WI: Hood sisters built as 8x18 inch naval guns

But the RAF controlled the RNAS, and they wouldn't be too enthusiastic about supplying the RN with planes that could go to them instead.

Thinking of Astrodragon's Whale timeline...

I wonder if having so much carrier capacity would push the RNAS harder to gain more autonomy from the RAF in the years following. It would be helpful, obviously, if they did.

Nonetheless, budgets will be tight in the MacDonald/Baldwin years, no matter what.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Thinking of Astrodragon's Whale timeline...

I wonder if having so much carrier capacity would push the RNAS harder to gain more autonomy from the RAF in the years following. It would be helpful, obviously, if they did.

Nonetheless, budgets will be tight in the MacDonald/Baldwin years, no matter what.
Maybe have a POD to protect Lloyd George and his Liberals' position.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
This is an even better idea. I would even sacrifice Iron Dukes to obtain this.

But if these three modified 16" G3s are exceptions to the 35K ton limit, what do you have to give to the Japanese and the Americans in compensation? Three 35,000t+ ships (South Dakotas or Lexingtons, I'd guess) for the US and two for the IJN (Tosas or Amagis, obviously). How much are you cutting down the G3s here? And how? Sacrificing speed?
Well, IJN and USN ships under construction were also well above 38k tons. Speed of 38k tons G3 might reach 25-26 knots, but I dont like British 16 inch guns.

I somewhat like the BL18 inch MK1 guns because they were not plagued by German light shell practice.
 
This is an even better idea. .......
But if these three modified 16" G3s are exceptions to the 35K ton limit, what do you have to give to the Japanese and the Americans in compensation? Three 35,000t+ ships (South Dakotas or Lexingtons, I'd guess) for the US and two for the IJN (Tosas or Amagis, obviously). How much are you cutting down the G3s here? And how? Sacrificing speed?
I would not ask or give anything, the USN got allowed 2x33,000t (lex and S) but she then used the 3,000t modification allowance to make the 35,000t (and did not tell anybody so actually cheated later in total CV tonnage under LNT) but I can simply use the same loophole for my BBs (and CVs) in this case giving <38,000t BBs and <36,000t CVs.

Speed of 38k tons G3 might reach 25-26 knots
I think more remember speed is squared and I can cut protection as they will not have to stand 18" guns (Mag deck protection as OTL).
Nelson 23Kn 34,000t 45,000 Ship
N3 23Kn 48,000t 56,000 Shp
G3 32Kn 48,000t 160,000 Shp
KVG 28.3Kn 35,000t 110,000 Shp
Lion 16F/38 29Kn 40,750t 120,000Shp

I think a 38,000t ship can get 26-28Kn I she is only carrying Nelsons weapons and protection, especially if they are willing to stick with G3 transom stern (sadly I cant think how to add a Vanguard bow as well).
 
Yeah. Anything laid down in 1919 is going to be more of a modestly up-armored battlecruiser.

But protection schemes rapidly improved on designs into the early 20's, as more reflection was given to the lessons of Jutland, and torpedo vulnerability. The way of the future was the (oil-fueled), all-or-nothing (which the Nelsons first adopted) armored fast battleship, to the extent dreadnoughts had any future at all.

I get the urge to grandfather as much new tonnage as possible before WNT is negotiated. But Britain had a pretty massive advantage in capital ships for the moment (even over the US), and its designers really needed time to adapt to the lessons of the war, and new technologies.
Anything laid down in 1919 should be better than Hood, which was an up armored Battlecruiser.
However I get the point, that a 1921 ship would be better.
 
Well, IJN and USN ships under construction were also well above 38k tons. Speed of 38k tons G3 might reach 25-26 knots, but I dont like British 16 inch guns.

I somewhat like the BL18 inch MK1 guns because they were not plagued by German light shell practice.
How about bringing them down to 15' guns, 30 knot speed.
Guns might not be as big, but the British 15' are damn good guns
 
Hindsight v Pride
Hmm..
Ok, what if two Hoods were built, Hood and Anson with 15' guns, to compensate C&G are scrapped in the stocks.
This, along with the Mutsu compromise, brings about negotiations to increase the limit to 40,000 tons, giving us some more tonnage for us to work with for the G3s.
Could that work?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Hmm..
Ok, what if two Hoods were built, Hood and Anson with 15' guns, to compensate C&G are scrapped in the stocks.
This, along with the Mutsu compromise, brings about negotiations to increase the limit to 40,000 tons, giving us some more tonnage for us to work with for the G3s.
Could that work?
Well, the RN would want smt that could outgun 1920 SoDaks, thats why there were N3 in OTL.

