Dread Nought but the Fury of the Seas
- Thread starter sts-200
- Start date
Yeah I feel that as well, I'm aware the Dutch got some ships indeed however, that doesn't instantly make them a world stage player on the level of Italy or France, especially given their trends of questionable funding, British wartime breach of sovereignty or not, that doesn't change much.
Look up the Fubuki class, you know, the class of massive destroyers that served as the basis for the rest of the IJN's destroyer fleet.
Also, the British would've built the 1800 ton JKN class anyways.
The French were starting the Chacal's about this time, and the Italian the Leone's both are larger than 2000t.
The German 5.9" destroyers exist as well, they're over 2000 tons.
yep, talking about Italy...difficult to see a goverment accept meekly to be have been put on the same level of Netherlands and ITTL Italy diplomatic and economic position is much more better than OTL.
Not only is wealthier but with Germany still a player she can go back to be the wild card of european diplomacy and honestly with this numbers both France and Italy will start to cheat almost from day 1
Not only is wealthier but with Germany still a player she can go back to be the wild card of european diplomacy and honestly with this numbers both France and Italy will start to cheat almost from day 1
So I guess with no limits on total DD or submarine tonnage they'll be regulated at the next naval conference after an arms race over them occurs. To be fair compared to one over capital ships and cruisers such a race would be rather cheap
Yes I can see that reasoning, although with the recent fixation on 'large ships' it might only be a very few people - perhaps not enough to persuade many other.
It also depends on the RN being willing to use valuable battleship tonnage and building quotas on what amounts to a small and vulnerable ship.
There's also a consideration that the Germans might argue that a new category has been created: 'light battleship'. Therefore German 'light battleships' might be limited to 12", but German 'proper battleships' are limited to whatever the RN has there (either 13.5" or maybe even 15" by 1928).
Agreed ... sort of ... but give it a few years
Can't agree there - if looked at from the perspective of the men in the negotiating room in 1921.
They've just allowed Japan to complete four 40000-ton, 16" battlecruisers and battleships, plus the two 16" battleships that are already complete; that is what needs countering in the near term.
It would be fun to give Australia a carrier ... and who knows, maybe it will be possible.
Yes, they could build that, but it would take 20 years to achieve that at 36,000tons/year. Doesn't mean they can't start of course.
I wasn't expecting this to be an immediate thing, I could see this bubbling along in the background in the admiralty as a thought experiment at most. Then when your a couple of years away from Germany being able to build capital ships again then it gets some serious attention. How much attention would depend on what ships the RN still has. Nothing stopping them keeping HMS Hercules for a bit, they do save 6000 tons on her after all. If she is still about or any 12 inch ship for that matter its less an issue. That's why your right about Japan in the near term, medium to long term however things change.
As for how long it would take to replace ships with new construction. This kind of treaty almost requires long term planning, you can still build ships but their are limits. Would the Treasury for example like to fund a ship of 36000 tons every year or 2 ships of 4200-44000 ton ship every three years?. If you can only get one ship every two years for example why restrict yourself to 36000 tons?
Deleted member 94680
The Fubuki class were based on a 1750 ton design according to wiki.
The Chacal class was originally a 1780 ton design which was the one selected by the French Admiralty.
The German design doesn’t matter as they’re excluded from the Treaty.
The Leones were a large design, but the Italians will have to rework them here.
This is ATL, all those designs are OTL. I know they had heavier destroyers - some of the French designs were reclassified as light cruisers at some points - but are they so important that the respective countries will walk away from a Treaty?
In the Japanese case its highly possible that this will be the case since they will be the critical element along with submarines in whittling down the American or British battle fleets to the point that could be potentially defeated by the IJN's battleline. Needless to say your not getting a heavy 24" torpedo armament of 8 or 9 tubes with reloads and 5 or 6 5" guns on 1600 tons.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
That’s assuming this ATL-Japan goes militarist and wants to fight America. We have no idea where sts is taking them - and the Italians for that matter - so presumptions about needing ATL ships for OTL intentions should wait a while.
At first glance you are correct, but ARE the Dutch going to build all the tonnage the treaty allowes them. I mean somebody got to pay for it and the French knows that. The French know that the bulk of Dutch Fleet will be in the East. In Europe, the Dutch Navy is an coastal defence force and not an offensive threat.
Deleted member 94680
This. Just because a bunch of papers allows The Netherlands to build however many tons of shipping, doesn't mean they have to or indeed will.
