Change the WNT without breaking It?
- Thread starter hms malta
- Start date
Yes lots of things could be done.
Unlikley without early PODs,
- 15" is unlikely due to both USN and IJN using 14" and 16" guns and the RN using 15" and designing 16" for the G3s/O3s.
- 37,000t is unlikely as its to far above Nagato and Colorado who are both 33,000t (ish)
- 27,000t is OTL for CVs until LNT
I think the easiest potential none ASB changes would be,
- Slow build rate rather than holiday for battleships say the OTL agreed build rate cut in 1/2 over twice the time period, this allows the laid down ships to be used for the first few years but would need a larger limit say 42,000t
- 6" Cruiser limit, would save lots money and would beat DDs/AMCs, RN would have to replace the 7.5" on its Hawkins but that's not a bad idea. would make lower CL tonnage limit more viable.
- Somebody lets RN build a couple of G3s US politician thinking it doesn't matter after RN asks to save money by using design...this was apparently offered is informal discussion.
- Slow build rate rather than holiday for battleships say the OTL agreed build rate cut in 1/2 over twice the time period, this allows the laid down ships to be used for the first few years but would need a larger limit say 42,000t
- 6" Cruiser limit, would save lots money and would beat DDs/AMCs, RN would have to replace the 7.5" on its Hawkins but that's not a bad idea. would make lower CL tonnage limit more viable.
- Somebody lets RN build a couple of G3s US politician thinking it doesn't matter after RN asks to save money by using design...this was apparently offered is informal discussion.
SsgtC
Banned
Yes. I could easily see a different WNT allowing ships currently under construction and past a certain point to be completed. Say, anything over 30%. That would let the US finish 4 of the SoDaks (South Dakota, Indiana, North Carolina, Iowa) and two of the Lexingtons (Lexington, Saratoga). I could also see them arguing to be allowed to convert Constellation and Ranger to carriers.
For Japan, they likely complete both Amagi and Akagi as battlecruisers and Tosa and Kaga as battleships. Atago and Takao get selected for conversion to carriers but are subsequently wrecked in the earthquake. Japan would then likely sell an exception to build two dedicated 33,000 ton carriers as they have no other capital ships under construction suitable for conversion (unless you count the Kii class which only had their keels laid).
The UK gets a huge exception to the treaty and is allowed to build all 4 of the G3 battlecruisers with an option to build either two additional G3s to match the USN or two of a new design, but restricted to the treaty limits. Like Japan after the earthquake, they are also allowed to build two new carriers up to 33,000 tons.
For Japan, they likely complete both Amagi and Akagi as battlecruisers and Tosa and Kaga as battleships. Atago and Takao get selected for conversion to carriers but are subsequently wrecked in the earthquake. Japan would then likely sell an exception to build two dedicated 33,000 ton carriers as they have no other capital ships under construction suitable for conversion (unless you count the Kii class which only had their keels laid).
The UK gets a huge exception to the treaty and is allowed to build all 4 of the G3 battlecruisers with an option to build either two additional G3s to match the USN or two of a new design, but restricted to the treaty limits. Like Japan after the earthquake, they are also allowed to build two new carriers up to 33,000 tons.