WIF WWI ended in 1917 how would the Washington treaty of gone

WWI Ended in 1917 when Germany forced Russia out of War and the Rest of the Allies sign a cease fire .
By 1920's the US pushes for the Washington Naval Treaty How would this treaty end up with Germany , A-H and the Ottoman Empires still around .
What would the German Fleet look like in the 1940's and how large would it be .

With a year less work done perhaps HMS Hood would have been cancelled like her sisters were and the Nelsons would have been a 3 ship class.

I don't think Germany would have been a 15 ship power. I think Germany only ever reached 3/5 of Britain's ship strength and by wars end was about 1/2 Britain's ship strength. So Germany, being a single ocean power, would probably be satisfied if a reasonably favourable 15 to 9 ship ratio was negotiated.

Question is, would there be a building holiday, or would there be sth else instaed - i.e. provision, that only one BB per year can be launched.

Ward said:

WWI Ended in 1917 when Germany forced Russia out of War and the Rest of the Allies sign a cease fire .
By 1920's the US pushes for the Washington Naval Treaty How would this treaty end up with Germany , A-H and the Ottoman Empires still around .
What would the German Fleet look like in the 1940's and how large would it be .

Click to expand...

If there still would have been a sort of Washington Naval Treaty (which was very doubdtfull) the USA would not have participated in it, being a neutral, non combattant nation. Most likely her place would have been taken by Germany, who was not a looser by this scenario.

So even if the USA would eventually want to participate in the treaty, it would be playing the second violin, as she was not considered an equal of the traditional Great Powers, who would eventually be European, or, to a lesser sence, Japan. Simch the defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905, Japan was considered an equal to any European power, although still inferior to the West European ones (UK, France, Germany).

Since the economical and millitary situation in 1917 would have been different, opposed to the OTL, I can consider the participating States would formulate something like the following Naval power ballance:

UK = strongest
Germany = second
Japan = third
USA = forth
France & Italy = Fifth/sixth

In a ratio to capital ships only, (so far only Dreadnougth type battleships and battlecruisers) I can see a nummerical ballance of something like this:

5:4:3.25:2.5:1.75:1.75 (for: UK: Deutschland: Japan: USA: France: Italy)

I peace was to last for several years, the numerically strongest Navy, the Royal Navy would lead the numbers. If any reduction was agreed, mainly due to economical reasons and the competition between especially the USA and Japan in buildingprograms, the following seems reasonable:

Startingpoint 1921:
UK = 25 BB's/BC's (Five QE's, Five Royal Sovereigns, two Renown's, One Hood, Four Iron Duke's, one Tiger, three King George V's, four Orion's, last seven to be replaced by new construction of four G-3 Type and possibly a scaled down BB variant such as Nelson's.) All three light BC's of Glorious type to be rerbuilt as CV's

Germany = 20 BB's/BC's (Four Mackensen's, Four Bayern's, Five König's, Five Kaisar's, two Derfflinger's.) (Older BC's and BB's propably reduced to other functions, as with overcomplete British BB's.) (Special Allowance to reconstruct three Ersatz York Type BC's as CV's)

Japan = 16 BB's/BC's (Four Kongo's, Two Fuso's, Two Ise's, Two Nagato's, Two Kaga's, four Amagi's.) (Setsu reduced to other function) (Special allowance to reconstruct two building BC's as CV's and construct two additional BB's/BC's)

USA = 12 BB's/BC's (Proppably the newest only, already started to be completed.) (Two Collorado's, Two Tennessee's, Three New Mexico's, Two Pannsylvania's, Two Nevada's, One New York. Second New York and all 12 inch BB's reduced to other functions.) (Special Allowance for converting two Lexingtons to Aircraft Carriers as in OTL.)

France = 9 BB's (so far only four Courbet's and three Bretagne's. As stopgab Two Danton's retained.) Possibly Normandie canceled and replaced in mid twenties by new construction, replacing oldest BB's.

Italy = 9 BB's (Two Andrea Doria's, Two Conte di Cavour's, One Dante Alighieri, four Francesco Caracciolo Class.)

UK and Germany are allowed to built at least two, maximum seven (UK) and five (Deutschland) new ships with 16 inch guns, to counter the ones being built by USA and Japan. USA can replace USS New York/Texas by an additional 16 inch gunned ship.