And unlike N3 guns, the Hood 18 inch guns would fire lower velocity, heavy shells.

The only way to make your proposal acceptable is allow RN having 38k tons extra tonnage more than USN in exchange for perceived superior firepower of USN BBs.
 
Well, the RN would want smt that could outgun 1920 SoDaks, thats why there were N3 in OTL.

And unlike N3 guns, the Hood 18 inch guns would fire lower velocity, heavy shells.

The only way to make your proposal acceptable is allow RN having 38k tons extra tonnage more than USN in exchange for perceived superior firepower of USN BBs.
What about something along the lines of H3
Wonder what quad 18' would be like
 

Thomas1195

Banned
What about something along the lines of H3
Wonder what quad 18' would be like
G3 16 inch guns would be my choice if they never moved to using light and high velocity shells. But this might require the scuttle of HSF to be totally successful to keep RN from adopting this practice.
 
Hmm..
Ok, what if two Hoods were built, Hood and Anson with 15' guns, to compensate C&G are scrapped in the stocks.
This, along with the Mutsu compromise, brings about negotiations to increase the limit to 40,000 tons, giving us some more tonnage for us to work with for the G3s.
Could that work?
Not sure really,
- With Two Hoods the Mutsu compromise only give the RN 1 more ship, its going to be even more of a one off orphan than N&R unless its a 15" ship and hurts GB industry even worse.
- 40,000t limit hurts everybody one you get to 1932 and start replacement scheduled as everything cost more and the old ships are even worse in comparison.
- 'G3s' why the S when you are talking about one ship unless everybody builds more?

I would add that if the Hoods sisters are on the slips (very incomplete, as OTL but not broken up) GB should have offered to simply build them rather than 16" ships, you could with a full redesign (as long as the hull are not completed any more than OTL) go towards a slightly smaller slower Vanguard, that probably the best ships that USN/IJN will let you have as 8x15" doesn't scare them much and they will find it easy to ignore the speed and protection you can add.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I haven't before heard about a 8x18" proposal for the RN, but Adm. Fisher in 1915 did order a design study in a 6x20" BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Incomparable

IMHO the study really showed the end of the line of the big gunned ship. Her 20" guns could only hope to hit at ranges where much smaller guns would also hit, guns that the Incomparable design would be vulnerable to with 11" max. armour. Anyway Jutland put serious questions to the big guns-thin skin concept and that had the project be filed forever. But of course if we imagine a sufficient number of butterflies at Jutland - ie. less BCs blowing up but more Germans being overwhelmed by heavy gunfire (not that impossible) - then I guess something like HMS Incomparable could have been put into service.

I also agree that this would have made anything like the OTL WNT impossible - all the major powers would want their own 20" gun armed ships. Even if it would soon be evident that they would be quite inefficient ships - but politics is politics and hasn't necessarily any tight bonds to realities and other disturbing factors.

But at least those long and fast hulls would have provided excellent basis for conversion into aircraft carriers.
 
Not sure really,
- With Two Hoods the Mutsu compromise only give the RN 1 more ship, its going to be even more of a one off orphan than N&R unless its a 15" ship and hurts GB industry even worse.
- 40,000t limit hurts everybody one you get to 1932 and start replacement scheduled as everything cost more and the old ships are even worse in comparison.
- 'G3s' why the S when you are talking about one ship unless everybody builds more?

I would add that if the Hoods sisters are on the slips (very incomplete, as OTL but not broken up) GB should have offered to simply build them rather than 16" ships, you could with a full redesign (as long as the hull are not completed any more than OTL) go towards a slightly smaller slower Vanguard, that probably the best ships that USN/IJN will let you have as 8x15" doesn't scare them much and they will find it easy to ignore the speed and protection you can add.
Most of those ships, espiecally the American ships would have been made obsolete anyway if WNT hadn't happened, by 32 these needed to be replaced anyway.with an extra 5000 tons the treaty BBs won't all be weak in some way (Nelrod to slow,NCals SoDaks weak armor)
The Iron Dukes can be scrapped after WNT,which will give Britain more tonnage later
 
I also agree that this would have made anything like the OTL WNT impossible - all the major powers would want their own 20" gun armed ships. Even if it would soon be evident that they would be quite inefficient ships - but politics is politics and hasn't necessarily any tight bonds to realities and other disturbing factors.

