London Naval Treaties have larger limits
- Thread starter Johnrankins
- Start date
I'm positing 4 Agano-analogues in 1931 alongside the alt-Mogamis, with two Katoris already budgeted as of 1930, and then two Tones, two Ooyodos, and two more Katoris in 1934. Then at some point rebuild four Kumas into torpedo cruisers.
Which still leaves them short of modern destroyers, albeit a great deal less short than IOTL. The total goal was 144 and had been for a long time; they needed at least 64 modern destroyers for the Night Battle and probably would've preferred 96.
Thanks for confirming that. I mentioned the Uraga Dock Company; they and Sasebo were mostly building destroyers at this time, so cruiser slips should be open. Yokohama is busy with the Katoris as OTL.
This is for background information only. I have put them into chronological order:
1927-28 Haruna
1927-30 Kirishima
1929-31 Kongo
1929-32 Hiei (reconstruction and demilitarised as training ship)
1930-33 Fuso
1930-35 Yamishro
1933-34 Haruna
1934-36 Hyuga
1934-36 Kirishima
1934-36 Mutsu
1934-36 Nagato
1935-37 Ise
1935-37 Kongo
1936-40 Hiei (remilitarised)
FWIW
The 105,500 tons of the OTL Treaty gave Japan enough tonnage for:
71 destroyers (24 "Special Type" and 47 Hatsuharu class) or;
67 destroyers (24 "Special Type" and 43 Asashio class).
It's looks as if that was what they tried to do ITTL before they discovered that the design wasn't fit for purpose. Note that published figures at the time said that the standard displacements were as follows:
1,700 tons "Special Type" (Conway's 1922-46 says 1,750 tons)
1,500 tons Asashio class (Conway's 1922-46 says, 1,961 tons)
1,368 tons Hatsuharu class (Conway's 1922-46 says, 1,490 tons)
The 140,000 tons of the TTL Treaty gave Japan enough tonnage for:
96 destroyers (23 "Special Type" and 72 Hatsuharu class) or;
90 destroyers (23 "Special Type" and 66 Asashio class).
That's about two-thirds of the 144 required.
Last edited:
Yen to dollar
Japan: the Yen 1914-1941 | New World Economics
newworldeconomics.com
Pound to dollar
Graph of £/$ exchange rate (1915 - today)
www.miketodd.net
Too lazy to do the math currently
For what it's worth...
I compiled this from the League of Nations Armaments Yearbooks
I compiled this from the League of Nations Armaments Yearbooks
Not everyone. The U.S. already had a dozen 45,000 (full load) warships UNDER CONSTRUCTION in 1920. The ability was there. The Naval and Private Shipyards were there. Hell the money, more properly the ability to allot the money, was there. Congress had the ability, what it lacked was any reason to spend the money (as can been seen with the Vinson-Trammel Naval Act of 1934 (which authorized the North Carolina and South Dakota classes), followed by the Naval Act of 1936 and 1938, and then the Queen Mother of peacetime military spending, The Two Ocean Navy Act.
Trying to keep up with U.S. construction would undoubtedly have destroyed the Japanese economy, given its relatively small size, even before the 1929 Crash, and very possibly would have been impossible for the Royal Navy. That said the effort would have strengthened to Royal Navy relative to OTL, which might have been handy in 1939-1941.
The way I see it , it is easily doable by the US, probably doable by the UK with maybe some difficulty and, at best, doable by Japan with extreme difficulty. This is quite a deliberate Japan-screw by me.
Oh, in that case, you are well on your way. Throw in a couple clauses about allowing actual island territories (like Hawaii, Guam, Wake, the Philippines, Formosa, etc.) to be fortified to unlimited levels while completely demilitarizing League of Nations Category C Trust Mandates that do not share a land border with any other country/territory that are under the direct administrative control of one of the primary signing Powers, with inspections by third parties (Sweden, Switzerland, The Vatican, etc.) to ensure compliance. That takes away the Japanese basing in the Marshalls, Marianas, Paulas, and the rest of the South Seas Mandate (this, BTW, was actually the original requirement of being granted the Mandates, including the inspections, the Japanese told the LoN to piss off in 1929).
UPDATE
1940 1 Yen =~$0.23
$1 =0 .2525 £
1930 1 Yen =~$0.47
$1 =0 .2008 £
Razzle dazzle POOF!!- One 1940 Pound = roughly 16 Yen!! One 1930 Pound = roughly 10 Yen!!
There are no limits to to what a Bear and Honey(with six hours of sleep) in moderate volumes can accomplish!!!!
How would it changed things if Guam, the PI , Hawaii, Wake and the other islands it controlled were fortified by the US after 1929 to match the Japanese?
If Guam had been fully fortified the Japanese would never have had a prayer of taking it with a light brigade (i.e the South Seas Force) especially if the South Sea Mandates were demilitarized. That means no bases in the Marshalls to bomb Wake, no submarine and surface warfare provisioning facilities, no military facilities on Saipan or Tinian, and no Truk (the strongest Japanese naval base beyond Formosa) or other facilities in the Caroline Islands. In a stroke it eliminates about 3/4 of Japanese's planned defensive perimeter
McPherson
Banned
Put runways in and decent bombers and air power guys who know how to anti-ship and the shooting and the invasions go the other way the minute the IJN starts for Indonesia. Pearl Harbor becomes a lot tougher. (Midway Atoill)
One of the things I find interesting is will the Japanese feel screwed? In OTL the Japanese liberals were very pleased with the treaty initially (all considered I think they had good reason to as well) though the militarists would eventually denounce it and start secretly (and soon enough openly) breaking the treaty. But what if Japan gets as good a deal in proportionate terms, but the overall levels are so high that they struggle to build up to their limits. Who do the militarists blame for that? Do they still dislike the treaty if its limits are beyond them?
fasquardon
I am just talking about fortifying, not preventing Japan from doing so. It is more "If Japan wants to fortify fine, we will do so as well" not "We are willing to go to war with Japan" over the matter which IMO is the only way to stop it, or at the very least seriously threaten Japan over it.
McPherson
Banned
Based on the overall era nuttery I've read from all sides? Yes, they denounce the treaties, and the West for being racists/imperislists. They, from their PoV, would not be entirely wrong, either. They were not stupid.
If they were smart they try to go the "reasonable route" and try to lower everyone's limits in a new treaty for "The sake of peace". However, they weren't smart about things OTL so are likely to blame the Chinese somehow.