WNT Alt negotiations/fleet

Inspired by the 5 Renown thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=371399
in order not to derail it I will ask separately here,

What would be a good use of the RNs WWI building rather than a collection of odd BB/BC/LLC that in hindsight are not very useful.

I will assume that the following was not built (all T from WNT),
R class 5x [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]25,750 =128750[/FONT]
R&R 2x [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]26,500 =53000[/FONT]
LLC 3x 19,000 (not in WNT what SD?) = 57000
Hood + Sisters [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]41,200 + (not sure how much wasted on sisters ?) = 41,200
So total = 279950+ T of WNT tonage [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
QE is 27500 so you could add 10 of them or better with hindsight 8 faster 15"x8 ships of 35,000t and QE or better protection (ie slow Hoods that could do maybe 28Kn ?)
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
So how do the negotiations of the WNT go if RN has say,
8 Fast BBs 35,000t 8x15"
5 QEs
4x ID + Tiger
3x KVGs + 1 Erin
4x Orion 2x Lion
lots of old 12" stuff [/FONT]

(feel free to post you alternative suggestions of what should have been built) [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
 
My Post war fleet

QE class built with Small tube boilers same tonnage - same armor etc just faster - 26/27 knots

10 x units built from 1913 - 1916

Renowns built with Small tube Boilers - same tonnage etc - more armor

2 x units built from 1915 - in service late 1916

2 x units built from 1916 (instead of the Follies) - in service late 1918

4 x Admirals laid down in 1916 - work halted in 1917

Eventually work is restarted on Hood and Rodney after the end of the war as intended except greater armor is installed after learnings from Jutland (resulting in the ships being capable of 'only' 28 knots) - the ships are commissoned in 1922 and 1923 respectively.

Anson and Howe are initially intended to be scrapped on the stocks but the USN suggests turning 2 of their Lexington class Battle Cruisers that had already been laid down into aircraft carriers and so the RN petitions for the same to be done for their 2 units.

Both ships are completed as large 36,000 ton Aircraft carriers (after much delay partly due to the WNT and emerging technologies and learnings from Britain and the USAs existing Aircraft carriers) - commisioning in 1925 and 1927 respectively

HMS Eagle, Hermes and Argos are effectively Commissioned as OTL

The OTL Nel Rods are not built instead the DNC begin's working on making improvements to the existing 15" armed fleet - having 20 ships all armed with the same guns and turret and generally having very similair machinery layouts makes the job of refitting the fleet to a post Jutland standard in the 30s a relatively easy one.

Improvements to the existing 15" Ammunition is made post war after multiple trials on older British and Surrendered German ships.

Eventually this leads to the Mk1N improved turret and gun which would be retrofitted to most of the units prior to the outbreak of the 2nd Great War in 1940

This gives the UK Post WW1

10 x Faster QE BB (26+knots)

4 x better armored than OTL Renowns (31+knots)

2 x slower than OTL but better armored Admiral BBs (28+knots)

2 x Large Admiral Fleet carriers (31+knots)

3 x smaller carriers (as OTL)

This give Britain 5 of 6 allowed Aircraft Carriers - a 6th planned ship HMS Ark Royal is originally planned for 1926, then 28 then 1930 but is not laid down until 1932

Of the older ships the 4 Iron Dukes are kept in commission (giving Britain their maximum allowance of 20 BB/BC) - although in practice they spend much of the 20s and early 30s in reserve and although all 4 will serve in the 2nd great war do not get a deep refit and are generally used in secondary theatres or as convoy escorts during teh 2nd Great War

HMS Tiger and HMS Centurion are kept on as a gunnery training ships - and occasionally find themselves recommissoned in the 30s while other ships are being refitted.

HMS KGV and HMS Ajax (KGV BBs) are both sold to Brazil in the early 20s.

