Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Notable Point · 44:04-48:00

Three counterfactual tests for Fisher and treaty-era warships

The closing questions ask how an earlier return by Fisher, the absence of First World War combat experience, or a naval treaty delayed until 1930 might have changed capital-ship development.

Amagi Class BattlecruisersCapital ShipsCounterfactual HistoryG3 Class BattlecruisersJohn FisherKii Class BattleshipsLexington Class BattlecruisersN3 Class BattleshipsNaval ProcurementSouth Dakota Class Battleships (1920)Washington Naval TreatyWorld War I
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Notes

The closing section poses three counterfactual tests without claiming definitive answers. The first asks whether bringing Fisher into government earlier in 1914 as an adviser or defence coordinator would have changed British deterrence. The second removes the First World War's operational evidence and asks whether navies would have continued toward ships with enormous guns but too little rate of fire to exploit their range. The third imagines the Amagi, Kii, South Dakota, Lexington, G3, and N3 designs being built before a treaty settlement in 1930. Together the questions invite viewers to distinguish wartime lessons from the different national interpretations that shaped postwar design.