WI no HMS Hood

[Ramp-Rat]

What if no Hood, WI in 1919 the British had decieded not to build HMS Hood, experience from WWI seemed to show that BCs werent all that they were meant to be. So rather than rush ahead and finish her as in OTL, they just sit back have a cup of tea, and think things through.

Then in 1922, the Washington Treaty comes into force.

Rather than complete Hood she is scraped as is Almirant Cochrane/Eagle, along with one of the other Hood class BCs on the slip-ways. The other two are however built as Aircraft Carriers a-lar USS Lexington/Saratoga. Unlike these ships the British opt, for armored decks, but no 8in guns. The ships when fiished look similar to Eagle in OTL, with long narrow islands and two funnels.
So Britain has two large ACs and an independent FAA, where next.

As this is my first attempt at this sort of thing I stand ready to be ripped to shreds by those who are better and wiser than me at this, so go for it.

 

[tinfoil]

The biggest problem I see is that, other than a few visionaries, the world's navy's lessons from WWI was that the battleships were still the kings of the sea, and these had to be dreadnaughts.

The perceptions were that Jutland and other skirmishes were won by the battleships and heavy cruisers, and that only similar ships-of-the-line were ever going to be able to stand toe-to-toe with the enemy, and that all major naval engagements were going to be fought that way forever.

Ther navies WERE quick to seize airpower's advantages for scouting. But for this sort of POD to work, you have to add something like 'lucky bomb(s) dropping from an aircraft cripples a capital ship during the war' for this to make people notice.

Interesting thought though...

 

[Wozza]

It's plausible enough.

This all depends on your objectives here.

Do you want a very "historical" AH (as preferred by people like me.)
In this case you need to research, look into RN policy making in this period, see the extent to which this sort of thing was considered, and why it was rejected. Otherwise all you are saying is what you, a person with bags of hindsight and completely unaccountable individual decision making, would have done.
If you had actually been there of course, it is highly unlikely you would have done this (unless you produce the evidence showing some people agreed with you...

Or you might want a more creative AH, examining the consequences of your fun, but arbitrary, change.

 

[Redbeard]

Without Hood as the symbol of British naval supremacy (being the biggest, fastest and most handsome etc.), I believe the British will be much more sensitive to any challenge. The first serious challenge will be the Washington conference, where I doubt the British will accept the OTL result of parity with USA. USA on the other hand is not likely to accept anything less than parity, and has a big, but largely obsolescent, programme on the slips.

All in all I think Washngton Conf. end in a crisis and no treaty. USA builds the SoDaks and Lexingtons (as BC's), UK finishes the G3's and possibly the N3's and Japan's economy collapses not very far into the 8-8 programme. I seriously doubt if it comes to war, but after some years there will be another conference that finally limits the naval arms race. With G3's and N3's in their fleet the British will be far easier to deal with, as they feel the necessary prestige is preserved. If the building goes on beyond 1929 global economy will probably be better, as there will not be the same limits on public spending and hereby lessen the negative effects of OTL reactions on the crisis.

British Economy will have no problems in funding the G3's, and with the kind help of US Senators publicly condemming the Empire etc. the funding for N3's will follow smoothly. The US Navy Secretary will OTOH have a challenge when he must explain the Congress that all the ships he got in the early 20's now are nearly useless, and that he on top of that needs a huge number of cruisers.

In Germany a young Austrian utilises the booming economy to become a famous and popular artist. But from here on I've lost track of events...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Sorry about takeing so long to reply, poped out to the shops to post a few letters.

Tinfoil, i think you are missing the point, Hood was a Battlecruiser, not a Battleship, and after the BCs showing at Jutland, there were meany who thought that they werent worth the money. And from what ive read the wasington con was prity much a stich-up between the UK and US.

