SsgtC

Banned
A quibble, the US also had a 10" in service, the 10"/40 mk3 on the Tennessee class armored cruisers built in 1903-1906. They would have probably wanted a new design in 45 or 50 cal, but it was a starting place.


Good point. Still, the gun was designed in 1904. By the time a treaty comes around, the US will want a new gun. And on top of that, they apparently weren't really thrilled either the 10" or the Tennessee class. None survived the WNT (except one used as a barracks ship) and even when given the opportunity to modernize the class, the Navy declined. Whether that was because of the ship or the gun, I don't know. Or even because of the WNT. At any rate, it doesn't seem to have been a popular caliber in the USN
 
Good point. Still, the gun was designed in 1904. By the time a treaty comes around, the US will want a new gun. And on top of that, they apparently weren't really thrilled either the 10" or the Tennessee class. None survived the WNT (except one used as a barracks ship) and even when given the opportunity to modernize the class, the Navy declined. Whether that was because of the ship or the gun, I don't know. Or even because of the WNT. At any rate, it doesn't seem to have been a popular caliber in the USN

I don't think it was the 10" guns, but more because they were classic, pre-dreadnought era, armored cruisers. Even new, they only managed 22 knots, so they were barely faster than most battleships and dead meat for battlecruisers. They were equivalents of the later contemporary armored cruisers, like SMS Scharnhorst and HMS Warrior. They were also a design dead-end, because the WNT precluded any similar similar ships.

What the USN was really looking for were more long range cruisers with something heavier than 6". The Omahas were a first step, but more were needed.
 
Good point. Still, the gun was designed in 1904. By the time a treaty comes around, the US will want a new gun. And on top of that, they apparently weren't really thrilled either the 10" or the Tennessee class. None survived the WNT (except one used as a barracks ship) and even when given the opportunity to modernize and reclass, the Navy declined. Whether that was because of the ship or the gun, I don't know. Or even because of the WNT. At any rate, it doesn't seem to have been a popular caliber in the USN
The modernizations Planned were expensive, would’ve taken money from new construction, and resulted in slower, more lightly armed ships. Understandably, the Navy didn’t go for it.
 
Well the cruiser issue comes to a draw, and the specifications of the final treaty is in the hands of the Author.

On the other hand, i think that we are missing an important point. All this debate is really to avoid a new race and for defining what is a cruiser OR to establish what is not a battleship/battlecruiser/capital ship?
 
Well the cruiser issue comes to a draw, and the specifications of the final treaty is in the hands of the Author.

On the other hand, i think that we are missing an important point. All this debate is really to avoid a new race and for defining what is a cruiser OR to establish what is not a battleship/battlecruiser/capital ship?

It is to clarify what is and isn't a capital ship (battleship/battlecruiser), but I think the main point is to decide to not have a capital ship building race. They may well have a cruiser race, but cruisers are cheaper and they are not seen as the dominating factor in fleet combat. The battleship limit is what will set everyone's perception of the naval pecking order. Cruisers are useful and handle most of the day to day work of a fleet, but if the US has effective battleship equality with the British, nobody will think the US is a second-place fleet because it has only 50% of the cruisers.
 
Last edited:
It is to clarify what is and isn't a capital ship (battleship/battlecruiser), but I think the main point is to decide to not have a capital ship building race. They may well have a cruiser race, but cruisers are cheaper and they are not seen as the dominating factor in fleet combat. The battleship limit is what will set everyone's perception of the naval pecking order. Cruisers are useful and handle most of the day to day work of a fleet, but if the US has effective battleship equality with the British, nobody will think the US is a second-place fleet because it has only 50% of the cruisers.

Well in that case lets begin with the definition of a Capital Ship( amendments are accepted):

is a front line combat unit of heavy displacement, usually above 25.000 tons, and heavy weaponry.

Opinions?
 

SsgtC

Banned
Well in that case lets begin with the definition of a Capital Ship( amendments are accepted):

is a front line combat unit of heavy displacement, usually above 25.000 tons, and heavy weaponry.

Opinions?
Way too vague. You're trying to limit warship construction, not open a gaping loophole for everyone to abuse. That's why in OTL a capital ship was defined as any warship over 10,000 tons or with guns over 8 inches.
 
