WI: Hood sisters built as 8x18 inch naval guns

Thomas1195

Banned
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.

Why would they be more serious?
Because they were still more powerful than most foreign BBs unlike OTL, so they might have committed more in pushing their construction, so their progress might be more advanced.
 
Because they were still more powerful than most foreign BBs unlike OTL, so they might have committed more in pushing their construction, so their progress might be more advanced.
Hood was in OTL very powerful but she (and any 18" version unless she is a huge 60,000t true fast BB that cant fit any RN dry docks) was a mess, she was not needed for the war and was using wartime production capacity desperately needed for ASW escorts. As soon as you get post Jutland you realize you could have done much better with what you now know.

So in late 1918 you are likely to have very incomplete hulls for less than ideal ships that you can do much better than especially if you wait for a few post war test that will teach you even more about the things to change.

Without hindsight about the coming treaties if you just want to get the most power for limited money cancelling everything and then slowly building G3s gets you a much more powerful fleet, why waste cash on less than ideal ships when just the 5 QEs are realistically sufficient to win WWI?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Hood was in OTL very powerful but she (and any 18" version unless she is a huge 60,000t true fast BB that cant fit any RN dry docks) was a mess, she was not needed for the war and was using wartime production capacity desperately needed for ASW escorts. As soon as you get post Jutland you realize you could have done much better with what you now know.

So in late 1918 you are likely to have very incomplete hulls for less than ideal ships that you can do much better than especially if you wait for a few post war test that will teach you even more about the things to change.

Without hindsight about the coming treaties if you just want to get the most power for limited money cancelling everything and then slowly building G3s gets you a much more powerful fleet, why waste cash on less than ideal ships when just the 5 QEs are realistically sufficient to win WWI?
In the 8x18 scenario, they would be even less likely to scrap all the Hood outright after either after Jutland or after the German Mackensen class was abandoned. The political risk would be huge.
 
The political risk would be huge.
What political risk?
The politicians are shouting at the RN for not dealing with convoys any post war ship is irrelevant till 1919 and an 18" Hood will not be completed faster than OTLs.
Then in late 1918 its obvious that Hood isn't very good compared to what you could start new, so any Hoods not nearly complete and already paid for will be cancelled.
A 18" Hood is also likely to make arms races much worse and get very nasty reception from HMT and HMG who have to pay for not just it but the 29+ other 18" ships and huge dry docks around the world if 18" becomes the accepted international standard....
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What political risk?
The politicians are shouting at the RN for not dealing with convoys any post war ship is irrelevant till 1919 and an 18" Hood will not be completed faster than OTLs.
Then in late 1918 its obvious that Hood isn't very good compared to what you could start new, so any Hoods not nearly complete and already paid for will be cancelled.
A 18" Hood is also likely to make arms races much worse and get very nasty reception from HMT and HMG who have to pay for not just it but the 29+ other 18" ships and huge dry docks around the world if 18" becomes the accepted international standard....
Maybe in Fisher scenario he might be willing to scrap them outright and build new I3s or G3s (btw, it was he who had the idea of using 18 inch guns). But I expect some unwillingness to design 16 inch guns from scratch when they already had 18 inch guns.
 
Maybe in Fisher scenario he might be willing to scrap them outright and build new I3s or G3s (btw, it was he who had the idea of using 18 inch guns). But I expect some unwillingness to design 16 inch guns from scratch when they already had 18 inch guns.
I think Britain would continue to build 18' Hood, because it is something to counter the American and Japanese programs, as Britain was behind both OTL(Lexi and Sodak started in 1916, G3 not started until 1921)
 
I think Britain would continue to build 18' Hood, because it is something to counter the American and Japanese programs, as Britain was behind both OTL(Lexi and Sodak started in 1916, G3 not started until 1921)
I just don't see why they need an 18" Hood ITL more than a 15" Hood of OTL?
In OTL the RN was happy to spend 1919-1921 planning and running experiments on old ships and analysing WWI to design what they really wanted for the 1930s ten years later, why does that change with an 18" Hood?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I just don't see why they need an 18" Hood ITL more than a 15" Hood of OTL?
In OTL the RN was happy to spend 1919-1921 planning and running experiments on old ships and analysing WWI to design what they really wanted for the 1930s ten years later, why does that change with an 18" Hood?
Well, this scenario assume that there were neither Galipoli nor Baltic were actually carried out, then Fisher still hold the FSL position. It was him who made 18 inch guns exist in reality. He was actually planning to eventually mount 18 inch guns on BBs.
 
this scenario assume that there were neither Galipoli nor Baltic were actually carried out, then Fisher still hold the FSL position.
The butterfly wings are hurricane sized if Fisher is still 1st Sea Lord in 1919!

