Simple question about Bayern-class battleships

[Hood]

I think the Brita actually thought the Nelsons were good ships

They were.
Considering at the time, the vast majority of ships in the British Battlefleets average speed was about 21 knots, which also happened to be the battlelines speed, in such a regard, Britain, considering another Jutland situation, the Nelsons speed was reasonable.
The advent of the coming of age of the fast battleship, which had arguably started with Hood, and would have been big in the 20s, had it not been for WNT, did mean that the whole "battleline" speed thing wasn't going to work, as it was unlikely that type of battle was really going to happen again.

Their guns and armour were both excellent, especially getting it into a 35,000 ton ship, and this is made clear by the French and Russian designs with similar layouts.
In fact, one of the Russian BB designs was literally a Nelson.
The guns weren't brilliant, but as I've said before, was because they were being compared to the brilliant BL Mk I 15" gun. They were still a good gun regardless, as was shown during the Bismarck battle, even though they may not have gotten the belt penetrating dye yo the close range, and how low Bismarck was in the water.
As for manoeuvrability, they were well capable of manoeuvring well, despite many rumours.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Agreed but you need to stop the USN and IJN new ships (Colorado and Nagatos) as they have 16" and better protection so rendered the old 15" ships second class.


RN would still have to match the Colorado's and Nagatos if they exist ITL so that means two Nelsons.
Then the 4 L20a would require more than 4 ships to match them so 4-6 G3 or similar.
Then the 5 KGVs only get built with 14" if the treaties are still at that size and that requires less other 15"+ ships....

Your time line has has a gap with 4 L20a and only 2 Nelsons that should have the ratio the other way ie 4 Nelsons v 2 L20a, but the Nelsons would have to be faster...

Colorado's and nagatos were laid down before the treaties

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

I think it would be helpful to see in a timeline exactly how you envision the war ending.

Because my immediate response to all that is that the Treasury is screaming for cuts because Germany is disarmed. If in your scenario Germany is still a major naval power the British politics will shift accordingly.

If anything, if postwar economic doldrums were severe enough to force military cuts (which I will allow), then I would expect all European powers to start by trimming the less essential components of their militaries. That means the army for Britain, but it means the navy for Germany. I have to think that a postwar British government would merrily demobilize and stand down almost all of its army before it began seriously to think about eliminating its naval superiority.

We should not forget, after all, that whatever the indecisive results at Jutland and whatever the toll exacted by U-boats, the one naval campaign in World War I that was entirely successful is one that we rarely read about, perhaps because there were so few shots in it, and one that certainly caused exponentially more pain to the German economy than anything else the British could have achieved in that conflict.

ships are a little costlier than, say, guns and rifles

 

[jsb]

I think the Brita actually thought the Nelsons were good ships

IOTL,
The 2 Nelsons where the best slow (23Kn) battleships in the world as they are newer and contain more war lessons than the three Colorados or two Nagatos (even if they are faster) this makes up for the RN also having the weakest of the post Jutland ships Hood (even if its the fastest and largest).

In this time line it would be by 39
Germany - 4 building Bismark, 4 L20a, 2 B&B, and a mix of the best 12" you can keep due to treaties as you might as well keep them to match off weaker European allies.
GB - 5 building Lions, 6 slightly cut down G3s, Hood and 12 other 15" ships.

Since in the event of a European war the RN will concentrate on the first priority in home waters like OTL and abandon singapoor this doesn't help Germany much...

Also add that IOTL the IDs (and Tiger) where scraped at LNT an earlier set of four 13.5" ships got scraped to replace N&R.

Colorado's and nagatos were laid down before the treaties

The problem is that the RN had not responded yet to them as it was trying to incorporate the war lessons into its next set of ships the G3.

Look at the dates of ships laid down (ignoring the large number of other USN/IJN ships cancelled by WNT),

1922 - N&R
1921
1920 - USS WV
1919 - USS Colorado
1918 - Mutsu
1917 - USS Tenseness - USS Maryland - Nagato
1916 - Hood - USS California
1915 - three New Mexico class - two Ise class
1914 - last two R class - USS Arizona

RN would never have accepted having so much older ships (they also had harder war service) and it would also potentially mean that they could be replaced earlier due to the treaty age limits.

ships are a little costlier than, say, guns and rifles

But they are require in much larger numbers and have the small matter of a huge number of salaries of the men required to carry them into battle.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

IOTL,
The 2 Nelsons where the best slow (23Kn) battleships in the world as they are newer and contain more war lessons than the three colorados or two Nagatos (even if they are faster) this makes up for the RN also having the weakest of the post Jutland ships Hood (even if its the fastest and largest).

