Pocket battleships for minor navies

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

It may or may not be fair, but it would most certainly be good politics by the "haves" to keep people from trying to find loopholes in the WNT, even if what naval power Brazil has isn't terribly important in and of itself to their interests.

Those countries could play an important role in "commerce raiding" prevention in WW2. They could, for example, make it very dangerous for the German PB and other raiders to operate in their areas of interest. When Graf Spee operated in the South Atlantic, there wasn't a single local ship that could challenge the German vessel, the BBs being too slow, and the Argentinian cruisers being too light. (they were slightly lighter Exeter equivalents.)
In fact, a few neutral, but allied friendly PB committed to free sea lanes would be a good way to discourage German commerce raiding without having to spend money on new BC or on fast light BB like the French.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by AdA

Those countries could play an important role in "commerce raiding" prevention in WW2. They could, for example, make it very dangerous for the German PB and other raiders to operate in their areas of interest. When Graf Spee operated in the South Atlantic, there wasn't a single local ship that could challenge the German vessel, the BBs being too slow, and the Argentinian cruisers being too light. (they were slightly lighter Exeter equivalents.)
In fact, a few neutral, but allied friendly PB committed to free sea lanes would be a good way to discourage German commerce raiding without having to spend money on new BC or on fast light BB like the French.

And how many people in 1922 are going to be thinking of "'commerce raiding' prevention in WW2"?

Heck, even eleven years later (when the Nazis take power).

What would be a good decision in hindsight is not necessarily a decision any plausible foresight can predict.

Not to mention that "neutral but allied friendly" is . . . some kind of really weird diplomatic state. I presume you mean something like the US's technically-neutral stance, because otherwise I'm lost.

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by AdA

Snide remarks are not answers, either.

I was using your incomprehension regarding the nature of the European "union" to illustrate your incomprehension regarding the nature of the WNT.

And you've had the answers you wanted. You've just chose to ignore those answers and the explanations behind them.

But fell free to disagree. I dont think you have a "failed" opinion. I just dont agree with it. Hey, you don't believe Europe exists so I am probably just an imaginary person anyway

I know Europe exists, I've traveled and worked in Europe extensively. I also know that type of European "union" you fantasize about about most certainly does not exist and how anyone from one of the PIIGS could make the claims regarding an European union you do is laughable.

You'll live in a "union" when there are no more British, French, or Portugeuse ambassadors and embassies and when there are oly EU ambassadors and embassies. You'll live in a "union" when Britain and France are no longer on the UN Security Council, when Germany no longer beleives it should be on the UNSC, and when an EU ambassador is on the UNSC instead. You'll also live in a "union" when there are no British or French nuclear weapons and there are EU nuclear weapons instead.

Until then, you live in a managed trade/labor block with a regional development bank which sits behind a tariff wall and whose member nations cynically play diplomatic shell games claiming EU status, independence, or something inbetween as the mood strikes them.

Getting back on topic, nuclear weapons may be the analogy that finally allows you understand why your idea is a non-starter.

The WNT was a strategic arms limitation treaty. Battleships, carriers, and cruisers were capital weapons. The WNT or any treaty like it can no more allow it's signatory nations to build capital weapons for third party nations than a SALT/START treaty between the US and USSR could allow those nations to build nuclear weapons for third party nations.

The idea that nations negoitating treaties like the WNT or SALT/START would allow a loophole like the one you suggests is completely asinine because such a loophole runs completely counter to the thinking behind a strategic arms limitation treaty.

Please listen to those of us explaining this to you: Your idea does not work.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And how many people in 1922 are going to be thinking of "'commerce raiding' prevention in WW2"?

Heck, even eleven years later (when the Nazis take power).

What would be a good decision in hindsight is not necessarily a decision any plausible foresight can predict.

Not to mention that "neutral but allied friendly" is . . . some kind of really weird diplomatic state. I presume you mean something like the US's technically-neutral stance, because otherwise I'm lost.

Very good points that I was going to raise earlier but ran out of time to post.

[StevoJH]

When did the Washington Naval Treaty expire? 1930? In which case just have the London Naval treaty negotiations fail or something.

