What if HMS Nelson & HMS Rodney were built for speed?

[@richardcutts196]

I would think the politicians would respond favorably to the argument that having 2 more ships with 15" guns would save money by not having to build a supply of 16" ammunition for just two ships. Not to mention the simplification in logistics for the same reasons.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

The problem is to British public and few politicians will feel like undergunned so there's a inferior in terms of firepower.

[@richardcutts196]

@@gerogyzurkov2259 Politicians like to be able to say they are saving the taxpayer some money. At the same time they could point out that the newer gun is more than equal to the US and Japanese 16" (whether it is or not) and that the new gun allows the other ships of the battlefleet to be upgraded without having to spend money on new ships or ammunition. They could also point out that the Japanese only have 2 and the Americans have only 3 ships with 16" guns the Royal Navy will have 15 ships with the powerful new 15" gun.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

@@richardcutts196 honestly u can fit 16" guns as it is and have good speed like 26-28 knots rather than 23 knots. Just by knocking out the conning tower weight and remove the torps. Then have it design with all secondary guns and no AAA guns. U can always fit the latter in the later dates and have be justified cause we didn't see airpower be a necessity at the designing stage. Then for extra can play shemigans on the weight to try to get even more flexible on weight to try to do better. Nelson where actually around 1.5-1.9k tons lighter than the displacement allowed. About low end of 33,000 tons range of weight when they where built so we can probably put abit more to the design anyway cause of those margins alone. Not to mention I heard interesting bit of USN allowing 3000+ tons extra on Lexington battlecruisers for justified whatever.

[@stevewhite3424]

I imagine the cost of two fifteen inch battleships will buy you a lot of sixteen inch ammunition, a LOT.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

@@stevewhite3424 which ones?? Those ships are only like 6 yrs in service when the treaty was being done. Britain wasn't going to lose those ships in terms of age especially the oldest QEs which are only 7 yrs? There's no way unless USA and Japan allow or just make changes to level the playing field. Either way a compromise is a given.

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

"What if HMS Nelson & HMS Rodney were built for speed?" They did have a surprisingly efficient hull form (even though it was the diametric opposite of 'long and slim'). So one must wonder what each ship's c1700 tons margin below the permitted 35,000 tons in std displacement might have enabled in terms of slightly more length + a somewhat less anaemic power plant?

[@lindsaybaker9480]

15 inch 50 cal guns for across the whole battle line, existing and planned ships would have made a wiser choice in guessing.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

Question is if Other nations knew about it if they protest and do gymnastics. The actual WNT seems alot of details u have to give out your ship.

[@Aubury]

Image re QE class carriers. Unaffordable and Unsustainable.

[@paulbestwick2426]

​@@Aubury please take your comments to a video about the modern RN. Your comment is akin to saying that HMS Dreadnought is unsustainable on a video about Battle of Trafalgar , the timescales are the same and as irrelevant.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

@@paulbestwick2426 actually pointing out the obvious and is correct. Britain didn't want another arms race yet. Current spending was ww1 and into post ww1 unsustainable. Even more on top of that would be too much. Hence they where willing to accept alot of the WNT and compromises.

[@PaulfromChicago]

1:13:00 A fast squadron might show the RN the need for fast fleet oilers.

[@HMSFisher1906]

If I was British, I would negotiate in the Washington Naval Treaty for battleships to be 42K tons displacement as the limit, rather than 35K tons. Then you could build a 28 knot Nelson class, as you did during the Battle of Singapore Straits in Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

Then the other nations will have to respond with their 42k designs.

[@drakenred6908]

The only way the US Navy would be comfortable with 2 new 16 inch armed fast battleship versions of the Hood would be to up the number 16 inch battleships

[@ihategooglealot3741]

I would suspect that Britain's opening gambit would have been, "Hey, why don't you guys just let us finish the first two G3s #InnocentSmile. And that at that point everyone else blew raspberries and the British delegation sighed and got the first set of concessions from this somewhat hopeful position out to present.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

@@drakenred6908 Britain would be back to square one

[@ducthman4737]

If I were Britain, I wouldn't be at the negotiating table for the Washington Naval Treaty.

[@claireclark5209]

The differences in hull density & armor coverage become a little more stark when you account for the fact that the NelRods were also 30-50 feet shorter than the F designs

[@charlesmaurer6214]

Thought I'd add prior 16" rounds could be fired by an Iowa but a couple of her upgraded 16" rounds could not be fired by prior US Battleships.