In this time line it would be by 39
Germany - 4 building Bismark, 4 L20a, 2 B&B, and a mix of the best 12" you can keep due to treaties as you might as well keep them to match off weaker European allies.
GB - 5 building Lions, 6 slightly cut down G3s, Hood and 12 other 15" ships.

Since in the event of a European war the RN will concentrate on the first priority in home waters like OTL and abandon singapoor this doesn't help Germany much...

Also add that IOTL the IDs (and Tiger) where scraped at LNT an earlier set of four 13.5" ships got scraped to replace N&R.

The problem is that the RN had not responded yet to them as it was trying to incorporate the war lessons into its next set of ships the G3.

Look at the dates of ships laid down (ignoring the large number of other USN/IJN ships cancelled by WNT),

1922 - N&R
1921
1920 - USS WV
1919 - USS Colorado
1918 - Mutsu
1917 - USS Tenseness - USS Maryland - Nagato
1916 - Hood - USS California
1915 - three New Mexico class - two Ise class
1914 - last two R class - USS Arizona

RN would never have accepted having so much older ships (they also had harder war service) and it would also potentially mean that they could be replaced earlier due to the treaty age limits.

But they are require in much larger numbers and have the small matter of a huge number of salaries of the men required to carry them into battle.

so what would, in your opinion, be a rational capital ship order of battle for both countries look like in 1939, assuming:
A) the treaties
B) German economy being decently good ITTL (or at least much better than OTL)
C) UK economy being mostly on par with OTL, but slightly worse off
D) UK political situation,had ww1 been a draw in europe (I other theatres things go as per OTL)
Dcod you detail a shipbuilding timeline for both countries?
Ps also how would a larger shipbuilding program impact funding for the royal army and RAF?

 

[DaveBC]

ships are a little costlier than, say, guns and rifles

Depends how many divisions you want to equip and staff and train and deploy. I don't know what the apples to apples figures would be, although I do not from a couple of American sources that an Iowa-class ship cost $100 million and an infantry division cost about $15 million to initially equip and stand up in 1944.

Look, this is not the central point, but it isn't an irrelevant one. Germany has to be the preeminent land power in Europe or it's not worth even beginning to talk about a naval race. For any even halfway rational government in Germany, therefore, the cost of competing with the Royal Navy must always come second to the army. The Kaiser pushed the country much farther in the naval direction than he should have, and still lost that race.

Britain, in contrast, has to be the preeminent naval power, certainly in Europe and in its mind ideally in the world. Beyond territorial defense, its military balance is skewed the opposite direction and even more so than Germany: sea power is the only game in town that has to be won under any circumstances.

And for a range of reasons, incidentally. Having naval superiority means you can blockade your enemy -- which devastated Germany's economy in World War I -- as opposed to just sniping at the margins with U-boats. It also means that even in Britain's worst days, in 1940, the country was still all but impregnable. What price is it worth paying to maintain absolute security from invasion?

I am by no means a British partisan here, but just on the objective interests and numbers alone, Britain is coming into this scenario as the superior power in a game it cannot afford to lose and Germany is coming in as a smaller rival with other interests that come first. In such a situation it is certainly not irrational to predict that the Germans will blink first.

If Germany sacrifices army and air force procurement to put it over the top in the naval race, it's dead. If Britain sacrifices army and air force procurement to put it over the top in the naval race, life goes on.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Depends how many divisions you want to equip and staff and train and deploy. I don't know what the apples to apples figures would be, although I do not from a couple of American sources that an Iowa-class ship cost $100 million and an infantry division cost about $15 million to initially equip and stand up in 1944.

Look, this is not the central point, but it isn't an irrelevant one. Germany has to be the preeminent land power in Europe or it's not worth even beginning to talk about a naval race. For any even halfway rational government in Germany, therefore, the cost of competing with the Royal Navy must always come second to the army. The Kaiser pushed the country much farther in the naval direction than he should have, and still lost that race.

Britain, in contrast, has to be the preeminent naval power, certainly in Europe and in its mind ideally in the world. Beyond territorial defense, its military balance is skewed the opposite direction and even more so than Germany: sea power is the only game in town that has to be won under any circumstances.

I am by no means a British partisan here, but just on the objective interests and numbers alone, Britain is coming into this scenario as the superior power in a game it cannot afford to lose and Germany is coming in as a smaller rival with other interests that come first. In such a situation it is certainly not irrational to predict that the Germans will blink first.

