A different Cruiser idea at the WNT

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Hi folks, I was reading @aaronupright thread and got an idea.

So, let's keep most things from the WNT as historically, but with two changes.

The first change, about the fortifications and bases in the pacific, lets have a clause that if Japan withdraws from the treaty system (historically 1936) then this clause is also taken as being no longer enforce effectively on that date, so we have room for more and better bases and fortifications set right out in the treaty.

Wiki says

Cruisers and destroyers[edit]​

Hughes proposed to limit secondary ships (cruisers and destroyers) in the same proportions as capital ships. However, that was unacceptable to both the British and the French. The British counterproposal, in which the British would be entitled to 450,000 tons of cruisers in consideration of its imperial commitments but the United States and Japan to only 300,000 and 250,000 respectively, proved equally contentious. Thus, the idea of limiting total cruiser tonnage or numbers was rejected entirely.

So the historical limits on lesser ships failed to come up with total fleet tonnage allocations, but only gave us the historical limits. I somehow got it in my mind that the UK had wanted all new cruisers to have 6" guns, but in re-reading wiki, I find no traces of that there for the WNT.


So, I'd like to mention one historical class from each of the three 'big' navies, so we can see some of the ships that were pre-WNT.
For the UK, we have the 5 ships of the Hawkins class, with their 7 X 7.5" guns. in single gun turrets, 9,800 tons, 30-31kts, laid down in 1916-1917.
For the USA, we have the 10 ships of the Omaha class, with their 12 X 6" guns, in 2 twin turrets, and 8 in casemated positions, laid down Dec 1918-Nov 1920, they made 35kts on 7,050 tons.
For the Japanese, we have the2 ships of the Furutaka class, with their 6 X 7.9" guns in single turrets, on 7,100 tons, 34.5kts, both laid down late 1922.

To me, it was interesting that the UK had the largest ships by displacement, but that the Japanese ships, while having the fewest guns, had the largest ones. But what really was a shock to me, was that no one actually had built an 8" gunned, 10,000 ton ship at the time the WNT was signed, so...

What if, an additional, and short term exemption is set aside for each nation that chooses to, can build three ships, all 10,000 tons or under, but they have to have the same machinery and hull dimensions, but one each is to be completed as:

1) A cruiser mounting 6" guns.
2) A cruiser mounting 8" guns.
3) An aircraft carrier.

Make this option available to all 5 nations, but require the ships to be laid down within 1 year of the treaty signing, and operational no more than 4 years later, for evaluation purposes of the three types. This would mean laying down all three keel's by early 1923, and having them in service no later than early 1927. These experimental, designed from the keel up ships will be the only such ships that get exempted from future treaties, when new fleet tonnage allocations may come into existence, but only if they are built quickly.

What I'm looking for, is a way to get navies/nations to take a look at the OTL provisions for less than BB/CV ships, and get some in the water, and see if you really want 6 X 8" gunned, 10,000 ton CA's? I know that the WNT didn't have CL/CA, but I want time (because a rush job is put in the treaty in 1922), so that, by the time 1st LNT rolls around in 1930, there are going to be several years worth of practical experience with these three types of ships.

Will there be the possibility of having nations having choices within the treaty framework for the composition of their cruiser forces, perhaps something like, if your nation/navy sticks to some sort of CL force (I cannot think of the per ship tonnage right now), you get to have unlimited/far more total ships. If, on the other hand, you choose to build bigger ships for your cruiser force, then you are stuck with being locked into total fleet tonnage allocations.

Will nations, having built a single 10,000 ton ship with 8" guns, realize that they might want to rethink the 10,000 limit, as they have to either compromise the main battery to less than 8 guns, or skimp on the armor? So maybe, in 1930, we see 6", 6-8,000 ton CL's, and/or 8", 12-15,000 ton CA's?

And finally, my personal favorite, the whole 10,000 tons or less in not a carrier under the terms of the WNT, maybe, just maybe, folks will realize that a fleet carrier needs several thousand tons more displacement to be viable, but perhaps a 'training carrier' could find a place in the <14,990 ton range?

Anyway, health is making me post this as is, so more later, and hopefully, together we can explore some good alternatives to the historical NT's?

