Dreadnoughts that Almost Were of the WWI Era...

The opening asks how naval history changes when ships already in production are completed rather than cancelled.

They might use battlecruisers or revive heavy armoured cruisers that were dangerous enough to deter a battlecruiser without costing as much as a battleship.

A great many, but ammunition storage would set the practical limit.

Yes, if it has sufficient communications and data systems.

France and possibly Austria-Hungary were plausible customers, while Germany became unacceptable once its Navy Laws made the anti-British purpose of its fleet clear.

The Borodino-class battlecruisers are assessed as potentially valuable Soviet fast capital ships if their boilers and armament were modernized.

Italian design influence did not make the Borodinos Mediterranean ships; it gave Russia expertise for a Far Eastern fleet requirement.

Operational Russian battlecruisers would be harder for treaty negotiators and Japan to ignore than the slow Gangut class.

The long, fine Borodino hull contrasts with the blockier Gangut form and makes the battlecruiser's higher-speed purpose visible.

Possibly, if the original turbines were robust enough for the higher pressure; lightly built machinery would probably also need replacement.

The British would probably use 20 mm Oerlikons or 40 mm pom-poms.

A range roughly half again that of the Gangut class supports the idea that the Borodinos were intended for open Pacific operations and raiding.

Strategic choices include range and main guns; tactical choices include manoeuvrability and secondary armament.

The Mackensen class illustrates how German battlecruiser ambitions ran into British speed, heavier guns, and industrial constraints.

The American answer centered on the Lexington battlecruisers and 1920 South Dakota battleships, with British plans developing in parallel.

Potentially several heavy multiple mounts and many 20 mm guns, but ammunition storage and the extra crew would set the practical limit.

Possibly, because the economic case for a building holiday remained strong, but Japan would want the Soviet ships covered by the negotiations.

It was an experimental hull-form feature intended to improve stability and speed.

The formal signing date conceals earlier work on terms of reference, conference structure, political support, and draft agreements.

A fast battleship better suited Germany's geography because its fleet first had to fight through British control before it could operate globally.

The uncompleted Greek battleship Salamis shows how foreign construction, imported guns, and regional rivalry could reshape the eastern Mediterranean.

They would add two useful fast capital ships to the Allied side and could serve in either the Mediterranean or North Sea.

Their fleets would complicate treaty ratios and might force the United States to accept a larger Commonwealth capital-ship total.

Completed Francesco Caracciolo-class ships might have made a slow Nelson class politically and strategically harder to accept.

It separates the magazines from hot machinery so ammunition temperatures remain safer and more consistent.

Publicly funded warships acquire political meaning that can complicate treaties, scrapping decisions, and later naval budgets.

The ships were funded through national subscription, with the public contributing toward their purchase.

Possibly, but German maritime infrastructure was also a major constraint, so removing the treaty would not guarantee a much faster ship.

Yes, unless a navy is large and wealthy enough to specialize; once battleships are fast, a distinct battlecruiser needs an even greater speed advantage.

Maintaining Canadian battleships could create domestic refit capacity that also served Royal Navy ships and strengthened Commonwealth ties.

Yes; modern programmes likewise combine hull construction, propulsion, weapons, and combat systems from different national suppliers.

Brazil's unbuilt Riachuelo proposal adapted Queen Elizabeth and Revenge design ideas around eight 15-inch guns.

For the First World War, optimize for the battle line; for the Second World War, design around the wider fleet role.

They might win a local action such as the River Plate, but concentrating them would provoke a stronger British capital-ship response.

It would probably be far better than the 25 mm Type 96 battery it replaced.

Because public donations had helped pay for the ship, making its surrender politically difficult.

Yes, especially if the ship were tied to establishing an Indian navy; such a vessel would likely become a powerful national symbol.

Probably not initially; they would likely cover the Atlantic, freeing British ships for the Far East, with possible later service in the Mediterranean or Force H.

Yes; it was a real slogan promoted in an era when the Navy League was a powerful pressure group.

A conservative 18-inch-gun Argencourt is derived from the Queen Elizabeth design rather than an unconstrained super-battleship.

Possibly; a smaller Unicorn-like carrier or a transferred Courageous-class conversion is more plausible than an Ark Royal-sized ship.

Probably, because a single ship posed little threat and could be useful as a permanent Far Eastern capital unit.

Fit as many 100 mm and 40 mm guns as the ship and available supply allow.

They could free another fast capital ship for the Mediterranean and give the fleet more flexible, balanced divisions.

Yes; a major interwar refit and fire-control radar could make it a valuable regional capital unit, even though it would not become a first-rate modern battleship.

Probably, but in smaller numbers because the Canadian squadron would already relieve part of Britain's worldwide capital-ship burden.

