AH IJN carrier conversion question

[Douglas]

Scenario: It's 1927, and the US, UK, and Japan are finally getting around to signing a naval disarmament treaty.

The United States has three carriers: two Lexington conversions and Langley, as in OTL, for a total tonnage of 83,500 tons.

Japan currently has two carriers: OTL Hosho and a never-realized carrier planned in OTL for a total of 21,000 tons.

Japan is required to scrap the following under the terms of the treaty:

OTL planned battleship Kii, 40-60% complete, original design 42,600 tons, 820 x 101 feet, 29.75 knots.

OTL Fuso class, Fuso and Yamashiro. 30,600 tons, 665 x 94 feet, 22.5 knots.

OTL Kongo class, Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna. 27,500 tons, 704 x 92 feet, 27.5 knots.

All figures include speed and tonnage in battleship/battlecruiser form, not reduced to reflect the weight of a carrier modification.

As you may guess, here is the question. If Japan is allowed to build up to 60,000 tons of carriers total, what is the least expensive and most effective way to take these hulls and convert them into carriers to maximize tonnage?

 

[David S Poepoe]

I've got to say that this is a most peculiar treaty. There must be more to it since there is no reason for the Japanese to scrap so much of her batteline when its been set already by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1925 and aircraft carriers haven't exactly proven themselves even two years along.

The easiest way to convert whatever hulls the Japanese have is to do the same as they did with the Akagi and the Kaga. Raze any superstructure and build the new carrier deck above this. There would be no permitting of a battleship-carrier hybrid simply because the earlier WNT limits the main armament on carriers to 14in.

 

[stevep]

I've got to say that this is a most peculiar treaty. There must be more to it since there is no reason for the Japanese to scrap so much of her batteline when its been set already by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1925 and aircraft carriers haven't exactly proven themselves even two years along.

The easiest way to convert whatever hulls the Japanese have is to do the same as they did with the Akagi and the Kaga. Raze any superstructure and build the new carrier deck above this. There would be no permitting of a battleship-carrier hybrid simply because the earlier WNT limits the main armament on carriers to 14in.

David

Is there a typo here or are you referring to something mentioned outside this thread? Since the TL refers to the powers just coming to terms in 1927 and OTL Washington was in 1921 I'm not sure where the 1925 date is coming from.

I do agree that it seems a straight selection of choices as to what is available for converting. We would need to know what has been completed and already scrapped for at least the big 3 naval powers before we could say with any reliability. It would depend, even presuming rational decision making, on knowing what the relative positions of the 3 navies and nations were to make a wise choice.

Also what is the economic situation? I doubt if the treaty would say that ships had to be converted rather than scrapped and while new, purpose built construction would be more expensive than conversions they would also be more efficient.

Presuming than money is tight, which is probably likely after a prolonged naval race and given that the Tokyo quake has presumably still occurred, then I would go for the Kii and as many of the Kongo's as practical in the allowed tonnage. The Kii, presuming still some way from completion would require less removal of existing structure and also gives a roomier, fast hull. Kongo's over Fuso because they have a roomier, faster hull and also less armour - since I presume it would be impractical to remove that - so less wasted weight on the conversions. Given how small the two existing carriers are there might also be an argument to scrap at least one if not both as well unless explicitly forbidden by the treaty.

Steve

 

[Douglas]

David

Is there a typo here or are you referring to something mentioned outside this thread? Since the TL refers to the powers just coming to terms in 1927 and OTL Washington was in 1921 I'm not sure where the 1925 date is coming from.

Indeed, the POD is no Washington Treaty.

I do agree that it seems a straight selection of choices as to what is available for converting. We would need to know what has been completed and already scrapped for at least the big 3 naval powers before we could say with any reliability. It would depend, even presuming rational decision making, on knowing what the relative positions of the 3 navies and nations were to make a wise choice.

The ratio of battleship tonnage is

US 500,000
UK 500,000
Japan 350,000

Also what is the economic situation? I doubt if the treaty would say that ships had to be converted rather than scrapped and while new, purpose built construction would be more expensive than conversions they would also be more efficient.

The economic situation is only marginally worse than OTL for the United States, since they've completed three South Dakotas and three Lexingtons (two as CVs, one as a BC).

