Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[sts-200]

Now that sounds like something that would ruin the RN's day

For the British, a giant battleship-sized reminder that if the US wants to win a building race, it can win one.

For the Americans, a giant battleship-sized reminder that if the US wants to win a building race, it means raising the Navy's budget to near-wartime levels, and keeping it there.

Seems like the US is going down a similar path to OTL in terms of it's construction plans while the Irish Free State and Treaty Ports seem very close to OTL as well, it seems the butterflies from the different war have been confined to the map of Europe and the order of battle of the RN at least for now. You've already said that something is going to get signed but I can't see how it can be anywhere near as comprehensive as OTL the circumstances are so much less favourable.

Yes, US construction plans are similar. Some a little quicker (e.g. cruisers, Marylands, early SoDaks) , some actually a little slower - it's 1921 and the capital ships of the 1916 programme are not all funded yet.

There are only the two treaty ports, and there hasn't been any of the OTL nonsense about trying to negotiate 5-year leases/rights etc...
I'm going to be keeping Ireland very similar, as it would just distract from the story, and I don't see many drivers for change.

Butterflies also apply to the map of the near East and Arabia - the Ottomans still rule most of it. That's perhaps something for 'Part 2' of the story ... in due course.

 

[Merrick]

I think people are (very realistically) fixating too much on total tonnage and number of ships. Those 12"-gunned coal-burners may look impressive on a spreadsheet, but they're obsolete and will be discarded soon, treaty or no treaty. What everyone serious will be thinking about is the balance in the latest generation of post-Stavanger designs.

There's a interesting timing window here. Right "now":
- The Americans have 4 Colorados launched and 4 each (I think) South Dakotas and Lexingtons building.
- The Japanese have 2 Nagatos complete and 2 Tosas and 2-4 Amagis building
- The British have Rodney and Furious in service and nothing building (the N3s have been ordered but not laid down)

So if we order an immediate halt:
- The Americans and Japanese have to scrap/convert >200,000 tons of ships under construction. The British directly lose nothing.
- The USN ends up with 3-4 Colorados, the IJN with 2 Nagatos and the RN with Rodney and Furious.
- The RN retains a large numerical advantage over the USN who have a large advantage over the IJN, even though most of the "advantage" is in obsolete ships.

I can't see that one flying. It sounds like just the sort of "compromise" that everyone involved thinks favours the other side.

If on the other hand we allow everyone to complete what they have under construction:
- The Americans get 8 16"-gunned BB and 4 16"-gunned BCs (could be more if they accelerated construction in 1920-21)
- The Japanese get 4 16"-gunned BBs and 2-4 16"-gunned BCs
- The British get Rodney and Furious.

From the RN's point of view, this isn't a deal, this is unconditional surrender. I can't see the British accepting this under any circumstances short of major financial crisis.

So if there's a deal at all, it will have to include some way of levelling the field in the latest ships. My best guess:
- The RN and USN discard their 12"-gunned ships (The IJN discards Settsu and any left-over pre-dreadnoughts).
- The Americans get to complete the Colorados and 4 of the Lexingtons.
- The Japanese get to complete the Tosas and the first two Amagis.
- The British get to keep Rodney and Furious and replace 4 of their existing 13.5"-gunned BBs with 16"-gunned 40,000 ton "treaty battleships".
- No more construction until 1925, thereafter limited to 40,000 tons, 16" guns at a maximum rate of 1/year and only to replace ships that are over 15 years old.

This leaves everyone with 4 of the latest BBs and 2 of the latest BCs. The USN get 2 additional new BCs to match against the Admirals and Kongos. The RN and USN advantage over the Japanese is in legacy ships.
The Japanese will complain that once the older ships are rotated out, they will be locked into a permanent disadvantage, with only 8 BBs and 6 BCs vs 15+4 for the USN and 20+7 for the RN. The British will point out that by the time they've replaced all their Iron Dukes and King George Vs it will be the late 1930s and they will still have pre-WW1 construction in their fleet.
The Americans will complain that they're outmatched in battlecruisers and they're giving the British a permanent 30% overall advantage. Everyone else will point out that the US called this conference to prevent a tonnage war, and the deal gives the USN 8 of the latest generation of ships while the RN and IJN are limited to 6. (The IJN, in particular, are not going to be happy to allow even 4 Lexingons while they're limited to 2 Amagis. The RN will likely have to put Courageous on the chopping block to get a deal at all, and may have to throw in Lion and Panther as well.)
The British will push for 45,000 tons for new construction. Everyone else will point out that the Colorados are 33,000 tons and the Tosas are 40,000 so no, the RN are not going to be allowed the last play in the leapfrog game.