HMS Orion and HMS Conqueror are both sold to Argentina (after a then cooling of relations with Brazil) in the mid 20s

HMS Thunderer is sold to Chile although an attempted sale of the Battle Crusier HMS Indefitagble fails after protests from Argentina and Brazil (who fear that a faster 13.5" armed ship than their BBs would give Chile a decisive advantage).

Eventually the 12" armed HMS Australia is sold to them instead

Many historians generally believe that the eventual balanced fleets kept the peace between these 3 South American Nations as no one fleet was powerful enough to give a decisive advantage over the others up until the out break of the 2nd Great war in which all 3 nations would eventually join the Allies

The remaining ships are sold for scrap or used up as targets throughout the 20s in accordance to the WNT.
 
WNT and RN cruisers

Granted the RN could have had a better balanced capital ship fleet by different building decisions in 1912-16.
A better RN BB fleet results from those decisions, not from changes in the WNT.
Where the treaty could, realistically, have better for the british was in the area of cruisers.
The 10,000 ton, 8" limit didn't suit them very well.
Immediately the treaty was signed that became the only size of cruiser to build, rather than the maximum size.

A lower tonnage, and smaller calibre would have allowed a larger number of smaller ships, which is what the RN needed.
Apart from the Hawkins class of 5 ships, all other cruisers in the RN were under 8,000 tons, and carried 6" maximum.
The US were building the Omaha class - 7,500 tons, 6" cruisers.
Japan were building Aoba class - 7,500, 8" (but all their others were 5.5").

A better alternative would have been an 8,000ton, 6" calibre limit, with an allowance for 2 ships of any type to have 8".
For Japan that is the Aoba's, and they get the most heavily armed cruisers in the world.
For US the 8" go on the Lexington/Saratoga, and the Omaha's don't become obsolete before they are 12 months old.

For the UK only 2 of the 5 Hawkins were complete. Another was a very early experimental carrier.

Either 1) convert the lot to very small carriers -useful for transporting the small numbers of aircraft needed for imperial policing in the 20s & 30s.
Don't bother with the Eagle and Hermes.
2) scrap the 2 finished ones and convert the rest.
3) Bite the bullet and scrap the lot.

With everybody building to the lower limits the large number of RN 5-6,000 ton 6" cruisers aren't as outclassed by the new lot, and RN cruiser builds can be cheaper or more numerous through the 20s.
 
Granted the RN could have had a better balanced capital ship fleet by different building decisions in 1912-16.
A better RN BB fleet results from those decisions, not from changes in the WNT.
Where the treaty could, realistically, have better for the british was in the area of cruisers.
The 10,000 ton, 8" limit didn't suit them very well.
Immediately the treaty was signed that became the only size of cruiser to build, rather than the maximum size.

A lower tonnage, and smaller calibre would have allowed a larger number of smaller ships, which is what the RN needed.
Apart from the Hawkins class of 5 ships, all other cruisers in the RN were under 8,000 tons, and carried 6" maximum.
The US were building the Omaha class - 7,500 tons, 6" cruisers.
Japan were building Aoba class - 7,500, 8" (but all their others were 5.5").

A better alternative would have been an 8,000ton, 6" calibre limit, with an allowance for 2 ships of any type to have 8".
For Japan that is the Aoba's, and they get the most heavily armed cruisers in the world.
For US the 8" go on the Lexington/Saratoga, and the Omaha's don't become obsolete before they are 12 months old.

For the UK only 2 of the 5 Hawkins were complete. Another was a very early experimental carrier.

Either 1) convert the lot to very small carriers -useful for transporting the small numbers of aircraft needed for imperial policing in the 20s & 30s.
Don't bother with the Eagle and Hermes.
2) scrap the 2 finished ones and convert the rest.
3) Bite the bullet and scrap the lot.

With everybody building to the lower limits the large number of RN 5-6,000 ton 6" cruisers aren't as outclassed by the new lot, and RN cruiser builds can be cheaper or more numerous through the 20s.

