G3) renown and repulse all within the same speed.
Although R&R are significantly weaker.
Nelson and Rodney can be built with 15' guns,which means the can be faster
 
But put it this way, would you rather have two slow ships that the older US ships can keep up with, or two faster more modern ships that would either be slowed by the rest of the fleet.
The British don't have that problem as the have Hood,Saint Patrick(G3) renown and repulse all within the same speed.
Although R&R are significantly weaker.
Nelson and Rodney can be built with 15' guns,which means the can be faster

I guess I'd say that my idea of two extra 50k ton ships doesn't do much for the U.S.. Certainly not what it would do for Britain.

The U.S. fleet is better off for a couple extra juiced Standard battleships, sure. But not by all that much. It isn't benefiting from this clause in the way Britain or even Japan would.

I suppose it all comes down to how they react to the British having 18" guns on their Hood and/or G3's. Maybe they'd redesign the South Dakotas to take 18" guns - perhaps a 2x3 turret arrangement, so as not to lose the armor belt.
 
I guess I'd say that my idea of two extra 50k ton ships doesn't do much for the U.S.. Certainly not what it would do for Britain.

The U.S. fleet is better off for a couple extra juiced Standard battleships, sure. But not by all that much. It isn't benefiting from this clause in the way Britain or even Japan would.

I suppose it all comes down to how they react to the British having 18" guns on their Hood and/or G3's. Maybe they'd redesign the South Dakotas to take 18" guns - perhaps a 2x3 turret arrangement, so as not to lose the armor belt.
Maybe, maybe not. The Sodaks have 12 16 inch guns, which would be pretty close,if not equal to the weight of 8-9 18 inch salvo
America knows it can simply outbuild Britain

Edit: Sodak salvo weight is 25,320
Super Hoods is 26,560
 
Last edited:
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
I guess I'd say that my idea of two extra 50k ton ships doesn't do much for the U.S.. Certainly not what it would do for Britain.

The U.S. fleet is better off for a couple extra juiced Standard battleships, sure. But not by all that much. It isn't benefiting from this clause in the way Britain or even Japan would.
Yes I just can see a 50,000t limit working as US GOV will never want to scrap and build new at the same time....

The 18" Hood (or really Hoods as one can be ignored as OTL) basically make a treaty hard especially if the USN/IJN hasn't started 18" ships early with SD or Tosa class.
 
Yes I just can see a 50,000t limit working as US GOV will never want to scrap and build new at the same time....

The 18" Hood (or really Hoods as one can be ignored as OTL) basically make a treaty hard especially if the USN/IJN hasn't started 18" ships early with SD or Tosa class.
How heavy would Super Hood be?
If there is only one Hood, as per OTL, it shouldn't be a problem as you said.
But what about the G3s?
With a 50k limit they could be built but at the same time, America and Japan would be trying to get there own 18' ships.
I don't think an 18 inch G3 could fit into 50k if N3 was 48k and was shorter and not as fast.
 
This thread shoes a few option from the RN design process.

"The I3 was the battlecruiser version of M3. I3 was 925 (oa) x 108 x 33ft and displaced 51,750 tons with 180,000shp for 32.5kts.
Armament was 3x3 18in, 8x2 6in, 5x1 4.7in HA, 4x 2pdr pom-pom mounts and two underwater 24.5in torpedo tubes. Armour was a 12in thick belt angled at 12.5 degrees and 7-8 inches of deck armour....This was a long ship and could not have docked at Portsmouth or Rosyth (in fact was she the longest ever considered official RN design?). Even though the design was a fast M3, her machinery layout differed in having the engine rooms behind the boiler rooms and of course in having four shafts. The design, not surprisingly, was abandoned as being too large."

Might fit if you are willing to go to 30Kts?
 
That would require a more assertive and aggressive Britain than the one that actually attended the WNC.

But they were in a tough financial spot. The United States of America had them mortgaged eight ways to Sunday.

In an Alternate History (Remember the title of this forum?) Timeline it would probably be possible to point out that if Britain had 3 times the industrial capacity of Japan, and that the British Empire had 3 times the GDP of the Japanese Empire, a Navy 3 times that of the IJN (10 Dreadnoughts ... and we all know they were cheating!) doesn't sound so unreasonable.

And on the question of economics point out that Britain's average defence spending 1920-38 was 3% of GDP, all of the Major Powers (France 4.3%, Germany 3.3%, the Soviet Union 7.1%, Italy 4.4%, Japan 5.7%) except the US (1.2%) spent a higher proportion of their GDP on their respective militaries. And the British economy was in far better shape than most, so that increasing its percentage of GDP spent on defence would not be without justification.
(Figures from: The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe, Volume 2, 1870 to the Present, page 138).
In 1938 and 39 British defence spending increased to 9 then 15% of GDP, the peacetime peak.
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

For a more modern example of the world's premier naval power point out that since 1945 the US Military Budget has never dropped below 3.6% of GDP, and has regularly been higher. Peaking at 10% in 1968, and 6.8% of GDP during the Reagan build-up years. The most recent peak has been 5.7% in 2010-11.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

(So doubling, even a short term increase of 3 to 5 times, the British Defence Budget during the period is a possible argument).
 
(So doubling, even a short term 3 to 5 times increase, the British Defence Budget during the period is a possible argument).

It's certainly possible; but it's just not likely, for the reasons why that spending was so low in this period in the first place: 1) Massive debt service (interest alone absorbed as much as 44% of government spending; the public debt was nearly 200% of GDP, a situation Britain had not experienced since the Napoleonic Wars), 2) firm government policy to maintain the value of sterling, and 3) Rising pacifism and concomitant demand for cuts in spending on armaments. Neither George's nor Law's ministries were keen to set those concerns aside.

