Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

Where there's a will, there's a way. We know that OTL the US was actively spying (bugging) the Japanese and British deligates hotel rooms and offices. If that was found out the UK could basically go "Agree to this or we tell japan and this all falls apart."
The United States had 12 capital ships of 40,000 tons under construction when the treaty was signed. The only country that didn't need the treaty was the US. If the British and/or Japanese had tried to start a naval arms race, the interventionist and isolationist factions in Congress would have happily come together to fund any amount of construction necessary to match foreign navies.
 
This is the chart of specifics i told you:

  • Battleship: 12-16" gun, 45k ton limit
  • Battlecruiser: 12-14" gun, 35k ton limit
  • Heavy cruiser: 6-9.2" gun, 15k ton limit
  • Light cruiser: 4-6" gun, 7k ton limit
  • Destroyer: 3-5" gun, 5k ton limit.
It's sketchy, but is a start, i had other chart around but can't remember where i left it.

Principal opinion of the Author requested please:biggrin:
Several issues there.
I can't see anyone going for separate limits for battleships and battlecruisers - the term 'capital ship' was coined pre-war. Any treaty would need comprehensive inspection to enforce such a difference.

As you and many others have been discussing, it's very difficult to define what a cruiser is - anything from a 4,000t ship with a few 4.7" guns, up to a 20,000t ship with 12".
With such a wide variation, it's going to be tough to agree limits... ratios of types, tonnages, numbers of ships, total tonnage ... there are many options.

5,000 tons is too high for a 1920s destroyer. Most were under 1,300 at the time, with even the largest leaders at about 2,000.
 
Well in that case, at least the british should push for a more decent displacement, and i insist in the 15k ton limit, that gives sufficient margin for a better protection to be put on a cruiser of any kind.
 
Last edited:
steamboy said:
2 - Say *INSERT DOMINION HERE* has ordered these ships as a replacement for HMS New Zealand/Australia and that their tonnage should not count towards the overall RN tonnage as they're clearly different and independent countries, that we're representing, and speaking for. At which point Japan and the USA look at you beady eyed and you give them a big shit eating grin back.
They tried that OTL. And were told in no uncertain terms to cut the shit and not try anything that stupid again. Nobody fell for it the first time, they aren't going to fall for it this time.
Different circumstances here, but SsgtC is right to say that there's no way the Americans or Japanese would take 'Dominion Navies' without at least getting something equivalent in return - and the British probably wouldn't like that as it's not a net win.
 
This is the chart of specifics i told you:

  • Battleship: 12-16" gun, 45k ton limit
  • Battlecruiser: 12-14" gun, 35k ton limit
  • Heavy cruiser: 6-9.2" gun, 15k ton limit
  • Light cruiser: 4-6" gun, 7k ton limit
  • Destroyer: 3-5" gun, 5k ton limit.
It's sketchy, but is a start, i had other chart around but can't remember where i left it.

Principal opinion of the Author requested please:biggrin:
Gun caliber and tonnage should be limited, but not the number of guns. Navies should be able to choose between guns and speed. Capital ships at the limit might be overarmed; cruisers at the limit are definitely underarmed. A cruiser with 8 x 9.2-inch guns could be viable on about 12,000 tons, considering the standards to which 8-inch Treaty cruisers were constructed. Light cruisers could easily carry 8 x 6-inch on 7.5k tons, as the Leanders showed. Your destroyer standard is the size of a Great War scout cruiser, which would have carried 5 or 6 single 6-inch guns in open mounts.
 
I can't see anyone going for separate limits for battleships and battlecruisers - the term 'capital ship' was coined pre-war. Any treaty would need comprehensive inspection to enforce such a difference.
Well you're right, but as I had said is sketchy and had other chart that actually specify the base and limit to make clear the important points. On other hand, well yes the capital ship is already coined but is just a technical difference rather than a doctrinal one or any other
5,000 tons is too high for a 1920s destroyer. Most were under 1,300 at the time, with even the largest leaders at about 2,000.
I hadn't note this actually, sorry. That's just me over extending the issue.
 
Gun caliber and tonnage should be limited, but not the number of guns. Navies should be able to choose between guns and speed. Capital ships at the limit might be overarmed; cruisers at the limit are definitely underarmed. A cruiser with 8 x 9.2-inch guns could be viable on about 12,000 tons, considering the standards to which 8-inch Treaty cruisers were constructed. Light cruisers could easily carry 8 x 6-inch on 7.5k tons, as the Leanders showed. Your destroyer standard is the size of a Great War scout cruiser, which would have carried 5 or 6 single 6-inch guns in open mounts.
Ohhh!!!, sorry guys for the confusion is not numbers, is the caliber, minimum and maximum:

  1. Battleship: 12"-16" gun, 45k ton limit.
  2. Battlecruiser: 12"-14" gun, 35k ton limit
And so on...
 
Last edited:
Ah, so the US government signed the Washington Naval Treaty out of a deep sense of altruism and international brotherhood?
No they signed because it saved them money, the same reason everyone else signed. The difference is that the US had enough money to afford another naval arms race without risking bankruptcy, no one else did
 
The United States had 12 capital ships of 40,000 tons under construction when the treaty was signed. The only country that didn't need the treaty was the US. If the British and/or Japanese had tried to start a naval arms race, the interventionist and isolationist factions in Congress would have happily come together to fund any amount of construction necessary to match foreign navies.
Ah, so the US government signed the Washington Naval Treaty out of a deep sense of altruism and international brotherhood?
No they signed because it saved them money, the same reason everyone else signed. The difference is that the US had enough money to afford another naval arms race without risking bankruptcy, no one else did
I think there was also an element of "We just finished fighting the most destructive war in history and one of the causes was a naval arms race. Is it really a good idea to have another naval arms race?"