Wozza, what i am looking to do is find a road that advoids ASBs or flights of fancy, rather try to stick as close to the HTL as is possible, but were just a few flaps of the butterflies wings can cause the largest effect. From what little i have read, the decision to give all aircraft to the RAF wasnt cut and dried, there were meany desenting voices. And givern that the British had planed for a PH type attack on the German Fleet, in 1919, there were meany at the Admiralty who were air minded.

Redbeard, Hood only became a symbol after compleation.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I think its very likely that HMS Eagle would still be completed as a carrier. I believe that construction on HMS Hood was halted for a time. Its entirely likely that a few cool heads at Naval Intelligence could have scoffed at the time of the Germans continueing to build new battlecruisers in 1916-1918 and recommended scrapping the Hood in exchange for additional light cruisers for convey duty.

On the whole I would suspect that HMS Tiger may have been held onto longer and seen more radical reconstruction than IOTL. Without Hood the battlecruiser arm of the RN is limited to HMS Repulse and HMS Renown. Since the Hood never went in for any major overhaul thru out her lifetime, it appears that she was always being deployed to show the flag, she probably is of lesser value than the two Rs modernized.

Economics and politics dictates the Washington Conference.

Considering the possible conversion/completion of, say, HMS Anson and Howe as aircraft carriers its no stretch of the imagination. However, they wouldn't be completed with the armoured deck, that is strictly a hallmark of later British aircraft carriers. Neither HMS Hermes, Furious, Glorious and Courageous had similar decks. I don't think you can entirely butterfly away the incorporation of the RNAC into the RAF. There were many in the Royal Navy that recognized the potential of naval air power, but its the politicians that are setting policy.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

David I will go with the no armoured deck, Anson/Howe were laid down in 1937, were as Hood was 1916. As by 1937 there was a fair design for an AC ie Ark why go for a convershion, given its poor Aircraft to tonage ratio?
Yes lets keep Tiger better ship in meany ways than Hood, but as there was a limit, under Wasington to number of conversions scrap Eagle.
With regard to the Independent Air Force, and subsequent RFC/RNAS merger, the politicans need advice. If the advice is all land based Aircraft, including airships to the RAF, but ship based stay with the navy; thats proberbly what would have hapend. What RAF pilot wants to be all on his own with no chums to play with, stuck on a cruiser, only alowd to fly when the captain says he can.

 

[Andrei]

What was wrong with HMS Hood? From what I've read , she was a good ship , and was pretty useful at Oran , but the Bismark was too powerful for her , well , because the Bismark was a battelship , not a battle cruiser.
What do you think it would have happened if the Bismark had been intercepted by HMS Rodney or HMS King George V ( best British battleships ? ) instead of HMS Hood ?

Anyway I think that HMS Hood was finished way too early to be converted into a carrier.

 

[David S Poepoe]

David I will go with the no armoured deck, Anson/Howe were laid down in 1937, were as Hood was 1916. As by 1937 there was a fair design for an AC ie Ark why go for a convershion, given its poor Aircraft to tonage ratio?

Ramp-Rat, you surprise me. Here you go raising the WI of no HMS Hood yet you remain entirely ignorant of the fact that the three other members of the class (really half-sisters) were to be named Anson, Howe and Rodney.

Without the larger Hood total tonnage permitted under the Washington Treaty may allow the inclusion of HMS Eagle.

Royal Naval ship design is so constricted by politics and finances during the 1930s that it will take a bit of fudging to get a decent aircraft carrier. There is also the difference between Royal Navy carrier development philosophy and the US which is pretty interesting.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Anyway I think that HMS Hood was finished way too early to be converted into a carrier.

The idea here is that the Hood is scrapped on the slipways and never launched. Her sister ships may be completed as aircraft carriers.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Andrei, first the idea is not to convert Hood, rather to convert two of her proposed sister ships into cariers, Hood will be scraped. You ask whats wrong with her, basicaly its her deck amour, at only 3in 76mm unlike KGV 6in 152mm, at long range subjeted to plunging fire she is a death trap. And as a BC she is meant to fight a long range.
You ask what would have happend if Bismarck had come up against Rodney or KGV, well lets do a little comparison.
Bismarck, 8x15in guns side armour 12.6in deck 4.7in speed 29kts
Rodney, 9x16in guns side armour 14in deck 6.25in speed 23kts
KGV, 10x14in guns side armour 14in deck 6in speed 27,5kts.

