Naval treaty in a CP victory
- Thread starter Skullship
- Start date
I think the closest to it that you might see would be whatever terms Germany imposes on the losing continental powers about what kind of ships they're allowed to have, not a mutual agreement between essentially friendly powers to avoid an arms race. The motivations for it are all wrong if there's still a major hostile power, Germany, in circulation.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
No, because the circumstances won't really align like they did OTL. Britain still faces a potentially hostile Germany, and can't really be hurt that bad in a WWI peace treaty. As such any Naval treaty would have to basically enshrine sufficient British naval superiority over Germany to feel comfortable. It has to do that while also accommodating a 60% or better ratio between Japan and the US, without alienating the Germans who will likely want superiority over the Japanese for racist reasons. Then you have to accommodate the 16" elephants in the room that the US and Japan have a lead in 16" gunned capital ships, for the US worse than OTL with the 1916 program undelayed and 2 years ahead, without alienating them or letting the UK/Germany fall behind. And finally such a treaty has to save money for at least the big boys (US, UK, Germany, Japan), so it has to limit total capital ship building while accommodating all that
Possibly you get something like no battleships bigger than 45,000 tons and 16.5"/42cm guns fairly easy, but that is barely a limit
Possibly you get something like no battleships bigger than 45,000 tons and 16.5"/42cm guns fairly easy, but that is barely a limit
If anything, the Royal Navy is going to be ramping up - the 12" dreadnoughts and battle-cruisers are already obsolesce as more and more 16" ships are appearing on the scene. They are going to continue their escort building, and developments in aircraft, not just capital units. The RN is the trump card the British Empire still has in play, and the British are going to do everything possible (which is actually not all that much) to keep Japan on side and 'in the fold'.
Presumably there is still OTL Jutland, so the lessons are still going to be taken from that and incorporated into the next generation of designs.
It also depends on whether Germany retains none, some or expands here colonial holdings. That will be a major effort by the RN to isolate and remove these, just as much as bottling the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea.
The British face an existential threat from the German Empire that must be tackled head on with as many resources as possible.
To borrow from a similar discussion last year
Presumably there is still OTL Jutland, so the lessons are still going to be taken from that and incorporated into the next generation of designs.
It also depends on whether Germany retains none, some or expands here colonial holdings. That will be a major effort by the RN to isolate and remove these, just as much as bottling the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea.
The British face an existential threat from the German Empire that must be tackled head on with as many resources as possible.
To borrow from a similar discussion last year
Does anyone know if Germany will try to make the UK cede a part of its navy? IIRC, wasn't one of Germany's goals in a CP victory scenario to "level the playing field" with the UK?
They can't do this. Ar best, they can cannibalize French and Italian Navies,but that's it. Germany that won circa August 1918 as a result of successful offensives, would really not be able to force Britain to something else than Status-quo Ante Bellum everywhere, and de-facto situation on Turkish front.
They just don't have the means
A European hegemonic Germany would want or expect nothing less than equality with the RN so there would be no treaty as this is unacceptable to GB. Germany will be starting from a low base as any 12" gunned capital ship is now 2nd rate and Germany only has 2 15" gunned ships and 2 more building.
The Washington Conference was about defusing tension over China. It left GB with a margin over the combined European Fleets of 5:3.5 which is similar to the RN:HSF proportion in 1914 of 8 battle squadrons to 5 battle squadrons.
The Washington Conference was about defusing tension over China. It left GB with a margin over the combined European Fleets of 5:3.5 which is similar to the RN:HSF proportion in 1914 of 8 battle squadrons to 5 battle squadrons.
Riain
Banned
There were some 13.8" gunned battlecruisers under construction, and the Derflingers were no slouch despite their 12" guns.
IIUC due to the different construction techniques and therefore gun design philosophy the German 12" is more akin to the British 13.5" than the British 12", which is more closely matched to the German 11" gun.
