London Naval Treaty Work-arounds 1930 and 1936

[perfectgeneral]

Naval Treaty Work-arounds

INTERNATIONAL TREATY FOR THE LIMITATION AND REDUCTION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT (1930)
Article 8
Subject to any special agreements which may submit them to limitation, the following vessels are exempt from limitation:

(a) Naval surface combatant vessels of 600 tons (610 metric tons) standard displacement and under;

(b) Naval surface combatant vessels exceeding 600 tons (610 metric tons), but not exceeding 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) standard displacement, provided they have none of the following characteristics:

(1) Mount a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre;

(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;

(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes;

(4) Are designed for a speed greater than twenty knots.

Escort Destroyers

Many roughly 15 year old R, S and T class (and a few V) Destroyers were scrapped that could have been reduced to a single turbine (use the others as spare parts) and one or two boilers. Whatever it takes to get them under a 20 knot capability (anti-torpedo bulges should slow them down). Put the torpedo tubes ashore too. A new 3 inch AA gun mount where the aft funnel and torpedo tubes used to be stops them being designed for torpedos. Cheaper than building new ships or throwing old ones away?

R-class ships

1. Rowena
2. Restless
3. Salmon
4. Tetrarch
5. Thisbe
6. Thruster
7. Torrid

Modified R-class ships
All gone by Jan 1930

Thornycroft R-class ship

Teazer

Yarrow R-class ship

Tyrant


S-class ships

1. Simoom
2. Scotsman
3. Senator
4. Sepoy,
5. Seraph
6. Shark
7. Sparrowhawk
8. Splendid
9. Speedy
10. Sirdah
11. Somme,
12. Steadfast
13. Sterling
14. Swallow
15. Swordsman (RAN)
16. Tribune
17. Trinidad
18. Scythe
19. Seabear
20. Seafire
21. Searcher
22. Seawolf
23. Serapis
24. Serene
25. Sesame
26. Spindrift
27. Sportive
28. Stalwart (RAN)
29. Tilbury
30. Tintagel
31. Stormcloud
32. Strenuous
33. Tactician
34. Tara
35. Tasmania (RAN)
36. Tattoo (RAN)
37. Turbulent
38. Trojan
39. Truant
40. Trusty

Thornycroft S-class ships

Torbay (RCN)
Toreador (RCN)
Tourmaline

Yarrow S-class ships

Turquoise
Tuscan

V class leaders

Valhalla
Valkyrie

V-class

Vectis
Venturous
Violent

59 extra escorts? Not so much need for that destroyers for bases deal? Maybe the work would only be part done by the time 1937/1938 and full rearmament arrives, but they would be intact enough to convert.

Article 10
Within one month after the date of laying down and the date of completion respectively of each vessel of war, other than capital ships, aircraft carriers and the vessels exempt from limitation under Article 8, laid down or completed by or for them after the coming into force of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties shall communicate to each of the other High Contracting Parties the information detailed below:

(a) The date of laying the keel and the following particulars:

Classification of the vessel;

Standard displacement in tons and metric tons;

Principal dimensions, namely: length at water-line, extreme beam at or below water-line;

Mean draft at standard displacement;

Calibre of the largest gun.

(b) The date of completion together with the foregoing particulars relating to the vessel at that date.

The information to be given in the case of capital ships and aircraft carriers is governed by the Washington Treaty.

No need to even mention them!

 

[perfectgeneral]

Anyone got any more? Spotted a flaw in my cunning plan?

 

[perfectgeneral]

Looks like I'm ploughing a lone furrow here...

London Treaty of 1930: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/london_treaty.htm

Article 8 (continued)

(c) Naval surface vessels not specifically built as fighting ships which are employed on fleet duties or as troop transports or in some other way than as fighting ships, provided they have none of the following characteristics:

(1) Mount a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre;

(2) Mount more than four guns above 3 inch (76 mm) calibre;

(3) Are designed or fitted to launch torpedoes:

(4) Are designed for a speed greater than twenty knots;

(5) Are protected by armour plate;

(6) Are designed or fitted to launch mines;

(7) Are fitted to receive aircraft on board from the air;

(8) Mount more than one aircraft-launching apparatus on the centre line; or two, one on each broadside;

(9) If fitted with any means of launching aircraft into the air, are designed or adapted to operate at sea more than three aircraft.

Escort carriers that are adapted as Merchant transports/oilers might be permitted if the flight deck is removed or obstructed in peacetime?

These 'escort merchantmen' might carry four QF 4.7 inch guns and any number of three inch guns. Top speed of 19.5 knots.