Absolutely it would have.

And the Conference was contentious enough as it was.

It's important to remember that the WNC didn't occur in a vacuum. It was a product of much wider geopolitical competition as well as domestic pressures. The Treaty was about much more than just naval armaments. Just take Britain - since it is her dreadnoughts we're concerned about - she OTOH was up against the clock, eager for a treaty before a) the Anglo-Japanese Alliance expired in 1922, and b) the U.S. completed its 1916 program buildout, which would really strengthen the American hand in any negotiations at that point. Likewise, Britain as facing not only rising domestic unrest thanks to the poor postwar economy but also struggling with rising independence movements in Ireland and India, which also were putting demands on the Exchequer.

Up against that, however, was Lloyd George's expectation that the Conference would fail - that it would open to great fanfare, and rapidly decline into disagreement and inaction (which is a key reason why George himself declined to attend). The British had done little thinking and less planning at this point - the Committee on Imperial Defence was effectively on hiatus for about two years, in fact. So when Hughes opened with his massive disarmament proposal, it caught the British off guard. The Americans, it turned out, had done quite a bit of preparation (and, uh, code-breaking). Now they were forced to put together more concrete proposals for naval reduction on the fly. Maybe the P.O.D. here is for George to take a more aggressive posture, insisting on more planning, and attending in person as leader of the UK delegation. This might have opened some room for a better British outcome with the WNT.

Even so, there would be limits to what Britain could obtain. And even with a more active "building holiday," there's a risk: What happens if a subsequent British government declines to actually build up to what's allowed? A longer holiday at least freezes your competitor states (both of whom seemed more keen to build up) in place, too. Britain sure as hell wouldn't get that 20" gun ship without major concessions. A couple G3's might be possible, though.

(Of course, poorly as Britain ended up, it was actually Japan that had reason to come away from WNT feeling the unhappiest, and not without reason.)

But at least those long and fast hulls would have provided excellent basis for conversion into aircraft carriers.

A deeply ironic but very true advantage. :)
 
Most of those ships, espiecally the American ships would have been made obsolete anyway if WNT hadn't happened, by 32 these needed to be replaced anyway.with an extra 5000 tons the treaty BBs won't all be weak in some way (Nelrod to slow,NCals SoDaks weak armor)
The Iron Dukes can be scrapped after WNT,which will give Britain more tonnage later
The advantage of a 35,000t limit (and 16") is that it doesn't completely make the later kept ships totally obsolete as soon as they touch the water, KVG or North Carolina are better but not impossibly so compared to say QE or Tennessee. In comparison a Lion, Iowa or more so Yamato is much more scary. This makes it harder to balance in the 34-42 period when they should be being replaced and everything will cost more.
The IDs can be replaced under WNT in 1934 for two 35,000t ships.
 
The advantage of a 35,000t limit (and 16") is that it doesn't completely make the later kept ships totally obsolete as soon as they touch the water

This is actually a good point, and it's one that came up during the Conference. It also applies to the older retained dreadnoughts, too.

It's why it might actually be easier to increase overall tonnage, or allow a higher tempo building "holiday," than it might be to increase the individual ship tonnage limit, or carve out more exceptions for any of the new, heavier ships building. But I suppose it depends in part on how hard a hypothetical British Admiralty here would fight for it.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Why is it that some of the worst and most ridiculous Battlecruiser designs make for great carriers?
The problem that the progress of the OTL Hood sisters was too little. ITTL, the progress might be much further, which might encourage them to convert to CVs, because the Admiral Fisher and Beatty might push the building of all of them or just one more of the sisters (IOTL, Beatty only pressed the Hood construction). And even if the Hoods were scrapped, the 18 inch design would surely butterfly away the transfer or even the disclosure of Hood design to the USN. They might even classify 18 inch guns as 16, 16.5 or 17 inch.
As a result, 2 BBs are going to be completed. However, Admiralty decided that their armour are inadequate so one of them would be converted to CV.
 
Last edited:
Top