That loophole was closed in the London Treaty.No it's not. CVE less than 10,000 tonnes are not covered by Washington.
That loophole was closed in the London Treaty.No it's not. CVE less than 10,000 tonnes are not covered by Washington.
That loophole was closed by the First London Naval Treaty.No it's not. CVE less than 10,000 tonnes are not covered by Washington.
The RAN is after trade lane protection. So the little cruiser force is handy and slips right into RN requirements.
That loophole was closed by the First London Naval Treaty.
Article 3
1. For the purposes of the Washington Treaty, the definition of an aircraft carrier given in Chapter II, Part 4, of the said Treaty is hereby replaced by the following definition:
The expression "aircraft carrier" includes any surface vessel of war, whatever its displacement, designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.
2. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carriers.
3. No capital ship in existence on 1 April 1930 shall be fitted with a landing-on platform or deck.
Article 4
1. No aircraft carrier of 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) or less standard displacement mounting a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre shall be acquired by or constructed by or for any of the High Contracting Parties.
2. As from the coming into force of the present Treaty in respect of all the High Contracting Parties, no aircraft carrier of 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) or less standard displacement mounting a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre shall be constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the High Contracting Parties.
Article 5
An aircraft carrier must not be designed and constructed for carrying a more powerful armament than that authorised by Article IX or Article X of the Washington Treaty, or by Article 4 of the present Treaty, as the case may be.
Wherever in the said Articles IX and X the calibre of 6 inches (152 mm) is mentioned, the calibre of 6.1 inches (155 mm) is substituted therefor.
**************************************************************************************************************
This is the Washington Naval Treaty's Definition of an Aircraft Carrier
AIRCRAFT CARRIER
An aircraft carrier is defined as a vessel of war with a displacement in excess of 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft. It must be so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon, and not designed and constructed for carrying a more powerful armament than that allowed to it under Article IX or Article X as the case may be.
**************************************************************************************************************Or put another way, under the Washington Treaty, aircraft carriers with standard displacements of less than 10,000 tons weren't aircraft carriers and under the First London Treaty all aircraft carriers were aircraft carriers regardless of their displacement.
True but the escort carrier concept could have been developed before the First London Treaty and that may have altered the British position. Plus escort carriers are superfluous in peacetime, they only need to be spammed out in wartime. It's the proof of concept that is necessary not a class of carriers already in service. Of course the merchant ships ready for conversion may be pre built ............That loophole was closed in the London Treaty.
Britain did have what amounts to an escort carrier before WWII, HMS Argus. She spent most of the 1930's laid up in reserve before being recommissioned as a mothership for target drones. With more money in the budget, she could have remained in service and been used to develop the use of small carriers as escort ships.True but the escort carrier concept could have been developed before the First London Treaty and that may have altered the British position. Plus escort carriers are superfluous in peacetime, they only need to be spammed out in wartime. It's the proof of concept that is necessary not a class of carriers already in service. Of course the merchant ships ready for conversion may be pre built ............
Post 59 in full. It was written in reply to Post 47 by @Grey Wolf.True but the escort carrier concept could have been developed before the First London Treaty and that may have altered the British position. Plus escort carriers are superfluous in peacetime, they only need to be spammed out in wartime. It's the proof of concept that is necessary not a class of carriers already in service. Of course the merchant ships ready for conversion may be pre built ............
According to Friedman (as usual) the Admiralty did earmark some merchant ships for conversion to trade protection carriers on the declaration of war and when war came the Admiralty decided that the limited ship repair capacity would be better used for something else.
And the concept of the escort carrier as we know it didn't exist between the wars because nobody thought Germany could conquer France in the space of six weeks and use the Biscay ports as U-boat bases. I suspect that had anyone suggested it the laughter coming from Whitehall would have been heard in the East End.
That's why I'm using the term trade protection carrier instead of escort carrier. The trade protection carrier's job was to find enemy surface raiders which would be sunk by cruisers or the carriers own aircraft.
Having written all that I have suggested that replacement of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's tankers should begin earlier in other threads like this. I've also suggested that instead of the OTL Dale class they should have been more like the American Neosho class because 4 of them were converted into Sangamon class escort carriers and it was also the basis of the "keel up" Commencement Bay class escort carriers. This "Super Dale" is my suggestion for an easily convertible merchant ship that can be taken in hand on the declaration of war and converted in as short a time as possible into an escort carrier. However, the Admiralty might still decide that the ship repair capacity would be better used for something else.
Argus, Eagle and Hermes will be scrapped in 1928, 1931 and 1935 respectively to make way for the 3 aircraft carriers built 1924-35 with the some extra money that's been made available in the Opening Post.Britain did have what amounts to an escort carrier before WWII, HMS Argus. She spent most of the 1930's laid up in reserve before being recommissioned as a mothership for target drones. With more money in the budget, she could have remained in service and been used to develop the use of small carriers as escort ships.
Re what I wrote in Posts 59 and 247.True but the escort carrier concept could have been developed before the First London Treaty and that may have altered the British position. Plus escort carriers are superfluous in peacetime, they only need to be spammed out in wartime. It's the proof of concept that is necessary not a class of carriers already in service. Of course the merchant ships ready for conversion may be pre built ............
17. During the last 15 years our aircraft carrier tonnage has been limited by treaty, and the limits accepted allowed only for the maintenance of the aircraft carriers required for work with the Main Fleet with only a margin of possibly one ship for other duties. It has consequently not been possible for the Admiralty to provide aircraft carriers for employment on the trade routes to assist our cruisers and armed merchant cruisers in the protection of trade. Plans have been drawn up for the conversion of merchant ships into aircraft carriers after the outbreak of war, but this work would take about 12 months to complete.
