Naval treaty in a CP victory

[naraic]

I thought the german guns were lighter because they were 'built up' not' wire wound' which allows longer guns firing at higher muzzle velocities which (at least in part) bridged the gap between the heavier British guns and shells. The British used this philosophy on the Nelson's, but didn't really work it so developed a heavy shell to ameliorate the problem.

British 12 inch 50 guns had essentially the same muzzle velocity as German 11 and 12 inch guns. The 12 inch 45s had muzzle velocity a little lower.

In heavier shells German muzzle velocity was a little higher than comparable British shells but I wouldn't say it gives an advantage to German shells of a smaller calibre. Larger shells loss velocity slower while in flight than lighter shells. British 13.5 inch shells typically would have a higher striking velocity than British 12 inch shells (which had a comparable muzzle velocity to German 11 or 12 inch shells).

There were benefits of having lower muzzle velocities too. The British 15 inch guns stayed in service til 1960 for a reason. It made for a more accurate gun firing in a closer cluster than guns with higher muzzle velocity. I believe from Campbell that Iron Duke fired a salvo at Jutland that was actually a triple hit which is actually the only triple hit in battleship combat.

I would give German guns an advantage for having more elevation than many British guns but the British knew how to refit their turrets. They refit a lot of the 12 inch 45s at the start of the war and some of the 15 inch guns were historically refit in the 1930s.

 

[Aghasverov]

The French navy is the least important issue for a victorious Central Powers, and there's the question of just how much they're willing to cram into the treaty and then watch out for it to be kept enforced. France being beaten but the UK remaining and the whole thing ending by agreement is not quite as total a victory as the other way around was, so imo this would be reflected in the peace treaty.

Yeah, wouldn't surprise me at all if the MN only warranted a short paragraph or two in any post-CP Victory naval treaty... it was hardly a threat to German interests. Better to leave it intact, and Italy's RM largely intact (though possibly pushed out of the Adriatic), and try to stir some trouble between the two later over Tunisia or some other point of contention

 

[Skullship]

The G3's could happen, or the treasury could force a cheaper design be chosen given the British financial situation is almost certainly worse than OTL, and AFAIK the Treasury said OTL the RN wasn't getting all 4 G3's even if the WNT failed totally

Perhaps then a beefier Nelson class?

 

[Riain]

Will they?

Germany had essentially given up on the naval arms race as early as 1912 in order to divert funding to the Army. Nothing about a Central Power victory changes that equation. They need to maintain a large army so that the defeated continental Entente powers don't try anything, they're likely dealing with long-term occupations, and their finances are not going to be in good shape. I really don't think they're going to be very keen on trying for the sun again, so to speak.

Britain, meanwhile, is almost certainly in similarly dire financial straits to where they were OTL, with Germany still squatting over the North Sea and Japan and the US starting their own naval arms race that's liable to draw them in. A naval arms race would be expensive, difficult, and Britain is behind the US and Japan in starting their new generation of capital ships, which is to their benefit in design concepts but their detriment in terms of timing and numbers.

The incentive for a Washington-type treaty is there, and I do think that the whole thing can be balanced - barely.

Germany didn't give up on the naval race because they didn't want a big navy, they switched their focus because their strategic position had changed to require short term planning of a bigger Army rather than the long term planning goal of a bigger and bigger Navy. That said, the Germans didn't stop building ships or anything, they just stuck with the May 1912 Naval Law rather than enact a new one in 1913 or 1914.

IOTL the initial occupation of the territory ceded in Brest Litovsk was 50 divisions of the lowest quality, which by 1919 shrank to 25 divisions. In the longer term some of this task would be undertaken by the puppet states themselves, so occupation wouldn't be so onerous for a power such as Germany who maintained something like 100 divisions in peacetime.

I agree that it would be in Britain's interest to agree to a treaty, but I also think it would be in Germany's interest too as she would only really have 8 modern capital ships by about 1920 while Britain had 12 from 1916 and the 4 Admirals building.