Shipbucket

"The single 2 pounder guns were removed and replaced with octuple mountings in tubs." if you could get them.
Ship designs in 1921 had octuple 2pdrs, but ships built throughout the 1920s and 1930s mostly didn't get their designed fit until after 1938.
When refitting a ship with some alternative weapon, [eg 4" twin for 4.7"] the question is not 'Would I have liked this new gun when this ship was first designed?' nor 'Is this new gun better than the old one?' but 'Is the change worthwhile, considering its cost?' (eg Have you got a use for the guns you remove? Do you have to change magazines and handling systems?)
I think you have drawn a very handsome ship, but it is very near a K3 with 16" guns instead of 18" isn't it, with all the docking and canal transit difficulties of that design. After all, those were the reasons, along with higher speed and better armour, for the unconventional design of the G3s (and the reduction in gun power to help pay for them).

Thanks for the comments guys.

The way I am looking at it, Indefatigable and Indomitable are a straight swap for Nelson and Rodney. Britain is allowed to complete two ships only where at least the armament must match the new regulations if not the actual size of the vessels. This would be mirrored in US, and Japan with 2 Lexington and 2 Amagi Class ships being allowed to be completed in the same time period. Two ships from each of those nations would still also be allowed to be converted to CV's.

JSB: that would make these ships the "Premiere" vessels in the British Navy. Forget Hood, it is a tiddler compared to these two. Having said that, which two vessels are likely to have the most expensive refits and receive new parts when they become available. You would want your two best ships to be the 'best' and at the forefront of technology. So fitting 3 HACS is likely. I would have had 4 but I cant upgrade the after bridge till I remove the aircraft handling facilities in 1941-42.

Smurf: the layout I chose was the J3 but where the J3 used what looks like an Admiral class hull, I have used the G3 hull. The 4.7" with fixed ammunition was a good enough gun but that ammunition problem was a drawback. I have been trying to think of somewhere those guns can be put under 'wartime' pressure so that their failing can be highlighted and replacement made a requirement. And consequently 'save; the 4.5" from the same fate. I always try to have the 4.5" as bag and shell guns from day one in an 'Alternate' scenario. I did think about replacing the 6" and 4.7" with a complete suite of 4.5"BD mountings, but that would have been more work/time than I would be willing to take them out of service for.

While I have picked 1935 as the date of the drawing (it could equally have been 1936-38), all of the updates would not happen at that moment. The drawing is an accumulation of refits/updates added in the 10 years since the last drawing. Two octuples in 1931, another in 1933, another in 1934 and the last ones in 1935. Same with the HACS, one in 1931, and the other 2 in 1934.

The 4.7" guns removed could have been fitted to the Adventure minelayer, depot ships where as they spend most of their time in harbour, larger guns crews could be allowed for to help with the exhaustion factor, AMC's could have one or two each. Because of the size and weight of the guns, the ships that have them fitted need to be big.

All of these monster designs, G3's, Lexington's and Amagi's all have the same docking/canal problems because of their size. Would the Japanese have been happiest because their ships had 10 guns while the US the unhappiest because their ships only had 8 guns?

I like them, I was just working off the fact that R&N did not get rebuilt OTL.
I think everybody else would be pissed when they looked at the completed G3s (even if they underestimate the speed/belt) and they are stuck in a treaty environment where they cant respond.

In September 1941 the Indomitable was taken in hand for a major refit and update of weapons and electronics, emerging in March of 1942 as shown below. Radar had become a major weapon in a ships armoury and a full suite was fitted to the ship. The aircraft handling equipment was taken out and landed, the area around the after bridge structure being employed for more HACS units while quad 40mm sprouted where space could be found. Once the refit was complete the ship had 9x16", 16x6", 12x4", 48x2pd, 32x40mm and 24x20mm. In later refits the 20 mm guns were replaced with single 40mm.

I much prefer the conventional layout. Very nice

_________________
My Worklist
MD Scale, 4 Pixels : 1 Foot
Official German Parts Sheet
German Capital Ship Projects of The First World War

"All of these monster designs, G3's, Lexington's and Amagi's all have the same docking/canal problems because of their size"
Overall lengths: K3 (and yours if the scales are accurate) 885ft; I3 925ft; G3 856ft; Lexington 874ft; Amagi 826ft.
Whether a ship presents a navy with a docking problem depends on the size of the ship, but also on the sizes of available docks, and on what tasks the navy expects its ships to fulfill which may need several usable docks in different parts of the world. Suffice it to say that K3s could only be docked in the larger docks at Rosyth and Portsmouth (and the civilian Gladstone Dock at Liverpool), which placed restrictions on their use. Enlarging docks is very expensive. A major reason for the unconventional G3 layout was to shorten the ship, which saved hull weight and armour weight, but it also allowed other docks to be used. Earlier, docking restrictions had meant that RN dreadnoughts generally had narrower beams than German ships, affecting protection especially against mines and torpedo hits, and stability, though Germany had to widen the Kiel Canal at great expense, and was unlikely to enter a war before the task was finished. On a smaller scale, but of great importance to the designs, the 1930s Southampton class cruisers were limited to 592ft oa to allow them to use the smaller overseas docks in the Mediterranean and the Far East.
Older editions of Jane's Fighting Ships used to have diagrams of the chief naval bases of the various navies. The RN had a great many, worldwide, while the USN built long range into their designs.

The last two member of the class, Illustrious and Inflexible, had been laid down 6 months after the first pair. The (whatever) Treaty halted construction on all four vessels and the US and Japanese construction programs as well. Each country was allowed under the Treaty to complete two of their uncompleted ships as gun armed ships while two more could be converted to ships to operate wheeled aircraft. Indefatigable and Indomitable became the battlecruiser (later rated as fast battleships) pair, while the Illustrious and Inflexible became the aircraft carrying pair.

The ships were huge with a double storey hangar capable of fitting over 90 aircraft internally. Two large lifts at each end of the hangar decks transported aircraft from both decks to the flight deck. Not having the same topweight restrictions as the smaller Courageous class, the hangars were carried right forward as far as the enclosed bow would allow. While the US and Japan went for carrying the largest guns allowed by the Treaty, 8 inch, the Illustrious class carried a much more modest armament of 4.7" and 2 pounder AA guns.




I will add the top view once I finish it. Then the later 40-42 update drawing.

A nice looking carrier. There are some great ideas, and the best thing about personal designs is that you can explore these what-ifs and kick around ideas.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Smurf, I do actually have some very old Janes Fighting Ships annuals for 1914, 1919, 1930, 1938, 1944-45. I got them when my local library was clearing out its basement of older books. They are not in the best of condition (ripped, missing pages, broken spines, pen/pencil/crayon marks) but they are still an excellent reference tool. Yes they do have the dockyard shots at the beginning of the Major Powers entries with lists of sizes and types. Best of those is the 1914 edition which is quite comprehensive.

Updated HMS Illustrious 1929 drawing with top view.