AHC: Realistically rewrite the Washington Naval Treaty and its extenstions

As the title says, your challenge is to alter the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, and its de-facto extensions, the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936. These treaties had the goal of reducing the naval spending of the post-WW1 era, but accidentally caused a knockoff effect, suspending the construction of capital ships for at least one and a half decades and inadvertently causing the rise of the Aircraft Carrier.

How can a rewritten WNT, LNT and SLNT affect World War 2? What ships would be built or not built? What are the design changes to the ships on the drawing board? How can it leave a legacy less bitter to the naval historians of today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Naval_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_London_Naval_Treaty
 

NoMommsen

Donor
IMO the outcome of the Washington treaty - or that there was such a treaty at all - was already kind of a little wonder.
Such a treaty was senseble for sure, but ... how often has international policy been really sensible.;)
 
The actuall innitiator for this negotiation, prior to the Washington Naval Treaty, the USA differed in motives from the other participants, as the USA were able to continue their buildingplans, though politically that was not in their interest at the time, while the opposing nations were not quite capable of continuing naval buildinmg programs on a large scale, or were not willing to do so due to financial restrains and political dislike of warfare in the first place.

So the strangest thing happened: the USA, not realy hurt by the Great War, having not been involved for most of the time and had made proffit from it innitially in economical terms, suddenly shifted to a wish to reduce armaments in navies, to prevent both a armsrace with other powers, as well as getting parity with the biggest power so far, the UK. Politically this was a mastermove, as the arguments to do so were tempting for the British especially, who at the time were not realy wanting a new armsrace again, such as between the UK and Germany before the Great War. At the same time, the USA would win a lot by removing the British superiority in numbers with a stroke of the pencil. Only Japan was not realy interested, though not able to resist the two other large powers.
 
Only Japan was not really interested, though not able to resist the two other large powers.

Ironic given that Japan could least afford an arms race.
 
My take,

USA - unlimited funds but voters (via congress) says no as it has least need.
GB - dosn't want to spend money after the war to end wars, it has great need to defend empire to justify spending and is still second richest in world. (historically spent the most on CAs by a lot after WNT)
J - going to lose the race as its short of cash and much smaller economy. (but tons of determination pre earthquake)
FR - bankrupt after WWI devastation.
Italy - as FR but poorer.

What could realistically change ? (WNT later will follow on from what it sets)

- Slow building program to prevent block obsolescence and cut down on rebuild that don't offer very good value v new ships.(ie WNT build rate is brought forward and not stopped by LNT)

- Maybe allow some of the ships SD, Tosa etc to be built as a block to cover the first few years of the replacement rate ? (this might then lead to a higher weight limit 43,000t ish ?)

- CL/CA limit not at 10,000t and 8" but lower at 6" and 8,000t (ie 2LNT limit) (GB would have to rearm Hawkins to compensate.)
 
Only Japan was not really interested, though not able to resist the two other large powers.

Ironic given that Japan could least afford an arms race.

Japan was only inerested in getting dominance in the West Pacific, no its economy, given the dominance of the military in its politics. If continued the nation would indeed become bankrupt, as would almost any other semi-colonial power overcome, as all were economically less developped than the UK and USA at the time. (Even these would see difficulties in their proposed buildingplans, especially the UK, as it would also have to cope with the effects of the Great War.)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As the title says, your challenge is to alter the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, and its de-facto extensions, the London Naval Treaty of 1930 and the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936. These treaties had the goal of reducing the naval spending of the post-WW1 era, but accidentally caused a knockoff effect, suspending the construction of capital ships for at least one and a half decades and inadvertently causing the rise of the Aircraft Carrier.

How can a rewritten WNT, LNT and SLNT affect World War 2? What ships would be built or not built? What are the design changes to the ships on the drawing board? How can it leave a legacy less bitter to the naval historians of today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Naval_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_London_Naval_Treaty

I don't know that the opinion of the WNT/LNT is that bad among historians. There are plenty of ships that are lamented by those who find the designs to be beautiful (the G3 class in particular) and fine fodder for speculation.

The Treaty did not force the rise of the carrier, if anything it reflected the opinion of the major powers that the carrier was already a capital ship or at least a capital ship in the making (only BB, BC, and CV had an absolute tonnage afloat cap and the replacement requirements).The carrier was not seen as THE capital ship until 1942, even to early 1943, rather it was seen as a better version of the BC, capable of improving the scouting forces and providing advanced scout forces with a strong sting. The carrier became dominant thanks to advances in aircraft design (especially engine power), not because of the WNT/LNT.

Had the Treaties never existed the British would have started a program of exceptional ship designs and eventually destroyed the national economy. The Japanese would have done the same, except more quickly. The U.S. would have constructed two classes of warships that would still be obsolescent by the start of WW II, and very possibly several more carriers similar to the Yorktown class, but Congress would have still cut off the money tap once the British and Japanese had to stop due to economics.

