Layout and design drawings of Alternative Hoods

[Guest]

Apparently when Hood design was being prepared, the Admiralty for a time intended to equipping her with 18"/40Cal guns identical to those fitted to the Furious. Various combinations of 4, 6 or 8 guns in single and double turrets were explored. But for the grace of Adm Fisher's departure would the Hood have changed naval history and made Washington treaty impossible. Has any of the drawings of 18" designs survived?

[Roger T]

According to John Roberts in 'Battlecruisers', the 18in gun designs (of which there were three, with 4, 6 and 8 guns) were draughted at Jellicoe's request in February 1916. As this was nearly a year after Fisher's departure (May 1915), that event thus had nothing to do with the decision to drop work on the 18in designs. Given the weights (39,500 tons displacement, though in what condition is not noted) and armour thicknesses (8in belt, 9in barbettes) tabulated by Roberts, I find it hard to believe that the 8 x 18in design would have produced a useful vessel - big punch, but no staying power whatsoever. Had she been built, I expect the British would have happily disposed of her at Washington, in return for suitable compensation. Quite what that compensation might have been I won't speculate upon, as such debates tend to descend into angels-dancing-on-pinheads territory all too soon.

[Guest]

According to John Roberts in 'Battlecruisers', the 18in gun designs (of which there were three, with 4, 6 and 8 guns) were draughted at Jellicoe's request in February 1916. As this was nearly a year after Fisher's departure (May 1915), that event thus had nothing to do with the decision to drop work on the 18in designs. Given the weights (39,500 tons displacement, though in what condition is not noted) and armour thicknesses (8in belt, 9in barbettes) tabulated by Roberts, I find it hard to believe that the 8 x 18in design would have produced a useful vessel - big punch, but no staying power whatsoever. Had she been built, I expect the British would have happily disposed of her at Washington, in return for suitable compensation. Quite what that compensation might have been I won't speculate upon, as such debates tend to descend into angels-dancing-on-pinheads territory all too soon.

Why? The British didn't trade away the Renown or the Repulse.

The armor quoted for the 18" Hood were both roughly comparable to what the original 15" Hood design would have received prior to post-Jutland protection upgrade. One might reasonably speculate that the 18" Hood design would also be capable of supporting a major armor upgrade comparable to what was in reality given to the 15" Hood in 1917. Although the result would still by no means be ready to withstand a gunnery duel with another 18" armed ship, it would nevertheless make the Hood of the best protected capital ships in the world in 1920.

A 18" Hood, armored to a standard reasonable for a 15" battleship, but possessed of 32 knot speed, would have seriously effected the dynamics of post-WWI naval race. For one thing, the initial offers of Japanese 8-8 and US 6-6 programs would at a stroke be rendered seemingly inadequate if not conceptually obsolete.

[Werner]

I agree with Chuck that they would be reluctant to trade Hood. The condition of the Grand Fleet was none too good in 1921, and there was no interest in building new ships to match the huge programs of Japan and the USA. Hood seemed to be their only opportunity to get a capital ship which incorporated any of the war's lessons at all.

[Roger T]

The armor quoted for the 18" Hood were both roughly comparable to what the original 15" Hood design would have received prior to post-Jutland protection upgrade. One might reasonably speculate that the 18" Hood design would also be capable of supporting a major armor upgrade comparable to what was in reality given to the 15" Hood in 1917. Although the result would still by no means be ready to withstand a gunnery duel with another 18" armed ship, it would nevertheless make the Hood of the best protected capital ships in the world in 1920.

A 18" Hood, armored to a standard reasonable for a 15" battleship, but possessed of 32 knot speed, would have seriously effected the dynamics of post-WWI naval race. For one thing, the initial offers of Japanese 8-8 and US 6-6 programs would at a stroke be rendered seemingly inadequate if not conceptually obsolete.

Perhaps it would have supported a redesign post-Jutland, as happened to the historical Hood, perhaps not. And it was pretty much a re-design, not merely a 'protection upgrade'. However, one 18in ship would not of itself have rendered the American and Japanese programmes inadequate or 'have seriously affected the dynamics of the post-WWI naval race'. That is insupportable hyperbole, in my opinion. What an 18in Hood may have done is to have given the British negotiators a stronger hand to perhaps trade-off the Hood for a pair of G3s, or one G3 and a pair of Nelsons, or maybe three Nelsons, who can say?

In any case, I suspect the question is pretty much moot as I very much doubt that an 18in Hood would have been completed before Washington. 'Our' Hood wasn't completed until 1920, and that was with conventional 15in mountings only incrementally developed from existing models. An 18in Hood would have required completely new twin mountings, which would have taken time to develop (and yes, I know the 18in gun as fitted to Furious was ready by 1917, albeit in a converted 15in mounting adapted for the single barrel). Is it realistic to have expected an 18in Hood with completely new mountings to have been completed at the same time as 'our' Hood? I think not, which is why I suspect it would have been used as a bargaining counter.