So Max 8000 Tons - Max 6" Cruisers (would the British be able to push for a 'fuel allowance'?)

I agree that this would serve Britain better than the original Agreed totals

As for the Hawkins class the problems are listed about scrapping them as too expensive to scrap - but there was a lot of that about so I'm not sure why it was such an issue for these Cruisers!

Converting them into carriers - certainly their speed would have been a bonus over the Eagle, Argus and Hermes - although IMO they are on the wrong side of 10,000 tons to be useful in the role

Still, that being said - they are fast, long ranged and designed for the Atlantic the 5 units might have served in this role - as a light fleet carrier - not sure how many aircraft they could carry but at a guess between 12 and 18 (Vindictive was not a proper carrier and carried between 6 and 12) - so with a full length hanger on a beam of 58" - same as Argus I'm guessing that 12 would be doable - probably 18 - but more likely 12 in practice

So yeah do it.

BTW (Article XX, part 4) Allows carriers lighter than 10,000 not to count towards the carrier limits and I cannot see turning a Hawkins class carrier being more than 10K!

And given that one of my darlings is to have 2 'Admiral class Carriers' as well as 2 'Admiral class Battle cruisers (Battleships?) then the carrier limitations will have to allow Britain 2 have 2 larger Carriers and 2 larger Battleships ;)

Another idea I had regarding the type was as a fast despatch Cruiser

A class of ship capable of Cruiser like speeds with a light Cruiser armament along with a modest Freight storage and Passenger capacity.

Or just scrap them - after all 3 out of 4 Admirals where scrapped as were 4 out 6 Lexington's OTL as well as a heap of other ships.
 
Granted the RN could have had a better balanced capital ship fleet by different building decisions in 1912-16.
A better RN BB fleet results from those decisions, not from changes in the WNT.
Where the treaty could, realistically, have better for the british was in the area of cruisers.
....
Thanks for the idea I agree not building the Hawkins class would help as well.

So Max 8000 Tons - Max 6" Cruisers (would the British be able to push for a 'fuel allowance'?)
"Standard displacement" already does that doesn't it....

I think its best not to build them as you can't get them under 8,000t as the new CV limit will be and they are not very good CVs, unless you make them a bit bigger say 15,000t as a fast HMS Hermes (95) ?
 
Thanks for the idea I agree not building the Hawkins class would help as well.


"Standard displacement" already does that doesn't it....

I think its best not to build them as you can't get them under 8,000t as the new CV limit will be and they are not very good CVs, unless you make them a bit bigger say 15,000t as a fast HMS Hermes (95) ?

Yeah having 'thunked' a bit - don't build the Hawkins - A Hawkins Carrier is one of my Darlings but Reality often results in it getting murdered!

Scrap them

This might head off the issues in 1930 regarding working out what was alight Cruiser and what was a heavy one.

Perhaps allow Japan to complete its 8" Cruisers that are under construction but permit no more and limit all future Cruisers to 8,000 Tons standard Displacement and 6" guns

That leaves fewer arguments for 1927 (Geneva) and 1930 (1st London)


As for Standard displacement - yes I believe that you are correct - this standard displacement did not take into account Liquids etc such as Fuel and fresh water

So what are we left with?

Britain has allowed itself to keep the following Capital Ships (or complete them) - 20 units for a total of 550,000 Tons

2 Improved Admiral Class Fast Super Battleship - 46,500 X 2 = 93,000 (Total 93,000)
4 Improved Renown Class Battle Cruiser - 27,000 x 4 = 104,000 (Total 197,000)
10 Improved Queen Elizabeth Class Fast Dreadnought Battleship - 26,000 x 10 (Total 447,000)
4 Iron Duke Class Dreadnought Battleship 25,000 x 4 (Total 547,000)

(I am wondering if the British manage to keep the speed of the Queens a secret - or at least until after 1916?)