The UK is in a slightly worse economic state, as it has pushed forward with construction on all four planned G3s.

Japan is about to collapse economically, thanks to the Tokyo Earthquake and the completion of the two Kagas and all four Amagis.

Presuming than money is tight, which is probably likely after a prolonged naval race and given that the Tokyo quake has presumably still occurred, then I would go for the Kii and as many of the Kongo's as practical in the allowed tonnage. The Kii, presuming still some way from completion would require less removal of existing structure and also gives a roomier, fast hull.

I suspected that this would be the case, but I just wanted to confirm. How much tonnage would Kii converted to a carrier take up?

Thank you for the feedback!

 

[Sargon]

I agree with Steve's assessment, however, I'd scrap the two small carriers, freeing up 20,000 tonnage, and convert the 4 Kongos as they are well suited to the job, and are the weakest of the battleships anyway (although the others are going to be scrapped). With the reconstruction work done OTL, they were capable of 30knts which is good for carriers and once the turrets and some armour is removed, they may even be capable of slightly more speed with a similar lengthening and reconstruction effort despite the addition of a flight deck. If one goes with the 4 Kongos, then you should be able to come out with 4 carriers of 20,000 tons standard. Whilst the Kii would make a very good fleet carrier, the tonnage she would use up means that you'd have fewer carrier hulls in the water.

With 4 similar sister carriers, that also makes maintenance, repair, fleet operations (at least in terms of speed), and other aspects easier, and each would be capable of carrying probably a Hiryu sized airgroup and would be useful medium carriers.

Still the entire treaty come up with here is odd but not impossible I guess.


Sargon

 

[Douglas]

I agree with Steve's assessment, however, I'd scrap the two small carriers, freeing up 20,000 tonnage, and convert the 4 Kongos as they are well suited to the job, and are the weakest of the battleships anyway (although the others are going to be scrapped). With the reconstruction work done OTL, they were capable of 30knts which is good for carriers and once the turrets and some armour is removed, they may even be capable of slightly more speed with a similar lengthening and reconstruction effort despite the addition of a flight deck. If one goes with the 4 Kongos, then you should be able to come out with 4 carriers of 20,000 tons standard. Whilst the Kii would make a very good fleet carrier, the tonnage she would use up means that you'd have fewer carrier hulls in the water.

With 4 similar sister carriers, that also makes maintenance, repair, fleet operations (at least in terms of speed), and other aspects easier, and each would be capable of carrying probably a Hiryu sized airgroup and would be useful medium carriers.

Still the entire treaty come up with here is odd but not impossible I guess.


Sargon

I suppose I can lay this out a little better.

Washington fails in 1921/22 when Japan walks out, and the arms race goes one. Britain builds its G3s, Japan suffers through the earthquake, realizes it can't finish the 8-8 plan but desperately tries to get the Amagis and Kagas finished, and manages to complete a purpose-built 12,000 ton carrier to go along with Hosho. America's isolationist government finished the last of the Marylands and plods along by completing three South Dakotas and three Lexingtons (two as carriers, one as a BC).

In 1927, the powers come to London to sign a disarmament treaty. Japan's bankrupting efforts in warship construction cause the Americans and British to agree to the 5:5:3.5 deal that the Japanese thought necessary in OTL.

The US scraps everything before the Standards: the Pennsylvanias onward are kept. The UK scraps everything besides the G3s, the QEs, the Rs, and Tiger. Japan scraps everything before the Ises, leaving us with the following battleship numbers:

US: 15
UK: 15
Japan: 10

Japan is allowed to build up to 70% of the US and UK carrier tonnage, which is capped at just under 90,000 tons.

For this reason, I don't think Japan will want to scrap Hosho or (the alt-ship) Shokaku, since they are 6 and 3 years old, respectively. But I can see what you mean about having standardized ships. So which of the following, narrowed-down options seems more likely to you guys?

