Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[Thoresby]

OTL it was the main reason for their... uneven naval policy and shipbuilding.

There was always something the Army needed that was more vital or time dependent than the Navy’s needs.

The MN just wasn't that important for France's warmarking ability, of all the European nations they were the most self sufficient within their peacetime borders despite the existence of the French Empire. Probably due to be cut off and blockaded so many times in the 18th century by the RN.

 

[naraht]

The MN just wasn't that important for France's warmarking ability, of all the European nations they were the most self sufficient within their peacetime borders despite the existence of the French Empire. Probably due to be cutting off and blockaded so many times in the 18th century by the RN.

The basic question that I have is "Of the 5 major signers of the OTL treaty, which would *not* sign that treaty?"

 

[Palantir]

I imagine that with a stronger Germany, France will pour more money into the Army and less into the Navy

It really depends on the general relation between France and Germany. A non-revanchist Germany with an informal empire in central and eastern Europe might try to sway France in a benevolent neutral stance.
After all, even OTL, there was some attempts toward in that direction.

 

[NHBL]

I was just thinking: Germany's heavy land based artillery is limited by treaty. I see two BIG options for Germany to compensate, and stay within treaty terms.
1 is air power. Germany didn't do too badly building an air for4ce in OTL's 1930's--without the treaty, perhaps they will develop tactical air support to an even higher level.
2 is rockets. If you can't get a gun that can hit enemy artillery, a specific logistics depot, or a command post, just call Uncle Werner's Grid Square Removal Service.
Later on, either of these can be combined with Heisenberg-Einstein Incorporated Large Scale Terrain Remodeling.

Since artillery is not cheap, there could be money in the budget for both of the first two options. Then 1 & 2 can be combined...

 

[jlckansas]

Looking at the Med, you basically have the 3 Entente powers, Yugoslavia, and the Turks. If you look at the UK, France, and Italy still being friendly to each other, what needs to be in the Med. If France concedes that the UK is to match Germany and Italy just needs to be better than the non Entente powers, then they can concentrate on French Indochina. They could be looking at the Dutch just in case they allied with the Germans and take some of the burden from the UK fleet in Singapore to provide ships there.

 

[Captain Oblivious]

If France concedes that the UK is to match Germany and Italy just needs to be better than the non Entente powers, then they can concentrate on French Indochina.

Why not ?
It really depends from Mussolini happening or not, really. And whether Italy starts a naval race with France and a challenge for the Mediterranean hegemony - or not.
France finest interwar ships - the ultrafast destroyers, the Algérie heavy cruiser, the Dunkerque BC and the Richelieu BB - all stemmed from the italian challenge over the mediterranean. As long as George Leygues happens in the early 20's, France navy is on the right track. Plus Darlan, De Laborde, and many others inspired leaders (when I say inspired, I mean on NAVY MATTERS. Have them trying politics and it will be a complete disaster. Politics and warships are different matters, to say the least).

 

[Thoresby]

2 is rockets. If you can't get a gun that can hit enemy artillery, a specific logistics depot, or a command post, just call Uncle Werner's Grid Square Removal Service.

Rocket artillery certainly has its advantages and earlier and more Nebelwerfers certainly won't hurt the Germany but it's an and rather than a or capability, you can't replace tube artilleries with rockets but you can enhance your force with them.

Later on, either of these can be combined with Heisenberg-Einstein Incorporated Large Scale Terrain Remodeling.

Long range rockets they are essentially a bad idea until you can develop a miniaturized, shock hardened nuclear warhead and a missile with enough throw weight to put it on and that realistically isn't happening until the late 50's. In OTL the first IRBM with a nuclear warhead was the R-11 in 1958 and then you had ICBM's arrive in 1959.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I see two BIG options for Germany to compensate, and stay within treaty terms.
1 is air power. Germany didn't do too badly building an air force in OTL's 1930's--without the treaty, perhaps they will develop tactical air support to an even higher level.

That depends on how you view the dogmatic development of the Luftwaffe and the glaring gaps it left in Germany's airpower come War in '39 and into the '40s.

 

[sts-200]

I was just thinking: Germany's heavy land based artillery is limited by treaty. I see two BIG options for Germany to compensate, and stay within treaty terms.
1 is air power. Germany didn't do too badly building an air for4ce in OTL's 1930's--without the treaty, perhaps they will develop tactical air support to an even higher level.
2 is rockets. If you can't get a gun that can hit enemy artillery, a specific logistics depot, or a command post, just call Uncle Werner's Grid Square Removal Service.
Later on, either of these can be combined with Heisenberg-Einstein Incorporated Large Scale Terrain Remodeling.

Since artillery is not cheap, there could be money in the budget for both of the first two options. Then 1 & 2 can be combined...

Obeying the treaty is easier.
... and making sure there the Poles, Lithuanians and Bohemians have plenty of perfectly legal heavy artillery - and naturally, many of their troops speak German...