In OTL POW straddled Bismarck with her first salvo, but unlike KGV was not yet fully worked up, still had dock-yard staff on board, up against KGV fully worked up different story. As it was Nelson, Rodneys sister ship that pounded
Bismarck to a pulp in the end, all Bismarck can do on meeting this bruiser is turn and run.
I hope this helps.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Sorry

David, I can only apologise, my referance materal only states that there were two be four ships in the class, not the names; nor does it state wether any of the other three were laid down.
Next time I will try to get more of my ducks in line before posting.

 

[Andrei]

Andrei, first the idea is not to convert Hood, rather to convert two of her proposed sister ships into cariers, Hood will be scraped. You ask whats wrong with her, basicaly its her deck amour, at only 3in 76mm unlike KGV 6in 152mm, at long range subjeted to plunging fire she is a death trap. And as a BC she is meant to fight a long range.
You ask what would have happend if Bismarck had come up against Rodney or KGV, well lets do a little comparison.
Bismarck, 8x15in guns side armour 12.6in deck 4.7in speed 29kts
Rodney, 9x16in guns side armour 14in deck 6.25in speed 23kts
KGV, 10x14in guns side armour 14in deck 6in speed 27,5kts.

In OTL POW straddled Bismarck with her first salvo, but unlike KGV was not yet fully worked up, still had dock-yard staff on board, up against KGV fully worked up different story. As it was Nelson, Rodneys sister ship that pounded
Bismarck to a pulp in the end, all Bismarck can do on meeting this bruiser is turn and run.
I hope this helps.

Thanks for the informations.

So , converting Hood's sister ships into carriers could help the British in WWII , in the battle of the Atlantic , but I don't think that two more carriers would help them keep Singapore , because those Swordfish airplanes were no match for the Japanese Zeros.
But maybe if the British had focused more on carriers they could have developed some good planes for the navy before 1941.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

David, like I said I am very new to all this, and I welcome your critic, as it helps me to think.
With regard to the question of Eagle, from my understanding of the treaty, while there was a total tonage limit, there was also a limit on convershions; and this was two, for UK, US and Japan. Plus as the tonage limits for BB/BCs was seperate to that for ACs, the scraping of Hood should make no differanc.
the reason I proposed scraping Hood was to save money, to help pay for the convershions, she could in fact be compleated with out eating into the AC tonage.
As to the differanc between the US and UK oporating policy, part of this was the differant areas of conflict envisoned, and part the size of there respective ships. With the UK haveing larger ships to play, with might they have developed a more US type philosophy,as to the use of cariers.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Swordfish

Andrie, two quick point.
1 The Swordfish was a torpedo/bomber not a fighter.
2 By 1941 the British did have somthing better than that to put up against the Zero, though truth is not much better.

However you are getting the idea, with the RN haveing two large CVs, and keeping controle of its own air arm, you might have it with something a lot better in this TL, than it did in our. As for Singapore, that presurposes that one or both ships are still afloat.

 

[David S Poepoe]

With regard to the question of Eagle, from my understanding of the treaty, while there was a total tonage limit, there was also a limit on convershions; and this was two, for UK, US and Japan. Plus as the tonage limits for BB/BCs was seperate to that for ACs, the scraping of Hood should make no differance.the reason I proposed scraping Hood was to save money, to help pay for the convershions, she could in fact be compleated with out eating into the AC tonage.

Good points. But something is going to have to be done for the British to accept parity with the US. Without the Hood there is alot of tonnage that can be used elsewhere. The options are that the new total may be the OTL amount minus Hood, and the US loses one additional ship. The vacancy of the Hood has to be filled somehow.