1. Build Kii as a carrier for c. 40,000 tons, using all available tonnage for one, huge carrier.

2. Rebuild two of the Kongos as carriers at c. 20,000 tons each.

 

[stevep]

I agree with Steve's assessment, however, I'd scrap the two small carriers, freeing up 20,000 tonnage, and convert the 4 Kongos as they are well suited to the job, and are the weakest of the battleships anyway (although the others are going to be scrapped). With the reconstruction work done OTL, they were capable of 30knts which is good for carriers and once the turrets and some armour is removed, they may even be capable of slightly more speed with a similar lengthening and reconstruction effort despite the addition of a flight deck. If one goes with the 4 Kongos, then you should be able to come out with 4 carriers of 20,000 tons standard. Whilst the Kii would make a very good fleet carrier, the tonnage she would use up means that you'd have fewer carrier hulls in the water.

With 4 similar sister carriers, that also makes maintenance, repair, fleet operations (at least in terms of speed), and other aspects easier, and each would be capable of carrying probably a Hiryu sized airgroup and would be useful medium carriers.

Still the entire treaty come up with here is odd but not impossible I guess.


Sargon

Sargon

Good point. I did consider the advantage of a force of matching ships but didn't know the relative balance of what was available elsewhere. For instance the Kongo's although weak do give a fast capital force. However, with 4 Amagmis that isn't significant.

Steve

 

[stevep]

I suppose I can lay this out a little better.

Washington fails in 1921/22 when Japan walks out, and the arms race goes one. Britain builds its G3s, Japan suffers through the earthquake, realizes it can't finish the 8-8 plan but desperately tries to get the Amagis and Kagas finished, and manages to complete a purpose-built 12,000 ton carrier to go along with Hosho. America's isolationist government finished the last of the Marylands and plods along by completing three South Dakotas and three Lexingtons (two as carriers, one as a BC).

In 1927, the powers come to London to sign a disarmament treaty. Japan's bankrupting efforts in warship construction cause the Americans and British to agree to the 5:5:3.5 deal that the Japanese thought necessary in OTL.

The US scraps everything before the Standards: the Pennsylvanias onward are kept. The UK scraps everything besides the G3s, the QEs, the Rs, and Tiger. Japan scraps everything before the Ises, leaving us with the following battleship numbers:

US: 15
UK: 15
Japan: 10

Japan is allowed to build up to 70% of the US and UK carrier tonnage, which is capped at just under 90,000 tons.

For this reason, I don't think Japan will want to scrap Hosho or (the alt-ship) Shokaku, since they are 6 and 3 years old, respectively. But I can see what you mean about having standardized ships. So which of the following, narrowed-down options seems more likely to you guys?

1. Build Kii as a carrier for c. 40,000 tons, using all available tonnage for one, huge carrier.

2. Rebuild two of the Kongos as carriers at c. 20,000 tons each.

Douglas

Sorry, missed this post. It explains a lot more but one query. You were talking about a Japanese allowance of ~80k earlier of which the 2 existing carriers made up 20k, leaving 60k more. Was that a mis-understanding and you meant about 20k each, leaving 40k left? That would fit in with what you say here. [I was think 20k for 2 carriers was pretty small].

If so I would probably go with 2 Kongo's to give the extra carrier and 4 reasonably similar sized units in all. Having only 3 with 50% of your tonnage in the Kii hull is risky and also means that when that any unit is in refit you have only two ships available.

I'm not sure the numbers match for Britain however. Two points:
a) I can't see the RN scrapping the Hood. Despite its weaknesses its fast and pretty new while have plenty of scope for reconstruction. Or is this a question of trying to get tonnage as well as numbers to match?

b) I suspect, even with the G3's, the RN might prefer to keep the two Renown’s rather than a couple of the R's,[ or an R and the Tiger]. The latter are older, slower, far more worn by war service and most importantly of all probably have little scope for reconstruction. Especially if a major construction holiday is now going to start.

The USN has a reasonably decent force with a lot of newer ships. They don't have the wartime experience of the RN so can't match the G3's in quality but have a lot more 16" guns. Only weak point is probably that they have only one, highly vulnerable, fast unit. However provided they balance the rest of the fleet they shouldn't have too many problems.


The Japanese also have a very new and heavily gunned force. However how well they will be able to maintain it and building supporting elements could be an interesting point.

Presumably the new treaty includes something like the OTL Washington ending of the Anglo-Japanese defensive alliance and rules on limiting reconstructions – although possibly less likely in the latter case?

