Another possibility to be sure. Who the PM and POUS are is up for grabs.
London Naval Treaties have larger limits
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
Another possibility to be sure. Who the PM and POUS are is up for grabs.
I wrote in Post 36 that the British wanted 70 cruisers and they wanted more small cruisers to build the maximum number possible within the tonnage quota and because they were cheaper to build. Therefore, they would negotiate for 500,000 tons instead of 480,000 which would be broken down in to 146,800 tons of heavy cruisers and 353,200 tons of light cruisers.
AIUI the USA wanted 24 heavy cruisers so they would negotiate for 240,000 tons of them instead of 270,000 tons and the rest would of their 470,000 tons would be light cruisers.
If you go that route I think the US would want 485,000 tons or so . If you up GB the US would want to be upped as well. Also it is possible the US would go for 24 cruisers averaging 11,250 tons in weight instead of 10,000 tons. Maybe a mixture of 12,000 ton and 10,000 ton cruisers. It could build 15 12,000 ton cruisers and 9 10,000 ton cruisers for 270,000 tons.
Last edited:
I was going to have at least 480,000 tons which they used to build 24 heavy cruisers and 18 Brooklyn class plus the Omaha class.
270,000 tons of heavy cruisers is what I was referring to. The other 210,000 tons or more would be light cruisers.
|Correct.
However, what I was trying to fit the tonnage into what the British and American navies actually wanted at the time.
Hood was 47000 tons loaded. The only reason capital ships of 50k weren't being built was the various treaties in the interwar period.
That's loaded rather than standard displacement.
Everyone apart from the Japanese will want ships that are fit for purpose, but are cheap enough to be built in the numbers they require.
With these larger fleet strength limits, will these navies be fully manned in peacetime? The manpower and maintenance costs will be higher, along with the ship building costs. More aircraft too, I would think. But just ship-based aircraft, or land-based as well? Possibly with more ship-based aircraft, and higher costs, the land-based aviation numbers aren't much different from OTL.
Another possibility is that the various countries don't build up to the treaty limits. Especially if new battleship construction starts in the early 30's, other categories may suffer.
Another possibility is that the various countries don't build up to the treaty limits. Especially if new battleship construction starts in the early 30's, other categories may suffer.
A larger budget allows them to build bigger ships. In TTL there is more of a willingness to spend money on the navy. Give them a bigger budget and the navy will figure out things to spend it on.
Which they will spend on the things they wanted IOTL that the Governments of OTL would not pay for.
They made their budgets on what they thought they could get and a little bit more. That is how budgeting works. If the government is willing to spend more that "little bit more" is going to be more than OTL. I can't see the navy turning down 12,000 ton heavy cruisers for 10,000 ton ones if they can get them.
Barry Bull
Donor
While cruiser limit(s) were a concern to the Brits, heavy cruisers were not the key to maintenance of SLOCs, light cruisers were. The Brits was unlikely to walk away from any treaty with limits to number of heavy cruisers permitted. UK actually proposed the 7,000 ton tonnage limitation to light cruisers to maximize the no. of light cruisers available.
What they would walk away from is the RN only being allocated 4/5ths the light cruiser tonnage of the USN despite having to patrol much more of the world. That was what the OP said was his proposal, though he changed it later. As you say the RN weren't overly concerned with heavy cruiser tonnage considering them a poor use of available resources offering little benefit over the smaller light cruisers.
In the OP you didn't change the qualitative limits for heavy or light cruisers in the 1930 LNT. However, then you wrote.
Which is at best implausible and worst ASB.
The OTL Treaty:
Submarines were maintained at 2,000 tons
Aircraft Carriers were reduced from 27,000 tons to 23,000 tons (the British wanted 22,000 tons)
Capital ships were maintained at 35,000 tons and the gun calibre reduced from 16" to 14" (the British wanted 25,000 tons and 12" guns)
Cruisers were reduced from 10,000 tons to 8,000 tons (the British wanted 7,600 tons) and 6" guns
Destroyers were effectively increased from 1,850 tons to 3,000 tons.
The best that could be done is maintain the qualitative limits of the 1922 and 1930 Treaties for aircraft carriers, battleships and cruisers.If the governments and everything else stayed the same, yes. Obviously things are different than OTL.