I understand;what,in your opinion would be tne repercussion on the funding of other services like Royal Army and RAF in a scenario where UK has to build that many more ships?

 

[DaveBC]

I understand;what,in your opinion would be tne repercussion on the funding of other services like Royal Army and RAF in a scenario where UK has to build that many more ships?

That depends entirely on how far Germany decides to push this, because as you've noted with respect to the treaties, Britain is more about maintaining force ratios in its favor than about non-stop, flat-out production.

However, I think in a scenario where the UK has to build more ships this would have increasingly severe consequences for other branches of government, beginning with the army and air force. Even in our timeline, this was the case: going into both world wars, Britain maintained a proficient but small professional army that promptly proved inadequate to the array of tasks it faced in combat.

I realize that last part may prompt you to say, "Ah, but that must mean the cupboard was already bare in Britain even without a naval race." Yes, in our timeline, that would be correct -- our timeline, where military procurement languished for years. But you're positing an alternative timeline where Germany comes out of World War I as a major military power, and 15 pages of this thread later, I'm still at a loss as to why Britain should respond to that by meekly doffing its cap and saying, "Well, that's over. We gave it our best." Again, for clear illustrations of why naval superiority is something worth having, one need look only to the devastating British blockade of Germany in WWI and the overwhelming British defenses against Sea Lion in the Second World War. The British aren't going to want to give up a trump card that powerful.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

That depends entirely on how far Germany decides to push this, because as you've noted with respect to the treaties, Britain is more about maintaining force ratios in its favor than about non-stop, flat-out production.

However, I think in a scenario where the UK has to build more ships this would have increasingly severe consequences for other branches of government, beginning with the army and air force. Even in our timeline, this was the case: going into both world wars, Britain maintained a proficient but small professional army that promptly proved inadequate to the array of tasks it faced in combat.

I realize that last part may prompt you to say, "Ah, but that must mean the cupboard was already bare in Britain even without a naval race." Yes, in our timeline, that would be correct -- our timeline, where military procurement languished for years. But you're positing an alternative timeline where Germany comes out of World War I as a major military power, and 15 pages of this thread later, I'm still at a loss as to why Britain should respond to that by meekly doffing its cap and saying, "Well, that's over. We gave it our best." Again, for clear illustrations of why naval superiority is something worth having, one need look only to the devastating British blockade of Germany in WWI and the overwhelming British defenses against Sea Lion in the Second World War. The British aren't going to want to give up a trump card that powerful.

nono, I agree with you...I am considering how much the Raf will suffer.; this of utmost importance, as I am deeply convinced that for either side the war will be won or lost in the air.
Now consider that the ITTL the Luftwaffe would be much stronger; more tested, with more doctrinal background, as the Germans will start to develope their air force much earlier, as other major powers did; it will have a very strong strategies bombing section.
So how would the UK react? With mostly otl economy they can't just build more of everything...more ships should mean many planes less...my bet, they keep otl bomber wing, while spending much less on their fighters, convinced as they were that "the bomber will always get through", but this is just one possible way to go

 

[jsb]

so what would, in your opinion, be a rational capital ship order of battle for both countries look like in 1939, assuming:
A) the treaties
B) German economy being decently good ITTL (or at least much better than OTL)
C) UK economy being mostly on par with OTL, but slightly worse off
D) UK political situation,had ww1 been a draw in europe (I other theatres things go as per OTL)
Dcod you detail a shipbuilding timeline for both countries?
Ps also how would a larger shipbuilding program impact funding for the royal army and RAF?

I think B, C and D are not very relevant what is agreed at A will be built, in OTL the treaties are all about saving money with no serious problems between the opponents this will be different due to Anglo-German antagonism after WWI, so likely bigger fleets.

The problem is what does each nation have at "AU-WNT"

What has happens to each nations fleets?

RN - as OTL? ie Hood as last ship?
KM - as OTL? ie B&B as last ships? What hulls does she have building if any?
USN - as OTL ie 4 Colorados building + 6 SD +6 Lex?
IJN - as OTL? ie N&M with T&K, Ax4 building?

The problem is the limits?
16" would work like OTL
35,000t only works if only Hood is over it as she was old a flawed design that was shared during WWI to USN/IJN so acceptable. This means no L20a or SDs or Tosa.
If they build to many over weights they quickly obsolete the rest of the ships in the world.
USN/IJN will not want to build more new lighter ships and scrap bigger hulls at the same time.

Then it gets difficult as how many Post Jutland ships each nation gets, but basically the following should help to work it out.