What carrier forces does the RN have out of interest?

Thanks for the added info.

Steve

 

[Sargon]

I suppose I can lay this out a little better.

Washington fails in 1921/22 when Japan walks out, and the arms race goes one. Britain builds its G3s, Japan suffers through the earthquake, realizes it can't finish the 8-8 plan but desperately tries to get the Amagis and Kagas finished, and manages to complete a purpose-built 12,000 ton carrier to go along with Hosho. America's isolationist government finished the last of the Marylands and plods along by completing three South Dakotas and three Lexingtons (two as carriers, one as a BC).

In 1927, the powers come to London to sign a disarmament treaty. Japan's bankrupting efforts in warship construction cause the Americans and British to agree to the 5:5:3.5 deal that the Japanese thought necessary in OTL.

The US scraps everything before the Standards: the Pennsylvanias onward are kept. The UK scraps everything besides the G3s, the QEs, the Rs, and Tiger. Japan scraps everything before the Ises, leaving us with the following battleship numbers:

US: 15
UK: 15
Japan: 10

Japan is allowed to build up to 70% of the US and UK carrier tonnage, which is capped at just under 90,000 tons.

For this reason, I don't think Japan will want to scrap Hosho or (the alt-ship) Shokaku, since they are 6 and 3 years old, respectively. But I can see what you mean about having standardized ships. So which of the following, narrowed-down options seems more likely to you guys?

1. Build Kii as a carrier for c. 40,000 tons, using all available tonnage for one, huge carrier.

2. Rebuild two of the Kongos as carriers at c. 20,000 tons each.

2 seems like the more likely one as at least it allows more hulls in the water, and still gives them experience with larger carriers than they have already built.

I can't help thinking of OTL's attempt to take advantage of the Washington Treaty clause that put no restrictions upon the number of carriers under 10,000 tons that could be built. The trouble is, the resulting Ryūjō that emerged as part of this attempt was very unstable and unsatisfactory, too much being attempted on too small a hull (just 8000 tons standard), such as embarking 48 aircraft in a double level hangar. She was later reconstructed to solve these issues and went up to around 10,600 tons standard with a slight reduction in speed and aircraft capacity.

Is this clause a feature of your Treaty, or do you have something different? Since if it was set at 12,000 tons, then you might just be able to get away with a reasonable carrier that approaches Ryūjō without the problems, but embarking perhaps 36-40 aircraft. And you could build as many as you could afford and support.


Sargon

 

[CalBear]

Why, without the 1921 Treaty, would the U.S. have converted two of the Lexingtons into carriers and complete one as a BC?

The whole reason that the Lex & Sara were converted in the first place was the Washington Treaty gave the USN a choice of scrapping them or converting them to carriers. ITTL that prod doesn't exist.

 

[Sargon]

Why, without the 1921 Treaty, would the U.S. have converted two of the Lexingtons into carriers and complete one as a BC?

The whole reason that the Lex & Sara were converted in the first place was the Washington Treaty gave the USN a choice of scrapping them or converting them to carriers. ITTL that prod doesn't exist.

That's what I've been thinking too.


Sargon

 

[Douglas]

Douglas

Sorry, missed this post. It explains a lot more but one query. You were talking about a Japanese allowance of ~80k earlier of which the 2 existing carriers made up 20k, leaving 60k more. Was that a mis-understanding and you meant about 20k each, leaving 40k left? That would fit in with what you say here. [I was think 20k for 2 carriers was pretty small].

No, I meant 2 carriers made up 20k, with 40k left. Hosho and the planned Shokaku were very small.

If so I would probably go with 2 Kongo's to give the extra carrier and 4 reasonably similar sized units in all. Having only 3 with 50% of your tonnage in the Kii hull is risky and also means that when that any unit is in refit you have only two ships available.

I think that seems reasonable, even if it is 2 Kongo's and 2 smaller carriers.

I'm not sure the numbers match for Britain however. Two points:
a) I can't see the RN scrapping the Hood. Despite its weaknesses its fast and pretty new while have plenty of scope for reconstruction. Or is this a question of trying to get tonnage as well as numbers to match?

b) I suspect, even with the G3's, the RN might prefer to keep the two Renown’s rather than a couple of the R's,[ or an R and the Tiger]. The latter are older, slower, far more worn by war service and most importantly of all probably have little scope for reconstruction. Especially if a major construction holiday is now going to start.