How does this impact the other signatories? (Thoughts welcome)

This Allows the USA to Keep all of its "Standards" plus allows them to commission 2 of its Lexington class 'Battle Cruisers"

2 Nevada - 27,500 x 2 (54,000)
2 Pennsylvania - 29,000 x 2 (112,000)
3 New Mexico Class - 32,000 x 3 (208,000)
2 Tennessee Class - 33,000 x 2 (274,000)
4 Colorado Class - 32,500 x 4 (404,000)
2 New York Class - 27,000 x 2 (458,000)
2 Lexington Class - 43,500 x 2 (545,000) - Note 2 other hulls are completed as Aircraft Carriers

4 Older ships are also Kept on in reserve as Training / Target Ships after the 2 Lexington BCs are commissioned although in practice remain periodically active throughout the late 20 and 30s as the other capital ships are refitted etc

2 Wyoming Class - 26,000
2 Florida Class - 22,000

Japan - is allowed 385,000 Tons (increased to 70% of tonnage after nearly walking out of the WNT) and a maximum of 12 Capital ships

4 x Kongo Class BC - 27,500 (110,000)
2 x Fusō Class BB - 29,500 (169,000)
2 x Ise Class BB - 31,000 (231,000)
2 x Nagato Class BB - 32,500 (296,000)
2 x Tosa Class BB - 40,000 (376,000)

2 x Kawachi class BB - 21,000 - are kept as reserve / training vessels

Note: Of the 4 Amagi Class BCs under construction - the 1st and 2nd units- Amagi and Akagi were selected for conversion to Aircraft Carriers while the other 2 were suspended with the expectation that they would be scrapped. However 1 of these was later restarted after the Sept 1923 earthquake damaged the 1st unit Amagi so badly that it was decided to scrap it in situ and restart work on the 3rd unit
 
2 Improved Admiral Class Fast Super Battleship - 46,500 X 2 = 93,000 (Total 93,000)
4 Improved Renown Class Battle Cruiser - 27,000 x 4 = 104,000 (Total 197,000)
10 Improved Queen Elizabeth Class Fast Dreadnought Battleship - 26,000 x 10 (Total 447,000)
4 Iron Duke Class Dreadnought Battleship 25,000 x 4 (Total 547,000)

2 Nevada - 27,500 x 2 (54,000)
2 Pennsylvania - 29,000 x 2 (112,000)
3 New Mexico Class - 32,000 x 3 (208,000)
2 Tennessee Class - 33,000 x 2 (274,000)
4 Colorado Class - 32,500 x 4 (404,000)
2 New York Class - 27,000 x 2 (458,000)
2 Lexington Class - 43,500 x 2 (545,000) - Note 2 other hulls are completed as Aircraft Carriers

4 x Kongo Class BC - 27,500 (110,000)
2 x Fusō Class BB - 29,500 (169,000)
2 x Ise Class BB - 31,000 (231,000)
2 x Nagato Class BB - 32,500 (296,000)
2 x Tosa Class BB - 40,000 (376,000)
- the problem with the Hoods, Tosa, Nagato, Colorado Class and Lex is they are much more powerful ships and render the rest obsolescent.
This set up leaves a New ship/Post Jutland ratio as RN 2 v USN 4 (+2 fast but weak) v IJN 4 this isn't acceptable to RN pride even if the rest is ok (and no 16" guns as well).

-I Don't think the USN picks the Lexs I think they complete SDs if they are allowed new ships, The Lexs cant stand v a Tosa or Nagato (or even get hit by Kongos too much)

-Since this started as a Ideal RN build not sure about adding the Renown Class Battle Cruiser to the line up, IMO they are just to weak v a improved 28Kn QE.