[@jbepsilon]

I think the late 1930's treaty and later fast battleships (NC, SD, and Iowa classes) were all capable of firing the new 16" superheavy shells, but the older 16" ships (Colorado) couldn't handle the new longer shells.

[@nickbrough8335]

Personally i would have been satisfied if HMG and the Admirality had stuck with the 25 knot target of the QE’s for the R class and the Nelson and Rodney. The logical step after Jutland would surely be fast battleships rather than BattleCruisers and with the QE’s we were well on the way already.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

@@nickbrough8335 There's reports stating they did 25 knots so whatever new changes would of pushed the class to 27-28 knots.

[@nickbrough8335]

@ i think Rodney pretty much knackered its engines during the Bismarck chase by exceeding all maximum safe limits. If it was designed for 25, they would probably do 26.5 to 27 on forced power. Refitting with smaller modern boilers in the 1930s ought to have allowed more power of course.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

@@nickbrough8335 Class where going to get a refit to solve the issues.

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

Which included refreshed and better engines. Both Nelson where supposed to get new engines when Bismarck broke out.

[@RossEphgrave]

You should do an episode on how the British navy would have looked had not the Washington Treaty ever been made.

[@HMSConqueror]

If a construction was made in 1930ish when the First Naval London Treaty was made, ironically the uk maybe is going to take the old blueprints of the G3s and mixed it with the new F3 and get a 30/32 knot bb with 9x15/50 cal guns, which made way more sense in the logistics department than going for the 16 gun and maybe some similar performance too.

[@scipioafricanus4328]

The F3 design with two quad 15 inch turrets like the French Richelieu would really have played it forward and the ships would have still been exceptional in WW2. I wonder if the Royal Navy had any quad turret design concepts at this time?

[@kennethford1121]

Maybe the junior admiral would get a little disappointed having the mixed group of Tiger and Renown, but getting Furious would be a over reaction

[@USAACbrat]

hi doc, got the construction blues yet?

[@naraiceylob]

I believe the 3x16 turrets used in Nelson and Rodney used new larger gun pits. This probably came with capital costs. Now these gun pits were reused later years for KGVs but at this moment they were new.

[@PaulfromChicago]

I don't know Alex. I can kind of make this work in springsharp. But it's a battlecruiser, not a real fast battleship like KGV. Edit - And we ain't getting nowhere near 29 knots. Springsharp says 27.5 on 96000 HP with a range that makes Hood look long-legged.

[@princeoftonga]

Trouble with springsharp is it kind of assumes a generic hull form. A Nelson class as really built doesn’t quite work in springsharp, you end up with it making 21-22 kts. Whereas in reality a huge amount of clever went into the Nelsons hull shape (and would have for the F3s) and they were able to make 25 kts with only their machinery. I can certainly see an F3 making 28 kts

[@PaulfromChicago]

@princeoftonga I suspect 28 knots, maybe 28.5 with a following wind. So I was looking at the Richelieus to get some idea about comparison. The Richelieus are longer with much more energy dense engines. (Not surprising as they were built about 15 years later.) 96,000 hp vs 155,000 hp. Richelieu are getting up to 31-32 knots, give or take, mostly take. 60000 extra hp to get 3-4 knots sounds about right to me.

[@spencerjones841]

What happens to the 15"/42 Coastal fortifications? Also could use the Turrets from Courageous and Glorious to enable the swap process to the 15" /50 to go faster by having them by the first ones changed and the ones pulled from the first ship going into their place at the turret pits. Should also enable them to increase the angle of fire to 30 degrees fleet wide if they decide to do so and if they refit the last set of turrets making a Vanguard early is a lot easier to do.

[@DocZFlux]

I’m assuming in this scenario that Bismarck’s voyage would’ve ended sooner since it probably wouldn’t be just worn out Hood and a Prince of Wales with teething issues that encountered it in The Denmark Straight.