 

[Captain Jack]

Keep it up! I'm not knowledgable enough to contribute anything but I'll be reading this with interest.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

There were probably as many sound economic reasons for the scrapping of those ships as anything else. The mods you have described would require money and time as would the maintenance ... resources that were spent elsewhere during the period.

However if they had done it would Churchill have been so keen to get his hands on the US destroyers transferred from late Sept 1940 onwards?

 

[AdA]

The cost of converting the ships, as oposed to the money to be made from selling them for scrap, would only look a good deal with hindsight. It would take years for the reborn German Submarine threat to materialize and the danger of it would not be predictable unless the fall of Belgiun and France was to be factored in.
We must remember that most studies for WW2 from an allied perpective expected the Germans to be kept firmly in home ground, making containning UBoats much easier.
The French navy did follow a very useful path and designed a dualrole Sweeper, Escort vessel (the Elan/Chamois classes). With the French navy in action, and the subs operating from Germany, the Atlantic battle would have been one sided.

 

[perfectgeneral]

There were probably as many sound economic reasons for the scrapping of those ships as anything else. The mods you have described would require money and time as would the maintenance ... resources that were spent elsewhere during the period.

However if they had done it would Churchill have been so keen to get his hands on the US destroyers transferred from late Sept 1940 onwards?

A lot of the measures are taking things off:
Removing one or two boilers and funnels is going to leave a large hole. Fortunately removing the torpedo tubes offers a good point to make such hole.
Removing a turbine would require a new gearbox so one turbine can drive the two screw shafts. That wouldn't need fitting while waiting in ordinary as a reserve.

A patch to the superstructure and decks cut to access the engine/boiler spaces need not be anything more than weatherproofing while these escorts lie in reserve.

They would still cost money to maintain and convert over a period of six years. I imagine them being withdrawn from the reserve as newer Destroyers (V & W) start to get 'old' and are replaced. Unless rearmament starts in which case nothing gets withdrawn for scrapping, even when more than 20 years old.

 

[PMN1]

The French navy did follow a very useful path and designed a dualrole Sweeper, Escort vessel (the Elan/Chamois classes). With the French navy in action, and the subs operating from Germany, the Atlantic battle would have been one sided.

Trouble with dual role sweeping/escort vessels us the sweeping hull needs a shallow draft while the escort needs a deeper one for the ASDIC.

 

[perfectgeneral]

The cost of converting the ships, as opposed to the money to be made from selling them for scrap, would only look a good deal with hindsight. It would take years for the reborn German Submarine threat to materialize and the danger of it would not be predictable unless the fall of Belgium and France was to be factored in.
We must remember that most studies for WW2 from an allied perspective expected the Germans to be kept firmly in home ground, making containing U-Boats much easier.
The French navy did follow a very useful path and designed a dual role Sweeper, Escort vessel (the Elan/Chamois classes). With the French navy in action, and the subs operating from Germany, the Atlantic battle would have been one sided.

59 Destroyers had a scrap value of around £150,000-£200,000 in 1937 money.

The costs and motives really lie outside my challenge here: To find exploitable loopholes in the treaty. If you can suggest a POD that provides those funds and motivations so much the better. Clearly some shift in the perceived safety of sea-lanes to Britain is required to motivate such a circumvention of the treaty. The real cost is in the time required to replace them in a hurry and if the six years work doesn't keep the skilled workers that would be urgently needed later.

What requirement is there for amphibious transports and landing craft? What funding? And yet the treaty allows as many such ships as you like of any weight. Lessons learnt from the Dardanelles?

Churchill seems to be an obstacle to learning anything about that folly. Indeed he has a hand in re-adoption of the gold standard. Root cause of much of the shortage of funds. Maybe a POD lies there somewhere?

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

I could be wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere that Churchill was actually not keen on re-adopting the Gold Standard but there was huge pressure for it from The Bank of England, The City, the rest of the Cabinet and from the media so he had to accept it.

 

[PMN1]

I could be wrong but I'm sure I read somewhere that Churchill was actually not keen on re-adopting the Gold Standard but there was huge pressure for it from The Bank of England, The City, the rest of the Cabinet and from the media so he had to accept it.

Its definately mentioned in WTRE.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Its definately mentioned in WTRE.

Where The Rainbow Ends?

