Foreign Response to a Different RN

Hi all,

I am looking for some feedback on a portion of a TL I am (very slowly) working on. TL is more of less a Britiwank going all the way back to the mid 19th Century. My aim is to try and build a logical and reasonable (and hopefully interesting) story even while hitting many of the standard Britiwank tropes by using lots of research into the background.

In this case, I need some help figuring out the possible responses of rival navies to some of the changes I have made to the RN. Specifically, in the time from immediately before WW1 to WW2. As mentioned, my original POD is pre-1900, but nothing I am posting here is completely dependent on the Pre-1900 portion. Some of it requires more money than they had OTL, but I view one of the consolations of trying to do a detailed TL spanning over 150 years to be the use of compound interest in your favour. So, more money is available (though its not infinite)

I am perfectly happy to discuss my reasoning for the changes I have made, but I am looking primarily specifically for the probable foreign response. Rest assured I have not made any changes here without some level of research, though it is certainly still possible that I am out to lunch on some things.

So, starting with the Battleships WW1:
(NOTE:
If any of you are familiar with the All the Worlds Battlecruisers board, you will likely recognize some of these ideas from there. In particular, John French's work has been a heavy influence.)

Elevation
All RN battleships since the introduction of 13.5" guns have been given 30 degrees of elevation adding approximately 5000 metres to 15”-gun range and approximately 4000 metres to 14”-gun ranges. Theoretically. Actual ranges more dependent on the abilities of FC equipment.

Secondary Battery
I am considering replacing the 6" Casemated secondaries in all ships that have them with 4" Anti-Torpedo Boat guns on the upper deck with splinter protection. I am not sure they were really useful, and they add a considerable amount of weight. If designed with more space on the upper deck for the 4" that may also allow them to be more easily replaced with turreted secondaries in later refits. Later in the war a new 4.7" secondary is developed in preference to the 5" of OTL as a larger secondary to deal with larger surface threats (an AA variant is also developed late war but not installed until post war designs)

Iron Duke Class
Completed with same armour and main armament but early in the design process the Board is convinced to build them as oil firing. Since this is expected to raise speed to 23-24 knots, they decide to lengthen the hull without lengthening the machinery spaces to try and make 25 knots (which they do, but little more). This would allow them to operate with the Invincible class BC if necessary, but their primary role is to be a fast wing for the main battle fleet. Ordered 1911, Laid down 1912, all 4 commissioned 1914. Cost of extra length balanced by savings of building for all oil from the start.

Queen Elizabeth Class
Armour and main armament as OTL. Designed as oil firing from the outset, with small tube boilers and geared turbines (from Charles Parsons new creeping gear cutter, invented the same year) for a design speed of 28.5 knots (technically classified as a Battlecruiser). Redesigned when added requirements increase design displacement to 29,000 tons to ensure hull is not overloaded. QC maintained on weight of fittings keeps final ship from greatly exceeding design displacement. They make between 28 and 28.5 knots on trials. Ordered 1912, Commissioned between 1914 and 1916. 4 ordered initially with Malaya paying for one more. Costs of extra gear somewhat balanced by savings of designing for oil from the start.

Revenge Class
With increased naval estimates, Revenges are built to design U1 (25 knots, 27,000 tons with coal and oil sprayed boilers, showing that the QE's were kind of let down by their design IOTL). The need to increase to 5 ships from 4 are eaten rather than going for a less capable design. 8 x 15” guns slightly better protected than the QE's. When Fisher returns in October 1914 (which he does but under slightly different circumstances) he changes them to oil firing, and has the engineering changed to fit. This gains around 2 knots for a 26.5-27 knot speed. Intended to supplement Iron Dukes as fast wing of battlefleet but can operate with BCs if needed. Ordered 1913, 4 Commissioned 1915, Ramillies commissioned 1916. Cost increased over OTL by approximately 215,000 Pounds/ship (It appears that in OTL the reduced cost R's were still a fair bit more expensive than they should have been based on building 5 rather than 4. So, the increased cost is not as great as it could be)