[@davidmcintyre8145]

An obvious example of image dictating requirements is the QE class carriers which as a result of the performance of the Harrier were built as V/STOL ships rather than the more versatile CATOBAR version which could have operated allied aircraft from the US and French fleet carriers unlike the as built QEs

[@DrAlexClarke]

Not quite kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnbRZGSiYt6nma8

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

"What if? " "What if James Carter stays a submariner? "🤔

[@PaulfromChicago]

1:01:15 there's also a world where the Americans just shrug their shoulders. So the British are three knots faster or the British are seven knots faster. They might not care because they've got their big colorados with lots of armor and they got their big standards with lots of armor etc. I could see the Americans just being okay with us. Heck, Scientific America etc might make articles about how the British ships will blow up or some nonsense like that.

[@Redgolf2]

What would have happened if Hood had been replaced by Nelson against Bismarck?

[@petefriss859]

Think 15inch ships in hindsight the best way to go, One question if it takes 80000shp to get modernised QE's to 24 knots what estimated shp would it take to get 28knots? 160000?

[@andrewcox4386]

Given that a 15" 50 was viable in the early 1920s, what length could a mid 1930s 15" have given the advances in metallurgy?

[@jamesb4789]

What I find really interesting about this is the RN would have had three fast task forces with carriers in 1930. I think that would attracted a lot of attention for the IJN and USN. With the Kongo's, Japan was in a position to move forward and replicate the RN in this as they did historically. I would in fact argue the IJN perfected the large carrier task force before others in part because of the Kongos, just as a side note. I think the largest impact as Dr. Clark points out is the USN would have be left with a obsolete battle fleet designed for 1914 and little chance of changing it even by rebuild. The only category the USN had any advantage was in the Lexington and Saratoga which were the largest and most effective carriers until WW 2. Washington and London would have utterly trapped the USN and their only way out would have been naval aviation. Would this have drastically accelerated aviation tactics, investment , and in particular aircraft development? The Lexington would have let them develop larger and much more advanced aircraft faster than either the RN and IJN. And if they moved into 1940 era naval craft in say 1934, would they have gone with two 27,500 ton carriers for the Yorktown Class to get the largest air groups with advanced aircraft out to sea? From that, I think it is reasonable to assume the USN would have bypassed the Essex class intermediate step and moved right into the Midway class in 1940. And if this was the path, would the US have gone straight to the Iowas as fast carrier escorts skipping the 28 knot ships? I also wonder if the IJN would have delayed and later cancelled the Yamatos in favor of more carriers and something more like the Vanguard like Kongo. I also wonder if they would have skipped the Hiryu and Soryo in favor of Shokaku and built more of them. And that in turn would have forced the RN's hand as well. Would they have gone to the Implacable class and then the Maltas? None of these are a new design jump, just an acceleration because the USN reacts to its battlefleet being rendered useless in the broader strategic picture. Dr. Clark celebrated the aircraft carrier in '24, so I would be curious to hear his opinion on this.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

Also an advantage of 15 inch is that it is more manageable weight, if instead of just going bigger I wonder if they spent more R&D on improving the shells (much like today's shaped charge rounds for better penetration or secondary propellent that fires on contact) Or adding more powder to a load with a somewhat reinforced barrel like a magnum round in handguns. The Iowas had a few types of 16" and many that proposed anything larger were nixed on being too heavy to load except perhaps in the US Army when they were trying for an atomic bomb round.

[@drakenred6908]

Atomic Annie was an 11 inch gun. Given it had a 15-20 Kt yeild and anything larger does not really give you a significant range advantage vs how you have to mount it....

[@charlesmaurer6214]

@@drakenred6908 I remembered they used a battleship gun barrel for testing and they did at the time consider larger versions including a gun/missile hybrid but my real focus was if they spent more on specialty shells like we now see in tank rounds or even thickening the barrel for an larger charge if smaller more manageable rounds could out perform the big 16" allowing even faster loading too. Granted most the shaped charge stuff was new in WWII and the tech was used in the Atomic Bombs to focus the explosion inward using timed cones of explosives and even different rate of burn explosive in those cones to match the pressures found in stars. In reality the Atom bomb is easy to build but the materials are the hard part with most today using materials created by reactors for power as a byproduct and refined or enriched as a secondary use of such reactors. The first bombs took years to produce the materials for but each following run was much faster.