The scraping of the Hood makes a big difference since now at the WTC talks the Royal Navy is composed of a force entirely of Great War veterans.

 

[David S Poepoe]

With regard to the question of Eagle, from my understanding of the treaty, while there was a total tonage limit, there was also a limit on convershions; and this was two, for UK, US and Japan. Plus as the tonage limits for BB/BCs was seperate to that for ACs, the scraping of Hood should make no differance.the reason I proposed scraping Hood was to save money, to help pay for the convershions, she could in fact be compleated with out eating into the AC tonage.

Good points. But something is going to have to be done for the British to accept parity with the US. Without the Hood there is alot of tonnage that can be used elsewhere. The options are that the new total may be the OTL amount minus Hood, and the US loses one additional ship. The vacancy of the Hood has to be filled somehow.

The scraping of the Hood makes a big difference since now at the WTC talks the Royal Navy is composed of a force entirely of Great War veterans.

 

[David S Poepoe]

With regard to the question of Eagle, from my understanding of the treaty, while there was a total tonage limit, there was also a limit on convershions; and this was two, for UK, US and Japan. Plus as the tonage limits for BB/BCs was seperate to that for ACs, the scraping of Hood should make no differance.the reason I proposed scraping Hood was to save money, to help pay for the convershions, she could in fact be compleated with out eating into the AC tonage.

Good points. But something is going to have to be done for the British to accept parity with the US. Without the Hood there is alot of tonnage that can be used elsewhere. The options are that the new total may be the OTL amount minus Hood, and the US loses one additional ship. The vacancy of the Hood has to be filled somehow.

The scraping of the Hood makes a big difference since now at the WTC talks the Royal Navy is composed of a force entirely of Great War veterans.

 

[David S Poepoe]

With regard to the question of Eagle, from my understanding of the treaty, while there was a total tonage limit, there was also a limit on convershions; and this was two, for UK, US and Japan. Plus as the tonage limits for BB/BCs was seperate to that for ACs, the scraping of Hood should make no differance.the reason I proposed scraping Hood was to save money, to help pay for the convershions, she could in fact be compleated with out eating into the AC tonage.

Good points. But something is going to have to be done for the British to accept parity with the US. Without the Hood there is alot of tonnage that can be used elsewhere. The options are that the new total may be the OTL amount minus Hood, and the US loses one additional ship. The vacancy of the Hood has to be filled somehow.

The scraping of the Hood makes a big difference since now at the WTC talks the Royal Navy is composed of a force entirely of Great War veterans.

 

[Andrei]

Andrie, two quick point.
1 The Swordfish was a torpedo/bomber not a fighter.
2 By 1941 the British did have somthing better than that to put up against the Zero, though truth is not much better.

However you are getting the idea, with the RN haveing two large CVs, and keeping controle of its own air arm, you might have it with something a lot better in this TL, than it did in our. As for Singapore, that presurposes that one or both ships are still afloat.

1) Sorry about that , I wanted to say that the Zeroes would have shot down the Swordfish airplanes rather easy , before they could launch their torpedoes against the Japanese ships . Although the Swordfish scored some spectacular hits on the Italian fleet in Taranto and crippled the Bismark , I always thought of them as being outclassed by the planes the Americans and Japanese have used in WWII.

2) What if the British had developed a navy version of the Spitfire ( soon enough ) ? I think they would have been more succesful against the Japanese if they had had a good navy fighter to protect their fleet , rather than mounting some obsolete torpedo-bombers ( or fighters ) on their carriers.

Even in this case , the RN would have been outnumbered in the Pacific ( IIRC the Japanese had 10 carriers in 1941 ) and would probably have been defeated , even with 2 carriers to support HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse , but the Japanese would have suffered greater casualties than in OTL and the war in the Pacific might have ended sooner.