By 'hand a hand in it' I mean he threw the switch (as chancellor) back to the gold standard (albeit a slightly different form of it) in his 1925 budget, but he was guided by almost consensus. I say almost because John Maynard Keynes was a noted exception (McKenna too). I was spreading the blame rather than pointing the finger solely at Churchill.

http://www.thegoldstandardnow.org/k...to-churchill-qwhat-an-imbecile-currency-billq

Attempting to resolve his doubts, Churchill arranged for a dinner on 17 March 1925 to which he invited Bradbury and financial controller Sir Otto Niemeyer for the Treasury and Keynes and McKenna for the opposition. Till midnight and beyond, Keynes and McKenna argued that at prewar parity, sterling would be overvalued by 10%, and adjusting to the higher rate would mean unemployment and industrial unrest. Churchill, “ready to and anxious to be convinced as far as my limited comprehension of these extremely technical matters will permit,” asked McKenna: “...you have been Chancellor...what decision would you take?” McKenna said there was no escape, but “it will be hell.” ... In July, Keynes’s pamphlet, The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill, ferociously opposed a return to gold as a fixed exchange-rate system because of its effects on unemployment and the balance of payments. It was not directed at Churchill personally: WSC, he said, had made the decision “partly because he has no intuitive judgment, partly because of the clamourous voices of conventional finance, and, worst of all, because he was gravely misled by the experts.”

Churchill, who almost always rose above the Parliamentary fray, did not resent Keynes’s criticisms. In Parliament, he charged Snowden with inconsistency in first urging an early return to gold, and then attacking the government for taking that course, contrasting this “with the position of Mr. Keynes, who is, I suppose, by far the most distinguished and able exponent of opposition to the return to gold. He is the great advocate of a managed currency, the most powerful and persuasive advocate.” Keynes’s warnings about the economic and social consequences of the return to gold at par were soon borne out by the 1926 General Strike. ...

Keynes laments that he was not persuasive enough in his arguments, but it seems McKenna failed to offer a political way forward. Perhaps that would be the only thing that could rescue the British economy from itself in the 1920s and 1930s. This is somewhat of a digression from the purpose of the thread. Loopholes folks!

Let's add the full text of the Second London Naval Treaty (1936) to the mix: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.htm

 

[Astrodragon]

Anyone got any more? Spotted a flaw in my cunning plan?

yes.

The R and S class were too fragile for Atlantic use - at least one had the Captain drowned in his bunk!).
The V and W's were being converted into east coast (more light armament) and A/S versions, speed this up.
Best use for the R/S is to use the machinery to power new frigates.

Of course, if you really want to cheat...
Build a frigate of around 1,500t (good seaboat for NA). Give it a couple of 4.7" guns (one will be taken off to fit a hedgehog or squid in the future). Loads of depth charges. The coastal escort version gets a heavy AA fit.
use diesels for range. Allow space for 4 (two per shaft). Fit three (the excuse for the third is to use in harbour, it can be smaller). Then when you want to, take that out, fit two more, and turbo if necessary. Speed goes up from 20kt to 25kt, which is what they really wanted for an AS ship.

 

[Astrodragon]

Looks like I'm ploughing a lone furrow here...

London Treaty of 1930: http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/london_treaty.htm

Escort carriers that are adapted as Merchant transports/oilers might be permitted if the flight deck is removed or obstructed in peacetime?

These 'escort merchantmen' might carry four QF 4.7 inch guns and any number of three inch guns. Top speed of 19.5 knots.

Escort carriers are an easy cheat

Aircraft transports. So obviously they need a hangar (to allow the planes to be transported safely). Deck is designed to have the superstructure (minimal) at the rear (like a tanker) to be stripped, the rest of the flat deck is obviously to transport crated aircraft. Put on an island (you WILL need to design it so that doesnt cause stability issues, before you build them), and stockpile arrestor gear. In a few months you have a working escort carrier. Best to be diesel if possible to minimise the trunking issues.

 

[perfectgeneral]

yes. []

Best use for the R/S is to use the machinery to power new frigates.

Of course, if you really want to cheat... [Yes...?]

Build a frigate of around 1,500t (good seaboat for NA). Give it a couple of 4.7" guns (one will be taken off to fit a hedgehog or squid in the future). Loads of depth charges. The coastal escort version gets a heavy AA fit.
use diesels for range. Allow space for 4 (two per shaft). Fit three (the excuse for the third is to use in harbour, it can be smaller). Then when you want to, take that out, fit two more, and turbo if necessary. Speed goes up from 20kt to 25kt, which is what they really wanted for an AS ship.

I accept that the R,S & Ts have little use in open ocean, particularly the NA. Escorts for the Med and Caribbean? Coastal work?