Carriers are to be less considered, but appart from the reconstructionprogramm of surplus capital ships, the ballance in carriers is simmilar to the Capital Ship Ballance. The earliest Carriers, mainly smaller than 10,000 tons are not counted as active warships, but as experimental.

In numbers:
UK = 10 (Argus, Hermes and Eagle not counted)
Deutschland = 8
Japan = 7 (Hosho not counted)
USA = 5 (Langely not counted)
France = 3
Italy = 3

Cruisers are at first not limmited in numbers, but are in size and firepower. As in OTL the size is limmited to maximum 10,000 tons and 8 inch guns, according to the existin Hawkins Class of UK and building of IJN Furutaka class. Later the numbers were possibly to be restricted.

Destroyers are not limmited in numbers either, but in size, being a maximum of 1,825 tons and no guns bigger than 6 inch. (Some German DD's already shipped the 5.9 inch gun, as did some British ones.)

Submarines were allowed, given the situation, following the Armistrice.

Riain said:

With a year less work done perhaps HMS Hood would have been cancelled like her sisters were and the Nelsons would have been a 3 ship class.

I don't think Germany would have been a 15 ship power. I think Germany only ever reached 3/5 of Britain's ship strength and by wars end was about 1/2 Britain's ship strength. So Germany, being a single ocean power, would probably be satisfied if a reasonably favourable 15 to 9 ship ratio was negotiated.

Click to expand...

The idea behind my suggestion of approximate parity between the US, UK, and Germany was based on the OP scenario of the Western Allies negotiating a cease-fire and peace after Russia is knocked out of the war, which I interpret as a narrow CP victory on points in the west, not really enough to get the shopping list of war aims such as territorial acquisitions, but perhaps enough to get the British to trim the fleet a bit beyond what would happen upon demobilization. At that point, it becomes a matter of national prestige, as Germany is one of the three top-tier powers, and sort of the victor in the war, so I don't really see them being particularly eager to accept an inferior position on paper, although all sorts of interesting alterations to the historical WNT might happen- for example, as a bit of a face-saving dodge, the UK & Germany might agree on a position that the Dominion navies shouldn't be charged against the RN, in opposition to the US.

A lot of the specifics would probably depend on what comes out of the building yards between say 1917 & 1920-21 TTL and what gets disposed of in that timeframe, while nominal parity in the treaty doesn't mean exact parity in terms of tonnage or numbers of ships. For example, in the OTL WNT, although the US & UK had nominally equal strength, between the WNT & LNT, the RN battleline actually had a numerical advantage of a couple ships also reflected in the tonnage, and depending on when, a bit of an advantage in broadside throw weight; under the replacement schedule set out in the treaty, the US & RN wouldn't achive actual parity in tonnage and numbers of ships until the program was well underway in the late 1930s, while internal political conditions in Germany will have a big role in whether they build as much as they are allowed to have.

HMS Warspite said:

If there still would have been a sort of Washington Naval Treaty (which was very doubdtfull) the USA would not have participated in it, being a neutral, non combattant nation. Most likely her place would have been taken by Germany, who was not a looser by this scenario.

So even if the USA would eventually want to participate in the treaty, it would be playing the second violin, as she was not considered an equal of the traditional Great Powers, who would eventually be European, or, to a lesser sence, Japan. Simch the defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905, Japan was considered an equal to any European power, although still inferior to the West European ones (UK, France, Germany).

Since the economical and millitary situation in 1917 would have been different, opposed to the OTL, I can consider the participating States would formulate something like the following Naval power ballance:

UK = strongest
Germany = second
Japan = third
USA = forth
France & Italy = Fifth/sixth

In a ratio to capital ships only, (so far only Dreadnougth type battleships and battlecruisers) I can see a nummerical ballance of something like this:

5:4:3.25:2.5:1.75:1.75 (for: UK: Deutschland: Japan: USA: France: Italy)

Click to expand...