Last edited:
The German 12" was 50tons vs 75tons for the 13.5". The Germans put the weight saving into armour and underwater subdivision. The German 12" shell was 900lb vs the 13.5" 1,250lb to 1,400lb. German 12" gunned ships were simply under gunned as WW1 experience showed, a problem that is going to be exacerbated as future ships grow in size.
I actually could see a naval treaty as the price for britain finally agreeing to peace. London acknowledges whatever peace Germany made on the continent, maybe gives back some of the German coloies and lifts the blocade immediately. Germany agrees to a naval treaty guaranteeing british naval supremacy.
Theres a belief going around that this is the case. Most people consider it erroneous.
It's generally based on one of three factors.
1. Comparisons between penetration values of german armour piercing shells and british armour piercing shells without an armour piercing cap. Both datasets are together on some sites and forums.
2. The British 12 inch 45s on some of the first dreadnoughts. The later 12 inch 50s on later dreadnoughts were a much better guns. I could consider some sort of equivalency between 12 inch 45s and the German 11 inch guns. I would not consider equivalency between the German 11 inch guns and the 12 inch 50s.
3. I will certainly say that the Germans had much better shells until the introduction of the greenboy shells late in the war and can consider their smaller guns comparable with larger British guns because of the greater likelihood that their shells will work as designed.
Last edited:
RamscoopRaider
Donor
The South Dakota's are the most likely having been ordered in 1916 before the others were a glimmer in their designers eyes, the #13's will have to be laid down after the earthquake, so them getting cancelled is highly likely, Kii's are a toss up, 2-4 Amagi's are almost certainly built (without the WNT Amagi is off the stocks so won't be wrecked in the quake). 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
Whatever the outcome of an Alt-WWI, assuming a better result for the CP, one thing to keep in mind would be the economic situation. The economies of continental Europe, including the German Empire, would be in shambles, with the UK only staying barely solvent due to generous loans from Wall Street. Ships are expensive. The Reichstag frequently balked at increased naval expenditures anyway, and a Labour Government in the UK post-war would certainly not be in favour of pouring money into G3's and N3's.
I think a WNT-style agreement would be possible, due to a "meeting of the minds" between the UK and Germany - mainly due to mistrust of the two powers whose economies were not wrecked by the war - The US and the Japanese Empire. The 10-year "holiday" in capital ship building might be seen as a perfectly reasonable proposal...
I think a WNT-style agreement would be possible, due to a "meeting of the minds" between the UK and Germany - mainly due to mistrust of the two powers whose economies were not wrecked by the war - The US and the Japanese Empire. The 10-year "holiday" in capital ship building might be seen as a perfectly reasonable proposal...
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.
I don't think a prospective treaty would survive negotistions with the Mediterranean situation in mind. France wants to be the biggest naval power there, Italy has ambitions as well and A-H will want at the very least the same as Italy has, which is something Italy can't live with because all that A-H tonnage is concentrated in a small pond while Italy has colonial duties and a second great power navy to its left to watch out for, it would mean ceding half the peninsula to a foreign navy, they'd never sign up for that.
Riain
Banned
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.
However if this is bullshit it puts Germany in an interesting position with regards to a treaty postwar if limits are negotiated on gun calibre alone, as the brand new Derflingers may be considered obsolete. While Germany only has 2 x 15" gunned ships in commission, 2 more have been launched and are fitting out, 3 x 13.8" BCs have been launched and are fitting out and one more is on the slips and one 15" BC had been laid down but on about 1000 tons of steel had been built up. Assuming Germany gets back to work on these launched ships and the BC well under way she'll have 8 x 13.8" & 15" ships by say 1919. This is well behind the RN for 15" ships so the Germans may ask to build a lot of new ships to catch up to Britain's 12 x 15" ships completed and 4 building and plans for the G3s etc.
A Central Powers victory is likely to see the French Navy destroyed, which chucks this equation right out the window.
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.