Future of Great Britain coastal tree is on India XD.
1 Like
Would actually be META as hell tbh
It’s just something the UK has never needed to invest in.
I will admit though as @Ogaly_Bogaly pointed out I hadn’t considered ANZAC stuff but I don’t see why we can’t take the best from all of them.
Britain need HMS Furious with “18”/40 (45.7 cm) Mark I" guns, AP with 54.0 kg(explosives) , whole 2 guns with 60s reload, 457 mm pen at 13,720 m. That would show them.
457 mm pen at 13,720 m should be able to deal with Yamato at 10,000m lol
Britain why you never made a proper BB with these guns…
3 Likes
Blame the Americans and their treaty
Yeah… We would have Yamato’s for every country if not that treaty
I wonder if there was a laid down ship with 18 inch guns we could get (outside of furious)
Lord Clive class
Yeah, imagine the RN in WW2 if we didn’t sign the Washington naval treaty
Mount is fixed unfortunately would be useless
No, best hope is Gaijin give us N3 as its a Montana type situation.
I prefer Incomparable and L2 and L3 as ship designs though if we were talking purely about paper ships with no real basis in actually physically being built.
![r/WarshipPorn - British battleship design L3, discarded in favour of the unconventional M3 (with the x turret being amidships to save citadel length) which would later become N3. N3 would itself be cancelled due to the Washington Naval Treaty, with the O3 design (the Nelson) being built instead. [3351 x 2100]](https://i.redd.it/r0sazvy91ajb1.png)
L3 is something different man, just needed more machinery for the extra 3 knots to make it a balanced design. Based on some other UK ships would need ~110,000 SHP
Actually means similar to current 15’’ guns.
Because reload took so long, not the American and Treaty. 18’'/40 was actually once consider as Admiral class battlecruiser’s main weapons, but denied by the fact that it cannot ensure 2 rounds per minute.
Throughout the interwar the British government consistently favored much more restrictive treaties than were actually implemented. Per Friedman during the London conferences they were at times pushing for a 12” and 25k ton limit on all battleship construction. Britain was economically the largest beneficiary of the treaty system, as the empire at that time could not afford the number of ships thought necessary to secure itself without the significant restrictions on tonnage and armament placed on the other major powers.
2 Likes
For earlier Washington thing was little different. Great Britain wants 45,000 ton as they have to build completely new 16’’ battleship, while USA wants 35,000 ton as they already have 16’’ battleship on construction and do not want GB to have significantly better ship than them.
1 Like
My understanding has been that the British were perfectly happy with the 35k ton minus fuel and feed water limit since they were allowed to retain the significantly heavier Hood, which was markedly superior to the bulk of most nations’ ships at the time bar the Nagatos and would remain more relevant against a hypothetical new 35k ton ship than a 45k ton ship. Though if you could point me to some good reading on the meat and potatoes of the negotiations I’m open to being wrong.
1 Like
If you want more stuff on those i can recomend this book
(making a account is free)
1 Like
Originally I was under the impression they planned for 50K tonnes in order to complete G3’s without having to make too many weight saving reductions. Then reduced to 45K tonnes as they could still do a G3 with triple 15’s. And then they had to go down to 35k tonnes finally due to it being the most fair, but with the exception of the water and fuel which really increased displacement closer to the Nagato class.
Yeah i’ll have that hahaha. thanks.
1 Like
Are we able to penetrate critical areas (barbette, turrets and magazines) on Sovetsky? I think from 6-7km we might actually not be able to.