Sorry, but there's no way without being on the losing side of a war or ASB intervention that the US would agree to have a fleet inferior to Japan (especially since the US fleet was superior to the Japanese in 1917 and the 1916 program was intended to keep it that way), especially since had it not been for everybody else being involved in WW1, the US and Japan could very well have gone to war over the Twenty-One Demands, while there had been several war scares over xenophobic incidents, and considerable strain over Japanese expansionism in China. Naval superiority over Japan and enough of a fleet to keep anything in Europe from getting too close were considered fundamental security interests of the US, especially if the war ended in a way that didn't really resolve anything.

And you are really overestimating the delays imposed by US involvement in WW1 on US capital ship construction, specifically the 1916 program which was a specific response to fears over Japanese expansionism, the Japanese 8-8 program, and that WW1 would spill over into the Western Hemisphere. According to the data in Friedman's, during this time, at normal peacetime building rates, meaning that ships aren't suspended or delayed to free up workers and resources to build a ton of destroyers and transports, it took the US between 2.5-3 years to build a dreadnought from keel-laying to commissioning, and assuming an average of 2.75 years for this, the US would from the 1916 program, have in service both Tennesees, at least 3 of the Colorados (probably all four, depending on yard space), and at least one or two of the Lexingtons, while probably one or two of the South Dakotas would be fitting out by late 1921.

Furthermore, the economic situation was that at the end of WW1, most likely in TTL as well, the Entente countries were in debt up to their eyeballs to Wall Street, the economies of the European powers were all badly strained by several years of all-out war, while politically, the Entente powers only wanted the US to look across the Atlantic because they felt the manpower was needed against Germany, otherwise they, along with Germany (despite their incredibly stupid foreign policy blundering) would have been content to leave the US on its own side of the Atlantic provided it didn't meddle in Europe, and keep Japan on something of a leash.

DD951 said:

Sorry, but there's no way without being on the losing side of a war or ASB intervention that the US would agree to have a fleet inferior to Japan (especially since the US fleet was superior to the Japanese in 1917 and the 1916 program was intended to keep it that way), especially since had it not been for everybody else being involved in WW1, the US and Japan could very well have gone to war over the Twenty-One Demands, while there had been several war scares over xenophobic incidents, and considerable strain over Japanese expansionism in China. Naval superiority over Japan and enough of a fleet to keep anything in Europe from getting too close were considered fundamental security interests of the US, especially if the war ended in a way that didn't really resolve anything.

And you are really overestimating the delays imposed by US involvement in WW1 on US capital ship construction, specifically the 1916 program which was a specific response to fears over Japanese expansionism, the Japanese 8-8 program, and that WW1 would spill over into the Western Hemisphere. According to the data in Friedman's, during this time, at normal peacetime building rates, meaning that ships aren't suspended or delayed to free up workers and resources to build a ton of destroyers and transports, it took the US between 2.5-3 years to build a dreadnought from keel-laying to commissioning, and assuming an average of 2.75 years for this, the US would from the 1916 program, have in service both Tennesees, at least 3 of the Colorados (probably all four, depending on yard space), and at least one or two of the Lexingtons, while probably one or two of the South Dakotas would be fitting out by late 1921.

Furthermore, the economic situation was that at the end of WW1, most likely in TTL as well, the Entente countries were in debt up to their eyeballs to Wall Street, the economies of the European powers were all badly strained by several years of all-out war, while politically, the Entente powers only wanted the US to look across the Atlantic because they felt the manpower was needed against Germany, otherwise they, along with Germany (despite their incredibly stupid foreign policy blundering) would have been content to leave the US on its own side of the Atlantic provided it didn't meddle in Europe, and keep Japan on something of a leash.

Click to expand...

I agree with these comments, as these were mostly OTL considerations. The scenario subscribes something entirely different, with a USA still out of the war and absolutely no warexperience, even compared to Japan, who only scarcely did something in the war. In the Scenario, the USA is not the industrial giant, it would become, as there was no warproduction of the Great War. It still was the economical power, without the millitary hardware to force on its will, which it did not do by the way. Bribing was a more common practice (and a much cheaper one too.)

Japan on the other hand could build a large Navy, for its own policital means, namely the security of its empire against especially the USA and Russia, who were considered the most important foes. This in itself was not problematic, as long as the USA had no territorial ambitions. In the OTL the Phillippines were a protectorate of the USA and this was the most crucial problem for both, eventually leading to War, as this occupied land was simply in the way for Japan. Had it not been a US Protectorate, it would have been possible to leave the USA out of the WW2.

