Inter War RN without the Naval Treaties?

[Grey Havoc]

Steelwind has requested deletion of his account, which has been done.

That is indeed unfortunate. So the new setup means that when an account is deleted, all the posts that were made with it automatically go as well?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

No. All messages are kept, unless deleted by the user before their account is deleted, but they will be attributed to "Deleted Member xxxxxx".

Steelwind deleted all the messages in this topic himself, I could undelete them but that would counter his apparent wishes.

 

[pathology_doc]

She received a redesign after Jutland but she was still designed against German construction so she ceased to be relevant to new British construction once the German threat had been removed. By that time the Japanese were working on the Nagato class and the Americans were working on the Colorados, South Dakotas and Lexingtons, all with 16" guns, so something new and different was required. Essentially, the G3s were designed against the Lexingtons and N3s against the South Dakotas.

Interesting. I hadn't grasped that subtlety. So the Hoods as-designed are a dead end after all, although one can always argue what would have happened if the Bismarck hadn't got that lucky shot...

Steelwind deleted all the messages in this topic himself, I could undelete them but that would counter his apparent wishes.

To ask for one's account to be scrubbed seems rather extreme. What was the reason given?

 

[Volkodav]

Continuing with the remaining three Hoods only makes sense if an earlier treaty was envisioned, meaning the RN realised it was them or nothing, or another nation took over the contracts to replace their now obsolete ships, prior to the ratification of the Washington Treaty.

 

[Volkodav]

Something often missed is that hypothetical discussions such as these lead to participants recalling detail and references to what really happened and the various inputs into the actual decisions made. I refer back to this topic because of some of the excellent references provided by JFC Fuller on the Henderson and Jellico reports.

The thing with historical hypotheticals is often people at the time put forward the same or similar ideas for the same or similar reasons but lost the argument. Something I have seen in my own lifetime was three failed attempts to get OPV / Corvette sized minor combatants for the RAN, the first killed by scope creep and a change in government, the second and third by changes of government, before the party that cancelled them was in power long enough to feel the pain of having gone for a "cheap" patrol boat instead of an OPV, then finally realised that the OPV hull was also good for replacing capability in other areas, Hydrographics, Oceanography and MCM, i.e. exactly the scope of the project they killed several years (and billions of dollars wasted) earlier.

I bring this up because many of the economic and political arguments brought up on historical discussions are the same as those used in the OPV / Corvette saga. The winning arguments of cost and need, accusations of gold plating and economic irresponsibility etc, were shown to flawed, if not totally false. Why? Because we have come full circle and are finally building the ships (or closer to the ships) that it was determined that our geography and economic requirements needed in the 60s, 70s, 90s and 2000s, that previously have been cancelled in favour of poorer options that were unfit for the role and had to be supported by major fleet units, resulting in waste, wear and tear, and poor performance.