Back when the British proposed the construction of 'Fleet Units' by her Dominions (Australia, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand) Australia and New Zealand both funded a battle cruiser each (Australia keeping hers, New Zealand vessel funded for use by British) at a cost of 1.8 million pounds each. While this was going ahead the RN came up with the Lion class Battle cruiser which it's self cost 2.1 million pounds which some in the RN suggested to be offered to the Australians and New Zealanders over the Indefatigable class battle cruisers as it was a superior vessel.. How ever this was rejected to refrain from 'offending' either government yet at the time both Australia and New Zealand had budgeted 2 million pounds.. With New Zealand even considering funding a 2nd vessel. What if the RN had proposed the Lion class.. And Australia had gone for it... And at the same time after the Washington Naval treaty Australia was allowed to keep the vessel... Seeing how the Australian economy started to improve.. Allowing for spending again to update the various forces.. Especially the navy what might have been the out come with a Lion class HMAS Australia... It wasn't beyond Australia to field a single Capital ship from the mid 30's.. Would it have made much difference in WWII??