Note:
In the poll, you get 2 votes, which everyone else can see, which you cannot change, and the poll will close in 6 months.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The heavy cruiser was badly compromised by the 10,000 ton limit, to get a viable ship you either had to cheat or make compromises that essentially left you with an over gunned light cruiser. What I think would have been better is to allocate each country a set total tonnage for heavy cruisers (defined as having no more than X number of 6.5" to 8.5" guns) and let them build what they want within that limit. You'd get some odd balls but probably end up with a standard of about 13,000 tons with 8 or 9 8" guns.

 

[jsb]

For the UK, we have the 5 ships of the Hawkins class, with their 7 X 7.5" guns. in single gun turrets, 9,800 tons, 30-31kts, laid down in 1916-1917.

It's worth noting that by WNT RN had decided that the Hawkins class guns were a failure as they were hand worked and too large to be effective (the shell was too heavy for even 2 men to be hand worked in the open), they could easily have offered to regun then as 6" as they did later......? That would just make them oversized and leave the 2 Japanese, we have the2 ships of the Furutaka class 7.9" over 6" by they could be also be reduced relatively cheaply as its only 2 ships (or ignored as it's only 2 ships so long as no more are allowed...)

 

[BlueTrousers]

To me, it was interesting that the UK had the largest ships by displacement, but that the Japanese ships, while having the fewest guns, had the largest ones. But what really was a shock to me, was that no one actually had built an 8" gunned, 10,000 ton ship at the time the WNT was signed, so...

The negotiations there basically took the form of the UK having the HAWKINS class, so wanting the cap to be 10,000 tons. Japan had 8-inch gun cruisers, so wanted them to remain legal. That defined the not-capital-ship range as 10,000 tons and 8 inch guns.

The US, meanwhile, had been planning its new 8-inch gun cruisers, and were settling in on 10,000 tons standard displacement. So the definition suited them to a tee: they could build the cruisers they wanted without someone building a bigger, better cruiser that would make them obsolete.

The description of such ships as overgunned 'light' cruisers is perfectly accurate, but was something that the navies of the time were perfectly aware of. The 'overgunned light cruiser' was what the US Navy wanted - even their unconstrained designs pre-Washington were along those lines. The Royal Navy didn't particularly want 8-inch cruisers at all to start off with, partly because of experience with the HAWKINS class, but they'd gone and set a precedent for big cruisers. It was only really experience which demonstrated that such a ship was severely compromised.

Get rid of the HAWKINS class, and an 8,000 ton cap might be acceptable. Whilst you can, technically, build an 8-inch gun cruiser on that limit, as the FURUTAKA and YORK classes demonstrate, it's even more compromised. The US Navy looked at such ships in the evolution of the PENSACOLA class as well. When experience demonstrates that these are not good ships, navies may well consolidate on 6-inch, 8,000-ton cruisers, which were perfectly viable.

 

[jsb]

The heavy cruiser was badly compromised by the 10,000 ton limit, to get a viable ship you either had to cheat or make compromises that essentially left you with an over gunned light cruiser. What I think would have been better is to allocate each country a set total tonnage for heavy cruisers (defined as having no more than X number of 6.5" to 8.5" guns) and let them build what they want within that limit. You'd get some odd balls but probably end up with a standard of about 13,000 tons with 8 or 9 8" guns.

RN would walk out and simple build a class G3 heavy cruiser with 50,000t and 16" guns? Once they ran out of allowed displacement, they then ask for more at the next conference next year.....?

 

[jsb]

The negotiations there basically took the form of the UK having the HAWKINS class, so wanting the cap to be 10,000 tons. Japan had 8-inch gun cruisers, so wanted them to remain legal.

I think thats the other way round other navies wanted it..... as existing ships would almost certainly have stayed in existence anyway like the existing old BBs of WNT?

 

[jsb]

Get rid of the HAWKINS class, and an 8,000 ton cap might be acceptable.

Not sure that they make a 8000t limit totally unacceptable? They are after all only 4 ships (1 has hit a rock by WNT) and USN knows they are suboptimal designs build without weight savings with hand worked guns and without the depth for mounts aft due to shaft designs to easily be fitted...... if they are reduced to 6" guns and maybe agree that they can only be fitted with so many hand worked guns etc spelled out in detail etc... ie the same as D class etc...? USN and IJN might agree, or at least the political masters looking at the money might!

With hindsight, RN should have tried to trade off say 15"/ 16"guns for Nelson for them...... and I think would have been accepted in a heart beat by USN or IJN?