It might be possible to change that, but you would need some major point of departure to override those factors.
 
It's certainly possible; but it's just not likely, for the reasons why that spending was so low in this period in the first place: 1) Massive debt service (interest alone absorbed as much as 44% of government spending; the public debt was nearly 200% of GDP, a situation Britain had not experienced since the Napoleonic Wars), 2) firm government policy to maintain the value of sterling, and 3) Rising pacifism and concomitant demand for cuts in spending on armaments. Neither George's nor Law's ministries were keen to set those concerns aside.

It might be possible to change that, but you would need some major point of departure to override those factors.
The Naval budget covered for 1921 covered all 4 G3 Battlecruisers
And if Hood is a singleton, she shouldn't be to hardc to finance, plus she is being built during wartime.
Post WNT would 2 ships every 5 years work?
 
The Naval budget covered for 1921 covered all 4 G3 Battlecruisers

Right. But again, I think the point is that George and his cabinet were more than happy to be relieved of a lot of that expense.

Remember: There's some good reasons why Labour won power for the first time after the next general election (1923) - and why one of MacDonald's first acts was to slash military appropriations.

And if Hood is a singleton, she shouldn't be to hardc to finance, plus she is being built during wartime.
Post WNT would 2 ships every 5 years work?

I see what you're thinking: Keeping at least a few of the British yards active, don't lose the skills and expertise in building these ships and these guns - and have an opportunity to gradually phase out the older dreadnoughts.

This would have been a good idea for Britain, but they seemed quite content to settle for less. Maybe they figured getting the right to build the NelRods was enough. I've read more about American and Japanese thinking going into the WNC than I have that of the British.
 
Right. But again, I think the point is that George and his cabinet were more than happy to be relieved of a lot of that expense.

Remember: There's some good reasons why Labour won power for the first time after the next general election (1923) - and why one of MacDonald's first acts was to slash military appropriations.



I see what you're thinking: Keeping at least a few of the British yards active, don't lose the skills and expertise in building these ships and these guns - and have an opportunity to gradually phase out the older dreadnoughts.

This would have been a good idea for Britain, but they seemed quite content to settle for less. Maybe they figured getting the right to build the NelRods was enough. I've read more about American and Japanese thinking going into the WNC than I have that of the British.
Exactly. They may have been content at the time, but it came to bite the in the ass when the wanted to build the KGVs and rebuild the QEs Hood,renown and repulse and they had poorly equipped and out of date shipyards and an under skilled workforce
Also, what they could do with the G3s:Have WNT, with the changes that each country can build 2 BBs 50k or less and then cut off.
Therefore 2 G3s are built, Hood is completed, and(Hopefully) everyone is happy
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Exactly. They may have been content at the time, but it came to bite the in the ass when the wanted to build the KGVs and rebuild the QEs Hood,renown and repulse and they had poorly equipped and out of date shipyards and an under skilled workforce
Also, what they could do with the G3s:Have WNT, with the changes that each country can build 2 BBs 50k or less and then cut off.
Therefore 2 G3s are built, Hood is completed, and(Hopefully) everyone is happy
The Tories should have lobbied the Northern workers by saying that trust him and you will lost your jobs. They still care about their jobs than peace.
 
The Tories should have lobbied the Northern workers by saying that trust him and you will lost your jobs. They still care about their jobs than peace.

Remember: MacDonald was one of the original Guilty Men. Easily the closest thing to a genuine pacifist Britain has ever had as a leader.
 
He and Lansbury should have carried much higher responsibilty than Chamberlain and Baldwin.

Probably.

I can sort of respect Lansbury and MacDonald as men of principle. Disastrous principle in this context, to be sure.

But Baldwin indulged it just to retain power. Chamberlain did out of the arrogance that only he had a unique insight into Hitler's character.

But these were the men who led Britain in the 20's and 30's. Something you have contend with in any ATL that's trying to work an extra interwar edge for the RN or the RAF.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But Baldwin indulged it just to retain power
Well, if he was ousted, then things would be even worse

What you need is someone other than MacDonald and Snowden winning the 1929 election, I would prefer Lloyd George and Keynes, which would allow Britain to abandon Gold earlier and a New Deal would take place.
 
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.

Slightly off topic but if Britain had already sent Glorious and Courageous to the breakers before the Washington conference is it allowed to build two new carriers of the same size as the Lexingtons and Akagis? If so do you base them off the Admirals hull to match the Battlecruiser conversions of the US and Japan or start from scratch.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Slightly off topic but if Britain had already sent Glorious and Courageous to the breakers before the Washington conference is it allowed to build two new carriers of the same size as the Lexingtons and Akagis? If so do you base them off the Admirals hull to match the Battlecruiser conversions of the US and Japan or start from scratch.
I think as the construction of Hood would be more serious form the beginning, they might even decide to convert the latter 2 from 1920-21 and build two 30 knot I3s as replacement.
 
Slightly off topic but if Britain had already sent Glorious and Courageous to the breakers before the Washington conference is it allowed to build two new carriers of the same size as the Lexingtons and Akagis? If so do you base them off the Admirals hull to match the Battlecruiser conversions of the US and Japan or start from scratch.
If G&C have been scraped do you even get large CVs as RN has potentially decided (and told everybody) they don't work?

I would also think far more likely you get 2 early 26,000t Arks in mid/late 20s (27,000t limit but light as N&R) I just cant see you keeping the complete admiral hulls if you scrap G&C and once they are scraped you start with a clean sheet.
I think as the construction of Hood would be more serious form the beginning, they might even decide to convert the latter 2 from 1920-21 and build two 30 knot I3s as replacement.
Why would they be more serious?
 
Top