Agincourt Class
With the increased speed of recent front-line units opinion on future direction in the Admiralty is divided. A few members favour a return to 21 knot battleships to maintain consistency with older units and keep from invalidating the speed advantage of older BC's (the fact that it is cheaper and no one else has pushed for a faster battle line are good arguments too). A larger group now favour transitioning to a 25-knot battle line with 30 knot BC's. And there are a growing group that are tempted by the idea of a 28-knot battle line. The Agincourt class is due to the influence of the latter two groups. Built to a modified version of Design Y, oil fires, small tube boilers and geared turbines (as is becoming standard). The change to machinery allows the ship to be slightly smaller than Design Y while regaining the 13" belt armour of the QE's (nullifying some of the original objections to the design). 8 x 15" guns and 30 knots speed. In many ways a slightly improved QE but designed as an improved Tiger. Either a BC for a 25-knot future battle line or a over-fast member of a future 28 knot battle line. 4 ordered in 1914 with another paid for by Canada. Initially delayed by the outbreak of war, they are restarted by Fisher and commissioned in 1916/1917. Cost approximately 2.4 M Pounds each. I am still working out the details of slip availability so number and commissioning dates may change.

WW1
- Basing is slightly different than OTL. The Humber area is developed as the main fleet base in the North rather than Rosyth. It has better facilities and rail links than Rosyth and plenty of room. It is not any further from the likely action (it might be closer). It is developed more pre-war (since it doesn't need to be built from scratch) and has stronger defenses (harder for U-boats to try and penetrate).

- Scapa Flow is still (under) developed and is used by the blockade forces supported by the 12" gunned Dreadnoughts and late PD's.

- 13.5" gunned ships (of which there are more ITTL) but I am still working out the progression) form the Grand Fleet with the Iron Dukes forming a fast wing (eventually supplemented by the Revenge class). The Lions (of which there are 6) form the BCF (with Older BC's initially, replaced by the QE's and Agincourt's as they commission).

-Older BC's are maintained on trade defense for the early part of the war and built up in the Mediterranean once the trade lanes are considered clear of surface raiders.

-A.K Wilson is returned to the Admiralty and becomes theater commander for the North Sea Area. Being based at the Humber with direct telegraph link he is given full access to all Room 40 Intelligence related to his theater and manages the operational movements of the fleets to bring them into contact with the enemy. Jellicoe is responsible for fleet training and is commander afloat. He manages the Tactical command of the fleet from the Grand Fleet (probably Iron Duke though possibly Orion with Iron Duke commanding the Grand Fleet Fast Wing). Hood commands the BCF.

-With 8 heavy BC's (Lions and 2 QE's) at the start of the war 1SG already has difficulty operating without the HSF close as backup. They still may get in some raids in the early war, but a chance of a major encounter goes up considerably as the odds against them increase (11 Heavy BC's with the QE's and 16 once the Agincourt's join) and any action requires the entire HSF.

-Exactly how the naval war goes depends a bit on the responses you guys think the Germans might make.

Admiral Class
With the idea of a fast battle line alive and well with the Admiralty Board, two designs are submitted in 1915 for the follow-on battleship. One for a 25-knot ship improving on the original Revenge and the other is a 30-knot or better fast battleship. The design process lasts with revisions lasts until February 1916 when 4 ships are ordered. The final design is a 43,000-ton ship capable of 32 knots with 150,000 shp. It is armed with 12 x 15” guns in 4 triple turrets and armoured to an equal level to the QE’s. Wartime experience leads to the design being modified during construction with better flash protection and slightly increased deck protection to a uniform 9”. 4 ships are ordered in February and laid down in March. Of the 4, Only one (HMS Hood) was launched when the German resumption of Unrestricted Submarine warfare requires all possible shipyard capacity be moved to escorts and merchant shipping. Work on Hood is continued at a slower pace while the other 3 ships are suspended.