It's still a question of diplomacy, face and place in the list of the Great Powers, Netherlands being permitted the same level of building of Italy and France basically declare that they are member of the big boys club and some like Italy can have problem with that...expecially after Jugoslavia had obtained the A-H fleet that was another diplomatic insult; in poor words no italian goverment can meekly accept that and even image to survive the trip to the port and i mean the american port using a car
Deleted member 94680
The Netherlands has an Empire, why shouldn’t they be on a par with Italy? The Yugoslavia ITTL is a smaller, poorer nation. Italy hasn’t gone fascist yet (IIRC) and France is more financially constrained than OTL. The Dutch already have the ships, it’s better to include them in the system than run the risk of ostracising them and maybe turning them towards Germany.
Still they were not at the time one of the big guys, not politically, not military, possession of an empire notwithstanding...including them on the system? Sure, being considered equal? Wait a minute.
Not considering that this kind of numbers for cruisers and the tonnage for DD put Regia Marina advantage towards Jugoslavia, Greece and the Ottoman Empire at risk as any serious fight will use that type of ships. Honestly Italy will not accept it and if it accept will cheat before the ink is dry and more or less the French will do the same
Last edited:
Yeah, Italy and France can accept equality with each other, but not also with the Netherlands - it's politically toxic, regardless of the military realities.
Deleted member 94680
So, they'll storm out of the conference because someone else is getting the same as them and signify they intend to operate apart from the international community? Seems a bit drastic to me. The French were desperate for British and American support OTL, here I imagine it's even worse. Compromises must be reached and the Army will need more of the money than the Navy. Would smaller, cheaper vessels 'forced' on them be more appealing?
We don't know what kind of Italy we're dealing with here ITTL, remember that the Italy of post-Washington OTL was Fascist and accordingly viewed military requirements differently to Liberal Italy.
Why insult France (and Italy) with that treaty then? This is just unnecessarily diminishing the status of those two power.
The Netherlands can't build or even man that kind of tonnage (by a factor 3 at least). In term of real active fleet, they are barely above Greece, the Ottoman or some South American nations. And their naval building industry never built anything bigger than a light cruiser.
The OTL treaty worked because it encompassed the only 5 ships of the line builders in the world. The other 2 were either in a civil war (Soviet Union/Russia) or blocked by treaty (Germany). Here you gives a minor power the right to build ships they can't build themselves ! And that is before taking into account that, for Britain and France at least, the Netherlands are seen as the German Navy sock puppet. If the Netherlands find the funds to build to the maximum tonnage, they will certainly buy German (for the biggest ships at least) with all the problems that gives to the international order.
Maybe because their economy is half that of Italy and four times less than France ? And France and Italy actually have the heavy industry to support that kind of fleet without huge imports?
Not true, with a war shorter by more than a year, they have :
- 15 to 20% less casualties in the most productive part of the population ;
- One year less worth of war debts (specially external, ie US and UK), so 15 to 20% less debt ;
- One year less worth of Germany's pillage of the occupied part of the country. This, associated with a quicker German withdraw, means less destruction to productive means and less mortality for the occupied population of Northern France (every one talks about the near famine in Germany in 1918, but there was a famine in German occupied parts of France and Belgium as the German took agricultural products there to feed themselves) ;
- Contrary to the OTL 1918 front line, the ITTL front line moved only in very few spots, so less widespread destruction in Northern France ;
- OTL Germany never actually payed that much in reparation, even if the theoretical amount was astronomical. ITTL said the German will pay some reparations. If they pay 50% or above of what they effectively payed OTL, France is in a better shape (@sts-200 never stated what was the amount).
Except they don't have them, the treaty gives them the possibility to build 50% more ships of the line and maybe 80% more cruisers. And that is contrary to every other treaty's signatory.
@sts-200 stated that, during the negotiations, one party getting too much possibility to build was a problem. I think it was in the big 3 case, but I don't see why it would be different for any other signatory).
All in all, France and Italy won't accept parity with the Netherlands. But a situation where the Netherlands gets half their tonnage might be acceptable. (Please note that even in this situation, the Netherlands will be able to build and man up to the maximum tonnage they got.
Deleted member 94680
It doesn't diminish their power, it merely adds a further Power to their rank. As I've said, just because the Dutch are allowed to build a set tonnage, doesn't mean they will or have to.
Including the Dutch in the Treaty prevents them from becoming a German proxy.
This has nothing to do with size of economies. Again, the Dutch don't have to build these ships.
But have a year less of American financial support - less debt maybe, but less loans to actually pay for things and finance rebuilding. Unless they make peace time loans at less favourable rates?
Exactly, they don't have them. They're allowed them. Big difference.
I think they're more likely to begrudgingly accept and work for a revision further down the line.
So a disarmement treaty gives a power the possibility to more than double its fleet 🙃
That is the best idea for a non stable treaty