[Guest]

However, one 18in ship would not of itself have rendered the American and Japanese programmes inadequate or 'have seriously affected the dynamics of the post-WWI naval race'. That is insupportable hyperbole, in my opinion.

I disagree. What you mentioned is not the mentality to be observed in any arms race. In an arms race adequacy is measured against the worst scenario and opportunity is taken to drum up the need for further armament expenditure regardless of whether the threat is realized or merely notional. The very possibility that some development by the opponent could potentially outclass existing inventory is sufficient for the purpose of deeming the existing inventory inadequate. In any arms race when one side introduce a single potentially destabilizing new weapon that theoretically could be reproduced, the reaction is never "That more can be built is entirely notion, and one that exists does not constitute a dire threat". The reaction is always "the very possibility for more constitute an intolerable threat that must be countered immediately before it can mature."

That would be hyperbole only if everyone believes the 18" Hood is somehow a truly unique one-off and not the vanguard of a wave of new 18" ships. People would only believe 18" Hood is a truly unique one off if there is extremely clear and overwhelming reason, blindingly clear even to people who otherwise would not see it so as to better drum up support for further naval expansion, to believe why the British Can Not, as oppose to will not , built another. The only factors that could cause people to believe that the British Can Not built another would be:

1. Catastrophic and irremediable technical failure of the very concept of 18" gun

or

2. The verifiable destruction of British capacity to build more 18" guns.

Short of the above 2 development, the appearance of 18" Hood would immediately be seized upon by all involved as reasons why existing naval expansion plan is inadequate regardless of how large and overwhelming it might already be.

[Werner]

I wonder what Lord Beatty's opinion of the 18-inch gun was. The First Sea Lord must have had an appreciation for the advantages of a high rate of fire compared to large shell size after his experince commanding his battlecruisers at Jutland.

[Guest]

The difference in rate of fire between mature 18" turrets and 12 or 13.5" turrets can be expected to be marginal. The notion that 18" turret are intrinsically slow firing fits the slow lumbering giant of popular imagination, but is not supportable for any serious technical reason.

[Werner]

As I remember, the 18-inch gun took a minute longer per round in test firing. Unlike the 15-inch the 18-inch required power handling from the shell room to the breech. British and American experience with power handling showed what devilish things these were in combat. See KGV vs Bismarck and Alaska for examples of what can go wrong.

NAVWEPS.COM lists the rate of fire for Furious as 1.0 rounds per minute; for the monitors it was 1 round every 2.6 to 4 minutes.

A quick read of the available data indicate the British experienced unexpected problems with the 18-inch/40 including shell hammering leading to heavy barrel wear. The mount suffered such effects as whipping and blast damage. A re-evaluation of manufacturing techniques was taken to incorporate lessons learned from the evaluation of American and German manufacturing methods (although the 14-inch/45 supplied by the USA for monitors had exceptional droop, they were extraordinarily reliable, long lived and accurate shooting, especially compared to the 12-inch/50, at least as long as the US-made propellants lasted. When loaded with cordite their performance suffered substantially).

Although it is not recorded in the documentation I just reviewed, hammering is symptomatic of an overpowered gun, and shells which hammer would also tend to wobble or tumble in flight, leading to excessive dispersion in range. The solution is, of course, reduced charges and a blunter shell, both of which increase stability at the cost of range. A 40 caliber gun is already going to have relatively modest ranges compared to longer guns (see Yamato). Underpowering it is only going to provide a mediocre result.

It seems the upper echelons of the RN never seriously contemplated the production of 18-inch guns except as an experiment. The Admiralty discouraged public discussion of large calibers and went to Washington hoping to secure a 12-inch caliber limitation.

[JWintjes]

Although it sends shivers down my back, I'm in with Chuck on this. A 18in Hood would definitely started a new round of big-gun hype and propelled the post-war arms race into another dimension.

As for actual useage, I doubt that Furious' RoF (or the monitor mounts) is a good guideline for estimating the possible performance of a fully developed 18in turret.

By the way, is there a drawing for a 4-gun solution published somewhere?

Jorit

[Werner]

Although it sends shivers down my back, I'm in with Chuck on this. A 18in Hood would definitely started a new round of big-gun hype and propelled the post-war arms race into another dimension.

Even in the Post-War economic environment? Most of the players had war bonds to repay, most held by the USA. How could the UK afford any outcome except the Washington limits? Especially considering the professional discouragement of larger calibers.

[ar]

To Werner,
Re you last sentence of your 2.30pm post.
Had the treaty not been signed, then the N3s would have been built.
Nine 18" guns. The RN was geared up to produce these weapons. Have no doubt.
See R&R.