This may or may not count as international altruism and brotherhood , YMMV, but I think it was more than just the desire to save money. Even if saving money was the main reason, I don't think it was the only reason.
 
Ah, so the US government signed the Washington Naval Treaty out of a deep sense of altruism and international brotherhood?
The US Congress had the choice of getting to be the global #1 in battleline cheaply or expensively. The cheap option was to sign the WNT. The expensive option was to complete both the 1916 program and then a probably late 20s follow-on program and spend everyone else into the ground.

They chose the cheap option to achieve the same goal.
 
I didn't think they were bugging the hotel rooms. IIRC it was more that the US broke the Japanese codes and was reading their Japanese delegation's discussions with their government. It is easier to negotiate when you know your counterparts' instructions from their own government.
Yup. The Japanese came in asking for 70% of the US/UK, but the Americans knew they would accept 60% without walking out.
 
The US Congress had the choice of getting to be the global #1 in battleline cheaply or expensively. The cheap option was to sign the WNT. The expensive option was to complete both the 1916 program and then a probably late 20s follow-on program and spend everyone else into the ground.

They chose the cheap option to achieve the same goal.
True, but the cheap option also meant they agreed to be tied with the British for first place. The expensive option would have seen the US with the number one navy, simply because it could outspend everybody. Effectively the post WW2 situation, but with a lot more battleships and a lot less carriers.
 
True, but the cheap option also meant they agreed to be tied with the British for first place. The expensive option would have seen the US with the number one navy, simply because it could outspend everybody. Effectively the post WW2 situation, but with a lot more battleships and a lot less carriers.
The US wanted a navy noticeably larger than the Japanese fleet, and this is the cheap way to do it, the USN doesn't need to be bigger than the RN at this point in history-they aren't best friends, but it is worth not bankrupting other economies and spending a lot of your own to get cheap parity with the traditionally largest navy that you aren't super likely to fight and a 5:3 ratio with your largest foe.
 
True, but the cheap option also meant they agreed to be tied with the British for first place. The expensive option would have seen the US with the number one navy, simply because it could outspend everybody. Effectively the post WW2 situation, but with a lot more battleships and a lot less carriers.
Tied was more or less a win since (arguably) the US cared about two "oceans" Atlantic and Pacific and the British cared about four, Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean and Indian.

Randy
 
No they signed because it saved them money, the same reason everyone else signed. The difference is that the US had enough money to afford another naval arms race without risking bankruptcy, no one else did
A race where one side is building 12 ships and the other is building 4, possibly 8? Hardly a race.

I know there were contemporary concerns about a building race bit the only drivers are public opinion.
OTL the RN was all but ordered to ignore the US because it was a battle that couldn't be won militarily. So who cares if the USN builds up. Less police work for the RN.
Japan? They had no money before the earthquake.
The only thing that would push the British to build more is a public that sees the growing USN and had another "We want 8" moment. And that is distinctly possible.

In this timeline we have the Germans as well. But do they even want a fleet? Do they still have colonies? Can they keep up in the coming 50,000 world? That is the wild card.
 
The US wanted a navy noticeably larger than the Japanese fleet, and this is the cheap way to do it, the USN doesn't need to be bigger than the RN at this point in history-they aren't best friends, but it is worth not bankrupting other economies and spending a lot of your own to get cheap parity with the traditionally largest navy that you aren't super likely to fight and a 5:3 ratio with your largest foe.
Tied was more or less a win since (arguably) the US cared about two "oceans" Atlantic and Pacific and the British cared about four, Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean and Indian.

Randy
I agree that it was also in the US's best interests and a win. My quibble was clarifying the concept of a first place battlefleet. With the treaty the US is tied for first with the British. Without it, the US could have built itself into a solitary first place.

I think the treaty was the smart move for the US for the reasons listed by CV(N)-6 and Naraht.
 
I wonder how the CLAA's will develop in this universe . Interestingly apparently the C class downed more aircraft than the Didos . Also the C class conversions with single 4 inch fared better than those with double turrets . Mostly because they could aim in 10 different directions and had better visibility.
Would the RN be served by merchant conversions such as Palomares and Alynbank than 5.25 inch cruisers or whatever develops .
 
A race where one side is building 12 ships and the other is building 4, possibly 8? Hardly a race.
It is if the side with the 8 have a head start (which they did), and the 8 are individually better than the 12 (which they were).
I suspect it would take a 'second round' before the US won a building race - i.e. it would a sustained effort through to about 1930. Britain could really only afford 2 ships/year, the US could build 4-5 without having to worry too much.
In this timeline we have the Germans as well. But do they even want a fleet? Do they still have colonies? Can they keep up in the coming 50,000 world? That is the wild card.
Yes; No; Maybe, but will they need to...?
:)
 
Top