Well in that case lets begin with the definition of a Capital Ship( amendments are accepted):

is a front line combat unit of heavy displacement, usually above 25.000 tons, and heavy weaponry.

Opinions?
Any ship above <x> tons, or which mounts guns greater than <y> inches, and is not an Aircraft Carrier as defined in Article <z>.
 
Victory!
Victory!

‘The War is Won’, screamed every headline.
Everyone was jubilant, but behind the scenes there was worry, dissent and dissatisfaction with the situation. The Kaiser's government had collapsed, but technically the German Army and Navy hadn't. Instead, both were key to the overthrow of the Kaiser's regime, as their leaders sought to save what they could of their nation’s gains in the war.

The circumstances of the armistice meant that both sides secretly heaved a huge sigh of relief that they hadn’t lost the war. Both wanted a peace treaty to come quickly; the Germans wanted it before American troops could reach Europe in even greater numbers, while the Allies wanted to ensure that peace was established before Russia completely collapsed.
To that end, the Allies insisted on a ceasefire in the East as well as the West, to which the Germans agreed. It in the short term that cost them very little, as their Eastern armies needed to either regroup for further action against the collapsing Russian Empire, or redeploy to defend the Western Front.
Once the armistice took effect and was seen to hold, it quickly became apparent to each side that there were few circumstances in which the war could be renewed. As news of the likely terms filtered out to the public and through the ranks of the armies, it became increasingly improbably that war-weary nations would accept anything other than peace. Although occasional shows of bravado were made by both sides, neither was demanding outrageous terms, as each was secretly afraid that they had more to lose than the other.

The new German government accepted among themselves that Germany would ultimately lose the war, but they were not beaten yet, and they would not accept draconian terms. They would accept withdrawals, a reduction in armaments and perhaps some form of payments to assist in rebuilding; but they would not accept outright humiliation. If the Allies' objective were to be the destruction of Germany, then they would continue to fight.

The Allies were not as united as they might have been. Shortly before the first negotiations, the American President proposed a set of ‘Thirteen Points’* in a speech to Congress. He believed such principles should help to shape a post-war world of openness, democracy and free trade. While the idealism was widely applauded, neither the British nor the Italians had time for many of Wilson’s ideas, while a leading French politician was heard to dismiss them as ‘the little ideas of a thin professor who knows nothing of the world’.
The difference between the Points and the Allies’ proposals at Stockholm showed the Germans that there was disagreement among their enemies; and that could be exploited.

After the loss of so many lives, the French and Italians wanted to extract as much as possible (although Italy’s interests lay in parts of the swiftly collapsing Austro-Hungarian Empire). However, the British and Americans held the upper hand. The British Army would bear the brunt of any fighting if the war were continued into the spring of 1918, and the British government was not willing to expend the men or the money to drive the Germans back deep into their own country. The isolationist faction in America grew stronger every day the peace held; and their only interest was to secure terms and return to more important matters at home.

The alarm caused by the sudden ‘socialist revolution’ in Germany wore off as the weeks of October 1917 passed, and it became clear that the new German government were not anarchists who wanted to murder the bourgeoise in their beds. The revolution may have been prompted by the soldiers, sailors and workers, but it went hand-in-hand with traditional German leaders; everyone from the Generals to the many levels of the states’ aristocracy. There were hotheads who wanted to set up a new government of the people (the people in question, of course, being themselves), but they weren’t sufficiently numerous or united to take control of the country.
Nevertheless, the new German leadership knew they only had a few months to solidify their position. If the war were continued into 1918, German industry would slow dramatically from lack of resources, while food shortages would push the population to the brink of starvation. If that happened, the people might very well come for their leaders in force.

However, the German government still had bargaining chips, and they used them well. They confirmed the offer to withdraw their forces from all the occupied territories in the West, and accepted the principle that some form of payment might be made to the Allies, although no specific offers were made.
In return, they made a startling demand; they requested the return of their colonies. They accepted that they had conquered territory in Europe, which would now be returned, however they argued that Allied occupations of German colonies were nothing more than similar conquest. Whether this was a serious demand was open to debate; there was never any chance of it being granted, but the trouble it caused served to distract the allies at a crucial time in the negotiations. Britain had already promised that Japan should have sovereignty over the northernmost ex-German islands in the Pacific, while all the other Allies wanted and expected their shares.
When the demand was rejected, a follow-on proposal that the value of the seized colonies be deducted from any prospective war damages undoubtedly helped to widen the beach between the Allies as to how much the Germans should be made to pay, and perhaps led to a weaker peace treaty and softer terms for Germany than might otherwise have been the case.