[ModernKiwi]

1932, it was a ten year treaty if I remember right. Of course by 1932 the worlds economy was down the toilet and the prospect of another ten years of no capital ship expenditure was very attractive. You'd need the world stage to be very dangerous for the London Treaty not to happen.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Flubber

I was using your incomprehension regarding the nature of the European "union" to illustrate your incomprehension regarding the nature of the WNT.

And you've had the answers you wanted. You've just chose to ignore those answers and the explanations behind them.



I know Europe exists, I've traveled and worked in Europe extensively. I also know that type of European "union" you fantasize about about most certainly does not exist and how anyone from one of the PIIGS could make the claims regarding an European union you do is laughable.

You'll live in a "union" when there are no more British, French, or Portugeuse ambassadors and embassies and when there are oly EU ambassadors and embassies. You'll live in a "union" when Britain and France are no longer on the UN Security Council, when Germany no longer beleives it should be on the UNSC, and when an EU ambassador is on the UNSC instead. You'll also live in a "union" when there are no British or French nuclear weapons and there are EU nuclear weapons instead.

Until then, you live in a managed trade/labor block with a regional development bank which sits behind a tariff wall and whose member nations cynically play diplomatic shell games claiming EU status, independence, or something inbetween as the mood strikes them.

Getting back on topic, nuclear weapons may be the analogy that finally allows you understand why your idea is a non-starter.

The WNT was a strategic arms limitation treaty. Battleships, carriers, and cruisers were capital weapons. The WNT or any treaty like it can no more allow it's signatory nations to build capital weapons for third party nations than a SALT/START treaty between the US and USSR could allow those nations to build nuclear weapons for third party nations.

The idea that nations negoitating treaties like the WNT or SALT/START would allow a loophole like the one you suggests is completely asinine because such a loophole runs completely counter to the thinking behind a strategic arms limitation treaty.

Please listen to those of us explaining this to you: Your idea does not work.

I've worked with many US Citizens in Europe. We allways find it funny when they claim to understand us and then make wonderfully silly generalizations about the way we live.
I have travelled extensively. When I am in the EU I always feel like I am a citizen. When I leave EU space I am a foreigner. When I get to an EU country and at the border countrol I pass the EU citizens gate and non EU citizens have to go to the "foreigners" gate I know I'm home.
PIGS are not as different from other EU states as you might think. Not all Portuguese are short guys with mustaches living on German donations.
I mention US Citizens because you sound like one. If you're not one of them, I hope I haven't offended you.
(It might still go wrong, of course. I can see why you feel the way you do, but once you are in Cyprus (our half) and pay for a coffee using a coin with the King of Spain on it and get change with a couple of Vatican coins it starts to make sense)

[AdA]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

1932, it was a ten year treaty if I remember right. Of course by 1932 the worlds economy was down the toilet and the prospect of another ten years of no capital ship expenditure was very attractive. You'd need the world stage to be very dangerous for the London Treaty not to happen.

Agreed. I allways believed the treaty was much more about putting a political mask on a economical situation than about naval realities.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And how many people in 1922 are going to be thinking of "'commerce raiding' prevention in WW2"?

Heck, even eleven years later (when the Nazis take power).

What would be a good decision in hindsight is not necessarily a decision any plausible foresight can predict.

Not to mention that "neutral but allied friendly" is . . . some kind of really weird diplomatic state. I presume you mean something like the US's technically-neutral stance, because otherwise I'm lost.

All the people that remember WW1. In 1922 there must be a lot of them.

I mean a country that in a war btw A and B, will either stay neutral or be on A side, with very little chances of being on B side. Brasil on the Axis side in WW2 was very unlikely, so Britain ot the US might see Brasil as a Neutral but Allied Friendly state. Spain in 39/41 might be described as Neutral but Axis friendly".

[AdA]

It comes down to this. If you were the Brasilian MoD, would you be happy with the state of your navy in the late 20s, early 30s?
Possibly no. Your historical enemies have you outgunned.
Would you consider some adicional firepower, if could could talk the PM to give you the money.
Probably yes. Admirals want more ships like socialites want more shoes.
Could you buy one.
No you couldn't because nobody was selling since they all ganged up in 1922 to form a Battleship country club.