 

[BlueTrousers]

I think thats the other way round other navies wanted it..... as existing ships would almost certainly have stayed in existence anyway like the existing old BBs of WNT?

They could have been grandfathered in, but otherwise they'd be defined as capital ships. And given the choice between HAWKINS or TIGER - or in the Japanese case, FURUTAKA or KONGO - there's really no choice to be made. I expect that the US (and Japanese) desire for 10,000 ton cruisers put a thumb on the scales; the UK would probably have been quite happy with 8,000 tons & 6-inch guns.

 

[jsb]

They could have been grandfathered in, but otherwise they'd be defined as capital ships. And given the choice between HAWKINS or TIGER - or in the Japanese case, FURUTAKA or KONGO - there's really no choice to be made. I expect that the US (and Japanese) desire for 10,000 ton cruisers put a thumb on the scales; the UK would probably have been quite happy with 8,000 tons & 6-inch guns.

If they are not on the list to be scrapped, they could get in like the ACs or LLCs not on the list........ the WNT grandfathered everything not explicitly to be scraped.

 

[Dorknought]

You could have the 10,000ton cruiser capped at 5 (Hawkins): 5 (Pensacola): 3 (Myoko) units for the RN,USN and IJN and then apply the non-regulated ships to 8000tons max and 6" guns. The Japanese could rearm the Furutakas (laid down end of 1922) with 5.5" twins like those on Yubari.

 

[jsb]

You could have the 10,000ton cruiser capped at 5 (Hawkins): 5 (Pensacola): 3 (Myoko) units for the RN,USN and IJN and then apply the non-regulated ships to 8000tons max and 6" guns. The Japanese could rearm the Furutakas (laid down end of 1922) with 5.5" twins like those on Yubari.

RN would want new 10,000t cruisers as the Hawkins are very bad compared to even the Pensacolas, and they only have 4 of them by 8 August 1922 after Raleigh ran aground?

Also, whats the limits on the other none main three at WNT ie Fr and It? As the France did not accept CA/CL limits in ratio to BB numbers at LNT negotiations due to size of the empire....... and that matters to RN if they are limited to 5 or 4 and only Hawkins......

 

[Dorknought]

RN would want new 10,000t cruisers as the Hawkins are very bad compared to even the Pensacolas, and they only have 4 of them by 8 August 1922 after Raleigh ran aground?

The RN would build a replacement for Raleigh but be pleased that there is not a race in 10,000ton cruisers that render their own Town, C and D class as obsolete before their time.

Also, whats the limits on other none main three at WNT ie Fr and It? As the France did not accept CA/CL limits in ratio to BB numbers at LNT negotiations due to size of the empire....... and that matters to RN if they are limited to 5 or 4 and only Hawkins......

Say 2 each but they don't have to build as they have some large armoured cruisers.

 

[jsb]

The RN would build a replacement for Raleigh but be pleased that there is not a race in 10,000ton cruisers that render their own Town, C and D class as obsolete before their time.

Say 2 each but they don't have to build as they have some large armoured cruisers.

I dont think RN or MN would accept that.... historically RN would want new 10,000t in at least the ration over IJN as BBs ie the same as USN, so they would want the Hawkins to be excluded as obsolescent compared to any new post treaty ships with proper twin 8" guns? (ie why they were disarmed/ 6" for OTL LNT)

MN & RM will also not agree as OTL at WNT and LNT to limit that link CAs to BB ratios as they want large CA forces to patrol the empires and that means a small upper number in a two tire cruiser treaty is hard to agree?

 

[Dorknought]

The RN found that 10,000 ton ships couldn't be afforded in the numbers they want. They had them as other countries had large cruisers too and the RN had scrapped their pre-war AC while others retained theirs.

MN & RM will also not agree as OTL at WNT and LNT to limit that link CAs to BB ratios as they want large CA forces to patrol the empires and that means a small upper number in a two tire cruiser treaty is hard to agree?

8000 tons is unrestricted and this is plenty big enough for stations where they found that a 2000 ton gunboat was plenty. The French needed scouts more than big cruisers.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The US and Japan are unlikely to agree to less than 8” guns and 10,000 tons. Yes, such ships would be unbalanced; at the time neither of them cared. The Royal Navy also wanted 8” guns, particularly with Rear Admiral FC Dreyer, a gunner, driving requirements in the lead up to Washington, and the DCNS agreed, also adding that a ship under 10,000 tons was unlikely to combine such guns and a sufficient radius of action. And the French wanted such ships because Germany was capped at 10,000 tons for new ships and they wanted a counter, what with battleship construction restricted.