Perhaps a more Isolationalist and anti colonialistic US Government could have deleted the Phillippines, as these lands were of no economic value and only a burden on the economy. Without the need to Protect the Phillippines, the USN would be more or less a coastal defense Navy, protecting the East and West Coast, plus the Hawaii Islands. Nothing more or less.

Secondly, the USN Dreadnoughts were all inferior in design, being of a pre-1914 design mainly, but postponed, due to other reasons. The Japanese Nagato's and their successors were designed in 1916 and the British, with their valuable warexperience, designed the new breed in 1921, with the G3 as primary focus, which outclassed all that was afloat or being built at that time. With Germany still second, also with tons of warexperience, the USNB and even the IJN would be considered as secondary powers in terms of Naval technology.

So, even if the USN was allowed to built a larger battlefleet, it would make not much difference in the ballance of Power, as its ships were of the pre Great War Period Design. (even the South Dakota essentially was a continuation of the 1914 designs, with no radical new differences, compared to the older designs.) Compared one to one, the G3 and Nelson's outclassed even the heavier gunned South Dakota's in terms of layout and protectionschemes, as well as seaworthyness, given the new high in the water hulldesignes of the 1921 breed.

Finally, the scenario had subscribed the USA would participate, how unlikely it may have seemed, so would have had to accept the agreement.

<Quote>
"WWI Ended in 1917 when Germany forced Russia out of War and the Rest of the Allies sign a cease fire .
By 1920's the US pushes for the Washington Naval Treaty How would this treaty end up with Germany , A-H and the Ottoman Empires still around .
What would the German Fleet look like in the 1940's and how large would it be . "

This concludes that the Western Allies offered the cease fire and not the Central Powers. This move in it self was a geusture of accepting the Central Power's win in the Great War, resulting in the possition of Germany as primary European Power, also claiming oversea territories. In the peacetreaty, these would be returned to Germany, so Germany also wanted a big portion of the Naval Power needed for this. (The Japanese did not get the Bismarck Archipello and not the other possessions of the Germans in the Pacific, so they did not needed to be the second largest power either.) (as the USA lacked oversea possessions, except the Phillippines, it too did not need the largest fleet, according to this theory.)

Finally, the Scenario states: "The USA pushed foreward the WNT to end the new armsrace, being developped."
This meant, the USA were actually advocating the reduction in Navalpower in the world, by putting limmits on numbers of vessels to be built and maintained. Therefore, the USA would not be able to remain reliable, if itself wanted to get the most largest and most powerfull Navy. To make a good guesture, it would accept a secodnary role and could not allow to blow up the treaty, itself wanted.

What in the world? This is the most insane bunch of naval history related rambling since Bard32.

HMS Warspite said:

I agree with these comments, as these were mostly OTL considerations. The scenario subscribes something entirely different, with a USA still out of the war and absolutely no warexperience, even compared to Japan, who only scarcely did something in the war. In the Scenario, the USA is not the industrial giant, it would become, as there was no warproduction of the Great War. It still was the economical power, without the millitary hardware to force on its will, which it did not do by the way. Bribing was a more common practice (and a much cheaper one too.)

Click to expand...

The Great War was not responsible for U.S. industrial primacy. That had been fact since 1900 at the latest. It was responsible for ending the financial dominance of GB, but the steady shift from London to NY had been occuring before hand anyway, and would have mostly occured already if the war ends in 1917.

Japan on the other hand could build a large Navy, for its own policital means, namely the security of its empire against especially the USA and Russia, who were considered the most important foes. This in itself was not problematic, as long as the USA had no territorial ambitions. In the OTL the Phillippines were a protectorate of the USA and this was the most crucial problem for both, eventually leading to War, as this occupied land was simply in the way for Japan. Had it not been a US Protectorate, it would have been possible to leave the USA out of the WW2.

Click to expand...

Ah, and the U.S. doesn't need a fleet for the defense of its Pacific holdings? Or are you (insanely) suggesting that WWI ending in 1917 would somehow cause the U.S. to no longer hold the Philippines? Not to mention the insanity in suggesting that even without the Philippines, the U.S. would not be concerned about Japanese actions in China.