Heh...I really haven't done the stuff for the RN yet, your points are probably correct. I was just throwing something together.

The USN has a reasonably decent force with a lot of newer ships. They don't have the wartime experience of the RN so can't match the G3's in quality but have a lot more 16" guns. Only weak point is probably that they have only one, highly vulnerable, fast unit. However provided they balance the rest of the fleet they shouldn't have too many problems.

True.

The Japanese also have a very new and heavily gunned force. However how well they will be able to maintain it and building supporting elements could be an interesting point.

Indeed...

Presumably the new treaty includes something like the OTL Washington ending of the Anglo-Japanese defensive alliance and rules on limiting reconstructions – although possibly less likely in the latter case?

Yes. Similar, but probably more relaxed reconstruction rules.

What carrier forces does the RN have out of interest?

Not sure, to be honest.

 

[Douglas]

Why, without the 1921 Treaty, would the U.S. have converted two of the Lexingtons into carriers and complete one as a BC?

The whole reason that the Lex & Sara were converted in the first place was the Washington Treaty gave the USN a choice of scrapping them or converting them to carriers. ITTL that prod doesn't exist.

Reading through a lengthy thread on Bob Henneman's (sp?) warships discussion board, it appears that Congress and good portions of the Navy wanted to rid themselves of the Lexingtons. Here, the navy converts two and completes one, rather than scrapping the lot of them, which Congress was hinting at in OTL.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Finally got to a computer. Yeah, the 1925 remark was a typo. I've been reading about the naval arms treaties and will be shortly turning to a book strictly about the Washington Treaty of 1921. Tho I've got to admit that the 1927 attempted Geneva Treaty is an interesting read also.

First off the I would wonder if the POD would have to be earlier since the US Navy program was dead and given up by Congress by about 1920. Historically the 'Big Navy' support wasn't there is the United States and it would have been further slowed if not halted by Hoover. The US Navy pretty much can't justify its existence to the taxpayers - the 'isolationalists' aren't going to give it any South Dakotas or Lexingtons.

Anyhow, I think I would go with an option of keeping the Kongos as battlecruisers and fashioning carriers out of whatever hulls would give me the largest squadrons/air wings afloat.

[I'm disconnected from my naval library for the time being since I'm having my hardwood floors refinished.]

Don't think the RN would keep HMS Tiger, it would been scrapped since it is an odd-man out in regards to gun caliber. Hood would be kept since she's just too new. The presence of the G3s should give her some time to be overhauled. I do agree with the observation that the Renown and Repulse may be kept at the expense of an R class battleship or two.

As an aside, I would really wonder if a Treaty in London would be possible in 1927 since Churchill didn't trust the Americans at this point in his life and played a large part in the failure of the OTL 1927 Treaty of Geneva. He wasn't going to support any treaty that permitted parity between the US and Royal Navies.

 

[David S Poepoe]

At the tail end of O'Brien's British and American Naval Power he makes the following observation:

'After the Washington Conference the United States was left with the Lexington and Saratoga, at 33,000 tons each the largest carriers in the world. However, both had actually been designed as battlecruisers and had been redesigned as carriers only because of the Washington Conference. Within a few years of their comletion, both were thought to be dinosaurs. In the late 1920s the American navy became increasingly fond of small carriers and would gladly have scrapped the Lexington and Saratoga. However, as Congress was in no mood to spend more money on the fleet, these large flattops were maintained.'

So perhaps the US Navy would have their battlecruisers and small carriers or no battlecruisers and a few more small carriers in a world without the WNT.