So that’s four of the five powers stumping for the Washington combo, and most of the attention going to the basing issue and the battleships. There was little realistic chance of a different cruiser limit being produced.

As an aside, the Royal Navy also believed 7500 tons to be the minimum for a viable cruiser going forward at the time of Washington.

As far as the OP’s proposal, I don’t see the point. Everyone needs cruisers in numbers; as is often the case they’ll build ships and evaluate them later.

 

[Schlock]

Well, if the Invincible had been built with 9.2in guns, maybe we would have seen something closer to a two tier cruiser category, with a 15000 std / 10 in 'Heavy' cruiser and a 7500 std / 6in 'Light' cruiser instead.

 

[michael1]

10,000 tons was a point of convergence for the UK, US and Japan. The latter two because they wanted the range for the Pacific. The British for Hawkins reasons (as others have said). Even if one of the three changed their mind it's unlikely the other two would agree. Having said that I do wonder if 8inch guns were inevitable, if we exclude the Hawkins class might a 6 inch limit be agreed? A fairly well balanced 6inch cruiser can be built on 10,000tons, especially in the 1920s and 30s and without needing to worry about 8inch shells. This would also reduce the apparent differences between large and small cruisers, so the British might have been happy building 8,000ton 6inch cruisers while the US and Japan built 10,000 ton 6inch cruisers (the British would probably have built some larger cruisers for prestige reasons).

Tonnage limits per category without limits on the size of ships is not going to be agreed to, especially by the British with their need for numbers. The same logic applies to cruiser limits above 10,000 tons, at least until the 1930s. In any case, if the limit had been above 10,000tons then some countries would have cheated and the need to match them would have lead to attempts to cram a quart into a pint pot and imbalanced designs like in OTL but in a more expensive form.

The original WNT was that rare thing that satisfied nearly everyone at the time and looks reasonable in hindsight (the treaty ratios probably roughly matches what the countries were willing to spend in relative terms and what their strategic needs were at the time, a 10 year BB building holiday can be justified). The only major debate is probably around large cruisers (as this thread suggests), and even that is mostly a European debate. It's harder to justify the subsequent LNT, except that budget constraints were binding more tightly by this point.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Pretty much everyone agreed that 8” guns provided too many advantages in gunnery to pass up, and in particular everyone wanted something that could outgun the now-ubiquitous 6” cruisers. This especially in the early 1920s when the standard 6” mount was an open pedestal and navies were only just figuring out powered mounts in that caliber.

The French in particular would never go for it: they know Germany’s Versailles ships will have guns much larger than 6”. While the big powers were prone to ignoring France’s wishes at Washington this is not a hill anybody needs to die on over French objections.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

I like allot of the replies I have seen so far, but I love these two in particular.

The heavy cruiser was badly compromised by the 10,000 ton limit, to get a viable ship you either had to cheat or make compromises that essentially left you with an over gunned light cruiser. What I think would have been better is to allocate each country a set total tonnage for heavy cruisers (defined as having no more than X number of 6.5" to 8.5" guns) and let them build what they want within that limit. You'd get some odd balls but probably end up with a standard of about 13,000 tons with 8 or 9 8" guns.

This gets right to the heart of one of the key reasons I wanted to write this thread, while this reply gives the "WHY" of the OTL decisions.

The negotiations there basically took the form of the UK having the HAWKINS class, so wanting the cap to be 10,000 tons. Japan had 8-inch gun cruisers, so wanted them to remain legal. That defined the not-capital-ship range as 10,000 tons and 8 inch guns.

The US, meanwhile, had been planning its new 8-inch gun cruisers, and were settling in on 10,000 tons standard displacement. So the definition suited them to a tee: they could build the cruisers they wanted without someone building a bigger, better cruiser that would make them obsolete.

The description of such ships as over gunned 'light' cruisers is perfectly accurate, but was something that the navies of the time were perfectly aware of. The 'over gunned light cruiser' was what the US Navy wanted - even their unconstrained designs pre-Washington were along those lines. The Royal Navy didn't particularly want 8-inch cruisers at all to start off with, partly because of experience with the HAWKINS class, but they'd gone and set a precedent for big cruisers. It was only really experience which demonstrated that such a ship was severely compromised.