HMS Hood completes construction in December of 1918, and commissions into the fleet the next year. On trials she slightly exceeds her design speed, making 32.5 knots. Her sisters fate I will cover in another post.


So, any thoughts on the lineup or (especially) the foreign response to all of this? Other ship classes for WW1 will follow.
 
Last edited:
In this case, I need some help figuring out the possible responses of rival navies to some of the changes I have made to the RN. Specifically, in the time from immediately before WW1 to WW2.
The issue I think you will have is that WWI will be significantly different and therefore everything after that.....

QE that can do 28.5 knots (and fast IDs) make the German BC all very vulnerable to any operation in the North Sea, and the North Sea was the most important sea based theatre of WWI, so I would expect a different WWI with changes from OTL not just in fleet actions but also Uboats and the declaration of USW etc that might change the timeline of US involvement etc.......
 
The issue I think you will have is that WWI will be significantly different and therefore everything after that.....

QE that can do 28.5 knots (and fast IDs) make the German BC all very vulnerable to any operation in the North Sea, and the North Sea was the most important sea based theatre of WWI, so I would expect a different WWI with changes from OTL not just in fleet actions but also Uboats and the declaration of USW etc that might change the timeline of US involvement etc.......
Very true, and partially why I am making this thread. As I said, I don’t think 1SG can sortie much past the start of 1915 without the HSF as backup. So, are the Germans likely to try and accelerate their building programs to compensate, or give up and cut them to focus on the army? If they have to use the entire fleet, when are they likely to try it? Since this would require more preparation before a sortie, would this make it easier for Room 40 to pick up on them?
 
First off are there any major diplomatic changes.
I've a project of my own with a bit of Britwank starting in the 1870s. The start has a number of German and American commercial agents arrested in India for corruption charges. At the time corruption in India was high so the charges would be true but it leads to a fall in both American and German exports to India. The fall in German exports to India is semi permanent especially after another group of German commercial agents get arrested on corruption charges around 1900. American exports to India recovers somewhat in the 1890s.

As a result there is increased tension between Britain and Germany. As such Germany won't just cut and run to focus on the army even though it would make sense to do so.

I have plans that a thesis becomes popular in Germany before 1910 that despite a desire to compete with the Royal Navy it would not be conventionally possible. Therefore bases in Norway, Belgian and Netherlands would be crucial in a war with UK to allow the forward basing of submarines and light units like destroyers to stretch the Royal Navy. There is also a plan to quickly set up coastal fortifications to protect these bases.

A mid 19th century allows plenty of time for German shipbuilding to be improved which would allow Germany to compete more equitably with Britain. OTL Germany would not be able to compete with that sort fo Royal Navy building program.

Perhaps German planning might be to recognise that they need a distraction and to ask the Austrians to make sure they have a combined plan with the Italians for naval actions war with the UK.
 
Last edited:
On the changing from mixed to fully oil fired....are you having dual fired boilers modified for oil only or oil only boilers from the start?

Also propellor design was noted as being important for the higher powers you are now getting.
 
On the changing from mixed to fully oil fired....are you having dual fired boilers modified for oil only or oil only boilers from the start?

Also propellor design was noted as being important for the higher powers you are now getting.
Oil fired only I think. Though the Iron Dukes might be modified dual fired. I have been thinking of the later versions of the Yarrow, with the lower tanks raised off the floor. Early introduction of the Admiralty boiler is probably going too far. I am less familiar with the modifications necessary for the Babock and Wilcox, which was kind of the standard for BB's and BC's at this time.
 
As I said, I don’t think 1SG can sortie much past the start of 1915 without the HSF as backup.
Even with it they are going to be blind without scouting and so at huge risk from the larger RN......
So, are the Germans likely to try and accelerate their building programs to compensate, or give up and cut them to focus on the army?
I don't think they can do much without an earlier departure, not that they will want to spend it on the army so just a less active Navy and therefore more pressure to go for Uboats raiding earlier?
 
It's important to note that you have a lot of capital ship construction planned.

I think you need to step back and plan step by step including the foreign response.