24. The use of carriers on the trade routes is a matter in which little experience is yet available, but a minimum of 5 is suggested herein for operations in conjunction with our cruiser forces. This number of 5 must remain open to review, and experience will very probably show that one aircraft carrier per cruiser squadron operating on trade protection work is required. It is hoped that by the building of these aircraft carriers for trade protection, an economy in the number of cruisers required can be effected.
Part of the First London Naval Treaty
Article 2
1. The United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Japan shall dispose of the following capital ships as provided in this Article:
United States:"Florida"."Utah"."Arkansas" or "Wyoming".United Kingdom:"Benbow"."Iron Duke"."Marlborough"."Emperor of India"."Tiger".Japan:"Hiyei".
(a) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (b), the above ships, unless converted to target use exclusively in accordance with Chapter II, Part 2, paragraph II(c) of the Washington Treaty, shall be scrapped in the following manner:
One of the ships to be scrapped by the United States, and two of those to be scrapped by the United Kingdom shall be rendered unfit for warlike service, in accordance with Chapter II, Part 2, paragraph III(b) of the Washington Treaty, within twelve months from the coming into force of the present Treaty. These ships shall be finally scrapped, in accordance with paragraph II(a) or (b) of the said Part 2, within twenty-four months from the said coming into force. In the case of the second of the ships to be scrapped by the United States, and of the third and fourth of the ships to be scrapped by the United Kingdom, the said periods shall be eighteen and thirty months respectively from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
(b) Of the ships to be disposed of under this Article, the following may be retained for training purposes:
by the United States:"Arkansas" or "Wyoming".by the United Kingdom:"Iron Duke".by Japan:"Hiyei".
These ships shall be reduced to the condition prescribed in Section V of Annex II to Part II of the present Treaty. The work of reducing these vessels to the required condition shall begin, in the case of the United States and the United Kingdom within twelve months, and in the case of Japan within eighteen months from the coming into force of the present Treaty; the work shall be completed within six months of the expiration of the abovementioned periods.
Any of these ships which are not retained for training purposes shall be rendered unfit for warlike service within eighteen months, and finally scrapped within thirty months, of the coming into force of the present Treaty.
2. Subject to any disposal of capital ships which might be necessitated, in accordance with the Washington Treaty, by the building by France or Italy of the replacement tonnage referred to in Article 1 of the present Treaty, all existing capital ships mentioned in Chapter II, Part 3, Section II of the Washington Treaty and not designated above to be disposed of may be retained during the term of the present Treaty.
3. The right of replacement is not lost by delay in laying down replacement tonnage, and the old vessel may be retained until replaced even though due for scrapping under Chapter II, Part 3, Section II of the Washington Treaty.
**************************************************************************************************************
All ships to be scrapped have to be scrapped within 30 months of the Treaty coming into force. The treaty was signed on 22nd April 1930 and 30 months after that is 22nd October 1932. Tiger can't be kept for as long as you want. It would have to be a different Treaty that allowed Japan and the USA to keep ships for longer as well.
Wasn't there some language in one of the treaty's limiting where any additional fortifications could be built? (i.e. the US couldn't add to fortifications on the Pacific islands like Guam, etc) IF so, how extensive were those prohibitions.?When they say "scrapped", I assume they meant hulls and so the guns could be stored for later use? If so, were any of these guns used in new builds or for port fortifications?
Thank you again.....
Nah could make them aircraft maintenance ships (or target drone mothership like Argus was in otl) Ala Unicorn if we're cheesing hard enoughArgus, Eagle and Hermes will be scrapped in 1928, 1931 and 1935 respectively to make way for the 3 aircraft carriers built 1924-35 with the some extra money that's been made available in the Opening Post.
(A short version of what I would do.)Congratulations you've been made 3rd Sea Lord at the beginning of 1923 and will hold the post till the beginning of 1939.
Your objective is to optimize the RN especially its new designs and refits of existing ships for WWII. Assume you get around a 10 to 15% larger budget than otl and slightly less moronic politicians as related to at least the 2nd LNT if not 1st LNT.
So what would you do?
Yes future knowledge is allowed to be used
So a ship with just a 'flying off' deck still wouldn't count as an aircraft carrier, so a T3 tanker, with an obstructed (smokestack/superstructure) aft, could be built even with a permanent flying off deck, and not be counted even by 1st LNT, is that correct, or am I missing something.?Article 3
1. For the purposes of the Washington Treaty, the definition of an aircraft carrier given in Chapter II, Part 4, of the said Treaty is hereby replaced by the following definition:
The expression "aircraft carrier" includes any surface vessel of war, whatever its displacement, designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.
This seems to answer my question above.2. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carriers.
Hmmm...3. No capital ship in existence on 1 April 1930 shall be fitted with a landing-on platform or deck.
Argus, Eagle and Hermes will be scrapped in 1928, 1931 and 1935 respectively to make way for the 3 aircraft carriers built 1924-35 with the some extra money that's been made available in the Opening Post.
Is there anywhere online where I could find a list of "scrapped UK Vessels" due to the Naval Treaties?
Link to Post 170.
That is awesome! Very much looking forward to going through that list in detail.
Cheers, Matthew. 🍻
That's affordable with the extra money provided in the POD. However, the First London Naval Treaty limited the the number of cruisers that could be laid down after 1st April 1930 and completed before 31.12.36 to 91,000 tons worth in addition to limiting the total number of light cruisers at 31.12.36 to 192,200 tons worth.With regards to light cruiser spam, I assume there's not much of a possibility or chance to replace the C and D class cruisers earlier, either with Leander or Arethusa type spam or should they be retained and converted into AA ships as soon as possible (you could probably put 5 x 4-inch dual mounts on them giving you 10 barrels).