Perhaps a more Isolationalist and anti colonialistic US Government could have deleted the Phillippines, as these lands were of no economic value and only a burden on the economy. Without the need to Protect the Phillippines, the USN would be more or less a coastal defense Navy, protecting the East and West Coast, plus the Hawaii Islands. Nothing more or less.

Click to expand...

And I see you really are that insane. There isn't a chance in hell the USN would go back to being a coast defense navy, even if magical fiat took Hawaii as well as the Philippines. You defend your coast by having more and bigger seagoing battleships than the otherside.

Secondly, the USN Dreadnoughts were all inferior in design, being of a pre-1914 design mainly, but postponed, due to other reasons. The Japanese Nagato's and their successors were designed in 1916 and the British, with their valuable warexperience, designed the new breed in 1921, with the G3 as primary focus, which outclassed all that was afloat or being built at that time. With Germany still second, also with tons of warexperience, the USNB and even the IJN would be considered as secondary powers in terms of Naval technology.

Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about? The U.S. pioneered all or nothing armor protection, raft hull for increased buoyancy, mechanical fire control computers for long range gunnery, and increased deck protection for that long range gunnery. All of these features were included starting with the Nevada class, and only later incorporated by all the other naval powers, such as Britain for instance with the G3s and their stripped down Nelson quasi-siblings. And do you really believe that Britain building the G3s would magically cause all the other naval powers to give up in despair rather than immediately learning the lessons it presented and building their own? Cause history shows that's what happened when Britain built the Dreadnaught, right?

So, even if the USN was allowed to built a larger battlefleet, it would make not much difference in the ballance of Power, as its ships were of the pre Great War Period Design. (even the South Dakota essentially was a continuation of the 1914 designs, with no radical new differences, compared to the older designs.) Compared one to one, the G3 and Nelson's outclassed even the heavier gunned South Dakota's in terms of layout and protectionschemes, as well as seaworthyness, given the new high in the water hulldesignes of the 1921 breed.

Click to expand...

Yes, because the U.S. would keep building obsolete designs while everybody else is moving on. Dear lord... Cause you know, historically, the Naval Board wasn't extraordinarily unsatisfied with the SoDaks and appalled with the Lexingtons and were calling for major redesigns already by the time of the Washington Treaty.

This concludes that the Western Allies offered the cease fire and not the Central Powers. This move in it self was a geusture of accepting the Central Power's win in the Great War, resulting in the possition of Germany as primary European Power, also claiming oversea territories. In the peacetreaty, these would be returned to Germany, so Germany also wanted a big portion of the Naval Power needed for this. (The Japanese did not get the Bismarck Archipello and not the other possessions of the Germans in the Pacific, so they did not needed to be the second largest power either.) (as the USA lacked oversea possessions, except the Phillippines, it too did not need the largest fleet, according to this theory.)

Click to expand...

And now you seem to be proposing that the Western Allies being generally regarded as losing means the U.S. which never entered the war would also be regarded as having lost. Yet Japan which was in the war would not, somehow. And the U.S. would feel such a defeat that despite having the 3rd strongest navy before and during the war while also having the strongest economy, and despite not suffering the damage of war (and in the case of Germany, years of blockade), that it would be content to firmly relegate itself to second rank power status in a treaty of its own design.

Finally, the Scenario states: "The USA pushed foreward the WNT to end the new armsrace, being developped."
This meant, the USA were actually advocating the reduction in Navalpower in the world, by putting limmits on numbers of vessels to be built and maintained. Therefore, the USA would not be able to remain reliable, if itself wanted to get the most largest and most powerfull Navy. To make a good guesture, it would accept a secodnary role and could not allow to blow up the treaty, itself wanted.

Click to expand...

Funny, the U.S. called for the Washington Treaty OTL as well, yet amazingly, it did not have to accept becoming a second rate power to get it passed. You know, one might think that being the only power that could actually afford to complete its naval programs and come back for more might actually be powerful cards in negotiations.