Now think about this. Btw 1890 and 1914 Britain made a lot of money selling Capital ships (sometimes better than its own) to other nations. The US got in that market and the Germans were trying to. The Italians made a lot of money exporting ACRs.
After a war were the submarine was arguably the star performer and that severely hurt european economies aren't you guys being a little bit too determined to stick to OTL mesures that prevented a controled export market?

[AdA]

Flubber. I am aware that the Washington Naval Treaty was meant to control strategic weapons .
So was the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It was meant to prevent other nations getting Nuclear weapons. No loopholes were intended or included.
Now, we have seen that India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa (for a while) North Korea, and now Iran have developed or are about to develop Nuclear Weapons.
Treaties based on "We can have them, you can't?" don't work.
If Brasil wanted a Battleship (or a couple of Modern Armoured Cruisers) it would have gotten one eventually. And nobody would have gone to war about it. You wouldn't even have a presidential candidate shouting "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Brasil on the radio.
Everybody was planning ships they couldn't pay (except the US). They had either to all cancel their orders or all got bankrupt. The Treaty was an expense limitation treaty.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by AdA

Flubber. I am aware that the Washington Naval Treaty was meant to control strategic weapons .
So was the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. It was meant to prevent other nations getting Nuclear weapons. No loopholes were intended or included.
Now, we have seen that India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa (for a while) North Korea, and now Iran have developed or are about to develop Nuclear Weapons.
Treaties based on "We can have them, you can't?" don't work.
If Brasil wanted a Battleship (or a couple of Modern Armoured Cruisers) it would have gotten one eventually. And nobody would have gone to war about it. You wouldn't even have a presidential candidate shouting "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Brasil on the radio.
Everybody was planning ships they couldn't pay (except the US). They had either to all cancel their orders or all got bankrupt. The Treaty was an expense limitation treaty.

Again that is your point of view. Also we don't know what would have happened if someone had violated the treaty, we can only guess. I would suggest that while the treaty may be considered an 'expensive limitation treaty' compared to the expense and end result of most arms races - war - it is a small price.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by AdA

Agreed. I allways believed the treaty was much more about putting a political mask on a economical situation than about naval realities.

The economical situation for the Great Powers was terrible at the time. Also you are forgetting that the British Government had also taken the stance that there would not be any major war for at least 10 years and budgeted their defense spending accordingly.

[BlondieBC]

Looking at the overall thread, I think there are some easier ways to make things work without too many butterflies like a total rewrite of the ToV and WNT.

1) Lots of WW1 German aces ended up in Switzerland as businessmen in Switzerland, presumably aviation related. There are large German populations in southern Brazil and Italians in Argentina. From some research for my TL, it does not look that hard to build a basic ship yard. After all, what you want is probably one medium size dry dock.

So you can use the same type mechanism. German businessmen relocated to Brazil to restart ship industry. The focus on freighters. I think if you look at the size and engines of the refrigeration ships (beef), you will find the dimensions overlap the size of some of the ships you want to build. If you can wait til 1925 after several years of building merchant ships, I think you can get to have Brazil/Argentina try to build a warship. Now yo still have some issues. The harden steel in thick plates is hard to make. It likely sets off alarm bells on the WNT. But you an use unharden steel in multiple thinner plates, and this is not unique. The Iowa have class B (unharden) main belt. And against some type of attack, multiple decks of unharden steel can give better armor. In other ways much worse. Overall, the ship will be viewed as inferior to standard armor. Basically, instead of say one 9" hardened plate, you setup with three 3" unhardened plates. You are more trying to uncapped the round or cause early detonation that what an armor plate can do, which is just stop the round.

Engines issues should have been solved with commercial ships.

Guns presents another issue. You either have to find something that works with the WNT or setup an gun industry in Brazil. Same idea, Germans looking to leave Germany to make money. Perhaps it starts as railgun factory or heavy siege type land guns. Or make minor change to the treaty. Since 14" and 15" guns were standard, it might not be too much to allow limited export of 10" guns to third parties.

2) Just bite the bullet and have these countries join the treaty at say a 1 ratio. I doubt the UK worries too much about a minor country with 20% as many BB as the UK.