This implies that the RN has been the all conquering heroes of WWI, What has Admiral of the Fleet John Rushworth Jellicoe, 1st Duke of Jutland done to help him stay in office?

I think we might be in a very different world from the OTL WNT :p
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The butterfly wings are hurricane sized if Fisher is still 1st Sea Lord in 1919!

This implies that the RN has been the all conquering heroes of WWI, What has Admiral of the Fleet John Rushworth Jellicoe, 1st Duke of Jutland done to help him stay in office?

I think we might be in a very different world from the OTL WNT :p
Well, no Gallipoli, and RN raiding ships actively sortie the HSF, quite different from OTL.

No one rather than Fisher could be radical enough to do so
 
Evidence shown that he finally bring the rearmament to reality, despite opposition from Labour. We have no better option than him.

Maybe so. But that doesn't mean that Baldwin didn't have maneuvering room to do more than he actually did. He had a 242 seat majority after the 1935 general election.

Baldwin can't escape his share of responsibility for Britain's unpreparedness for war, or failure to confront Hitler.
 
Well, this scenario assume that there were neither Galipoli nor Baltic were actually carried out, then Fisher still hold the FSL position. It was him who made 18 inch guns exist in reality. He was actually planning to eventually mount 18 inch guns on BBs.

Are you talking abut HMS Incomparable?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe so. But that doesn't mean that Baldwin didn't have maneuvering room to do more than he actually did. He had a 242 seat majority after the 1935 general election.

Baldwin can't escape his share of responsibility for Britain's unpreparedness for war, or failure to confront Hitler.
I know, he was responsible. But I would place the Labour leaders on the top place.
 
The naval treaty with Germany was sheer stupidity, by tearing up the Versailles Treaty in regards to the German Navy it effectively gave Hitler permission to tear up the entire thing. The same is true over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, a firm stance there would have most likely spared Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland from invasion and occupation. Now I admit that's hindsight but the signs of what was coming were there to be seen. Some backbone and money spent on much needed military improvements could have if not prevented but at least delayed the Second European Great War until the Anglo-French Alliance was ready.
 
Jutland or a similar battle would butterfly it away, even if Britain won. Instead, there might be earlier I3s

OK.

I'm skeptical of the I3's as designed, as the armor belt isn't thick enough; you'd need to considerably upscale the engines (and thus dimensions, displacement) to give it adequate protection. But it's hard to say what such an I3 design might have looked like in the end.

Whatever it ended up being, it still would have been of less value than the same resources devoted to fleet carriers in 1939-45. Not that this was immediately evident in 1920-22.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The naval treaty with Germany was sheer stupidity, by tearing up the Versailles Treaty in regards to the German Navy it effectively gave Hitler permission to tear up the entire thing. The same is true over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, a firm stance there would have most likely spared Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland from invasion and occupation. Now I admit that's hindsight but the signs of what was coming were there to be seen. Some backbone and money spent on much needed military improvements could have if not prevented but at least delayed the Second European Great War until the Anglo-French Alliance was ready.
Yeah, they should have reinforced Part V Versailles
 
I think you need to be a bit more clear about what situation we are in especially what happened in WWI or the rest is very much wild guess work as changes to the conclusion to WWI change everything later massively.....
I know, he was responsible. But I would place the Labour leaders on the top place.
I think you can blame him equally but not sure more than the later two as he finished in 35, by 35 AH hasn't really done anything really bad or gone much beyond what every sane German government would want to do. So MacDonald started GB on a bad track and put it into a difficult situation but the other two had 4 years to really react far to slowly later when it was a far more obvious threat.
 
Top