Colonial Naval forces post Washington treaty.

This is something I've been pondering for a while. The colonial naval forces were lumped into the parent nations allocations in the Washington Treaty which efectively limited them to light cruisers and under. All of the major signatories had colonial possetions of some sort, that could have to hold off an attack until support from the Mother Country arrived and could use some more powerful ships to do it with. So if the treaty allowed heavy coastal defence ships, what would be a reasonable specification for such ships under the terms of the treaty?

My thoughts are ships of under 15000 tons displacement armed with no more than six intermediate caliber main guns (e.g British 9.2 inch) Heavily armoured with a max speed of aprox 20 - 23 knots but with a limited range to prevent them being used with the main Battle Fleet.

Actually getting the ships built would of course be another matter and there would be a great temptation to use the newer pre and semi Dreadnoughts or modified Monitors, and by the time rearmament started the growing power of the aircraft would likely be better suited to the task. Still the design and construction of such ships would keep skilled design teams and shipbuilders busy at a time when capital ship construction was forbiden.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Actually, most of the signatories would've just skipped the class altogether if they were short legged, as they would be patrol vessels to begin with, so I'd figure 6,000nmi is about the acceptable minimum range. A speed of 18-24kts though would likely be less disagreeable (particularly as everyone would cheat on that.)

And most pre-war colonial vessels were light cruisers or gunboats to begin with. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were very unusual ships for their posting really.

Actually, I'd bet modified Armored Cruisers and early Heavy Cruisers would probably end up taking over the role. So you'd get things like the Myōkō-class, just with a couple missing turrets replaced by accommodations for scout planes and more secondary weapons or something. They'd definitely make for very dangerous surface raiders.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Sounds like you are trying to avoid losing skills in slow building years. Some type of ideas I thought about when writing my now inactive TL.

1) Guns skills seem to be a problem. Lots of delays ramping up the main gun production. Say you are used to making 27 guns (9 per ship, 3 ships per year) of say the 15" gun. Upgrade your naval artillery, at main bases. A rule of thumb is a land based gun is worth 3 ship based guns due to a more accurate firing base. Also easier to repair. So assuming you have will and the budget, you could see something like the UK making 9 (1/3 capacity, hopefully keep skills up) for various bases. While expense, it is very cheap in construction costs and manpower to run compared to 3 new BB per year.

2) Monitors. Can't give you treaty specs off top of head, but also way to use new guns. Say UK decides will need 17" guns for post treaty days, then build a few (maybe 6) shallow draft, slow sailing monitors. Also keeps up armor production. Ability to make thick plates is a skill that can be lost. And if truly intended to be defense ships, the short range, heavy armor concept should be workable if one is negotiating the treaty.

3) If just want to keep shipyards working, subsidize some large merchant ships (or passenger liners) each year. If you say keep 2 drydocks able to build BB working at capacity on some large, fast merchant ship, you keep skills there. Also with some pre planning, I bet these ships can be convert to CVE pretty easy.


With all this, you can keep a base of skills going. Say enough in a pinch you can quickly restart BB production. But this will cost a lot of money the UK or USA or whoever does not want to spend.
 
Producing commercial ships designed for conversion to AMCs, or basic hulls that can be made in to CVEs is a good idea. One of the problems with more "muscular" ships is the manning, one of the limitations of colonial navies is the ability to have the manpower needed to run those sorts of ships back in the pre-automation days.

You could build a few of the more "muscular" ships, but use them primarily as training ships to get a reserve naval manpower pool which would be easier to maintain in peacetime in colonies, but mobilizable in wartime.
 
This is something I've been pondering for a while. The colonial naval forces were lumped into the parent nations allocations in the Washington Treaty which efectively limited them to light cruisers and under. All of the major signatories had colonial possetions of some sort, that could have to hold off an attack until support from the Mother Country arrived and could use some more powerful ships to do it with. So if the treaty allowed heavy coastal defence ships, what would be a reasonable specification for such ships under the terms of the treaty.

You are only talking about the British. No other Great Power had such an arrangement. Any major naval forces in the Philippines were US Navy, any major naval forces in Tahiti were the French Navy.

Unless total tonnage permitted to each power was raised there is no reason to use limited tonnage to build anything besides blue water capital ships.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I have a thread somewhere on naval treaty work-rounds, but I don't think that new build big guns at coastal forts was suggested. While fort building was limited in much of the Pacific by the treaties, I think more guns at Ramsgate, Deal, Dover, Hastings, Bexhill, Eastbourne, Gib, Singapore and Malta would be okay. You could get fantastic range from a 15" Mk 1 at 45 degree elevation. Link it in with radar and you get Chain Low requirement pre-war.
 
Last edited:
In terms of keeping up the armour- and big gun- building skills, a viable workaround might be a throwback to a century or so past: unpowered (i.e. tug-towed) armoured monitors? Only good for home & coastal defence, of course.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
While quite easy to get treaty agreement, governments are more likely to use old battleships with the machinery removed than fork out for purpose built.
 
This is something I've been pondering for a while. The colonial naval forces were lumped into the parent nations allocations in the Washington Treaty which efectively limited them to light cruisers and under. All of the major signatories had colonial possetions of some sort, that could have to hold off an attack until support from the Mother Country arrived and could use some more powerful ships to do it with. So if the treaty allowed heavy coastal defence ships, what would be a reasonable specification for such ships under the terms of the treaty?

My thoughts are ships of under 15000 tons displacement armed with no more than six intermediate caliber main guns (e.g British 9.2 inch) Heavily armoured with a max speed of aprox 20 - 23 knots but with a limited range to prevent them being used with the main Battle Fleet.

Actually getting the ships built would of course be another matter and there would be a great temptation to use the newer pre and semi Dreadnoughts or modified Monitors, and by the time rearmament started the growing power of the aircraft would likely be better suited to the task. Still the design and construction of such ships would keep skilled design teams and shipbuilders busy at a time when capital ship construction was forbiden.

Peg Leg Pom

As David says this was only a factor affecting Britain as while all the great powers signing the treaty had colonies only Britain was associated with self-governing dominions. I think this clause was in the treaty solely to prevent the dominions having their own capital ships.

However some of the steps you mention would have been an efficient way of preserving the capability, especially in the key areas of big guns and armour plating. Its just that the governments of the period lacked the willingness to preserve the capacity.:mad::mad:

Steve
 
Top