London/Washington Naval Treaty sales...

What if instead of scrapping many vessels due to the Naval Treaties, many where sold to ally nations/other nations that didn't sign the Treaties.

Ex.: Due to the cancelation of the Dutch 1913 battleship proposal, they could likely buying HMS Erin.

What do you think?
 

SsgtC

Banned
The treaties specifically prohibited that. Plus, there weren't very many countries that could actually afford to operate them
 
Oh, rly? Well, I didn't read the treaty so.... thx anyway

What if the treaty allowed the sale of ships to be disposed of? Who could afford to buy a ship is still important. Portugal was interested in an American dreadnaught, Siam wanted HMS Tiger, I don't know if either could afford a dreadnaught.

Thinking about the treaty restrictions, the ban on selling ships combined with the no new capital ship construction does help preserve the status of the treaty nations. What non-treaty nation could even build a capital ship? Sweden maybe, but nothing too big. Russia and Germany were out of the picture.
 
What if the treaty allowed the sale of ships to be disposed of? Who could afford to buy a ship is still important. Portugal was interested in an American dreadnaught, Siam wanted HMS Tiger, I don't know if either could afford a dreadnaught.

Thinking about the treaty restrictions, the ban on selling ships combined with the no new capital ship construction does help preserve the status of the treaty nations. What non-treaty nation could even build a capital ship? Sweden maybe, but nothing too big. Russia and Germany were out of the picture.
There was interest in South America, they had had several ships 'requisitioned' by the British during the war. I don't believe Netherlands was a signatory. Maybe Phillipines gains independence an 'buys' some older U.S. ships. Or Australia and Canada (maybe South Africa) assert their independence and buy some ex-RN ships. Greece, Egypt (need to protect the canal), Spain.Diplomacy makes strange bedfellows.
 
Given the treaty demanded the immediate disposal of several ships and the eventual disposal of others I doubt the selling nations would charge much more than scrap value, so cost wouldn't be a huge hurdle. Refitting for further service might be a heavy expense for the customer.

Assuming of course that sales weren't against the treaty conditions.
 
What if the treaty allowed the sale of ships to be disposed of? Who could afford to buy a ship is still important. Portugal was interested in an American dreadnaught, Siam wanted HMS Tiger, I don't know if either could afford a dreadnaught.

Thinking about the treaty restrictions, the ban on selling ships combined with the no new capital ship construction does help preserve the status of the treaty nations. What non-treaty nation could even build a capital ship? Sweden maybe, but nothing too big. Russia and Germany were out of the picture.
Britain and America would each find a client state and dump dreadnoughts on them and fund the maintenance and refits of them.
 
The WNT was well stage managed to achieve its aims. The day before it opened the dignitaries attended the burial of the American Unknown Soldier. Kinda hard to advocate for a second hand weapons market when the mood is very much swords into plow shears. We tend to forget and dismiss the disarmament wishes of the generation that fought WW1.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Given the treaty demanded the immediate disposal of several ships and the eventual disposal of others I doubt the selling nations would charge much more than scrap value, so cost wouldn't be a huge hurdle. Refitting for further service might be a heavy expense for the customer.

Assuming of course that sales weren't against the treaty conditions.
It's not the cost to acquire that's the killer. As you noted, they would likely be sold for scrap. It's the cost to maintain and operate them that would kill the new owners. Of course, this is all hypothetical since the treaty specifically forbid doing this.

Britain and America would each find a client state and dump dreadnoughts on them and fund the maintenance and refits of them.
And that is exactly why the WNT forbid selling ships to minor powers. Because literally everybody knew that this is exactly what the US and UK would do. Dump the ships on convenient nations, provide a subsidy to maintain the ships and "advisors" (i.e. a skeleton crew), then "buy" the ships back when an emergency arises.
 
It's not the cost to acquire that's the killer. As you noted, they would likely be sold for scrap. It's the cost to maintain and operate them that would kill the new owners. Of course, this is all hypothetical since the treaty specifically forbid doing this.

Potential recipients of used Dreadnoughts (assuming they were available, which they were not) most likely won't have the running costs of the Grand Fleet or High Seas Fleet from year to year. They would probably be more like the RN 2nd Fleet ships which operated with reduced crews and went to sea much less often, but upon mobilisation such ships would be bought up to full crew with reservists and conduct shakedown and training. This is standard practice for many poorer countries, the idea being that its easier to crew and work up an otherwise idle ship than find the money for a new one during a crisis.
 
Top