Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas

[admiral charles]

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' ...

If you say so...

But you know, is better, for the record, to say " Well, at least we tried"

 

[admiral charles]

On the other hand, what you think about the specifications for the top limit, I wanted to put the " full-load" but then I thought it's too far and too strict for a great power to make it happen.

 

[admiral charles]

no treaty lawyer would like the phrase 'any front line combat unit' -

But you're right, then:

Is any warship 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...

 

[Trevayne]

But you're right, then:

Is any warship 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...

This is good, but I think it would be better with a lower bottom limit. You do not have to be as careful with cruisers if you just state that that any warship over X,000 tons that is not a carrier is a capital ship. Carriers can be defined separately since their purpose requires a functional design that is very different from a capital ship and can be further restricted by size and number of guns.

For example

Is any warship of, obligatorily, at least 15.000 tons of standard displacement, which mounts guns of at least 10.1 inches, except for aircraft carriers as per article xx. No warship will be allowed that displaces over 45,000 tons normal load or mounts guns over 16 inches.

This defines a capital ship as anything over 15,000 tons or mounting guns over 10.1", except for aircraft carriers which have their own rules. The earlier example in theory allowed 24,000 ton "cruisers" with 15 x 10.5" guns.

 

[roachbeef]

(https://code2flow.com/mIBQMN)

I still think gun size is the best basis to differentiate classes.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

You know, if the war ends essentially as status quo ante, there are going to be some very, very annoyed citizens.


We spent all this blood and money, and the Germans are getting off with just a slap on the wrist?
That's going to be a really tough sell to the voters....

 

[Trevayne]

You know, if the war ends essentially as status quo ante, there are going to be some very, very annoyed citizens.


We spent all this blood and money, and the Germans are getting off with just a slap on the wrist?
That's going to be a really tough sell to the voters....

But is it really status quo?.

To me it looks more like on the Allied side the British, French, Japanese, and US won, while the Russians lost. On the Axis side, the Germans won in the East and were starting to lose in the West, and the Austro-Hungarians lost.

At a guess, they will be able to claim they won because

France - We won because we got Alsace-Lorraine back

Britain - we won because Belgium is still independent and the German navy is getting trimmed

Germany - We won because we got to trade those ungrateful Alasatians for land in the East and the Russian threat has been seriously reduced

 

[Spencersj345.346]

But is it really status quo?.

To me it looks more like on the Allied side the British, French, Japanese, and US won, while the Russians lost. On the Axis side, the Germans won in the East and were starting to lose in the West, and the Austro-Hungarians lost.

At a guess, they will be able to claim they won because

France - We won because we got Alsace-Lorraine back

Britain - we won because Belgium is still independent and the German navy is getting trimmed

Germany - We won because we got to trade those ungrateful Alasatians for land in the East and the Russian threat has been seriously reduced

And the USA won because the mere threat of its vast army joining the war forced the Germans hands, the navy got decent levels of funding for the first time since the civil war, and the UK and France owe it tons of money

 

[admiral charles]

This is good, but I think it would be better with a lower bottom limit. You do not have to be as careful with cruisers if you just state that that any warship over X,000 tons that is not a carrier is a capital ship. Carriers can be defined separately since their purpose requires a functional design that is very different from a capital ship and can be further restricted by size and number of guns.

For example

Is any warship of, obligatorily, at least 15.000 tons of standard displacement, which mounts guns of at least 10.1 inches, except for aircraft carriers as per article xx. No warship will be allowed that displaces over 45,000 tons normal load or mounts guns over 16 inches.

This defines a capital ship as anything over 15,000 tons or mounting guns over 10.1", except for aircraft carriers which have their own rules. The earlier example in theory allowed 24,000 ton "cruisers" with 15 x 10.5" guns.

Yeah, you're right, it's a loophole that cannot be allowed, so:

ARTICLE IV
A capital ship is understand as a warship of, obligatory, at least, 11,000 tons ( 11, 100 metric tons) of standard displacement and carry a gun with a caliber of, obligatory, at least 10 inches.

ARTICLE V
No capital ship exceeding 45,000 tons (45,560 metric tons) normal load displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

ARTICLE VI
No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a
calibre in excess of 16 inches (406 millimetres).

 

[Trevayne]

And the USA won because the mere threat of its vast army joining the war forced the Germans hands, the navy got decent levels of funding for the first time since the civil war, and the UK and France owe it tons of money

Agreed, and the Japanese will be able to claim they won because they got some more colonies (and privately, for very small expenditures of blood and treasure).