Britain won't build 4 Iron Dukes 6 Lions 4 QE battleships etc if Germany have anadoned the navy (assuming the Germans are the main threat).
 
With the 30 degree elevation, I think the low elevation with its attendant 'limited' range was more about the fire control and range finding than the guns themselves. IIRC the longest range gun hits were at the start of WW2 at about 25,000m which is considerably below the ~30,000m range of the 15" gun and with 25 years advances in fire control and range finding technology. IIUC in WW1 the optics available to the British were considerably inferior to the Germans, something about an 8' base compared to a 20' base for range finding and the British were using the ranging shot and straddle method whereas the Germans used the up/down ladder method of finding range which meant at Jutland they managed to land the first hits.

As for the rest of it, there are some big technical risks involved with some of your proposals, which is why such 'wank' ships don't get built until after these technologies are proven.

I like the idea that Germany recognises that it's naval geography is as much a limiting factor as its fleet, which should make improving it an campaign aim prior to the war and that would make it a near certainty to happen.
 
I am assuming that there was some elementary hydrodynamic testing for hull shape to help determine maximum speed of the ship when launched. When did they find out about the flat transom? The bow, like the Yamamoto had comes to mind as well.
 
It's important to note that you have a lot of capital ship construction planned.

I think you need to step back and plan step by step including the foreign response.

Britain won't build 4 Iron Dukes 6 Lions 4 QE battleships etc if Germany have anadoned the navy (assuming the Germans are the main threat).
I am still working out some of the details of the Pre-Dreadnought and early Dreadnought era. Broadly I think that the numbers should remain roughly the same as OTL, just with some qualitative improvements. Definitely those changes could derail some or all of what I am doing here.

However, absent such a derailment, the only part I am concerned about is the Battlecruisers. I have considered making the Indefatigable class the heavier and more capable version that was considered in OTL (actually kind of a slightly improved Von der Tann) and possibly having a couple more purchased by dominions (1 for South Africa and 2 for India was probably the most extravagant plan I have considered). Where this could be a "problem" in relation to what I have written above, is that AIUI Fishers demands for battlecruisers instead of the Iron Dukes (which eventually led to a proposal for oil firing the current design, and kind of kicks off my "fast battleship evolution") was spurred on bay a lack of heavy battle cruisers to combat the German BC's. With more and better Indefatigables around it is possible this whole series of events does not get kicked off. Of course, it is Fisher, so there is a fair chance he still pushes for continual iteration.

The Lions are based on a speculative comment by John French that caught my interest. He mentioned that the Colossus class were probably indicative of resistance in the Board to Fishers attempts to introduce the 13.5" gun, which he had pushed for for some time. He speculates that the Colossus class being ordered may have cost the RN on 2 more Lion types. I basically took this speculation on board and added two Lions in place of the Colossus class. So technically there are two less BB's to make up for the two more BC's.

With the 30 degree elevation, I think the low elevation with its attendant 'limited' range was more about the fire control and range finding than the guns themselves. IIRC the longest range gun hits were at the start of WW2 at about 25,000m which is considerably below the ~30,000m range of the 15" gun and with 25 years advances in fire control and range finding technology. IIUC in WW1 the optics available to the British were considerably inferior to the Germans, something about an 8' base compared to a 20' base for range finding and the British were using the ranging shot and straddle method whereas the Germans used the up/down ladder method of finding range which meant at Jutland they managed to land the first hits.
Its true the limitation would be the fire control. Though I have made some steps in that direction on this one (offscreen at the moment), it will still be WW1 levels of accuracy. The change is elevation is more a matter of it being a low cost change to both the guns and the turret systems that could come in handy and would be very helpful in the post war period (not that they know that at this point).