Get rid of the HAWKINS class, and an 8,000 ton cap might be acceptable. Whilst you can, technically, build an 8-inch gun cruiser on that limit, as the FURUTAKA and YORK classes demonstrate, it's even more compromised. The US Navy looked at such ships in the evolution of the PENSACOLA class as well. When experience demonstrates that these are not good ships, navies may well consolidate on 6-inch, 8,000-ton cruisers, which were perfectly viable.

In this thread, I want many things (lol) but one of these things is some really good, thoughtful discussion about the shortcomings of the WNT of OTL. The mechanism by which I have tried to start this discussion is the notional clause, whereby all 5 nations could, if they choose to act quickly, design, lay down, and complete a trio of ships that will be exempted by all future NT, but only if they are built 'right now'.

The reason for the haste, and incentivized by exempting them, is to get ships in service, not later than early 1927, so that all the nations can see what the WNT limits meant, in the form of actual, designed from the keel up, purpose built ships fitting into these constraints.

With 5 CA's, designed and built quickly to the 8"/10,000 ton limits, might we not hope that someone might decide that 8" guns need more ship, to be viable/balanced?
With 5 CL's, designed and built quickly to the 6"/10,000 tons or less criteria, might we not hope that by 1930, some good schools of thought might alter 1st LNT? I'm looking for getting a much clearer distinction between CL and CA than historically, and what better way to do that than have folks building ships that are capable, and of well less than the 10,000 ton limit? And if folks are better prepared for two distinct classes of cruisers come 1930, what criteria might the new naval treaties end up with, for individual ships.

Another aspect of this is, what about total fleet tonnage allocations, and alternatives to them? Individual ships could be built to 2 (or more, perhaps) design envelopes. Say that, in the case where a nation/navy totally eschews building any CA's in their cruiser force, they can have unlimited/far more CL's than if their cruiser force includes any ships above the notional CL threshold? There would have to be choices if all parties are to get something that they personally want.

Keep in mind the carriers, because they are my main desire with this thread, but let's put them on the back burner for now, while we are getting the cruisers looked at.

Another thing, in this thread, I really want to concentrate on cruisers that keep to the 8" gun cap as a maximum, so let's not talk about increasing that limit (at least not in this thread), but rather finding the elusive 'balanced' 8" gunned cruiser that eluded all of us historically during the treaty years. So, its ok to try to get rid of the 10,000 ton limit, in order too get a better CA's armed with 8" guns, but let leave talk of bigger guns to another thread, to keep things focused here.

Also, if folks want to make a case for all cruisers to be limited to 6" guns, good.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The reason for the haste, and incentivized by exempting them, is to get ships in service, not later than early 1927, so that all the nations can see what the WNT limits meant, in the form of actual, designed from the keel up, purpose built ships fitting into these constraints.

The problem is that countries need cruisers in numbers far sooner than that. Nobody’s going to futz around until 1930 to build cruisers in numbers, so the exemption is pointless. They’d get similar results just by the OTL mass construction.

With 5 CA's, designed and built quickly to the 8"/10,000 ton limits, might we not hope that someone might decide that 8" guns need more ship, to be viable/balanced?

Doubtful. The Italians figured it out from the start. So did the Japanese but they kept trying anyway. And the French, Americans, and Brits all figured out how to build reasonably balanced ships under the limit.

With 5 CL's, designed and built quickly to the 6"/10,000 tons or less criteria, might we not hope that by 1930, some good schools of thought might alter 1st LNT? I'm looking for getting a much clearer distinction between CL and CA than historically, and what better way to do that than have folks building ships that are capable, and of well less than the 10,000 ton limit? And if folks are better prepared for two distinct classes of cruisers come 1930, what criteria might the new naval treaties end up with, for individual ships.

I’ll admit, I don’t really know what you’re trying to say here.

Another aspect of this is, what about total fleet tonnage allocations, and alternatives to them? Individual ships could be built to 2 (or more, perhaps) design envelopes. Say that, in the case where a nation/navy totally eschews building any CA's in their cruiser force, they can have unlimited/far more CL's than if their cruiser force includes any ships above the notional CL threshold? There would have to be choices if all parties are to get something that they personally want.

Nobody’s going to go for that, because CLs aren’t so much weaker that anybody’s going to want someone else to have unlimited numbers and they don’t. Either everyone gets unlimited numbers or nobody does.