USN = RN
IJN will want 2/3 ish (60%/70%) of USN
RN will want IJN+KM
IJN want N&M as already paid for....

I understand;what,in your opinion would be tne repercussion on the funding of other services like Royal Army and RAF in a scenario where UK has to build that many more ships?

However, I think in a scenario where the UK has to build more ships this would have increasingly severe consequences for other branches of government, beginning with the army and air force. Even in our timeline, this was the case: going into both world wars, Britain maintained a proficient but small professional army that promptly proved inadequate to the array of tasks it faced in combat.

I think this is assuming that the construction costs of new battleships is very significant to the overall GB budget, I don't think it necessarily is compared to other things like the debt from WWI or other civilian programs. Remember that big new ships would allow the old ships to be scraped or put into very cheap reserve so the crew lifetime costs would not be far larger.

Also I would think that any serious challengers ie Germany buildings fleet would increase defence spending compared to OTL 10 year rule. So its likely to be a bigger slice of the pot.

Lastly this might not actually be bad thing for the general economy considering the way OTL was baddly handled with the gold standard and depression.... So might actually be a bigger pot?

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

I think this is assuming that the construction costs of new battleships is very significant to the overall GB budget, I don't think it necessarily is compared to other things like the debt from WWI or other civilian programs. Remember that big new ships would allow the old ships to be scraped or put into very cheap reserve so the crew lifetime costs would not be far larger.

Also I would think that any serious challengers ie Germany buildings fleet would increase defence spending compared to OTL 10 year rule. So its likely to be a bigger slice of the pot.

Lastly this might not actually be bad thing for the general economy considering the way OTL was baddly handled with the gold standard and depression.... So might actually be a bigger pot?
I agree with most that you say, but not with this part...it isnot that UK budget is unlimited; OTL tehy would have built more ships if they had had the possibility to do so; but assumint they did not OTL becuase the germna navy was nearly non-existant, ITTL , with an economy on par with OTL, they can, sure thing build more ships, but you need to conisder the cost; then you can
A) stay like OTL being content with a rouhgly 1.5 to 1 advantage
B) (the one I find more likely as of now) Build more ships, say 20 BBs to outmatch the germans, AND spare money on Airforce and Army...ok th e german will screw France as in OTL and then bomb the shit out of you...and you will either have no bombers to retaliate, or no fighters to respond, because buoding ships is THAT costly, and it sucks THAT much metal, and engineering, and everything.
C) You can rekindle the glorious days of the Grand Fleet by building every sjips that you can...fine, you will NEVER, NEVER outproduce the US...and you can't realistically outproduce Germany and Japan combined...oh but Germany and Japan can concentrate on a narrower front (especially germany), whileyou have to patrol half the world...and if you build THAT many Battleships, you will end up with no carriers, no cruisers, no destroyers, and you're pretty much done.
The point here, is that I do not really think UK underbuilt their weapons ITTL because they were pacifict...ithey built what they could afford, maybe just something less...that said with OTL economy, and an isolationist, less-threatening Germany you can alter the order of factors, but not the total result

 

[GDIS Pathe]

the one I find more likely as of now) Build more ships, say 20 BBs to outmatch the germans, AND spare money on Airforce and Army...ok th e german will screw France as in OTL and then bomb the shit out of you...and you will either have no bombers to retaliate, or no fighters to respond, because buoding ships is THAT costly, and it sucks THAT much metal, and engineering, and everything.

And the Butterflies cry in anguish as they are squashed again and again

 

[BlondieBC]

Look, this is not the central point, but it isn't an irrelevant one. Germany has to be the preeminent land power in Europe or it's not worth even beginning to talk about a naval race. For any even halfway rational government in Germany, therefore, the cost of competing with the Royal Navy must always come second to the army. The Kaiser pushed the country much farther in the naval direction than he should have, and still lost that race.

Most of your post was true, but here you are buying into a post WW1 myth. The German Surface Navy accomplished all the tasked it was designed to build. The Baltic Sea was a German Lake. The British Navy stayed well away from German Coast for all but a few days of the war, and amphibious operation against the German or Danish coastline by the UK were never a realistic option. It is only because German lost a land war that it should have won that we blame the Navy. All this is clear is one focuses on actual prewar plans, statements and actions, not postwar CYA by Germans and Brits.