3) You can accept the limitations and run with it. Due to the cost issues of plate and guns, I will use my Kamerun ship yards to build CL and CVL. I can take the capability to build a fast merchant ships and pretty easily build CL or CVL(CVE) designed to be warships from the start. And I have also look at merchant ships truly designed to be converted to warships. Once you get into merchant raiding, 1 PB may well be less valuable than 10 CL with 15cm guns and torpedo tubes. And 10 CL can take a PB under some tactical situations.

I really don't like the idea of PB. They are cool, but they are not rational cost decisions. But as long as you understand that you are having these countries squander money, it makes for a good TL. History is full of unwise military procurement projects, and these make more sense than round BB or submarines with tracks/wheels. For example, I am building aluminium frame CVL/CVE that will obviously have some fire issues when used in combat.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by AdA

All the people that remember WW1. In 1922 there must be a lot of them.

I mean a country that in a war btw A and B, will either stay neutral or be on A side, with very little chances of being on B side. Brasil on the Axis side in WW2 was very unlikely, so Britain ot the US might see Brasil as a Neutral but Allied Friendly state. Spain in 39/41 might be described as Neutral but Axis friendly".

All the people who remember WWI do not think that WWII is going to happen, that's the point.

And okay, thanks for clearing it up.

After a war were the submarine was arguably the star performer and that severely hurt european economies aren't you guys being a little bit too determined to stick to OTL mesures that prevented a controled export market?

OTL measures existed for fairly good reason, and you're not offering a basis for someone in 1922 to think that selling a ship or two to Brazil is more important than the reasons in question.

Could that happen? Sure. Would it happen for something like this? Not just because Brazil wants it to.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

The economical situation for the Great Powers was terrible at the time. Also you are forgetting that the British Government had also taken the stance that there would not be any major war for at least 10 years and budgeted their defense spending accordingly.

My point exactly. The treaty banned ships nobody really could afford. I am aware this makes it less likely for the Powers to be interested in other countries getting new ships. The RN didn't really care about a few South American navies having a few battleships when it had more than twenty modern ones. Limited to twelve BB and three BC it would be different.
BB were limited not because they were strategically decisive but because they were expensive. The Treaty therefore kept Naval realities separate from economical realities, denying the US the dominant role they could have secured by outspending the rest of the powers and it denied the ABC countries the navy proportional to their economical proeminence.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by AdA

The Treaty therefore kept Naval realities separate from economical realities, denying the US the dominant role they could have secured by outspending the rest of the powers and it denied the ABC countries the navy proportional to their economical proeminence.

The Treaty denied the US nothing that the Congress had already notified the navy it was not going to fund. The 1917 naval expansion plans were dead by 1920 or so.

[AdA]

David and Blondie, thanks for the input.
My interest on the PB comes from having been recently reminded by an extensive article in the LOS magazine of just how well Spee did against three RN cruisers, and because I have an interest insmaller navies were toonage is limited. PB are affordable enough for some minor navies, and more interesting than CAs. It would be interesting, for example, to analyse what a Dutch PB could have done in action against IJN cruisers in the cruiser battles of early 1942.

The ideal value for money ship for Brasil and Chile would probably have been Dunkerque. But that would require an even more agressive POD.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

The Treaty denied the US nothing that the Congress had already notified the navy it was not going to fund. The 1917 naval expansion plans were dead by 1920 or so.

But the US could afford more ships, including the Lexington class BC and the South Dakota BB, six of each having been laid down in 1920. These would have outclassed all existing ships, and if the other countries had tried to implement their responses, like the IJN 8/8 ships, and the RN G3 and N3, they would have gone bust.
All this 12 US ships were canceled in 17/8/1923, except for the two that became carriers. Had they been built, and had the other nations only built what they could afford (IJN plans being financially crazy) this would have given the USN a two power standard of its own...

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

All the people who remember WWI do not think that WWII is going to happen, that's the point.

And okay, thanks for clearing it up.

OTL measures existed for fairly good reason, and you're not offering a basis for someone in 1922 to think that selling a ship or two to Brazil is more important than the reasons in question.

Could that happen? Sure. Would it happen for something like this? Not just because Brazil wants it to.

That never going to happen again mentality is what prevented navies from being serious about ASW in the 20s and 30s. We allways criticise them for that on our threads.