Royal Navy without the Washington Naval Treaty

[Captain Jack]

After World War I the Royal Navy and United States Navy were on the verge of a naval arms race. OTL it was avoided by the Washington Naval Treaty and the isolationists regaining control in the US(plus the expense to the Royal Navy).

My thinking is along these lines:
First, if the N3 battleships had been built what would they have been like? OTL had a series designs which were the "L", "M", and "N". From what I've read the L's were more traditional with superfiring turrets while the N's were a kind of "super-Nelson" class.
Second, given a free hand, would the ships have used the proposed 18" guns in development or gone for something else?
Third, how would these designs and that of the G3 battlecruisers have compared to equivalent foreign ones?

Basically I'm wondering how the Royal Navy would have developed if freed from the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty(ignoring how plausible or implausible this is)

[ModernKiwi]

Interesting question.

From what I can see it looks as though 18" guns are a bit of a dead end. Yes they're powerful, but the effects that the blast has on your superstructure seems to cancel the advantages of it.

I'm guessing that post WW1 WNT or not the old 12" Battleships are going to be scrapped. I suspect that 4 + 4 G & N's is the most that the Treasury would allow and even that would be pushing things.

So a fleet with the 4+4 and all the 15" ships (Royal Oaks and QE's plus Hood).

[Captain Jack]

something else worth considering about Hood is that the RN could have done with the rest of the Admiral class what they did with Hood. Namely turned them into battlecruisers(Hood-class?) and reduced the G3's.

[ModernKiwi]

Except that they'd scrapped the rest of them post Jutland as being unsuitable for combat.

I did forget to mention Renown and Repulse in my list above. I'd imagine that they'd be kept on too.

[Captain Jack]

I'm just throwing this out there but would it have any effect on the construction of aircraft carriers? I suspect it wouldn't but who knows, maybe the effort put into the battleships would stop them from converting the courageous class's

[sharlin]

Fishers Follies were recognised as basically being ships without a job, their one action showed them to be fragile and not really fit for service, they would either be laid up pending disposal or looked at for conversions to CVs. The RN was already starting to build CVs with HMS Argus and the slightly later Eagle.

Without a WNT you could probably expect to see all the 12 inch gunned vessels being scrapped whilst the 13.5's would be offered up for sale or given to the Dominions, namely Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The RN might alter the Admirals (IE The Hood's sisterships) on the stocks or possibly and somewhat more radically convert them into CVs and just get rid of the follies to get a bigger more potent carrier.

The G3s would go into service but i'd expect the probable blast problems with the placement of their turrets to either force a re-design of the N3s or some significant structural strengthening for the forward superstructure.

In regards to other nations designs the G3s were probably without a match until the 1940s when the OTL South Dakota's would be built. Compaired to the Tosa/Akagi classes of Japan the G3's had much thicker armour all round and comparable firepower, they would run rings round the planned USN's South Dakotas but be outgunned (12 x 16 inch guns on the super Standards) and was massively more protected than the Saratoga class BCs as well as being more heavily gunned.

The French and Italians would not have anything that compaired. So basically the G3s would have been the most powerful ships in the world for a bloody long time.

[ModernKiwi]

I am pretty sure that the Hood's sisters were scrapped on the yard before the end of the war.

A RN that constructs the G3 and N3's isn't going to have any money for carriers, so they're probably only going to have the Argus and the Eagle. The Couragous/Glorious/Furious are likely to be scrapped instead.

[stevep]

Guys

Two questions:

a) What are the other nations doing without the treaty?

b) Is the alliance with Japan renewed?

This will be important because the role of the RN will be to respond to threats to Britain's security. Given the state of our rivals in Europe, with everybody bar France and Italy prostrate, partitioned or prevented from building by treaty, or some combination of, this basically means what are the USN and IJN doing and how big a threat is this seen as?

I think the 4G3's will be constructed and would be a huge bonus to the fleet, replacing probably twice their number of older ships as they enter service in the mid-20's. However whether other construction follows would depend on what other nations are doing.

4N3's were planned and are more practical than the L or M designs because either of the others with 18" guns would be much larger and more expensive. However there has been a suggestion that they were a potential threat to pressurise the US and Japan to the table so, depending on the situation they might or might not be built. Would prefer 4 more G3's myself as their speed and commonality with the earlier ships would give more capability.

The other 3 Hood's, of a slightly improved design had already been scrapped a couple of years before the treaty so it would have needed an earlier POD than the treaty failing to save them. Decent ships for the time but not as good as what the new designs were but unfortunately we got neither. The Chief Naval Designer I think had suggested the Hood itself be scrapped on the stocks but since it was already fairly well advanced by this stage [think about 1919] and the only capital ship Britain had built since the 2R BCs it was decided to continue with it.