As for the rest of it, there are some big technical risks involved with some of your proposals, which is why such 'wank' ships don't get built until after these technologies are proven.
True, there are some risks. Oil firing is mostly a risk because their strategic supply is not assured. I have increased that somewhat, but it is still a concern. I have also changed the RN's strategic reserve from 1 years peacetime steaming to 2 (this was suggested by at least one comittee IOTL). This gives them a little more confidence in Oil fired ships. They are actually cheaper to both build and operate when compared to Coal fired ships. At least when they are designed that way from the outset. Churchill asked the Yards about this for Tiger, and was told that it would save 100,000 pounds. The DNC's notes on Design Y note that it would be 25,000 pounds cheaper to build as all oil.

The small tube boilers are kind of a case of the constructors department winning their case over the Engineer in Chief. The E in C didn't like them as they increased maintenance frequency and cost. That is a valid concern, but if the tactical and strategic advantages of a more compact power plant are considered worth the cost, I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility.

The Geared turbines do add to the cost (balancing out the savings from all oil firing). But the invention of Parson's creeping gear cutter in 1912 makes the acceptance of it much easier. Until then it is possible, but will likely lead to as many maintenance issues as the boilers. After 1912 it is a much earlier sell, particularly considering the near insane level of credibility that Parson had at that point. I have considered trying to move up this invention but that may be pushing it.

I am assuming that there was some elementary hydrodynamic testing for hull shape to help determine maximum speed of the ship when launched. When did they find out about the flat transom? The bow, like the Yamamoto had comes to mind as well.
They had been doing tank testing at the Admiralty Experiment Works at Halsar since 1886 and before that at Torquay since 1870.

Not sure on when the flat Transom became commonly known, but I think it existed in some form already at this point. I assume there was another reason for not utilizing it.

I am personally partial to the flared bow that Renown, Repulse and Hood and the Courageous class got. Apparently at one point one of the Courageous class ( not sure which one) was steaming through heavy seas at 30 knots and didn't even realize how bad the sea state was. There was a disciplinary hearing about it since they were going so fast in such bad seas that any accompanying ships would have been broken in half trying to keep up with them.
 
Here's a an odd view about fire control that one Royal Navy admiral suggested.

Range is Fire Control.

At an extreme range its an easy way to waste ammunition in my opinion but it is beneficial if you can start trying to find a range before your enemy can fire.

If the enemy is fleeing I suppose you can lob shells at extreme range in his direction even if you don't want to chase. Being able to fire an extra dozen salvos at a fleaing enemy can be a good thing. For one thing it might make sure he keeps running.
 
Range is Fire Control.
Would definitely agree with that. The Guns on many Predreadnoughts could engage well out to 20,000 yards in some cases. Yet 5000 yards was EXTREME long range for much of this period.


Where the increased range becomes really useful is actually on smaller naval guns. When the maximum range is still within range of contemporary fire control. 9.2” and smaller. Larger guns could possibly still benefit in certain rare cases but much of the benefit is lost


First off are there any major diplomatic changes.
I've a project of my own with a bit of Britwank starting in the 1870s. The start has a number of German and American commercial agents arrested in India for corruption charges. At the time corruption in India was high so the charges would be true but it leads to a fall in both American and German exports to India. The fall in German exports to India is semi permanent especially after another group of German commercial agents get arrested on corruption charges around 1900. American exports to India recovers somewhat in the 1890s.

As a result there is increased tension between Britain and Germany. As such Germany won't just cut and run to focus on the army even though it would make sense to do so.

I have plans that a thesis becomes popular in Germany before 1910 that despite a desire to compete with the Royal Navy it would not be conventionally possible. Therefore bases in Norway, Belgian and Netherlands would be crucial in a war with UK to allow the forward basing of submarines and light units like destroyers to stretch the Royal Navy. There is also a plan to quickly set up coastal fortifications to protect these bases.

A mid 19th century allows plenty of time for German shipbuilding to be improved which would allow Germany to compete more equitably with Britain. OTL Germany would not be able to compete with that sort fo Royal Navy building program.

Perhaps German planning might be to recognise that they need a distraction and to ask the Austrians to make sure they have a combined plan with the Italians for naval actions war with the UK.
I didn’t mention it earlier, but it sounds interesting! Not the way that I am trying to go, but I hope you get it finished so I can read it.
 