As for the actual question at hand, I would say there's no chance in hell Britain would accept naval equality with Germany, unless it really did all out lose the war as opposed to the "peace with honor/peace of exhaustion" we are talking about here. And by 1917, there was no way the U.S. would accept anything less than equality with number 1. I'd say a Germany smart enough to aim for peace immediately after knocking out Russia, would also be smart enough to accept a roughly Japan level navy. Given a more or less equal peace, Germany's Pacific holdings are lost and aren't coming back, and the other colonies are most likely gone as well, leaving no real need for a strong navy. For that matter, Germany could no longer afford a naval race at all, what with its economy in ruins and all the East to hold down. So I'd say a 5:5:3:3 is a reasonable outcome, albeit one that has Britain sweating bullets and doing its damnest to keep both the U.S. and Japan on side.

Just a background on the environment that led to the worlds first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.

Britain had 31 or so capital ships, but only 14/15/16" guns are acceptable in 1918 so Britian is facing the scrapping of over a dozen 12" and 13.5" warships and building the N3 and G3 immediately, incorporating war lessons.

The US has 16 16" ships building as it 1916 plan to add to its dozen or so capital ships. Wilson also planned in 1919 to add build another 16 ships to this huge fleet.

Japan was looking at the 8-8 programme, again a huge building programme to counter the massive US programme.

Germany I imagine would be in a worse situation to the British. A large number of obsolete capital ships but while Britian had 12 15" ships and 4 building Germany only had 2 15" ships and a number others building, many of which only had 13.4" guns, designed without war experience. Germany never had parity with the RN, it was a riskflotte designed to threaten rather than defeat outright. Germany also had to maintain an army of over 100 divisions and lots of heavy artillery.

So I think Germany would readily agree to a navy smaller than Britain and the US, and pegging it at 2/3 enshrines at ratio that Germany aspired to IOTL anyway.

xchen08 said:

As for the actual question at hand, I would say there's no chance in hell Britain would accept naval equality with Germany, unless it really did all out lose the war as opposed to the "peace with honor/peace of exhaustion" we are talking about here. And by 1917, there was no way the U.S. would accept anything less than equality with number 1. I'd say a Germany smart enough to aim for peace immediately after knocking out Russia, would also be smart enough to accept a roughly Japan level navy. Given a more or less equal peace, Germany's Pacific holdings are lost and aren't coming back, and the other colonies are most likely gone as well, leaving no real need for a strong navy. For that matter, Germany could no longer afford a naval race at all, what with its economy in ruins and all the East to hold down. So I'd say a 5:5:3:3 is a reasonable outcome, albeit one that has Britain sweating bullets and doing its damnest to keep both the U.S. and Japan on side.

Click to expand...

xchen08

I agree on British reaction to a German bid for equality in battlefleet size. Britain is definitely not going to give Germany what it couldn't achieve by a naval race, not when German territorial gains have made it a potentially more dangerous threat.

Would say that given their mutual hostility it is impossible to keep both the US and Japan 'on side'. Remember historically US hostility to Britain was pretty strong at this point. It insisted on the scrapping of the Anglo-Japanese alliance to weakened Britain although its leaders knew it was no threat to the US.

Also if the US has built up a sizeable number of the 1916 programme, so that their too advanced to be scrapped, Britain is definitely going to need a lot of new construction to balance that. [It is a big IF however because the big obstical to the completion of the programme was funding from Congress so it might not be greatly more advanced that OTL]. If it is however that probably makes a deal impossible.

If the war ends in 1917 but the Germans maintain a large fleet and the US [and hence Japan] are working on their programmes, what has Britain been doing? Fall all the concerns about its three sisters with somewhat better armour the 3 other Hoods might get finished but definitely will be more work on successor classes. Won't have the information from the Baden but have other ships to test with and a much greater incentive. Also if the war is a year or more shorter, less burdens in eastern Europe and a much greater threat the funds will be found.

Steve

stevep said:

Would say that given their mutual hostility it is impossible to keep both the US and Japan 'on side'. Remember historically US hostility to Britain was pretty strong at this point. It insisted on the scrapping of the Anglo-Japanese alliance to weakened Britain although its leaders knew it was no threat to the US.

Click to expand...

Well, when push comes to shove, Britain would still go for the U.S. rather than Japan, just as OTL. Certainly, Britain cannot afford even the tiniest possibility of facing the U.S. and a semi-victorious Germany at the same time. I mentioned the idea of keeping both Japan and the U.S. friendly as a possibility merely because the continuing existence of a powerful Germany as a common foe might make pleasing the U.S. easier.