Strangely this purpose built Escort Destroyer would be less offensive to treaty inspectors/observers than a machinery stock pile. It shows intention to comply. A grease pit of 100 spare turbines and gears would beg the question 'What do you plan to do with those?'

 

[Astrodragon]

A grease pit of 100 spare turbines and gears would beg the question 'What do you plan to do with those?'

"We're waiting on a Mr A Daley to find us a buyer for them"

Actually, stockpiles of everything under the sun of old equipment was pretty much the standard everywhere.

 

[Astrodragon]

I accept that the R,S & Ts have little use in open ocean, particularly the NA. Escorts for the Med and Caribbean? Coastal work?

Strangely this purpose built Escort Destroyer would be less offensive to treaty inspectors/observers than a machinery stock pile. It shows intention to comply. A grease pit of 100 spare turbines and gears would beg the question 'What do you plan to do with those?'

No room for the AA needed in the Med (or really for the coast), and short legged. They could have been used as coastal escorts, but really would have used a lot of men to provide poor escorts. Now stripping them for equipment, otoh, to fit on a new build, wouldnt cost much more than refitting them.

 

[brazen]

yes.

The R and S class were too fragile for Atlantic use - at least one had the Captain drowned in his bunk!).
The V and W's were being converted into east coast (more light armament) and A/S versions, speed this up.
Best use for the R/S is to use the machinery to power new frigates.

Not true, the S class served in the northern approaches throughout the war, according the Friedman the hull was well designed and quite seaworthy, as long as they haven't been massively overloaded with extra gear, which is what happened to them in WW2 making them a little lively. Peter Gretton thought that they were getting to the point of being unstable with all the top weight added during the war.

Take out a boiler and leave both turbines in, that saves a gear box needing to be made and fitted, use the spaces left by the boiler removal to fit fuel tanks and a diesel Genny with extra accommodation.

Fit a single QF 4 inch Mk XVI naval gun on a single Mk XX DP mount on 2 of the bandstands and a 40mm/Quad 2pdr on the other, shes a pretty decent little long range escort after that fit out.

Could we fit pre fabricated bulges to the R,S and T classes left, this would help with Fuel oil storage and hopefully help with the handling and the increase in top weight during the war.

 

[Simon]

Use diesels for range. Allow space for 4 (two per shaft). Fit three (the excuse for the third is to use in harbour, it can be smaller). Then when you want to, take that out, fit two more, and turbo if necessary. Speed goes up from 20kt to 25kt, which is what they really wanted for an AS ship.

The problem with diesels seems to of been in construction with the ship yards since for several reasons they were highly resistant to using them and also possible problems with the crews manning them in the form of the RNR/RNVR, you probably want to keep them as near to what the civilian fleets use and they know for ease of operation and maintenance. Also do you really need to extra 5 knots speed? Slow convoys only did between 6 and 9 knots with fast convoys doing between 9 and 13 knots. If you're looking to make Article 8 escorts 20 knots seems more than adequate for shepherding the convoys and leave the specialised destroyers to go haring around in hunter-killer groups after the submarines. I'd also question whether you need something the size of the 4.7 inch guns, I'd favour twin 4 inch ones myself, but that's another question. Stick some MAC ships and escort carriers with them and you're golden.

 

[DD951]

Not true, the S class served in the northern approaches throughout the war, according the Friedman the hull was well designed and quite seaworthy, as long as they haven't been massively overloaded with extra gear, which is what happened to them in WW2 making them a little lively. Peter Gretton thought that they were getting to the point of being unstable with all the top weight added during the war.

Take out a boiler and leave both turbines in, that saves a gear box needing to be made and fitted, use the spaces left by the boiler removal to fit fuel tanks and a diesel Genny with extra accommodation.

Fit a single QF 4 inch Mk XVI naval gun on a single Mk XX DP mount on 2 of the bandstands and a 40mm/Quad 2pdr on the other, shes a pretty decent little long range escort after that fit out.

Could we fit pre fabricated bulges to the R,S and T classes left, this would help with Fuel oil storage and hopefully help with the handling and the increase in top weight during the war.

Although that refit would turn those old destroyers into useful escorts, it wouldn't turn them into something that could slip through a treaty loophole- in stock form, they displaced around 900-950 tons standard (depending on source & exact configuration) & were designed for around 36 kts (service speed was probably down to around 31-32 by WW2), & somehow I don't think that yanking one of their 3 boilers & using the space for an extra fuel tank & some other stuff would either lighten them enough to put them in the totally unregulated class, or slow them down enough to get them into the type of 600-2000 ton ships that were unlimited.