Expect much dickering over how many older ships each side gets to keep, how long they must be retained and what the replacement rate is. The British will want a slow replacement rate that keeps their older ships viable without breaking the budget. The Americans are more likely to want an agreed tonnage limit they can build to immediately. The Japanese will want to get as close as they can to the 8-8 programme while limiting everyone else.

 

[Thoresby]

I think people are (very realistically) fixating too much on total tonnage and number of ships. Those 12"-gunned coal-burners may look impressive on a spreadsheet, but they're obsolete and will be discarded soon, treaty or no treaty. What everyone serious will be thinking about is the balance in the latest generation of post-Stavanger designs.

The 12" coal burners are obsolete no question but I disagree with your summary. The Colorado- class are not post Stavanger designs, in fact they aren't superior in any meaningful way to the British 15" ships. They are slower at 21 knots though they do have a slightly superior armour layout compared to the QE's and more armour than this tl's R's. Their 16"/45 isn't meaningfully better than the British 15" Mk 1 in terms of armour penetration (see here and here). All in all I would call it a wash and the same applies to the Nagato's. I think it is more useful to rank that entire generation of 32k tons ships (look at the as built weight for the Colorado, QE and Nagato's, it's amazingly close) as equivalent super-dreads and then regard the truly post Stavanger battleships as being the Rodney, the SoDaks and the Tosa's.

 

[sts-200]

Some very good reasoning there, much of which will feature in the treaty negotiations.

Britain has a huge fleet, and a modest construction programme that it can choose to afford if necessary.
The USA has a large fleet, and a big construction programme that needs to get even bigger if they want to do more than match the RN.
Japan has a medium-size fleet, and an ongoing commitment to 8-8 that they can't afford indefinitely.
(if they're serious about sustaining that programme, they're going to have to replace Kongo/Fuso by the mid-late 20s).

All four of the world's largest warships are currently British - but with slightly bigger American and Japanese ones building.
The USN totally outmatches the IJN at present, but if the 2 Tosas and 4 Amagis are completed, they will need at least 6 of the SoDaks/Lexingtons to meet them, and would probably want 8 or 10.

The 18" stable door is open ... but the horse is probably only halfway out. There are several possibilities there - everything from 'scrap Furious' to 'give the others a different exemption'.

And don't forget the little guys have their needs and squabbles too, and the RN can't afford to totally ignore them, even if the other two could.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The 18" stable door is open ... but the horse is probably only halfway out. There are several possibilities there - everything from 'scrap Furious' to 'give the others a different exemption'.

Or... rebuild her into an Aircraft Carrier.

Just an idea...

 

[Thoresby]

Britain has a huge fleet, and a modest construction programme that it can choose to afford if necessary.

And that it has full political support for.

The USA has a large fleet, and a big construction programme that needs to get even bigger if they want to do more than match the RN.

Whose political support is questionable.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Whose political support is questionable.

If Japan is building the Amagi and Kaga classes and Britain is constructing 18 in ships, there will be all the political support in the world to match them. Accepting inferiority to the British would be an electoral millstone around the neck of the Republican party.

 

[Thoresby]

If Japan is building the Amagi and Kaga classes and Britain is constructing 18 in ships, there will be all the political support in the world to match them. Accepting inferiority to the British would be an electoral millstone around the neck of the Republican party.

No it wouldn't. At this time the USN has been inferior in size and capability to the RN for it's entire history, for large chunks of the 19th century the USN was functionally non-existent. In OTL the USN remained smaller* than the RN until 1942/3. For every single person living in 1920 and for their grandparents and ancestors going back 170 years the idea that the RN rules the waves is just way things are. There is a meaningful group who recognise that the US has developed to the point that it has the ability to become number one but it's an idea about a possible future and there is a body of opinion who is opposed to that, who want the US to remain focused internally and aloof from the European Empires, who think the US involvement in the Great War was a mistake and who don't like the idea of a strong USN because it might tempt a future President to use it, they aren't a majority any more than the hawks at the other end of the spectrum are but with President Harding they have someone who is as sympathetic to their worldview. The 1916 Naval Bill was one end of the pendulum swing and short of Britain or someone else doing something provocative like invade somewhere in the Central America it's going to swing at least some of the way back.

*Not in battleships but overall.