Numbers/ratios per side,
RN 20 units for a total of 550,000 Tons
USN 17 (545,000)
IJN 12 (385,000 Tons 70%)
- I don't think US agrees to 70% easily
- 100,000t of the RN is made up of the weakest ships in the line up (IDs) and when you add the 104,000t from the weak (but fast) Renown Class Battle Cruisers this makes the RN fleet quite week IMO.

4 Older ships are also Kept on in reserve as Training / Target Ships after the 2 Lexington BCs are commissioned although in practice remain periodically active throughout the late 20 and 30s as the other capital ships are refitted etc
2 Wyoming Class - 26,000
2 Florida Class - 22,000
2 x Kawachi class BB - 21,000 - are kept as reserve / training vessels
- Kawachi is already on the bottom sunk :eek: (edit maybe a little harsh as POD is pre 1914)
- What does the RN get for them ? (KVG class and Tiger ?)
- The old ships are not very good 12" guns and slow so effectively worthless v the new ships allowed.

(I am wondering if the British manage to keep the speed of the Queens a secret - or at least until after 1916?)
WWI might get in the way of that if they start having to run after HSF BCs
 
Last edited:
Battleships

I posted this into the more Renown class thread by mistake.

IOTL

5 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1912-13 Estimates
5 Revenges were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates
3 Revenges were ordered in the 1914-15 Estimates, plus a 6th Queen Elisabeth.


But when Fisher returned to the Admiralty he had the 1914-15 ships cancelled and replaced with the 2 Repulse class and the 3 follies were built in place of the 1914 ships.

Then we get the Hood class which IIRC were originally Super Queen Elisabeth class fast battleships.

The Washington Treaty allowed the British Empire to keep Hood, 2 Repulse class, 5 Revenge class, 5 Queen Elizabeth class, 4 Iron Duke class, the Tiger and built Nelson and Rodney, making a grand total of 20 capital ships.

What I would have done

5 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1913-13 Estimates
5 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates
4 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1914-15 Estimates

The 4 ships in the 1914-15 Estimates were completed and another 2 ordered in the War Emergency Programme, making a grand total of 16 Queen Elisabeth class fast battleships.

All 16 were built with oil fired, small tube boilers. However, the weight saved was used to increase their maximum speed to the specified 25 knots. The rest of the saved weight was used to increase the weight of armour, which was arranged on the all-or-nothing principle.

Instead of the Hood class the Royal Navy would order 4 repeat Queen Elisabeths because they were a proven design that could be built quickly than a new ones. Or they would be fast battleships mounting twelve 15" in four triple turrets and a speed of 25 knots. The standard displacement of the new ships would be 32,000 to 35,000 tons.

The smaller displacement compared to the real Hood class means that it will be easier when negotiating The Washington Treaty. The British Empire is allowed to keep the 4 Hoods and all 16 Queen Elisabeth class. Iron Duke is kept as a gunnery training ship and one of her sisters becomes the radio controlled target ship in place of Centurion. Nelson and Rodney are not built. The £15 million saved is spent on new aircraft carriers or on mid-life refits for the Queen Elisabeth class.

This also means that the knock-on effects on the other navies are minimal. As the British Empire has 4 post-Jutland ships instead of 3 the United States might demand that the 4th Colorado has to be completed, turning the "Big Five" into the "Big Six," but there would be no change to the French, Italians or Japanese.

IOTL there Royal Navy's capital ship organisation had by the late 1930s evolved into the Battle Cruiser Squadron (BCS), 1st Battle Squadron (1BS) in control of the Mediterranean Fleet's battleships, the 2nd Battle Squadron (2BS) for the Atlantic Fleet's battleships and the 3rd (Boys Training) Battle Squadron (3BS), which consisted of the 4 Iron Dukes.

ITTL there would be 4 battle squadrons, one of which would be the boys training squadron and each would nominally consist of 4 ships for a total of 16 in commission and the other 4 undergoing long refits or in reserve.