I don't disagree re the potential for air power, but we're in 1921, so that's still some years ahead.

 

[sts-200]

The Loosening of Alliances

Before the delegates of six nations met in Washington in the summer of 1921, six nations met in London.

They were the closest possible allies, all being Dominions and Colonies of the British Empire, hosted by the King-Emperor and chaired by ‘the man who won the war’, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.

Foremost among the discussions were the upcoming naval negotiations in Washington, and the policy as regards the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. The two matters were closely related but were not a subject of mutual agreement.
Of the Dominions, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were firmly in favour of Britain’s plans for renewal of the fleet, and there were friendly noises in respect of the Dominions assisting in future naval plans. Following the completion of HMAS Adelaide a few months earlier, Australia now had the Fleet Unit she had paid for in the years after 1909. Six J-class submarines had been transferred in 1918 and following the decision to maintain three of these in service, with the others to be used for spares, the Royal Australian Navy now had a surface, submarine and air fleet.

Australia and New Zealand also supported the renewal of the alliance with Japan, as the powerful Japanese fleet could help to check any trouble the Dutch might cause in the Indies, while they believed the comparatively loose alliance reduced the chance of conflict between Japan and the USA.

The Canadians however, had the opposite view. In Ottawa, it was obvious that much of Canada’s future trade would come from south of the border, rather than from across the Atlantic. The nation’s security had long depended on the behaviour of the USA, and with commercial interests becoming ever more closely aligned, the Canadians now argued that a continuation of the alliance would only embolden Japan.
Hawkish suggestions that it might ultimately lead to an Anglo-American war were clearly absurd, but any anti-American policies adopted by the Empire would affect Canada far more deeply than anyone else.
There were also mixed feelings over naval expansion, primarily due to a lingering resentment over the funding of the battleship HMS Canada before the war. British support in the construction of a new dock and new flagship for the RCN, the C-class cruiser HMCS Vancouver, had gone some way to overcome this, but many Canadians felt that their nation’s trust had been abused. Under a post-war agreement, Canada was owed British assistance in the construction of another cruiser, but it was the Canadian government that was preventing this from going ahead on financial grounds. The poison of the failed pre-war Naval Aid Bills was still well remembered in Canadian politics, and it was therefore convenient to lay part of the blame for this on the British.

The Colony of India was supportive of the southern Dominions, although as this view was represented primarily by the Secretary of State for India, it wasn’t entirely representative of that of the Indian people themselves. The ever-increasing number of Indian nationalists did not support a stronger British fleet, and while they had little direct interest in Japan, there was a view that the termination of the Anglo-Japanese alliance might allow greater freedom for the Indian separatist movement to court Japanese support.

The British themselves were in a quandary. The Japanese had proven themselves useful allies during the war, although they had demanded a price for their assistance. Their share of the German colonies and interests in China and the Pacific was considerable, and although these were no direct loss to Britain, the continued expansion of Japanese power was a cause for concern. If unchecked, British interests in China and Borneo could ultimately come under pressure.
The Canadian argument; that a benevolently neutral USA was more important than a somewhat unpredictable Japan, therefore carried considerable weight.

Diplomatically, there would be a balancing act to come, but militarily the British government understood that the Royal Navy could outmatch the United States Navy for at least a decade to come, although that might be at very significant cost. Outmatching the Japanese fleet would require comparatively little effort.

 

[steamboy]

And so the tightrope walking begins! Excellent update, I dunno if the UK's going to break its alliance or just change the wording somehow, I doubt it will be well recived in Japan though.

 

[Thoresby]

Looks like the challenges of the interwar Imperial Conferences remains fairly consistent with OTL, in OTL the absence of a positive decision to renew the Japanese Alliance led to it lapsing I wonder what will happen here.

 

[NHBL]

A delicate balance. If the Dominions actually get the capability to BUILD the ships from the keel up, they might be more enthusiastic, but would British companies want that?

Obeying the treaty is easier.
... and making sure there the Poles, Lithuanians and Bohemians have plenty of perfectly legal heavy artillery - and naturally, many of their troops speak German...

I don't disagree re the potential for air power, but we're in 1921, so that's still some years ahead.

Air power and perhaps rockets are a long ways ahead, but there's likely not going to be a war all that soon, so there's time to investigate the potential.

 

[admiral charles]

As I see it,to the British the nod to the issue is not so much to lose the Japanese alliance as much as keeping Japanese friendship (reducing the potential for hostility/menace) but without comprising and avoiding pissing off the Americans, while at the same time fulfilling the imperial commitments, assuring the Empire that all is coldly calculated and maintaining the coherence of action. But no pressure...

Does anyone see it too?

 

[Phoenix_jz]

To interject into the thread again - with the question of France and Italy and capital ships, I can only really repeat what I said earlier in the thread.