[@johngregory4801]

Thank you. I'm not an expert by any means, but not having to build 16" barrels, shells or powder charges in exchange for being able to huck the proven 15" shells they already had faster and farther has always seemed like a Win-Win to me. Logistically, the RN going to the 16" guns never made sense to me. Doing that by going to the slower ships that had troubles dealing with the muzzle blast of their 16" guns that were historically built makes even less sense. For instance... In May 1941, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen break out into the North Atlantic. Because the F3 versions of Nelson and/or Rodney are in the Home Fleet while Hood is in drydock for her refit, PoW can be sent with one of them to deal with the German ships or the NelRods can be sent together. In this scenario, it's much less likely that the battle ends well for Bismarck as the insufferable ethos of invulnerability built up around her is squelched before her hull hits the ocean floor. Just another crappy deep sea reef, nothing to see here.

[@tekteam26]

If these speedy 15"-armed Nelsons were to trade in their 6" guns for 4.5' BD mounts, it would need at least four of the dual 4.5" DB mounts per side to have sufficient secondary firepower against both aircraft and lighter combatants.

[@DrAlexClarke]

Not necessarily, in fact it could be they get 6 positions total, with two starboard, two port and two centerline... it's going to depend upon the aircraft arrangements. I think most likely they end up, espeically if you are also replacing the 4.7in AA mounts with three twin BD Turrets either side (in RN parlance a mount is an open position like you find on the tribals, the moment they are enclosed they are called turrets; it's like accelerators launched aircraft from carriers and catapults launched them from ships... the RN likes to be picky). Whilst having eight positions, with four turrets each side would be prefferred, they'd probably settle for three if that was the least comprimising option.

[@jamesb4789]

If Hood had been built with 15"/50 guns, would this have increased the chances of the F3 being NelRod? I am also curious. The 15"/42 was based on the 13.5 gun. Treaty issues aside, how difficult would it have been to up gun Tiger to 15"/42 guns. I have read the turret and supporting structure for the QE's was designed based on the 13.5" design in case they had to switch back.

[@DrAlexClarke]

going from 15in down to 13.5in is easy, going the other way, is exceedingly expensive... and the answer is yes if Hood had been built with 15in/50s it is more likely, but as it was a political decision of what to go with, then it's still going to be.

[@jamesb4789]

@@DrAlexClarke If the turret ring and barbet structure were dimensionally similar, it might not be that difficult. Since they had the Courageous/Glorious turrets in storage, it might not have been as bad or as expensive as you think. I have not seen any dimensions on the turret bearing nor the barbet structure, but if the envelop is similar it can be done. I am sure reinforcement would be needed, but again all of that is some money and steel. The ring bearing is the biggest issue, but the advances in metallurgy from 1912 to 1934 were huge and it would have been feasible to bearing assembly wit better quality and still meet needs. It just comes down to the space and dimensions available. The other reality is coupled with a reboilering and new engines, this would create an effective running mate for Hood.

[@lindsaybaker9480]

With the 15 inch gun 50 cal would it be quicker to design a new twin turret design rather than modifying the existing turrets?

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

Modifying is faster. I heard the KGV delays is mainly the building of new turrets that make it more time consuming.

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

PS; just for interest, HAD a new 15"50Cal Mkii (which iirc was what you speculated re a new Mkii gun in the previous "what if" on the Nelrods) been developed for these two ships, would it even have been all that straightforward to retrofit it to the other 13 ships with an existing 15"42Cal Mki main armament? Remember the weight engineering constraints and turret modification requirements.

[@DrAlexClarke]

I discussed this in the video... at least I think I did... but basically whilst the barrel was heavier, it wasn't significantly so thanks to advances in metalurgy (the ones which long term would lead to the 15in/45 that was actually lighter than the 15/42)... so whilst some machinery would have to be upgraded, as hopefully discussed it could be done with out too much upset. yours sincerely Alex

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

@@DrAlexClarke Not too sure about that, tbh, Doc. The modifications required to a whole range of required equipment would maybe have quite a net impact on total turret weight and o/a C.G.