Tiger was laid down 1912? You could use it as a technology demonstrator for the flared bow, square transom, oil fired, small boilers, and various other advances. Atlantic bow also comes to mind. The RN has done things like this before.
 
Okay, so for a German response they didn't confirm until 1910 that the Lions were going to mount 13.5" guns and enhanced armor. This means their response has to start with the Derfflinger class, with Seydlitz remaining as designed. However, examining the design history of Derfflinger and Lutzow, those two are likely to be built as designed.

However, Lutzow was also the first time German battlecruiser orders were freed from the confines of the 1906 Naval Law, and in fact Lutzow was funded in an amendment. There's scope to fund additional Derfflinger-class at the time to counter two extra Lions.

Where big changes come is with Hindenburg, Ersatz Hertha. There was consideration to arming her with 35cm guns; this was not taken up because a completely new design was to be avoided at all costs and a ship with 35cm guns in a Derfflinger hull would sacrifice considerable armor protection. However, with more British battlecruisers and intel coming in about the fast Iron Dukes and also the Queen Elizabeths, they might just bite the bullet and go to 35cm guns early.

The Mackensen class, meanwhile, are going to have 38cm guns from the start, though timing-wise I doubt they can be built any earlier.

To my mind the Germans are the primary change here. The Japanese are allies and maxing out their finances anyway; Italy, Austria, and France are building against each other; the Russians are still re-learning how to ship; and the Americans are still operating with a defensive mindset with Congress unlikely to fund cruiser construction in addition to OTL BB construction.

Admiral Class
With the idea of a fast battle line alive and well with the Admiralty Board, two designs are submitted in 1915 for the follow-on battleship. One for a 25-knot ship improving on the original Revenge and the other is a 30-knot or better fast battleship. The design process lasts with revisions lasts until February 1916 when 4 ships are ordered. The final design is a 43,000-ton ship capable of 32 knots with 150,000 shp. It is armed with 12 x 15” guns in 4 triple turrets and armoured to an equal level to the QE’s. Wartime experience leads to the design being modified during construction with better flash protection and slightly increased deck protection to a uniform 9”. 4 ships are ordered in February and laid down in March. Of the 4, Only one (HMS Hood) was launched when the German resumption of Unrestricted Submarine warfare requires all possible shipyard capacity be moved to escorts and merchant shipping. Work on Hood is continued at a slower pace while the other 3 ships are suspended.
Que?!?!
 
Sorry, my bad. I meant the equivalent protection of 9" from plunging fire. That is as OTL, just it was spread between multiple armoured decks.

the Americans are still operating with a defensive mindset with Congress unlikely to fund cruiser construction in addition to OTL BB construction.
And how about post war? Would the US be content with the OTL Washington Naval treaty if the British Battle line is likely entirely fast BB's?
 
I am still working out some of the details of the Pre-Dreadnought and early Dreadnought era. Broadly I think that the numbers should remain roughly the same as OTL, just with some qualitative improvements. Definitely those changes could derail some or all of what I am doing here.

However, absent such a derailment, the only part I am concerned about is the Battlecruisers. I have considered making the Indefatigable class the heavier and more capable version that was considered in OTL (actually kind of a slightly improved Von der Tann) and possibly having a couple more purchased by dominions (1 for South Africa and 2 for India was probably the most extravagant plan I have considered). Where this could be a "problem" in relation to what I have written above, is that AIUI Fishers demands for battlecruisers instead of the Iron Dukes (which eventually led to a proposal for oil firing the current design, and kind of kicks off my "fast battleship evolution") was spurred on bay a lack of heavy battle cruisers to combat the German BC's. With more and better Indefatigables around it is possible this whole series of events does not get kicked off. Of course, it is Fisher, so there is a fair chance he still pushes for continual iteration.