 

[Trevayne]

Yeah, you're right, it's a loophole that cannot be allowed, so:

ARTICLE IV
A capital ship is understand as a warship of, obligatory, at least, 11,000 tons ( 11, 100 metric tons) of standard displacement and carry a gun with a caliber of, obligatory, at least 10 inches.

ARTICLE V
No capital ship exceeding 45,000 tons (45,560 metric tons) normal load displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

ARTICLE VI
No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a
calibre in excess of 16 inches (406 millimetres).

This is better, but I wonder if capital ships really need a lower gun limit? I doubt anyone would really contemplate building a 35,000 ton ship with 24 x 6" guns in eight triple turrets ( or six quads), but does it really need to be forbidden by treaty? Cruisers that get too close to battleships in size and gun power need to be banned, but is anyone really threatened by a 35,000 ton light cruiser with 6" guns? Especially since it still counts against a signatory power's capital ship tonnage, although it is only marginally effective against a real capital ship (12" -16" guns)?

The only use I could think of for such a ship would be if it was designed to be quickly rearmed with real battleship guns, sort of like the way the Mogami's became heavy cruisers just before WW2.

 

[admiral charles]

This is better, but I wonder if capital ships really need a lower gun limit? I doubt anyone would really contemplate building a 35,000 ton ship with 24 x 6" guns in eight triple turrets ( or six quads), but does it really need to be forbidden by treaty? Cruisers that get too close to battleships in size and gun power need to be banned, but is anyone really threatened by a 35,000 ton light cruiser with 6" guns? Especially since it still counts against a signatory power's capital ship tonnage, although it is only marginally effective against a real capital ship (12" -16" guns)?

The only use I could think of for such a ship would be if it was designed to be quickly rearmed with real battleship guns, sort of like the way the Mogami's became heavy cruisers just before WW2.

Meanwhile in OTL:
Brooklyn and sisters: we are not heavy cruisers
Atlanta and sisters: we are not destroyers
Mogamis: am just a light cruiser
Graf Speed and sisters: am just a heavy cruiser

 

[admiral charles]

Yeah, you're right, it's a loophole that cannot be allowed, so:

ARTICLE IV
A capital ship is understand as a warship of, obligatory, at least, 11,000 tons ( 11, 100 metric tons) of standard displacement and carry a gun with a caliber of, obligatory, at least 10 inches.

ARTICLE V
No capital ship exceeding 45,000 tons (45,560 metric tons) normal load displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

ARTICLE VI
No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a gun with a
calibre in excess of 16 inches (406 millimetres).

Remember guys that this is considering all what we have discussed to this point. Realistically, who in a good mental state would waste even a forth of his allowed tonnage on small vessels that, although sanction as capital ships, they can't put in the battle line ( because a lack of firepower or armor) ?. Every one wants big guns in big ships. I repeat it's considering the course of the timeline as a whole to date (AKA. Germany not even beaten, Turkey never in and Russia without Lenin)

 

[admiral charles]

As myself said in another post, the big battle line engagement is nearing his natural end, but is not here yet, and everybody still think in terms of dreadnoughts for the treaties.

 

[Trevayne]

Meanwhile in OTL:
Brooklyn and sisters: we are not heavy cruisers
Atlanta and sisters: we are not destroyers
Mogamis: am just a light cruiser
Graf Speed and sisters: am just a heavy cruiser

Yes, quite right. However, the Graf Spee and sisters were never in the Naval treaties and were conceived to sail through the loophole created by Versailles. Meanwhile, the whole heavy - light cruiser distinction didn't become an issue until the London Naval Treaty in 1930. That was where they actually limited the number and total tonnage of cruisers with 8" guns (heavy cruisers). It invented a new category of cruisers with guns under 6.1" (155mm) which became light cruisers. This was also the treaty that defined destroyers.

ARTICLE 15
For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows:
Cruisers
Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm.) calibre. The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows:
(a) cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1-inch (155 mm.) calibre; (b) cruisers carrying a gun not above 6. I-inch (155 mm.) calibre.
Destroyers
Surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), and with a gun not above 5.1-inch (130 mm.) calibre.

It also limited the parties by tonnage within these categories.