It would have depended on the circumstances but no treaty would have had an impact on carrier development. Probably overall delayed it a bit as money goes into new gun ships and those new ships will be seen as more capable. [No admiral with any sense will want to suggest to his government that the expensive new ships might be rendered obsolete by new carriers.] Also the Lexington and Saratoga and their Japanese equivalents may not have been available for conversion depending on what happens with other navies.

One possibly thing with the Hood and 4G3's providing a fast modern force. Repulse and Renown would be a lot less useful so they might go to carrier converts say in the late 20's replacing experimental designs like Eagle and Furious.

Steve

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

I'm just throwing this out there but would it have any effect on the construction of aircraft carriers? I suspect it wouldn't but who knows, maybe the effort put into the battleships would stop them from converting the courageous class's

It probably wouldn't stop the conversion of the Courageous class, but the Lexington/Saratoga and Akagi/Kaga likely get built as BCs.

More generally, the British would find themselves in a financial bind - there was no way they would be able to keep up with the US in a naval construction race. The British might have opted either to try to keep a qualitative edge, or shift to CVs as a 'cheaper' alternative.

[BELFAST]

I do not think The royal navy would have had to money to develop even if there was no Washington treaty.

[ModernKiwi]

Carriers aren't going to be rendering Battleships obsolete for quite some time. 1920's aircraft don't have the lift capacity to carry the bombs and/or torpedoes that can threaten a battleship. They're still going to be used for scouting and against smaller ships, but they're not a BB threat - yet.

So with a limited budget, and especially with the G3 and N3's absorbing the bulk of it throughout the 1920's, there's going to be SFA for carriers.

[PhilKearny]

No Washington Conference Five Power Naval Treaty plus the United Kingdom tries to build the G3s equal financial disaster for the United Kingdom.

Basically, the UK could not afford the G3s. Not only were the G3s more expensive than the NelRods (and had most of the flaws that mad the NelRods probably the worst post WW I battleship class), the G3 were so long that they would required new facilities be built for mooring and servicing them.

And as the British politicians recognized at the time, the construction of the G3s probably would have been even more unaffordable as it would have angered the Americans, who held huge amounts of UK debt. Beyond probably provoking a naval race with the US that the UK could neither afford nor win, the UK risked having the US destroy the UK's economy by taking such steps as demanding payment of the bonds at the original terms.

There was a strong distrust of imperialism in the US. Were the UK to have spent money on the G3s rather than making an attempt to repay their debt to the US, this anti-imperialism would have exploded.

[sharlin]

The RN could have afforded the G3s without bankrupting itself. The money was there, the political will and the WNT put a stop to them.

[PhilKearny]

Originally Posted by sharlin

The RN could have afforded the G3s without bankrupting itself. The money was there, the political will and the WNT put a stop to them.

That the UK could not afford the G3s has been shown here repeatedly. In the past I have cited a number of scholarly books that supported this. Unfortunately, many people refuse to face the truth.

The money was not there. The money would have had to have been taken from social programs and/or the UK would have had to take on additional debt.

The people and politicians of the UK objected to the former. Post war politics were based on social spending after the hardship of WW I.

The people of the UK, many of the politicians of the UK, the holders of UK debt objected to the latter. The politicians in the UK were greatly against increasing the great debt. Those holding the UK's already issued debt rightly feared the UK defaulting on the debt that it had already issued. (The UK was behind already on its payments to its creditors.) Any further issuance of debt would to finance an arms race would have resulted in economic disaster for the UK.

Perhaps if the people of the UK were willing to have greatly diminished domestic spending and face the ire of the United States, then the UK could have built the G3s. No rational UK politician would have chosen that course.

[Living in Exile]

So you would suggest ships very similar to the Nelson and Rodney get built?


What about cruisers? No one has brought up those yet. There's no such thing as "Treaty cruisers". That has to favor the Royal Navy because their mission required smaller cruisers, but they felt pressured to build big ones OTL.

[sharlin]

The RN actually favoured the larger cruisers, its why we built so many County class cruisers. Heavy cruisers and light cruisers were coming. The RN laid down the Hawkins class which was the archetype of the Heavy Cruiser pattern, 10k tonnes, heavy caliber guns, high speed.

[ModernKiwi]

Given enough time and/or money, all cruisers evolve to be Baltimore class equivelents...