All other things being equal the 5 oldest ships are scrapped under the 1930 London Treaty. However, even if built to the standard of OTL they would be much better ships than the 4 Iron Dukes and Tiger, which were sacrificed IOTL, so the Admiralty would be more reluctant to give them up. Therefore the second London Treaty still extends the battleship building holiday to the end of 1936, but the capital ships that were scrapped by all nations under the OTL treaty could be retained. Therefore the ships that form the Boys Training Squadron ITTL are put into reserve in 1930, rather than being scrapped. They are brought back into service after 1936 as part of the rearmament programme.

IOTL the 5 Queen Elisabeths (and IIRC the 2 Renowns) had refits in the 1920s costing £1 million each. Then in the 1930s, Queen Elisabeth, Renown, Valiant and Warspite had refits costing about £3 million each. Malaya and Repulse had less extensive refits costing about £1 million each. However, ITTL all 16-20 ships have more armour which was arranged on the all-or-nothing system. Therefore cheaper and therefore less expensive modernisations might be needed.

Therefore the modernisation of TTL might involve replacing the machinery which was wearing out, giving the 15" guns greater elevation and a fitting a new superstructure. The completed ships might look like Warspite after her 1934-37 refit. I'd like to see the 16 oldest ships brought up to that standard by 1937. Then the 4 ships that took the place of Hood, Nelson and Rodney would be modernised 1936-40 instead of Queen Elisabeth, Renown and Valiant. Their refit would also see their secondary armament replaced by twenty 4.5" in ten twin turrets.

Although my refit might cost less than Warspite's refit IOTL and £15 million was available because Nelson and Rodney weren't built it is still going to involve the spending of more money to have 16 ships modernised by the end of 1937. Similarly 4 Hood class modernisations 1936-40 are going to cost more than the 3 capital ships that were modernised then IOTL.
 
Last edited:

What I would have done

5 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1913-13 Estimates
5 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1913-14 Estimates
4 Queen Elisabeths were ordered in the 1914-15 Estimates

The 4 ships in the 1914-15 Estimates were completed and another 2 ordered in the War Emergency Programme, making a grand total of 16 Queen Elisabeth class fast battleships.

All 16 were built with oil fired, small tube boilers. However, the weight saved was used to increase their maximum speed to the specified 25 knots. The rest of the saved weight was used to increase the weight of armour, which was arranged on the all-or-nothing principle.

I like QE spamming but do you really need to get 14 ? the 2 WE are pretty pointless by the time they are finished ?

Instead of the Hood class the Royal Navy would order 4 repeat Queen Elisabeths because they were a proven design that could be built quickly than a new ones. Or they would be fast battleships mounting twelve 15" in four triple turrets and a speed of 25 knots. The standard displacement of the new ships would be 32,000 to 35,000 tons.
Why no drive to faster speeds ? ie to hunt HSF BCs at 28+ Kn, you have sufficent QEs to win any 25KN fight anyway ? I would think a class of 28-30KN QEs is the only likely option? (triples will take to long to build in wartime IMO and I would cut the last of the QEs maybe the WE get recast as faster ships?)

The smaller displacement compared to the real Hood class means that it will be easier when negotiating The Washington Treaty. The British Empire is allowed to keep the 4 Hoods and all 16 Queen Elisabeth class. Iron Duke is kept as a gunnery training ship and one of her sisters becomes the radio controlled target ship in place of Centurion. Nelson and Rodney are not built. The £15 million saved is spent on new aircraft carriers or on mid-life refits for the Queen Elisabeth class.
- Does this not destroy GB industry even worse ? by 37 the ability to build battleships will be much worse....
- Would GB be willing to lose so many 13.5" that are still useable battleships ?
This also means that the knock-on effects on the other navies are minimal. As the British Empire has 4 post-Jutland ships instead of 3 the United States might demand that the 4th Colorado has to be completed, turning the "Big Five" into the "Big Six," but there would be no change to the French, Italians or Japanese.
Japan might not be happy with a 50% ratio in post Jutland ships?