 

[stevep]

Douglas and all

Catching up after last night's session as it was getting late then, about 1am here. A few points:

a) There was growing concern about the Lexington's as redesigned in ~1919 [i.e. 8x15", 7.5" belts, ~33kts]. However if both other navies had continued building large fast ships the USN would probably have wanted some counter and given the growing unhappiness of Congress with spending they would have been all that was available. So it could have gone either way, or a mixture as to how many are completed as BCs or CVs. [Know the USN didn't classify them as BCs but near enough]. One complication was that Britain had an intelligence ploy that, having ordered some 8" armoured belts at this time the other powers thought that's what the G3's were designed with so they wouldn't have seemed anything like as dangerous compared to them.

b) The US program was facing a growing failure of will in terms of Congress being unwilling to fund the programme and keeping it on little more than life support. However if the Japanese continued with their 8:8 programme that would have given some incentive to the US to continue with production. So much depends on the intangibles of how successfully the various factions mobilise opinion for their particular interests.

c) Thinking about it, it was very late the other night, I'm not sure how happy the RN would be with the proposed treaty as suggested. Even if you have the Hood, Repulse and Renown replacing Tiger and 2xR's the RN will have only constructed 5 ships since ~1917, one with 15" guns while the US and IJN both have far more ships effectively built post-war. A lot of the British fleet would have been aged by war service as well. And there are only 4 16" British ships compared to 8 each for the other powers. I think by ~26/27, even with a relatively parsimonious treasury, the G3's would have been completed and navy, shipyards and sizeable elements in public opinion would be arguing for another class of 2-4 further ships. This could be what actually triggers the path to a new conference but given the situation you might see something like with OTL 1921. I.e. the ships as discussed but Britain is allowed to build a couple of new ships to replace two of the older class and bring her more in line with her rivals in new production. If so I would like another 2xG3 type but she might have to settle for something nearer the OTL Nelson class. Probably a bit bigger as so many big ships already, say 37-40k tons. [Must admit I haven't worked out the relative tonnages here, just going with numbers, so that would affect things]. Hope that doesn't sound too much like special pleading for the RN but I think I raise some valid points.

d) The one problem with carrier conversions is that carrier development would probably be delayed markedly. With a slow naval race in that all three powers are trying but limited by some combination of funds and/or will being in short supply not a lot will be available for experimental weapons types. Furthermore any people advocating carriers as dramatic new weapons systems will be politically unpopular with the leadership of their own navies. Since their busting a gut persuading the politicians that its worthwhile investing massive sums in giant new ships someone hinting that such vessels could be made obsolete by new weapons will be coming over like the proverbial lead balloons. Carriers can still be 'sold' as sources of integral air support, especially for scouting and gun-aiming but as decisive new weapons in their own rights will be running into a lot of flak.

e) The other big point is that do we still have the depression and the rise of fascism on the way? That is really going to have an impact on the new treaty's implications.

Steve

 

[stevep]

At the tail end of O'Brien's British and American Naval Power he makes the following observation:

'After the Washington Conference the United States was left with the Lexington and Saratoga, at 33,000 tons each the largest carriers in the world. However, both had actually been designed as battlecruisers and had been redesigned as carriers only because of the Washington Conference. Within a few years of their comletion, both were thought to be dinosaurs. In the late 1920s the American navy became increasingly fond of small carriers and would gladly have scrapped the Lexington and Saratoga. However, as Congress was in no mood to spend more money on the fleet, these large flattops were maintained.'

So perhaps the US Navy would have their battlecruisers and small carriers or no battlecruisers and a few more small carriers in a world without the WNT.

David

Good point as most of the early conversions and initial designed from hull up CVs were pretty small [in a/c complement at least] and often slow. I think its generally considered that the US and Japan both gained a big bonus from learning how to operate large air groups from their large conversions, although the ships were less effective than smaller ~20k purpose built designs constructed in the 30's. As such the US navy and hence probably the IJN would only have a relatively few slow carriers. By this time the original RN conversions would be getting on a bit in their initial design and Furious and Eagle especially were of minimal effectiveness so you might see a markedly smaller carrier tonnage allowed for all powers. Say with Britain keeping only Courageous and Glorious and the small Hermes and the other powers having similar capacities. Funds and lack of influence making the carrier arms smaller and less important in any conflict in the traditional 1939- sort of time period.