[@DrAlexClarke]

@squirepraggerstope3591 that's why I put the tables & weights, adjusting for them being triple turrets it works out as I said... there was also considerable investigation done at the time as the 15in/50 project started out as an upgrade program to keep the 15in ships viable into the 20s against the projected threats. Hope that helps, yours sincerely, Alex

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

​@@DrAlexClarke Ah! I fear we're talking at cross purposes. Maybe I've not expressed myself very clearly. I was, of course, referring to the conjectured retro-fit of the other, already extant 15" armed ships of the RN (The QEs, Rs and the 3 Battlecruisers) with the new 15"/50Cal Mkii guns. Which as your conjecture is that those Mkii weapons would have been developed initially in the earlier 1920s to arm the then also new Nelrods, would also have meant that they'd have been wire wound guns too! Not because the previous 15"/42Cal Mki weapon they'd have replaced on those older capital ships was of that design, but as the 16"/45Cal Mki guns that actually WERE installed on the Nelrods, were also wire wound guns*. Having only recently been designed for the proposed G3s and which in any case being installed on their trimmed down Washington Treaty replacements, the Nelrods, were the last such major calibre guns used by the RN. Only significantly later were the proposed 15"/45Cal Mkii weapons mooted as a possible main battery gun for the KGVs. They WERE intended to be of an "all steel" design like the more-or-less contemporaneous 14"/45Cal Mark vii guns actually used on those KGV class ships (and THEY drew very heavily on data gained from the experimental 12"/50Cal Mkxiv explicitly designed as an "all steel" production technique test weapon.. in 1933!). Though (of course, in classic UK Westminster/Whitehall style given the London Treaty wish-list-aim of limiting max calibre to 14") the 15"/45Cal guns never even reached the stage at which one or more prototype weapons would have to be produced. Or i.o.w. the 15"/50Cal Mkii would've been a rather heavy weapon and in view of the additional length, requiring very substantial counterbalancing weights, robust mounting assy and elevation assy AND more robust hydraulic recoil cylinders too. All heavier than for its 15"/42Cal precursor. With issues re retro-fitting to older ships in existing turrets likely being exacerbated yet more if the length of gun behind the point of pivot/within the turret could not be easily increased. *One RGF design for an 18"/45Cal gun to arm the N3s was for a “no wire” gun with longer tubes and was selected by the Ordnance Committee, though a huge range of other designs were also considered and in January 1922, the whole program was cancelled anyway.

[@PaulfromChicago]

So the O3s are Mahanian and the F3s are Corbettian?

[@lesliemitchell4984]

Very interesting, but the butterfly affect makes it almost imposable to workout. Your timeline is believable but the slight on IJN may be to much, also with the ship building does that help reduce the great depression? If the depression is reduce to that reduce the rise of Nazis in the mid to late 1930's?

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

He needs to crack down on the ship building holiday. That's what slowing the buildup. Honestly Britain in the great depression should of toke notes on USA way with Roosevelt programs.

[@gustaveliasson5395]

Hey, hey-hey hey-hey-hey, timestamps with actual descriptive titles? Oh, you're spoiling us now, Dr. Clarke.

[@DrAlexClarke]

I've been trying to get better with this lately...

[@flashgordon6670]

Kaiser Wilhelm’s obsession with battleships, is what lost him the Great War. Had they turned all that metal instead, into u boats, tanks, planes and artillery then Germany would’ve won WW1. Plus all the sailors on the battleships, would’ve been another extra army on the western front. But they mostly needed modern equipment, mainly planes and tanks on the land war. The battleships were a colossal waste of materials, manpower and money. For just one attempt to challenge the Royal Navy at Jutland. That was bc of the Washington treaty.

[@claireclark5209]

Lol, Anglo-American finance capital is what beat Germany. There is no configuration of events save possibly a May/June 1940 style political collapse of France in the autumn of 1914 that could have prevented German defeat

[@riverraven7359]

Lots of people here focusing on the guns, I'd rather look at tactical role, had the Nelson class ditched a turret and used the extra weight on engines goid enough to maintain 28knts like the KGV's it could have been Rodney with Prince of Wales fighting Bismarck the first time.

[@petehall8381]

If the RN starts the 1930s with 5 or more 30+ knot ships, I wonder if Germany might've forgone the historical Deutschlands and either looked at a faster design or abandoned the Panzerschiff concept entirely and entered WW2 with something more useful to their campaigns in the Baltic and Norway. Plan Z certainly would seem like an even bigger pipedream in that scenario, although I wonder if that ends up working against the Germans in a scenario where the Mustachioed Gentleman demands fast ships at the expense of all else.

[@richtysoe6393]

I'm not entirely convinced the extra speed gets you that much more strategic flexibility in terms of being able to send your fast squadron around the world showing the flag. at 20 knots it takes 20 days to get from Hong Kong to dover via Suez. at 25 it's 16. obv many things can happen in 4 days (look at recent events in syria) but it doesn;t seem like that much of a change - you're still going to need over two weeks to react to to a developing crisis in home waters.