......Although my refit might cost less than Warspite's refit IOTL and £15 million was available because Nelson and Rodney weren't built it is still going to involve the spending of more money to have 16 ships modernised by the end of 1937. Similarly 4 Hood class modernisations 1936-40 are going to cost more than the 3 capital ships that were modernised then IOTL.
Not sure you can get them all rebuilt, nobody rebuilt anything much (well at least gun elevation etc) in the 20s so how many of the 20 can get rebuilt in the early 30s (30-37) after that it will get tight due to lack of production facilities. (no R&N and new KVGs) (as OTL) I would guess only small refits till 3 ships in 32-34, 3 ships in 34-36, 3 ships in 36-38, 3 ships in 38-40 so 12 out of 20. (with 6 having new 4.5" DP guns hopefully including 2 Hoods, with 2 rebuilt earlier ie 1 per batch as you also cant pull all 4 fast 'Hood' ships at the same time)
 
I think there are a few problems in this thread.

1) The Royal Navy was concerned about oil supplies before WWI. The QE required oil fuel while the R class used coal. They were willing to have some ships in the 'fast squadron' depend on oil but for the ships in the main line the conservative leadership of the RN demanded coal as the fuel since that was available in the British Isles.

2) as far as a limit of 8000 tons for cruisers - I do not think that the U.S. or Japan would have agreed to that. The distances required in the Pacific made larger ships preferred. Britian with its world wide web of bases could handle shorter legged ships but both Japan and the U.S. wanted longer legs.
 
I like QE spamming but do you really need to get 14 ? the 2 WE are pretty pointless by the time they are finished ?

The number of battleships the RN built at the time depended upon the number the Germans built. I think the formula was Germany+60% so that the average number of operational British battleships was the same as the maximum number that the Germans could make operational for a surprise attack.

Therefore 14 battleships are going to be ordered whatever happens and I personally prefer more Queen Elisabeths to the Revenge class.

The 2 in the WE are to replace expected losses of earlier battleships and it just happens that it makes enough for 2 full battle squadrons of QEs. Plus they are a lot less pointless than the Three Follies, which they are built in place of.

Why no drive to faster speeds ? ie to hunt HSF BCs at 28+ Kn, you have sufficent QEs to win any 25KN fight anyway ? I would think a class of 28-30KN QEs is the only likely option? (triples will take to long to build in wartime IMO and I would cut the last of the QEs maybe the WE get recast as faster ships?)

Yes, but I think better protected ships would be better than the fastest possible ships.

If the Super QE with twelve 15" isn't possible I would settle for 4 ordinary ships instead of the Hood class. They don't break the 35,000 ton limit of the WNT and they would be cheaper than the supers or the real Hood for that matter.

- Does this not destroy GB industry even worse ? by 37 the ability to build battleships will be much worse....
- Would GB be willing to lose so many 13.5" that are still useable battleships ?
Japan might not be happy with a 50% ratio in post Jutland ships?

-It might make it harder to make big gun turrets, but I think it would have no effect on the capacity to build the engines, armour and fire control equipment. E.g. by the middle 1930s the UK only had enough armour making capacity for 3 cruisers and a handful of light tanks every year. It had to buy armour from Czechoslovakia while the domestic production capacity was rebuilt.
-The GB delegation would have to be prepared to loose all its 13.5" capital ships to get the treaty. It's that or a naval arms race with the Americans that it can't win.
-IOTL the British got 3 post Jutland ships (Hood, Nelson and Rodney). Here they get 4. The Americans might get 4 instead of 3, i.e. 4 Colorado class instead of 3. The Japanese would still be left with 2, the Nagato and Mutsu, but I don't see what they could do about it if they weren't happy about it.