A British 18-inch Argencourt could make later 18-inch Admirals and a higher treaty gun limit more plausible.

The reconstruction uses 18-inch/45 guns, interpreting Furious's shorter weapons as cut-down versions, but the original Argencourt connection remains uncertain.

Kii would initially be faster, but British 18-inch service would probably push Japan to redesign its ships with heavier guns.

Wartime Britain needed rapid output from its established 15-inch production line; starting an 18-inch line imposed delay and industrial risk.

A lighter shell is easier to handle quickly, potentially raising the rate of fire enough to help a six-gun ship compete with eight-gun opponents.

Gun calibre is constrained by barrel length, weight distribution, metallurgy, and the propellant needed to drive a shell through the barrel.

About twelve can usually sustain five deployed ships, while fifteen gives a more dependable margin for maintenance and disruption.

Congress might approve more powerful engines, but American infrastructure and dimensional limits would still constrain the result.

It might adopt triples if the three-turret arrangement proved attractive in service and design work.

Britain would probably order many more capital ships and might accelerate 18-inch-gun construction, while German infrastructure remained the limiting factor.

Yes, six can support effective salvo spotting, though eight or nine guns would still be preferred.

The Royal Navy relied on volunteers and was obtaining enough personnel without conscription.

It would be a burden in the First World War's concentrated theater but a major benefit for the global operations of the Second World War.

Probably; an established 18-inch weapon and production base would make retaining it in the G3 design much more likely.

A 28-knot, 18-inch-gun Argencourt might have been especially valuable as Jellicoe's flagship and an independent scouting asset.

Established infrastructure could produce far more 16-inch guns, trading a little individual shell power for faster and larger fleet output.

Several improved Queen Elizabeth and alternative-turret concepts were being considered, possibly awaiting experience from Argencourt before final selection.

They could have gained useful speed, giving the Royal Navy a fleet-level advantage that other powers would need to answer.

A substantial contemporary torpedo-defense system is plausible, represented conservatively by the middle rather than maximum protection option.

Among ships that actually served during the war, the Queen Elizabeth class has the strongest claim.

It would provoke intense bargaining because Britain would resist scrapping such a powerful ship, but its existence already assumes an earlier 18-inch arms race.

Probably not, because the negotiations were framed around battle-fleet firepower rather than speed.

Their sizes depend on each navy's organization and wartime realities; they are functional groupings rather than fixed universal numbers.

Completing all four Admiral-class ships would have added a powerful, common-calibre fast wing to the Royal Navy's battle fleet.

Dreadnought might begin with much heavier guns, immediately forcing rival all-big-gun ships to standardize at the new calibre.

Probably Nelson and Rodney in the 1920s, though later 16-inch ships change the comparison by the Second World War.

It was technically interesting and probably possible, but treaty rules might have limited such a main-armament change.

Probably not; the Admirals more likely extended earlier British work, while Incomparable was a separate and more extreme development.

Some ships might instead copy Agincourt's 18-inch armament, potentially giving the Royal Navy three such capital ships.

Four G3s, because they are the more sensible overall design despite their poor gun arcs.

Not automatically; both were difficult systems, and results depended heavily on the training and experience of their crews.

Its gun arcs are too compromised: it contributes poorly forward and cannot effectively cover the stern.

Lexington has the edge if it controls the battle's pace and range; Amagi is favored if it can close.

They could have been useful fast carrier escorts after modernization, but their relatively light armour would remain a vulnerability.

Because speed was extremely expensive, and treasuries often prioritized the immediate construction bill over long-term operational flexibility.

Only with a major redesign; a Nelson-like layout was possible in theory, but the change would disrupt the ship's entire internal arrangement and balance.

Converting Admiral-class hulls into carriers could have produced a faster Royal Navy force built around carriers, Hood, Renown, and Repulse.

Because the design prioritized exceptional speed, and the machinery and hull needed to achieve it consumed the weight available for protection.

They need more robust handling and elevation machinery because their barrels and mounts are far heavier, even if the servicing task is conceptually similar.

It should have prioritized submarines, probably bought from Britain, though American, French, or Dutch options were conceivable.

A Hood-sized ship was close to the maximum that existing yards and docks could support without costly infrastructure changes.

The initial concept uses five triple 4-inch mounts; a later refit could replace them with twin 5-inch mounts for a more efficient battery.

Probably not; unrestricted competition could prompt navies to build large carriers earlier in response to one another.

Yes; it was a quick availability refit so Repulse could cover duties while Renown was rebuilt and Hood awaited her turn.

No; she was a wartime compromise shaped by what could be completed with the time and resources available.

A faster Dreadnought armed with 14-inch guns would make every contemporary 12-inch response obsolete before it entered service.