[@DrAlexClarke]

You would actually be surprised, also the 28kts top speed of the F3 design turns into a crisis cruising speed of 24kts, whereas the 23kts of the Nelrods turns into a curising speed of 16kts, because of the need to have enough fuel to fight when you arrive there... that cuts arrival time by a third, which if it comes to deterrence, means it cuts the window of action for you opponent to act. The time that matters is though the time to Singapore from Portsmouth and from Malta, from the former it's 14 days at 24kts, for the Nelrod it's 21... from the latter it's 10 days at 24kts, for the Nelrod it's closer to 16 days. Those figures only working if the Suez canal is working... if it's not, then it's 20 days for the F3 around the Cape of Good Hope, it's almost 31 for the Nelrod. With it being 7 days steaming from Saesbo at 14kts(likely speed of advance for any Japananese assault forces), after at least a couple of days of mobilisation, should tensions arrise you can get an F3 force there possibly even before the Japanese ground forces arrive... which could prevent a landing entirely. When you have Nelrods anchoring your forces, well then you had better take marines and should probably have spent a lot more on the landward side defences. The thing about all this is strategic mobility, I can have forces operating in X theatre & move them to Y, possibly fast enough the enemy doesn't realise they've gone, the less the time that manouver takes, the lower the risk of discovery. hope that answers your question.

[@geoguy001]

Yamato was designed to defeat two US standards..with F3 types being built in early 30s....Yamato class does not make sense anymore...you would go to a fast Kii type? Would the Japanese go lower than 16" guns?

[@mikearmstrong8483]

They wouldn't have been built for Speed. They might have been built for Speed 2. The first one was just about a bus, the second one was about ships.

[@mikearmstrong8483]

Fine; I'll see myself out now.

[@davidthornthwaite2149]

The USN seems to have so little ability to influence the Republican administrations in the 20s and early 30s that I wonder if there would be much of a reaction from the US if Britain built the F3s. The historic post-Washington RN battleline had some advantages of the USN that the latter complained about (e.g. gun elevation) but as the paper strength was identical this seemed enough. If American political opinion isn't moved by the unsinkable bulwarks, I don't know if a British fast squadron makes a difference either. The only enemy the USN needs to fear is a parsimonious congress. The Deutschlands are less of a credible threat if there are 5+ British ships that can catch and kill them, but perhaps the Germans would build all six they're allowed under Versailles. Could this have shifted more emphasis to U-boat production earlier than happened historically if the powerful surface raiders have more opposition? The Japanese might want the Yamatos to be able to operate with the Kongos at a speed that was similar to the British fast squadron, so maybe a shift in their design in favour of speed. If the treaty system breaks down sooner then their construction begins sooner anyway.

[@titanscerw]

35k, 'onest guv'na! :) Luv me NelRods, simple as. +][+

[@briancox2721]

The Americans are building a bigger Panama canal.

[@marting1056]

Uh these evil policians, pressing the RN to build two battleships with integration of all possible features the treaty allowed! (Irony out) to my experience most military always wants the most powerful and shiny possible

[@DrAlexClarke]

That's the even weirder thing, the F3s were slightly more expensive an option to build than the Nelrods... and whilst the British government today always seems to pick the second smallest option for everything, in that period they had a habbit of going with the middle of five or even the second largest...

[@FrankReddick]

Nope.

[@juicysushi]

I think that what gets built depends a great deal on how the British sell the fast Nelrods. If you just build them as a statement, it means everyone else needs to re-think how they build their fleets. If you get a little creative, you can maybe delay the realisation for a few years that could delay the response long enough that a RN advantage can last for quite a while. If you present the 15/50s as a cost savings measure (“common guns on every ship”) then while it makes the RN look weak, it also makes building in reply a harder case to sell for other navies. A couple of “leaks” that the higher-pressure boilers didn’t work properly and they were only good for 26kts “in real life,” and it’d take until maybe 1931 or 1932 before anyone else realized what was really going on. At which point the R-class replacements could be near and everyone else is still in their slow battle line headspace. If it’s the former scenario, though, and you’re the RN, do you offer the French the old 15/42s in the early 1930s to increase commonality between the fleets and speed up their process? Or do you not trust the French government at that point?

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

honestly to me having French be enemies was not great point and they should of been more favorable to the French.