Not sure you can get them all rebuilt, nobody rebuilt anything much (well at least gun elevation etc) in the 20s so how many of the 20 can get rebuilt in the early 30s (30-37) after that it will get tight due to lack of production facilities. (no R&N and new KVGs) (as OTL) I would guess only small refits till 3 ships in 32-34, 3 ships in 34-36, 3 ships in 36-38, 3 ships in 38-40 so 12 out of 20. (with 6 having new 4.5" DP guns hopefully including 2 Hoods, with 2 rebuilt earlier ie 1 per batch as you also cant pull all 4 fast 'Hood' ships at the same time)

I agree with you here.

However, as the QEs of my timeline built with more powerful machinery and are better protected they might be in less need of modernisation. The main problem would be that their machinery would be wearing out by the early 1930s. I don't know if it would be possible to fit new machinery into all 20 during the course of the 1930s. However, the machinery of the unmodernised ships ITTL would be no worse than the Revenge class, Repulse, Barham, Malaya and Hood IOTL.
 
- the problem with the Hoods, Tosa, Nagato, Colorado Class and Lex is they are much more powerful ships and render the rest obsolescent.
This set up leaves a New ship/Post Jutland ratio as RN 2 v USN 4 (+2 fast but weak) v IJN 4 this isn't acceptable to RN pride even if the rest is ok (and no 16" guns as well).

With a QE and Renown designed around the Small tube boilers - giving the QE a higher speed and the Renown - more armour

Improvements to the 15" shells post WW1 and then improvements to the turret layout that was incorporated into the "deep refitted" warships (Mk1N Standard) makes them competitive with 16" armed warships - the DNC and admiralty knowing this could concentrate on improving the existing ships rather than finding the monies for newer 16" armed ships constrained by the 35,000 tons limit (and


I Don't think the USN picks the Lexs I think they complete SDs if they are allowed new ships, The Lexs cant stand v a Tosa or Nagato (or even get hit by Kongos too much)

I picked Lexs over SDs as the battle fleet was quite slow and lacked any BCs and the Lexs nicely fill this 'gap' what with their 33 knot top speed

However could easily replace them with 2 of the SDs?

Almost the same tonnage

This still leaves a large capability gap (I'm trying to think like the Admirals and politicians of the day)

-Since this started as a Ideal RN build not sure about adding the Renown Class Battle Cruiser to the line up, IMO they are just to weak v a improved 28Kn QE.

I was of the understanding that by using Small tube boilers he weight saved could be used to improve the types armour in the same fashion that the QEs get increased speed?

So their armour is thicker than OTL

- I don't think US agrees to 70% easily
- 100,000t of the RN is made up of the weakest ships in the line up (IDs) and when you add the 104,000t from the weak (but fast) Renown Class Battle Cruisers this makes the RN fleet quite week IMO.

I was trying to keep it realistic in that there was nothing really wrong with the 4 Iron Dukes - in 1922 they are only 10 years old and they should have a lot of life left in them!

These 4 effectively become the OTL Revenge class of the 1920s and 30s ie the Cinderella's of the Fleet

And as discussed the Renowns are tougher this time round and just as fast

As for 70% - OTL the Japanese folded fairly easily - with greater overall tonnages then I can see them digging in a bit more - The Black room reading their messages or not!

- Kawachi is already on the bottom sunk :eek: (edit maybe a little harsh as POD is pre 1914)
- What does the RN get for them ? (KVG class and Tiger ?)
- The old ships are not very good 12" guns and slow so effectively worthless v the new ships allowed.

I had forgotten Kawachi blew up!

Perhaps reduce their % to 65% in light of this?



WWI might get in the way of that if they start having to run after HSF BCs

Yes sure but by the time word gets out which is unlikely to be before 1916 a lot has already been laid down and building in Japan and the US - i.e. almost all of the Standards and many of the 8 : 8 s have been laid down if not already built.

After all Britain was in an arms race with Germany in 1913 and building faster QEs is going to be a nasty surprise if it can be kept a secret.
 
Top