Also if the US has built up a sizeable number of the 1916 programme, so that their too advanced to be scrapped, Britain is definitely going to need a lot of new construction to balance that. [It is a big IF however because the big obstical to the completion of the programme was funding from Congress so it might not be greatly more advanced that OTL]. If it is however that probably makes a deal impossible.

Click to expand...

Well the continuing existence of a strong Germany immediately voids most of Congress's complaints about paying for a naval buildup when the U.S. already has a very comfortable superiority over the only potential enemy, Japan. That does indeed greatly weaken Britain's negotiating position, and make a treaty much more difficult to bring about. ITTL, we may see the Treaty not coming about until it becomes clear to Britain and especially Japan that their existing programs are ruinous, and Germany realizes that it can't even afford to replace its obsolete ships. As such, it'll probably be more likely a London Treaty than Washington.

Hopefully, this doesn't mean the Lexingtons actually get completed. Dear God, but what were their designers smoking? The SoDaks at least were a semi-competent design with a great deal of upgrade room and an excellent armament, but the Lexingtons....they're almost as bad as Fisher's follies. That said, at least the Navy General Board was pretty outspokenly aware of the stupidity of the design and were already tossing around the carrier conversion idea. Now if only we can make so all the Lexingtons get converted into carriers... 6 34kt Carriers with 100+ air wings, now that would be useful and solve the USN's problems with scouting once and for all.

xchen08 said:

Well, when push comes to shove, Britain would still go for the U.S. rather than Japan, just as OTL. Certainly, Britain cannot afford even the tiniest possibility of facing the U.S. and a semi-victorious Germany at the same time. I mentioned the idea of keeping both Japan and the U.S. friendly as a possibility merely because the continuing existence of a powerful Germany as a common foe might make pleasing the U.S. easier.

Click to expand...

Agreed that the US is more important economically but if Britain stayed loyal to Japan what would the US do? they would be unhappy but their unlikely to go to war or start allying with Germany say. They might build more ships but unless their attacking either Britain or Japan - which is politically difficult to see those ships are to a large degree irrelevent. On the other hand we knew the Japanese would fight, hence making them more attractive allies, and as later history shows potentially dangerous enemies.

Well the continuing existence of a strong Germany immediately voids most of Congress's complaints about paying for a naval buildup when the U.S. already has a very comfortable superiority over the only potential enemy, Japan. That does indeed greatly weaken Britain's negotiating position, and make a treaty much more difficult to bring about. ITTL, we may see the Treaty not coming about until it becomes clear to Britain and especially Japan that their existing programs are ruinous, and Germany realizes that it can't even afford to replace its obsolete ships. As such, it'll probably be more likely a London Treaty than Washington.

Click to expand...

Would it with a strong Britain and the Atlantic between them and Germany? Even if it did, what would be the relevance? More to the point if different circumstances prevent the British government having a major failure of vision and crippling the navy and shipyards as it did OTL Britain is in a better situation militarily for the foreseeable future and possibly economically as well. [Continue steady turn-over in the shipyards keeps money pumping in areas that otherwise becomes seriously depressed. Also maintaining industrial capacity].

If the US does find the willpower for a prolonged production at this point they can overtake Britain but that would be less important for Britain than restoring the RN and avoiding the disaster we ended up with. [Unfortunately the flocks didn't see that at the time and we paid very heavily later as a result]. Don't forget this is a somewhat richer Britain we're talking about so say a minimum of 4 Hoods and 4 G3's would be no great problem and transform Britain's situation in the 20's and 30's.

Hopefully, this doesn't mean the Lexingtons actually get completed. Dear God, but what were their designers smoking? The SoDaks at least were a semi-competent design with a great deal of upgrade room and an excellent armament, but the Lexingtons....they're almost as bad as Fisher's follies. That said, at least the Navy General Board was pretty outspokenly aware of the stupidity of the design and were already tossing around the carrier conversion idea. Now if only we can make so all the Lexingtons get converted into carriers... 6 34kt Carriers with 100+ air wings, now that would be useful and solve the USN's problems with scouting once and for all.