British CA (>6.1") -146,800 tons, CL (<=6.1") - 192,200 tons, DD (<=5.1") - 150,000 tons
US CA (>6.1") - 180,000 tons, CL (<=6.1") - 143,500 tons, DD (<=5.1") - 150,000 tons
Japanese CA (>6.1") - 108,400 tons, CL (<=6.1") - 100,450 tons, DD (<=5.1") - 105,500 tons

London Naval Treaty of 1930

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-1055.pdf

Washington Naval Treaty of 1922

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0351.pdf

Edited to make table legible

 

[admiral charles]

Yes, quite right. However, the Graf Spee and sisters were never in the Naval treaties and were conceived to sail through the loophole created by Versailles. Meanwhile, the whole heavy - light cruiser distinction didn't become an issue until the London Naval Treaty in 1930. That was where they actually limited the number and total tonnage of cruisers with 8" guns (heavy cruisers). It invented a new category of cruisers with guns under 6.1" (155mm) which became light cruisers. This was also the treaty that defined destroyers.

ARTICLE 15
For the purpose of this Part III the definition of the cruiser and destroyer categories shall be as follows:
Cruisers
Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm.) calibre. The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows:
(a) cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1-inch (155 mm.) calibre; (b) cruisers carrying a gun not above 6. I-inch (155 mm.) calibre.
Destroyers
Surface vessels of war the standard displacement of which does not exceed 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), and with a gun not above 5.1-inch (130 mm.) calibre.

It also limited the parties by tonnage within these categories.

CA (>6.1") CL (<=6.1") DD (<=5.1")
British 146,800 tons 192,200 tons 150,000 tons
US 180,000 tons 143,500 tons 150,000 tons
Japanese 108,400 tons 100,450 tons 105,500 tons

London Naval Treaty of 1930

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-1055.pdf

Washington Naval Treaty of 1922

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0351.pdf

Agree, and that's exactly why we can't limit everything that we could possibly imagine that could come out of the slips, the treaty is essentially to limit and defined to a certain degree the tonnage allowed to a signatory and the size of a given type of warship, not the actual number of hulls that can hit the water. Not because is impossible, but because the great powers won't agree on it

 

[Trevayne]

Remember guys that this is considering all what we have discussed to this point. Realistically, who in a good mental state would waste even a forth of his allowed tonnage on small vessels that, although sanction as capital ships, they can't put in the battle line ( because a lack of firepower or armor) ?. Every one wants big guns in big ships. I repeat it's considering the course of the timeline as a whole to date (AKA. Germany not even beaten, Turkey never in and Russia without Lenin)

I agree fully with this. Nobody wants a small capital ship, because it will lose to a bigger treaty compliant ship that any adversary would field. Even though the Spanish built the Espana class in 1909-21 with 8x12" guns in four twin turrets on about 16,000 tons, they were widely recognized as a design dead end and built only because Spain couldn't afford real capital ships. Even if Navy X built 20 Espanas for 320,000 tons, that force would lose to ten US standard class at the same tonnage.

That is why I don't think it is necessary to specify a minimum gun caliber for a capital ship, or a minimum size. Just specify a maximum size and gun caliber for any non-capital ship and you are covered, because nobody is going to build a minimum capital ship that just provides an expensive guaranteed loss.

España-class battleship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[admiral charles]

I agree fully with this. Nobody wants a small capital ship, because it will lose to a bigger treaty compliant ship that any adversary would field. Even though the Spanish built the Espana class in 1909-21 with 8x12" guns in four twin turrets on about 16,000 tons, they were widely recognized as a design dead end and built only because Spain couldn't afford real capital ships. Even if Navy X built 20 Espanas for 320,000 tons, that force would lose to ten US standard class at the same tonnage.

That is why I don't think it is necessary to specify a minimum gun caliber for a capital ship, or a minimum size. Just specify a maximum size and gun caliber for any non-capital ship and you are covered, because nobody is going to build a minimum capital ship that just provides an expensive guaranteed loss.

España-class battleship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OK, then delate the minimum of the treaty. Just, I still think that even if Germany is allowed mild terms for the navy ( say similiar or slightly better than the 1938 Anglo-german agreement), even if invited to the treaty, they could think in terms of a better panzershiffe raider as a future strategy.

Sorry there are many possible scenarios that I had already thought, obviously with a certain logic in each case, with it's respective outcomes

 

[admiral charles]

By the way, yeah the Espanyas sucks and prove the desperation of a nation and the importance of the dreadnought even, the worst of them .

 

[tigercat]

Someone will always look for loop holes . Maybe someone will build the naval equivalent of a tank destroyer . Maybe Torpedo Cruisers like the Kuma Class