[sharlin]

Well its common sense really. Battlecruisers whilst powerful (despite their somewhat tarnished reputation after Jutland)) are bloody expensive to build and operate. Armoured cruisers were obsolete and again expensive to operate.

The RN needed ships with long enough range to patrol the colonies and empire whilst also using smaller vessels to escort the fleet as well as carrying out long range missions. A role for both large and small cruisers.

[Cockroach]

Originally Posted by PhilKearny

That the UK could not afford the G3s has been shown here repeatedly. In the past I have cited a number of scholarly books that supported this. Unfortunately, many people refuse to face the truth.

Given in OTL the poms managed to build Nelson, Rodney and 13 County Class cruisers during the 1920s I find it hard to believe the G3s were unafordable. The step up to either building the same number of cruisers as OTL or including the N3 would probably have been pushing too far...

[PhilKearny]

Originally Posted by Cockroach

Given in OTL the poms managed to build Nelson, Rodney and 13 County Class cruisers during the 1920s I find it hard to believe the G3s were unafordable. The step up to either building the same number of cruisers as OTL or including the N3 would probably have been pushing too far...

The UK built all that stuff--and had no money left over. You are right--Had the UK built the G3s, they would not have been able to afford the cruisers, would have needed new facilities for the G3s, and would have expensive ships with lousy guns and a dubious armor scheme. And the G3s would have invoked the wrath of the US.

All in all, the UK and the RN would have been far worse off had the UK built the G3s.

How bad was the financial sitation of the RN between wars? Pretty bad. Training decreased. Tours by warships were decreased. Refitting of ships were put off. Still, the RN fared better than the other services between the wars according to Joseph Moretz in his book The Royal Navy and Capital Ship Design in Interwar Period. (While a bit of an apology for the UK's mismanagement during this period, this is a pretty good book.)

The NelRods were based on the G3 design. The NelRods never worked quite right. Part of this was due to the lack of money, part of this was their basically innovative but greatly flawed design. As mentioned above the NelRods had basically the same as proposed for the G3s. The failings of the armor scheme was that while the belt was thick, it was short and narrow relative to the practice of other nations. John Jordan points out that the ships armor scheme made them disproportionately vunerable to mines and torpedos. The NelRods were to have their armor redone but lack of time and money plus the occurrence of WW II prevented this.

The RN had no money to develop a decent shell for the guns the NelRods carried, no money to supply the ships with guns that all had matching rifling (the gun was made in a second version due to first version being very inaccurate), or get the turrets working right. Even when the turrets did work right, the NelRods had a slow rate of fire and were inaccurate. Look at the shooting of the Rodney at the Bismarck. Around 10% of the shells hit--most fired at a range of less than 5000 yards at a ship that could not maneuver. Clearly, the 16" gun on the NelRods was not very good compared to their contemporaries. Indeed, this gun did not compare favorably with the superb 15" BL gun from a generation before.

Also, the NelRods were much less expensive than the G3s would have been. They were considerably less expensive to build than the G3s. They were less expensive to man and to fuel than the G3s would have been. The NelRods did not require new facilities as they not nearly as long as the G3s would have been.

If the money was spent on the G3s, it would have to come from some place. If it came from the defense budget, the other services will not be happy nor will other parts of the RN. If you thought RN naval aviation was less than stellar IOTL, it would have been far worse if the G3s had been built as money would have undoubtedly been funneled away from carriers to finance the G3s. Further, the cruisers, which many in the RN thought far more vital to UK security would not have been built.

If it came from elsewhere in the budget, such as education or other social programs, the UK economy will likely suffer. Social programs generally have a higher multiplier than defense expenditures. (That, at least, is conventional macroeconomic theory.) Further, the public would not have been keen on that after the sacrifices and deprivations they had already endured during WW I.

As I noted before, building the G3s may well provoke a naval race with the US. The UK could not afford afford a naval race with the US. The US could afford a naval race. The cruisers did not provoke a naval race. The building of the cruisers did anger some in the US, particularly the USN admirals but this was manageable. Further, the cruisers were far more useful IOTL than the G3s would have been.

Further, the US held the ultimate trump card in a competition with the UK--it held so much UK debt and had such other economic power that the US had the ability to destroy the UK economically. And, of course, the Japanese would have continued with their 8-8 plan. The UK would find itself in more precarious position. (Of course, Japan could afford a naval race even less than the UK.)

The UK's politicians recognized these facts--painful as recognizing such might have been. They recognized they were better off with US as a putative ally rather than as an enemy. The last naval race had cost the UK dearly and its politicians were wise enough to realize that they could not afford another one.