The main difference is that certain classes that made it to WW II would not have (primarily the 12" and early 14" USN ships that wound up as part of the gun line which would have been replaced by either South Dakota class ships or a follow on class (any follow-on would depend on how long the other fleets continued to try to keep up the building race).

tl;dr: Carriers were inevitable. The U.S. had the most money to spend.
 
Just an observation regarding who has the most money to spend. It was in US that the 1929 crash happened (which affected pretty much everyone else to varying degrees). How spending as inferred significantly more than OTL on a shipbuilding program will affect that would be interesting to quantify, but the said crash is something to consider imo.

The point has been made about the money spend by various powers after the OTL WT on ships other than BBs, converting BB or BC to carriers still cost a lot, dozens of cruisers not to mention hundreds of other craft were built, UK built in addition to all that two brand-new BBs etc. However i would guess that the Kanto earthquake significantly affected Japan's ability to sustain it's programs (at least temporaraily), and that would be more so if the BB race continues. But then perhaps everyone crashes sooner than 1929 if the race is not alleviated.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Just an observation regarding who has the most money to spend. It was in US that the 1929 crash happened (which affected pretty much everyone else to varying degrees). How spending as inferred significantly more than OTL on a shipbuilding program will affect that would be interesting to quantify, but the said crash is something to consider imo.

The point has been made about the money spend by various powers after the OTL WT on ships other than BBs, converting BB or BC to carriers still cost a lot, dozens of cruisers not to mention hundreds of other craft were built, UK built in addition to all that two brand-new BBs etc. However i would guess that the Kanto earthquake significantly affected Japan's ability to sustain it's programs (at least temporaraily), and that would be more so if the BB race continues. But then perhaps everyone crashes sooner than 1929 if the race is not alleviated.

The Depression makes for a really interesting issue. It started in the U.S., but rather quickly dragged down most of the industrialized world, in no small part due to the loss of U.S. investment capital. Japan was actually less impacted than many of the other countries (especially those involved in the WNT/LNT), but that was partly due to the economy having been devastated by the 1923 Earthquake.

While the reasons for the Crash are a great subject for discussion, it would be interesting to model the effect that a major building program, with the associated spending on materials, even on railways and roads to support the additional movement of materials would have. There is also the dramatically different tax rate structure that could have acted as a moderator on speculation if a building program was in place (in 1918 top rate was 77%, by 1929 it had dropped to 25%).

The dominant position I have seen among economists seems to be that the spending in preparation for and during WW II critical in preventing the economy from backsliding in 1939-40. I freely admit that I don't have the background to argue the fine points, but it is interesting to consider if the Great Depression would be known as the Fairly Good Depression or the Panic of 1929-30 if the Federal spending/tax structure was different.
 
It would indeed be most interesting to read a realistic and impartial appraisal of what is likely to happen economy wise if there is no WT and the shipbuilding race continues.

To the theme, was wondering how realistic would be to have a more "relaxed" WT, without individual ship and gun size limits, just overall tonnage. The powers will still be caught in the dilemma of having as many BBs, CVs, cruisers etc. as possible within the tonnage limits, but also as powerful as possible. Also of interest to me would be whether Japan could get the 10:10:7 ratio they were looking for.
 
It would indeed be most interesting to read a realistic and impartial appraisal of what is likely to happen economy wise if there is no WT and the shipbuilding race continues.

To the theme, was wondering how realistic would be to have a more "relaxed" WT, without individual ship and gun size limits, just overall tonnage. The powers will still be caught in the dilemma of having as many BBs, CVs, cruisers etc. as possible within the tonnage limits, but also as powerful as possible. Also of interest to me would be whether Japan could get the 10:10:7 ratio they were looking for.

I guess one possibility is a lot of really top heavy and poorly protected ships, think the MOGAMI class on steroids....
 
I guess one possibility is a lot of really top heavy and poorly protected ships, think the MOGAMI class on steroids....

Mogami actually was well protected in her final form, moslty due to addaptations to the Original design and strengthening of her hull. For a cruiser she was one of the most well armored in the world at her time, only slightly inferior to the USN Baltimore and succeeding variants of that design. So against cruisers of equal size, she did quite well in comparisson, couppled with a more flexible arsenal of weapons, compared to her USN compedators.

The main issue would be to formulate against what sort of threats a ship is designed to deal with. Cruisers are flexible ships capable of dealing with most sorts of threats, except the biggest battleships around (At least all cruisers of a non US design, as the USN had mostly gunships, rather than multirole ones.) A battlecruiser of the classical design was a cruiserkiller and not a ship intended to slug it out with ships of equal, or better firepower. As such, true battlecruisers, like USS Alaska and HMS Renown, generally lacked protection on the scale of a capital ship, able to reist its own gunfire, but had great speed and superior guns to combat more normal sized cruisers. (and yes, USS Alaska is technically a classical battlecruiser, as her designed role was simmilar to that f the original HMS Invincible of 1907, to hunt cruisers and stay away from bigger opponents.)
 
Top