Both the Normandie and Caracciolo-class battleships are too flawed in terms of underwater and horizontal protection, and its doubtful either navy will complete any of them. The same flaws ring true in this world's WWI as they did in OTL's WWI. At best, you'll see a similar case of Béarn converted into an experimental carrier, and in the case of the Italians, something similar with Caracciolo's hull (again, I make reference to the conversion projects Pg. 579 through 582), which was considered at the same time as the proposals to complete the ship with improved deck armor (1919), inspired by British efforts with HMS Argus. Due to the post-war financial difficulties, the effort largely failed, but if there funds are available this time around it stands a much stronger chance.

Spending for new battleships, likewise, is relatively low on the priority level for either navy post-WWI OTL, due to the severe lack of modern destroyers and cruisers in their fleets (which became the focus of their naval programmes of the 1920s and into the early 1930s). France, in particularly, had to spend considerable funds on attempting to modernize her existing dreadnoughts, which had very limited angles of elevation, seakeeping issues, outdated propulsion, etc, and needed lots of modifications to bring them up to the standards of foreign dreadnoughts.

In turn, outside of the general push for the continued develop of the naval air arm and some form of carrier (if not a carrier, the second, cheaper option floated was for a fast seaplane carrier, which ultimately lead to the not-so-fast Giuseppe Miraglia), Italian naval developments largely tend to be reacting to French ones (resulting in the mirroring of fleets, since OTL both tended to plan to counter the other), as even totally independent of fascism the RM tended to see France as its major rival (especially now that the Austrian question was resolved, leaving the Adriatic secure - the Kingdom of Serbs & Croats doesn't have the infrastructure to operate any of the large Austrian ships, and will likely see a similar force development as the Yugoslava state OTL).

What will be interesting to see is what if there's a WNT analog in this timeline, and likewise who ends up in charge in the RM. Given the much better end to the war the fascists will have a much more difficult time gaining support, and without the rise of fascism, there's no suppression of men like Romeo Bernotti, which should lead to some interesting developments in the late 1920s and 1930s (especially if he becomes the navy's CSMM in the 1930s instead of Cavagnari), and will have a large hand in how the RM develops.

 

[Thoresby]

As I said up thread I think you're being much too harsh on Caracciolo's they're not G-3's but they've a decent armament, good speed and acceptable armour and would give Italy a clear margin of superiority over the French, Ottomans and Greeks. The Normandie's are rubbish and need to be cancelled ASAP.

 

[Wobbly Whirlwind]

Hi, long time fan so I finally stopped lurking and made an account to comment. When talking about Caraacciolo, I don't particularly see anything that stands out in this timeline that gives Italy this windfall of funding that would allow them to modernize and rebuild these ships to the point where they wouldn't be anything besides a liability. The layout of the main battery gun turrets especially is rather troublesome.

From what I can tell from this old warships international article I can find, bulkheads on these ships and generally the protection of the most fore and aft turrets is beyond awful and I'm not sure it can be sufficiently addressed to a point where the ships are not death traps.

If these diagrams are accurate, I don't see any amount of practical bulging or additions that can fix these seemingly bone deep issues with these ships, even the underwater protection amidships is pretty awful. I'd have to say that I agree with writing these ships off, especially with the progress on them. I'm not an expert on Italian ships by any means but just some google searching seems to show these ships were pretty similarly flawed to Normanyde.

 

[dmg86]

The issue then becomes what next? Both navies need new capital ships.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The issue then becomes what next? Both navies need new capital ships.

They need cruisers and destroyers far more. And since they're building against each other forced parity would allow them to defer recapitalization of their battle fleets. The French in particular desperately need to improve their steel quality before they try their hand at battleship design again.

 

[RelativeGalaxy7]

Hi, long time fan so I finally stopped lurking and made an account to comment. When talking about Caraacciolo, I don't particularly see anything that stands out in this timeline that gives Italy this windfall of funding that would allow them to modernize and rebuild these ships to the point where they wouldn't be anything besides a liability. The layout of the main battery gun turrets especially is rather troublesome.

From what I can tell from this old warships international article I can find, bulkheads on these ships and generally the protection of the most fore and aft turrets is beyond awful and I'm not sure it can be sufficiently addressed to a point where the ships are not death traps.

If these diagrams are accurate, I don't see any amount of practical bulging or additions that can fix these seemingly bone deep issues with these ships, even the underwater protection amidships is pretty awful. I'd have to say that I agree with writing these ships off, especially with the progress on them. I'm not an expert on Italian ships by any means but just some google searching seems to show these ships were pretty similarly flawed to Normanyde.

Wow, I knew the Caracciolo's had protection scheme issues especially with the underwater protection however that looks pretty damning. I don't see anything besides some kind of insane rebuild being able to address those issues to a point where they aren't just waiting to be sunk by modern systems.