Video
Washington’s cherry trees: the G3 and N3 class - Patreon 15 Comments Response
Aircraft CarriersG3 Class BattlecruisersN3 Class BattleshipsNaval GunneryNaval ProcurementRoyal NavyWarship DesignWashington Naval Treaty
Study Washington’s cherry trees: the G3 and N3 class - Patreon 15 Comments Response, a Dr. Alex Clarke video from 21 Jan 2021, with 14 time notes. Topics include Aircraft Carriers, G3 Class Battlecruisers, N3 Class…
Time notes
- 2:18QuestionWas cancellation safer because postwar Britain could not afford both new battleships and cruisers?AnswerQ&A
Britain faced tight finances but remained capable of building; cancellation before negotiations discarded useful leverage.
- 6:34Treaty tonnage rules and Britain's need for hull numbersNotable Point
Treaty rules for displacement, aggregate tonnage, or hull numbers would determine whether Britain favoured a few very large capital ships or enough ships to cover its worldwide stations.
- 9:24G3 conversions and a larger treaty carrier normNotable Point
Keeping the G3 programme alive could have produced several British carrier conversions and made fleet carriers near Lexington and Saratoga in size a more common treaty standard.
- 12:22QuestionWhy were Nelson and Rodney about 33,800 tons rather than the full 35,000, and how fast might N3 have been?AnswerQ&A
The unused margin promised little worthwhile improvement and supported diplomatic restraint; N3's hull form plausibly allowed about 26 to 28 knots.
- 15:35QuestionWhat might Japan have built after the earthquake destroyed Amagi in a treaty regime with more large carrier conversions?AnswerQ&A
Japan might have negotiated a purpose-built carrier of 27,000 to 33,000 tons, affecting both prewar capability and later treaty limits.
- 21:30Postwar peace optimism and premature cancellationNotable Point
Britain cancelled before negotiations because policymakers expected lasting peace after the First World War. The Treasury could have stopped or reshaped an unaffordable programme earlier.
- 22:38QuestionWas the G3's X turret blind over only angles where other British ships also had limited fire?AnswerQ&A
The restrictions were real. A triple turret concentrated enough firepower that the uncovered stern sector remained a serious design penalty.
- 25:46QuestionWould barrel wear and muzzle-velocity limits impose a practical ceiling on battleship gun calibre?AnswerQ&A
Yes. A race beyond 18 inches could revive mixed batteries, with faster 13.5-inch guns exploiting damage caused by the heaviest shells.
- 31:11QuestionWhich names might additional Lexington-class carrier conversions have received?AnswerQ&A
Constellation and Constitution are the suggested choices, and Constitution might even have supplied the carrier class name.
- 32:15QuestionWould a Nelson-like all-forward G3 or N3 be better than the Q-turret design?AnswerQ&A
No. The all-forward solution is the worse of the two layouts, despite the reasons for using it on Nelson and Rodney.
- 32:46QuestionWhat books or sources are useful for studying post-First World War designs and the naval treaties?AnswerQ&A
Start with John Jordan's Washington and London treaty-warship books, then consult period Brassey's volumes and naval-institute transactions.
- 33:51QuestionCould the proposed X Kiwi Force design be built with 1920s technology below 35,000 tons?AnswerQ&A
Probably. Redistributed armour, revised secondary turrets, and a compact superstructure could keep it under 35,000 tons, although the weight margin would remain tight.
- 39:50Dunkerque's aft aviation space and secondary-battery tradeoffsNotable Point
Dunkerque makes sensible use of its free stern for aircraft, while its mixed quadruple and twin secondary turrets invite a more even five-triple arrangement.
- 41:15G3 design lessons and carrier-conversion potentialNotable Point
G3 technology could improve Nelson and Rodney, while the same hull offers striking capacity as a carrier conversion with a large flight deck and hangar.