The Lions are based on a speculative comment by John French that caught my interest. He mentioned that the Colossus class were probably indicative of resistance in the Board to Fishers attempts to introduce the 13.5" gun, which he had pushed for for some time. He speculates that the Colossus class being ordered may have cost the RN on 2 more Lion types. I basically took this speculation on board and added two Lions in place of the Colossus class. So technically there are two less BB's to make up for the two more BC's.


Its true the limitation would be the fire control. Though I have made some steps in that direction on this one (offscreen at the moment), it will still be WW1 levels of accuracy. The change is elevation is more a matter of it being a low cost change to both the guns and the turret systems that could come in handy and would be very helpful in the post war period (not that they know that at this point).


True, there are some risks. Oil firing is mostly a risk because their strategic supply is not assured. I have increased that somewhat, but it is still a concern. I have also changed the RN's strategic reserve from 1 years peacetime steaming to 2 (this was suggested by at least one comittee IOTL). This gives them a little more confidence in Oil fired ships. They are actually cheaper to both build and operate when compared to Coal fired ships. At least when they are designed that way from the outset. Churchill asked the Yards about this for Tiger, and was told that it would save 100,000 pounds. The DNC's notes on Design Y note that it would be 25,000 pounds cheaper to build as all oil.

The small tube boilers are kind of a case of the constructors department winning their case over the Engineer in Chief. The E in C didn't like them as they increased maintenance frequency and cost. That is a valid concern, but if the tactical and strategic advantages of a more compact power plant are considered worth the cost, I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility.

The Geared turbines do add to the cost (balancing out the savings from all oil firing). But the invention of Parson's creeping gear cutter in 1912 makes the acceptance of it much easier. Until then it is possible, but will likely lead to as many maintenance issues as the boilers. After 1912 it is a much earlier sell, particularly considering the near insane level of credibility that Parson had at that point. I have considered trying to move up this invention but that may be pushing it.


They had been doing tank testing at the Admiralty Experiment Works at Halsar since 1886 and before that at Torquay since 1870.

Not sure on when the flat Transom became commonly known, but I think it existed in some form already at this point. I assume there was another reason for not utilizing it.

I am personally partial to the flared bow that Renown, Repulse and Hood and the Courageous class got. Apparently at one point one of the Courageous class ( not sure which one) was steaming through heavy seas at 30 knots and didn't even realize how bad the sea state was. There was a disciplinary hearing about it since they were going so fast in such bad seas that any accompanying ships would have been broken in half trying to keep up with them.
Flat transoms tended to make for a wider turning radius, didn't they?
 
And how about post war? Would the US be content with the OTL Washington Naval treaty if the British Battle line is likely entirely fast BB's?
Nope! All else being equal, the US is behind now in second-gen dreadnought battleships, 19 to 13. They're not likely to accept that, while the Brits won't accept being the only major power without battleships with 16" guns and Japan won't accept anything less than 60% of American tonnage. It's unlikely they'll be able to square all the circles to sign a treaty.

I should also note that if the same delays hit the South Dakota and Lexington classes they're liable to be consolidated into a fast battleship design similar to what was drawn up around 1920/1921. 12 16" guns, 30 knots, 53,000+ tons. These were not proceeded with due to concerns about obsoleting their entire battle fleet, but the Royal Navy being so flush with fast battleships means that concern goes out the window.
 
And how about post war? Would the US be content with the OTL Washington Naval treaty if the British Battle line is likely entirely fast BB's?
Depends on Congress, but even Lodge would go for Tillman IVB if the RN tried to pull the FBL and then the RN would be Bohicaed.
 
The Lions are based on a speculative comment by John French that caught my interest. He mentioned that the Colossus class were probably indicative of resistance in the Board to Fishers attempts to introduce the 13.5" gun, which he had pushed for for some time. He speculates that the Colossus class being ordered may have cost the RN on 2 more Lion types. I basically took this speculation on board and added two Lions in place of the Colossus class. So technically there are two less BB's to make up for the two more BC's.

Did wonder if you were going to make use of that, it is an interesting comment of John's.
 
Top