[Werner]

According to Navweps, none of the Mk.II gun were manufactured.

The 18"/45 (45.7 cm) Mark II was the most powerful gun ever seriously proposed for a British warship. However, in view of the problems actually encountered with the 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark I with reliability, blast effect, too-light projectiles and excessive barrel wear, it is somewhat likely that the theoretical value of these larger weapons would have greatly exceeded their actual value. The British had no serious plans to build weapons larger than these 18" (45.7 cm) guns, and Sir Robert Hadfield of the famous steel company of that name was asked to stop talking about making APC shells of 20 or 21 inches (50.8 or 61 cm) as there was no interest in them by the British Admiralty. This may have been an effort by the British prior to the start of the Washington Naval Limitation Conference to keep other nations from starting a caliber race.

Since information on these never-built and never-completed guns is quite sketchy, the data for them is combined on this data page. The 16" (40.6 cm) guns that were intended for the "G3" class battlecruisers, but which instead wound up being used on the Nelson class battleships, are described separately under their own data page.

Although fabulously powerful ships are interesting to we arm-chair admirals, the RN seems to have a very clear and sober view of it's needs, which were in numbers, not individual superiority, thus their Washington proposal for 12-inch gun ships of 25,000 tons, maximum. If you look at the RN's cruiser program, you also see a careful sacrifice of unnecessary size and caliber to obtain the needed numbers.

Washington merely transferred capital ship status to cruisers, making underage battleships too valuable to risk under any circumstances short of utter defeat.

[Guest]

The N3 battleship might be built, but if the performance of Nelson's 16"/45 were any indication, its German inspired 18"/45 gun design would have been seriously inferior to the 18"/40 Furious guns in accuracy and barrel life precisely because of misguided devotion to German design practices learned after 1918.

[Werner]

The N3 battleship might be built, but if the performance of Nelson's 16"/45 were any indication, its German inspired 18"/45 gun design would have been seriously inferior to the 18"/40 Furious guns in accuracy and barrel life precisely because of misguided devotion to German design practices learned after 1918.

The 16-inch/45 is the result of a line of thinking which abandoned large calibers/low velocity (i.e., the 18-inch guns) for a high-velocity/light shell combination which appeared to show better results in early 1920 tests with the 13.5-inch gun. It is this "wandering off the reservation" that contributes to my belief that the 18-inch gun ships would not have been built.

[ar]

On the last three posts.
ALL of the battleship designs had 18" guns. Nothing less.
Nothing else was considered.
The final approved design was worked out in some detail.
So, if there had been no treaty and the RN had actually built any battleships ----.
See R&R.

[Werner]

So, if there had been no treaty and the RN had actually built any battleships ----.

On this I can agree. I do believe that it was politically and financially impossible to execute the program to construct new battleships. Even the USA, which had enough money and capacity to execute her war program (Lexington & South Dakota) lacked the political will. The ships were only started to coerce the other parties to the bargaining table. Within the decade, all the parties would be plunged by economic failure into a period of deep isolation. Under the circumstances, I imagine no more than one or two of these program ships would ever have been completed before they were overtaken by economic events.

[JWintjes]

So, if there had been no treaty and the RN had actually built any battleships ----.

On this I can agree. I do believe that it was politically and financially impossible to execute the program to construct new battleships. Even the USA, which had enough money and capacity to execute her war program (Lexington & South Dakota) lacked the political will. The ships were only started to coerce the other parties to the bargaining table.

I wonder whether that is actually so. We mustn't forget that unlike the USA or Japan, who enjoyed a more or less trouble-free period of capital-ship development, the RN by 1919 was rather behind when it came to having modern ships and latest technologies in front-line service. So the Invincibles (as I like to call the G3 design) as well as the N3s were actually not merely another step in an arms race, they were necessary to prevent the RN to be outclassed by US and Japanese construction.

And actually we're talking about an alternative Hood, which would have been a one-off anyway.

Oh, and perhaps ar could help me out here - have any plans of the alternative Hood designs been published?

Jorit

[Werner]

You're still considering the military view, and not the political and social situation. The people of the UK had just won "The War To End All Wars". What purpose do these ships serve in that case? The peace budget and the cost of demobilization would be on Parliament's mind, not another arms race.

[JWintjes]

You're still considering the military view, and not the political and social situation. The people of the UK had just won "The War To End All Wars". What purpose do these ships serve in that case? The peace budget and the cost of demobilization would be on Parliament's mind, not another arms race.

You have a point there of course.

But - Hood was built, and the Invincibles as well; actually, the cancellation of the Invincibles hit British industry pretty hard, causing lay-offs and all.

So I guess a 18in Hood would definitely have been possible, as would have been an upgunned Invincible based on that.

Jorit