There were other areas where there was little room for negotiation. France demanded the return of Alsace and Lorraine, and although the area contained valuable resources, the Germans were relatively willing to concede, subject to terms. The majority of the local population had never reconciled themselves to being German, and wartime efforts to eliminate dissent had backfired. Alsatian troops could never be entirely trusted, and as the return of the provinces went a long way to satisfying French demands, Germany was glad to be rid of them. Guarantees were sought and agreed regarding the status of anyone wishing to return to Germany, and of the ownership of German businesses in the region, however once the French were back in control, these proved to be of little value.
The French also wanted to confiscate large amounts of war material, specifically Germany's heavy guns. The Germans expected this, and although a show of negotiation was made, it was a question of ‘how much’, rather than ‘if’.

However, German fearmongering about the threat of Bolshevism had an effect on the western Allies, who were forced to accept that Germany still needed a sizable army to protect herself against the threat of revolution and of the civil war that was spreading across Russia. The Allies also had to face the reality that they were in no position to physically disarm the German armies in the East.
The best that could be done was to agree that all fortifications along the frontier with France and Belgium were to be dismantled, and that Germany would be permitted no land-based guns of more than 12-cm calibre, except in fixed positions for naval defence around harbours.

British concerns were more focussed on naval matters, but as on land, the German government would not accept outright humiliation.
 

SsgtC

Banned
There were other areas where there was little room for negotiation. France demanded the return of Alsace and Lorraine, and although the area contained valuable resources, the Germans were relatively willing to concede, subject to terms. The majority of the local population had never reconciled themselves to being German, and wartime efforts to eliminate dissent had backfired. Alsatian troops could never be entirely trusted, and as the return of the provinces went a long way to satisfying French demands, Germany was glad to be rid of them. Guarantees were sought and agreed regarding the status of anyone wishing to return to Germany, and of the ownership of German businesses in the region, however once the French were back in control, these proved to be of little value.
The French also wanted to confiscate large amounts of war material, specifically Germany's heavy guns. The Germans expected this, and although a show of negotiation was made, it was a question of ‘how much’, rather than ‘if’.
The best that could be done was to agree that all fortifications along the frontier with France and Belgium were to be dismantled, and that Germany would be permitted no land-based guns of more than 12-cm calibre, except in fixed positions for naval defence around harbours.
Insert original timeline here again? Given the far stronger position of Germany here, this is extremely unlikely. Why bother changing so much if you're just going to go right back to the original timeline at the end?
 
Insert original timeline here again? Given the far stronger position of Germany here, this is extremely unlikely. Why bother changing so much if you're just going to go right back to the original timeline at the end?
I'm pretty sure the Germans are trading concessions in the west for major gains in the east and moreover unlike otl its highly likely that Germany will be able to get both the Sudentenland and Austria added to it when the Austro-Hungarian Empire inevitably breaks up without the need for forced annexation
 
Insert original timeline here again? Given the far stronger position of Germany here, this is extremely unlikely. Why bother changing so much if you're just going to go right back to the original timeline at the end?
That's a bit harsh.

Although I would have thought Germany would want to give up guns over 15 cm as the 15 cm represented their standard heavy field gun. And they would still have the publicity of handing over the Big Berthas et al.
 

Deleted member 94680

I’m not sure Germany would give up Elsaß-Lothringen so easily ITTL given what it represents to the military.
 
Well, now we are at a crossroads. For the dilema is what place should have Germany, Turkey and Russia on the world stage, and of course, in the face of an imminent peace treaty, what would be the naval terms for the defeated?, given that is more an agreement after an armistice rather than a morale defeat following a total collapse. Moreover, will Germany be still considered as a possible signatory for the naval treaties of the future or even a great power in the face of the world concert?
 
Way too vague. You're trying to limit warship construction, not open a gaping loophole for everyone to abuse. That's why in OTL a capital ship was defined as any warship over 10,000 tons or with guns over 8 inches.

Well, this is more a pre-treaty global definition of what's currently understand as capital ship and also we hasn't agreed on the specifications of other categories, but obviously that will come.

