The Royal Navy's Lion-Class Battleships were at par with the U.S. Navy's Iowa-Class Battleships with similar displacement, speed and firepower. However, the project was canceled before the keel of the 1st ship was even laid.
2007-11-20 23:35:53 · 2 answers · asked by Air-Jordan 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I had to do a bit of research before I answered your question, so I'm sorry if my answer doesn't do it for you but at least I tried. It appears that not only was the project costly, but with the outbreak of WWII, it became an impossibility to make them. Perhaps if they had been completed before the outbreak of war, it appears they would have been rather useful, but given the circumstances and the time line, it seems as though they would have been more of a drain and rather useless, as the Brits concluded that they would not even be finished by the time WWII was over.
2007-11-21 00:10:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were not really needed. They were costly, and did not present a significant rise in capabilities as compared to older battleships (eg the Rodney). The tendency at that time was to go for faster, lighter armoured Battlecruisers - which in hindsight was an error (eg Hood)
IMO one of the considerations might have been the knowledge that in real war BB's very seldom see any combat and as compared to WW1 situation the Axis was weaker and had nothing which could challenge the existing UK fleet. OTOH they had plenty of small ships and subs- so it made sense to build destroyers to hunt them down.
In WW2 the Brits had more than enough BB's, but not enough small ships. They were even grateful for the 50 US "4-stack" destroyers which were hopelessly obsolete - but still lifesaving in the Atlantic war
2007-11-21 08:38:14 · answer #2 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