 

[Trevayne]

No it wouldn't. At this time the USN has been inferior in size and capability to the RN for it's entire history, for large chunks of the 19th century the USN was functionally non-existent. In OTL the USN remained smaller* than the RN until 1942/3. For every single person living in 1920 and for their grandparents and ancestors going back 170 years the idea that the RN rules the waves is just way things are. There is a meaningful group who recognise that the US has developed to the point that it has the ability to become number one but it's an idea about a possible future and there is a body of opinion who is opposed to that, who want the US to remain focused internally and aloof from the European Empires, who think the US involvement in the Great War was a mistake and who don't like the idea of a strong USN because it might tempt a future President to use it, they aren't a majority any more than the hawks at the other end of the spectrum are but with President Harding they have someone who is as sympathetic to their worldview. The 1916 Naval Bill was one end of the pendulum swing and short of Britain or someone else doing something provocative like invade somewhere in the Central America it's going to swing at least some of the way back.

*Not in battleships but overall.

Yes, but you are ignoring some of the other parts of the picture. One of the motivations for starting to rebuild the USN was the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882. People started thinking about the idea that is there anything that prevents the British from doing that to New York and getting perturbed when they realized the answer is no.

The big navy was what allowed the US to maintain a very small army. The alternative to a big navy is spending lots on coastal defenses, which can't be easily moved and tend to become obsolescent before they are complete, although they still need to be respected. The batteries that sank the Blucher at Oslo Fiord were over 40 years old at the time IIRC.

As for the RN being bigger in overall ships, so what? The part the US cares about is whether the battlefleet is bigger and by how much. The RN could have twice as many cruisers, but they don't accomplish much against the US besides shutting down overseas trade via cruiser warfare and guarding British trade. Aside from scouting, do cruisers have any role in a fleet action aside from unfortunate victim (like HMS Defence and HMS Warrior at Jutland in OTL)?

I agree with the description of isolationist tendency, but IMHO that tendency relies on a big navy to keep problems away. Navies don't get involved in foreign adventures/entanglements nearly as much as armies, simply because it is easier to disengage by steaming away.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

At this time the USN has been inferior in size and capability to the RN for it's entire history, for large chunks of the 19th century the USN was functionally non-existent.

That was then. In 1820 the US was a peripheral nation with little influence, in 1920 the US was with an undisputed great power with unmatched industrial capacity.

OTL the USN remained smaller* than the RN until 1942/3

However in theory they were equal, which was really all that mattered to the public and the politicians.

For every single person living in 1920 and for their grandparents and ancestors going back 170 years the idea that the RN rules the waves is just way things are.

Not in 1921. The US was an up and coming naval power by this point and felt confident in asserting its own interests. The " second to none" philosophy of the US was a natural outgrowth of the American imperialism and naval expansion of the preceding decade. By the WNT, continuing RN supremacy was a dead letter in the US.

there is a body of opinion who is opposed to that, who want the US to remain focused internally and aloof from the European Empires, who think the US involvement in the Great War was a mistake

These are the isolationists. However isolationists were not opposed to a large US Navy, just US involvement in Europe. Ensuring naval parity was important to them because A. It ensured US dominance over Japan and B. It stopped other nations interfering in US trade. There's also the unspoken prestige factor as well.

The 1916 Naval Bill was one end of the pendulum swing and short of Britain or someone else doing something provocative like invade somewhere in the Central America it's going to swing at least some of the way back.

Not very likely. The only disagreement was whether to outbuild the British or seek a diplomatic solution. It's an argument between parity or superiority or parity not parity or inferiority.

 

[admiral charles]

By the way, although restricted by Stockholm armistice (sorry, I refused to call it a treaty), that if am not wrong is like 4/5 years old already, should Germany be invited?, maybe not in this but for a future possible renovation of the treaty.

 

[Thoresby]

These are the isolationists. However isolationists were not opposed to a large US Navy, just US involvement in Europe. Ensuring naval parity was important to them because A. It ensured US dominance over Japan and B. It stopped other nations interfering in US trade. There's also the unspoken prestige factor as well.

Not very likely. The only disagreement was whether to outbuild the British or seek a diplomatic solution. It's an argument between parity or superiority or parity not parity or inferiority.

President Harding would disagree, his entire campaign was built on "a return to normalcy" and he said he would not be "be unmindful of the call for reduced expenditure" on armaments. He had three foreign policy priorities, not joining the League of Nations, pulling out of the various Caribbean countries occupied by US forces and disarmament. His first priority on taking office was passing a massive series of tax cuts that saw federal spending decline from 6.5% of GDP to 3.5%. He wasn't opposed to the US Navy he just didn't want to fund it and his key congressional allies thought the same way. Now obviously that was all OTL and that was after the Washington Naval Treaty gave them political space to slash military spending but the key point is that that is direction they wanted to travel in. The Senate is filled with men like Borah and they are not going to fund an increase in spending over the two ships a year level and if they did Harding would probably veto it for getting in the way of his low taxes and balanced budget.