Any ship above <x> tons, or which mounts guns greater than <y> inches, and is not an Aircraft Carrier as defined in Article <z>.

Oki doki, then:

Is any front line combat unit of , obligatorily, at least 25.000 tons of standard displacement and maximum normal load displacement of 45.000 tons, which mounts guns of at least 11 inches or a maximum of 16 inches and distinct of a cruiser or an aircraft carrier, which specifications are detailed on the follow-up articles of the present treaty...
 
Last edited:
Way too vague. You're trying to limit warship construction, not open a gaping loophole for everyone to abuse. That's why in OTL a capital ship was defined as any warship over 10,000 tons or with guns over 8 inches.
Any ship above <x> tons, or which mounts guns greater than <y> inches, and is not an Aircraft Carrier as defined in Article <z>.
Well, this is more a pre-treaty global definition of what's currently understand as capital ship and also we hasn't agreed on the specifications of other categories, but obviously that will come.



Oki doki, then:

Is any front line combat unit of , obligatorily, at least 25.000 tons of standard displacement and maximum full load displacement of 45.000 tons, which mounts guns of at least 11 inches or a maximum of 16 inches and distinct of a cruiser or an aircraft carrier, which specifications are detailed on the follow-up articles of the present treaty...

That is the fun part about these treaties, you not only have to define the stuff you are especially trying to limit, but you also have to define everything else so that countries can't try to wiggle cruisers or other ships (mainly carriers) into near capital ships. The OTL WNT managed it by defining all future ships carrying guns over 8" as capital ships in Article XII. If the British wanted to use 100,000 tons of their capital ship allocation to build 24 Eidsvold class coast defense ships (2 x 8.2" guns, 4,200 tons), they could, but they would all count as capital ships despite being smaller than most cruisers.

This also finessed the issue of existing ships. Technically, the British monitors would count as capital ships, but the existing ones were exempt and there would be no new ones because they would be capital ships.

To simplify matters, the only types of warship allowed to be over 10,000 tons were capital ships and carriers (Art XI). All future capital ships were limited to 35,000 tons (Art V) with guns limited to 16" (Art VI). Carriers were limited to 27,000 tons with no more than ten 8" guns (Art IX), although if the largest gun carried was 6", the number of 6" or smaller guns was not limited.


Here is a link to the treaty text

 
....

Is any front line combat unit of , obligatorily, at least 25.000 tons of standard displacement and maximum normal load displacement of 45.000 tons, which mounts guns of at least 11 inches or a maximum of 16 inches and distinct of a cruiser or an aircraft carrier, which specifications are detailed on the follow-up articles of the present treaty...
That's a good, reasonably loophole-free definition, although no treaty lawyer would like the phrase 'any front line combat unit' - it doesn't prevent treaty powers from building 75,000t battleships with 20" guns as their 'reserve fleet' ... :)
 
Insert original timeline here again? Given the far stronger position of Germany here, this is extremely unlikely. Why bother changing so much if you're just going to go right back to the original timeline at the end?
We can't have RNAS TSR/2 strikes on Pearl Harbour in every installment you know...:)
 
I'm pretty sure the Germans are trading concessions in the west for major gains in the east and moreover unlike otl its highly likely that Germany will be able to get both the Sudentenland and Austria added to it when the Austro-Hungarian Empire inevitably breaks up without the need for forced annexation
Let's just say a certain Bohemian shortarse will have rather less to rant about ... not that he'll get the chance anyway.
 
That's a bit harsh.

Although I would have thought Germany would want to give up guns over 15 cm as the 15 cm represented their standard heavy field gun. And they would still have the publicity of handing over the Big Berthas et al.
I’m not sure Germany would give up Elsaß-Lothringen so easily ITTL given what it represents to the military.

They are both relatively harsh terms, but bear in mind Germany has lost a little more territory in the six weeks before this armistice than it lost in the '100 Days Offensive' at the end of the real war. It's a crushing defeat, just not a total one.
There's more to come here, and of course I haven't really mentioned the East yet - where Germany might wish to put any of those 15-cm and 21-cm guns it doesn't have anymore.:)
The French would be pretty determined on Alsace-Lorraine (it was a war aim, but it could also be a substantial chunk of all the 'compensation' France will ever receive). Events to come might harden the British attitude too...
 
Top