Click to expand...

I think the problem was that the US couldn't produce powerful enough boilers at the time to generate the steam pressure needed for those ships, the US's 1st BCs after all, to achieve the speeds they wanted.

For those who aren't big ship addicts like xchen08 I suspect] and myself the initial US design for the Lexington class were ~35,000tons, 10x14" guns, and 35kts speed. The latter caused problems as with the boiler designs the US had they could only propel such a large ship at that speed by a very large volume of boilers. Large enough that the ship had boilers in armoured boxes above the water-line, very much a no-no in ship designs and needed 7 funnels to handle all the steam exhausts. WWI caused a pause in US construction and also I have read they saw something of the Hood design. Managed to develop more powerful boilers and ended up with a radically different design, ~43,000tons, 33kts, 8x16" guns - although still very thinned skin. Fortunately for the US the Washington Treaty killed them but allowed two to be completed as ~35,000ton carrier, Lexington and Saratoga.

On the SD's while powerful, if slow ships I have heard that they actually had very little scope for reconstruction. A naval board, which seemed to have died unfortunately, had a good bit about this and also mention of an alternative Washington exercise run on another board went into a fair bit of detail on this.

Steve

So would any of you be intrested in defending a nation's stance on the Treaty .
people could take any one of these nations
UK and British Empire , USofA , Germany , Japan , France , Italy , A-H , the ottoman Empire and the USSR .

I would be willing to take the USSR for this treaty .

But we would have to move this to the Share world thread .

It's agonizing sometimes looking into the recent spate of WW1 naval threads filled with utter rot (Von der Tann ramming an RN battleship? ).

1. Someone needs to explain the 1917 end to the war much better, because if I recall correctly Russia was knocked out of the war and the Entente didn't stop fighting and by that point the United States already had entered the war. Something awe-inspiring like a massive geological event that obliterates London or Washington or a full-on French mutiny or the Royal Navy getting Letterstime-d (completely obliterated, ASB anyway) is going to have to happen.

2. RN/KM parity is not going to happen unless pixies allow no initial US intervention + U-Boat War victory + RN annihilation + USN annihilation once it steps in to save UK from utter defeat + successful Sealion two decades early.

3. Warspite is asymptotically approaching bard32 levels of nonsense. The same country that produced Mahan gives up the Philippines, stops its giant naval program for no good reason, and then starts building monitors? Right...

4. American industry being less than that of the United Kingdom in 1917 is laughable. I fully expect the next comment to include discussion of 20 Japanese divisions landing on the undefended US coast.

5. American signing an agreement for parity with the Japanese won't happen even if there are pickelhaubes in Washington DC and the Rising Sun flies over Denver.

6. The WNT was a close-run thing in OTL, even though it consisted entirely of nations that had just fought the most devastating war up until that point on the same side. Can you really see the British and Americans in a room with a German delegation that just practiced total war on those nations' merchantmen? Or the vanquished French, with the Germans twirling their mustachios and commenting on what a nice fort Verdun makes? This, IMHO, is ASB within 15 years of a 1917 draw in WW1.

Douglas said:

Can you really see the British and Americans in a room with a German delegation that just practiced total war on those nations' merchantmen?

Click to expand...

It was a submarine blockade to respond to Great Britains surface blockade, which was just as bad.

Susano said:

It was a submarine blockade to respond to Great Britains surface blockade, which was just as bad.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, I'm not saying that the Entente action is better! You can flip the argument around, but it still proves my point:

"Can you really see the Germans in a room with Entente delegations that just used their naval superiority to starve German civilians to death?"

Douglas said:

Oh dear, I'm not saying that the Entente action is better! You can flip the argument around, but it still proves my point:

"Can you really see the Germans in a room with Entente delegations that just used their naval superiority to starve German civilians to death?"

Click to expand...

Well, theyll have to be in a room for the peace negotiations at least, heh. But yes, if naval limitations arent part of that peace brokering theres no chance that they get etsablished. Certainly not in a seperate, voluntary treaty.

I agree, there would have to some negotiations to end the war. As for the WNT they wouldn't start until a good 4 years after the war ended, and there would be so much to be gained by all sides that I think recent enemies would tolerate each other to reach an agreement.