If you can find a quote of Harding, Coolidge or the Secretary of State Charles Hughes arguing for a large USN I'll change my mind, until then I'll take them at their word and assume that when they said they wanted a return to the pre-war situation and low spending they meant it.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

Now obviously that was all OTL and that was after the Washington Naval Treaty gave them political space to slash military spending but the key point is that that is direction they wanted to travel in. The Senate is filled with men like Borah and they are not going to fund an increase in spending over the two ships a year level and if they did Harding would probably veto it for getting in the way of his low taxes and balanced budget.

A treaty enshrining British naval supremacy will never get past the Senate. Hell it probably won't get past the American negotiators. At the end of the day, campaign promises aren't worth the paper they're written on and politicians can change at the drop of a hat when circumstances permit. Disarmament can only come with an assurance of security from outside threats. OTL WNT provided that but a treaty with British naval supremacy cannot ( especially without the cancellation of the Japanese alliance).

 

[sts-200]

By the way, although restricted by Stockholm armistice (sorry, I refused to call it a treaty), that if am not wrong is like 4/5 years old already, should Germany be invited?, maybe not in this but for a future possible renovation of the treaty.

The Germans have been invited.

 

[jlckansas]

The US at this time has went from European based trade and outlook to a Pacific/Asia based trade and outlook. By this time the China Lobby has made itself felt in Congress and the various businesses are talking about the opportunities there. This is when they started to look seriously at what Japan was doing in the Far East.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

This isn’t OTL America in the OTL world.

 

[Thoresby]

A treaty enshrining British naval supremacy will never get past the Senate. Hell it probably won't get past the American negotiators. At the end of the day, campaign promises aren't worth the paper they're written on and politicians can change at the drop of a hat when circumstances permit. Disarmament can only come with an assurance of security from outside threats. OTL WNT provided that but a treaty with British naval supremacy cannot ( especially without the cancellation of the Japanese alliance).

A treaty with a tonnage ratio that gives Britain a higher staus than the US is a non starter for reasons of national pride as I've said up thread. But a treaty that treats Britain and the US the same by imposing a building limit (e.g. one ship of a maximum size per year or a limit of X tons per year) is another thing entirely. It gives Harding and the isolationists what they want (lower spending) in a way that treats the US the same as the UK, the fact that it locks in a larger RN for the next decade isn't going to be politically intolerable in the context of the wider political mood, the Navy lobby and the hawks would be pissed off but considering Harding has just won 60% of the vote on his platform so what?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

in a way that treats the US the same as the UK, the fact that it locks in a larger RN for the next decade isn't going to be politically intolerable in the context of the wider political mood, the Navy lobby and the hawks would be pissed off but considering Harding has just won 60% of the vote on his platform so what?

Exactly, lobby hard for a “face saving” strong deal and then just... don’t build very much. You’re popular enough at home to not need to support of a hawkish fringe, so concentrate on the “back to normality” block that got you elected and build the odd ship here and there to keep the Admirals from launching a coup. Pretty much what every President did OTL from 1865 to 1940.

 

[Thoresby]

I think the US would build it's allotment, one battleship a year isn't that much money and the wider point about the US being able to defend herself stands. It's just Harding and co. won't be willing to call the UK's bluff and threaten an arm's race and post treaty won't fund a balanced fleet with lots of cruisers and destroyer's.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

A treaty with a tonnage ratio that gives Britain a higher staus than the US is a non starter for reasons of national pride as I've said up thread

Then we are in agreement.

a treaty that treats Britain and the US the same by imposing a building limit (e.g. one ship of a maximum size per year or a limit of X tons per year) is another thing entirely. It gives Harding and the isolationists what they want (lower spending) in a way that treats the US the same as the UK, the fact that it locks in a larger RN for the next decade isn't going to be politically intolerable in the context of the wider political mood

I'm not so sure. The Americans would want a tonnage cap similar to OTL. Restricting the US and Britain to an equal build ratio allows Britain to maintain their superiority, at least in the short term. America would need more of a concrete assurance to demonstrate their commitment to equality. That could probably be gained if they scrap their 12 and 13.5 in ships similar to OTL.