Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "The Washington Naval Treaty - The parties, the motives, the negotiations, the loophole abuse..." video.

@111111310 The real question is why they didn't call it the Maryland-class, since the Maryland was the first ship of the class and was (unlike Colorado and West Virginia) already completed and in service before the start of the Washington Naval Conference.
2
@stevevalley7835 One of the designs considered for the Nelsons was a treaty-compliant battlecruiser with 3x3 15-inch guns. Which IMO would've been a more useful ship.
1
If Hood's sister ships hadn't already been scrapped and instead had been available for CV conversion under the WNT, what would those conversions have likely looked like? Would they have just been overgrown versions of Courageous and Glorious with quite a bit of wasted hull at the bow, or would Britain have been able to convert them into something akin to a larger Ark Royal?
1
@toddwebb7521 Britain got to hold onto both Tiger and all of the Iron Dukes during the Washington Naval Treaty era. It was under the London Naval Treaty that all 5 of those ships had to be disposed of. Had they sacrificed Hood in order to get a 3rd Nelson, it's possible that Britain would've chosen to keep Tiger and instead scrap HMS Revenge in 1931, since with the big scare over the Deustchland-class cruisers it probably would've been seen as necessary to have 1 battlecruiser for each of Germany's panzerschiff. Though this would produce the logistical issue of keeping the 13.5-inch gun in service for only a single ship, so who knows. Another possibility is that if Britain agreed to dispose of Hood in order to get 3 new post-Treaty ships instead of 2, they might have opted to build at least 1 of the F3 battlecruiser (35k tons, 3x3 15-inch/50 guns in a similar layout to the O3 design that would become Nelson, 12 to 13 inches of belt armor and 3.5 to 7 inches of deck armor, top speed of 29 knots), since that would result in a design with capability similar or better than Hood on a smaller hull. IMO their best choice would actually be to build 3 of the F3 battlecruisers. They'd be an overall much more useful design than the Nelsons because of their speed, and the firepower would be nearly equivalent given that it would use the same shells as the existing 15-inch/42 guns on the Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, and Renown classes (also thus simplifying logistics) and not the flawed design of the BL 16-inch Mk I which had shells too light to take proper advantage of the larger caliber.
1
@stevevalley7835 The J3 is simply a straight upgrade to Hood, and would indeed have been a very useful ship. Unfortunately, there's no plausible scenario in which it could've been built, given its treaty-busting size. And the fact that in a "no treaties" timeline, the Royal Navy simply would've built 4 G3s instead. Which isn't exactly a problem for them, since G3 would've been a monster.
1