Steve

 

[Douglas]

a) There was growing concern about the Lexington's as redesigned in ~1919 [i.e. 8x15", 7.5" belts, ~33kts]. However if both other navies had continued building large fast ships the USN would probably have wanted some counter and given the growing unhappiness of Congress with spending they would have been all that was available. So it could have gone either way, or a mixture as to how many are completed as BCs or CVs. [Know the USN didn't classify them as BCs but near enough]. One complication was that Britain had an intelligence ploy that, having ordered some 8" armoured belts at this time the other powers thought that's what the G3's were designed with so they wouldn't have seemed anything like as dangerous compared to them.

Yep. I pretty much settled on two CVs and one BC.

b) The US program was facing a growing failure of will in terms of Congress being unwilling to fund the programme and keeping it on little more than life support. However if the Japanese continued with their 8:8 programme that would have given some incentive to the US to continue with production. So much depends on the intangibles of how successfully the various factions mobilise opinion for their particular interests.

Thus a sort of middle way: half of the South Dakotas and half of the Lexingtons get finished (even if two of the Lexingtons end up as carriers).

c) Thinking about it, it was very late the other night, I'm not sure how happy the RN would be with the proposed treaty as suggested. Even if you have the Hood, Repulse and Renown replacing Tiger and 2xR's the RN will have only constructed 5 ships since ~1917, one with 15" guns while the US and IJN both have far more ships effectively built post-war. A lot of the British fleet would have been aged by war service as well. And there are only 4 16" British ships compared to 8 each for the other powers. I think by ~26/27, even with a relatively parsimonious treasury, the G3's would have been completed and navy, shipyards and sizeable elements in public opinion would be arguing for another class of 2-4 further ships. This could be what actually triggers the path to a new conference but given the situation you might see something like with OTL 1921. I.e. the ships as discussed but Britain is allowed to build a couple of new ships to replace two of the older class and bring her more in line with her rivals in new production. If so I would like another 2xG3 type but she might have to settle for something nearer the OTL Nelson class. Probably a bit bigger as so many big ships already, say 37-40k tons. [Must admit I haven't worked out the relative tonnages here, just going with numbers, so that would affect things]. Hope that doesn't sound too much like special pleading for the RN but I think I raise some valid points.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a clause that allowed the RN to build two more battleships as replacements for some of the R's or QE's a little earlier than the other powers. My question is this: assuming that the RN has the following warships

4 G3s
Hood
5 QE's
3 R's
2 Refit and Repair

which two ships will be replaced with new construction when it rolls around c. 1932?

d) The one problem with carrier conversions is that carrier development would probably be delayed markedly. With a slow naval race in that all three powers are trying but limited by some combination of funds and/or will being in short supply not a lot will be available for experimental weapons types. Furthermore any people advocating carriers as dramatic new weapons systems will be politically unpopular with the leadership of their own navies. Since their busting a gut persuading the politicians that its worthwhile investing massive sums in giant new ships someone hinting that such vessels could be made obsolete by new weapons will be coming over like the proverbial lead balloons. Carriers can still be 'sold' as sources of integral air support, especially for scouting and gun-aiming but as decisive new weapons in their own rights will be running into a lot of flak.

Correct. Of the three major treaty signatories, the US will have the best opportunity to have such ships built considering the financial situation and the fact that there are six relatively useless Lexington hulls sitting awaiting the possibility of conversion. When the 1927 treaty rolls around, Britain and Japan will clamor to be allowed to build up their (until now) languishing carrier forces in order to be "fair".

e) The other big point is that do we still have the depression and the rise of fascism on the way? That is really going to have an impact on the new treaty's implications.

Yes! Thanks for your comments!

 

[David S Poepoe]

My question is this: assuming that the RN has the following warships

4 G3s
Hood
5 QE's
3 R's
2 Refit and Repair

which two ships will be replaced with new construction when it rolls around c. 1932?

I think the RN would trade 3 R's for 2 new ships. If the British were smart they will just demilitarize any ships like they did with HMS Iron Duke and the Japanese did with Hiei. They keep the turrets and guns on hand for fast reconversions.

How do the Dominion navies stand in this WI? Can Britain transfer warships to Australia and New Zealand?

 

[Douglas]

How do the Dominion navies stand in this WI? Can Britain transfer warships to Australia and New Zealand?

Probably given HMS Australia and New Zealand, but those probably get scrapped due to finances/renegotiation of Anglo-Japanese Treaty in the early 20's.