The naval build up was not driven by the Kaiser. It was largely a German reaction to the Boer wars. It was a reaction to the UK threaten preventive war against Germany against the backdrop the inability to control the German coast line against a vastly weaker navy in the Franco-Prussian war. The UK went so far as to hold naval drills practicing assaulting the German coast line in the Baltic Sea. Within about a short decade of time, these type attacks were correctly viewed as largely suicidal. And for good reason. And this secure coastline frees up at least a German Army, so it was a good investment.

Now the Kaiser did make mistakes, and these mistakes do relate to the battleships. If one looks at the needs of the German navy, Germany could have done just as well with 2-5 fewer battleships. And the fleet was unbalanced. While we like to talk about the 0.55 ratio between the fleets if we only look at BB, the actual tonnage ratio was much lower. Seems like roughly 0.40. Germany was missing cruisers designed to operate with the High Sea Fleet. Since a cruiser ran about a 5th of the cost of BB, it is pretty clear that swapping 1-2 BB for 5-10 cruisers would have greatly strengthened the German Navy. And based on the doctrine of the day, the German navy was short of submarines by probably about 40 subs, or about 2 BB. If we step back for a moment, and look at prewar needs and not assume WW1 has to happen exactly as OTL happened, it is clear the Germans came pretty close to the ideal navy with a few understandable mistakes. And it is not as if the UK or USA navy entering either WW1 or WW2 had the correct balance.

Now all of this being said, the German optimal strategy was to have more land units, and if we assume the funding for 4 BB can be moved, the more land units of any kind are the answer. We are probably talking closer to 2-3 corps of troops, and these certainly would have been invaluable as the 9th Army operating out of East Prussia. But there are difficult political trade offs pre ToV and difficult diplomatic issues post ToV.

 

[jsb]

it is clear the Germans came pretty close to the ideal navy with a few understandable mistakes.

I mostly agree but realistically the core mission could have been completed by a much smaller fleet than was built especially in dreadnought battleships.

All they really need is to be able to over match against France and Russia Baltic fleets and sufficient mines and U boats to prevent a RN close blockaded or entry into Baltic.

For that they could have saved a lot of money by only building 1/2 of the OTL classes of Dreadnought in 1907 (4), 1908 (4), 1909 (2), 1910(4) not including the BCs.

This would also likely result in RN not getting the "we want 8" ships in the 1909–1910 Naval Programme so would help Anglo-German relations and not change the ratios that much as Fr/Rus don't have much worth calling a fleet at that point.

 

[jsb]

is that I do not really think UK underbuilt their weapons ITTL because they were pacifict...ithey built what they could afford, maybe just something less...that said with OTL economy, and an isolationist, less-threatening Germany you can alter the order of factors, but not the total result

I would have to disagree they tried to save money for much of the 20s and 30s, 10 year rules etc and this then left them in late 30s with the block obsolescence problem from hell and no time to fix it and that cost far more long term in hindsight.

A slow steady replacement would have been sustainable in the 20s and early 30s just look how much they quickly spent on CAs, they can afford to out build anybody but US and that doesn't really matter as they are very unlikely to be a threat not to mention that mid western farmers will not want to keep paying come the first hint of a depression.... by late 30s they have a sizeable number of post Jutland ships so can concentrate on aircraft, radar and other things that they couldn't spend on earlier due to them not being sufficient developed anyway.

 

[BlondieBC]

I mostly agree but realistically the core mission could have been completed by a much smaller fleet than was built especially in dreadnought battleships.

All they really need is to be able to over match against France and Russia Baltic fleets and sufficient mines and U boats to prevent a RN close blockaded or entry into Baltic.

For that they could have saved a lot of money by only building 1/2 of the OTL classes of Dreadnought in 1907 (4), 1908 (4), 1909 (2), 1910(4) not including the BCs.

This would also likely result in RN not getting the "we want 8" ships in the 1909–1910 Naval Programme so would help Anglo-German relations and not change the ratios that much as Fr/Rus don't have much worth calling a fleet at that point.

One issue. This 1909/1910 part is wrong. The UK already had Germany as its likely opponent. Germany react to the UK making Germany the enemy, not vice versa. Go look at the British War Plans and annual exercises as evidence. The British were running mock invasion drills of the Germany in the Baltic. Imagine China reaction if we had the US fleet and all our marine LHA practice invading China for 3 months. And then USA papers were calling for preventive war with China. I guarantee Chinese naval spending would skyrocket.

Your plan might work. It looks like you are calling for 10 fewer BB, and I am calling for 4. My plan is the basic risk free plan. Baring something odd, the UK can't take the German coast. Your plan looks more like the "Germany keeps UK off the coast 65% of the time" plan. I also tend to think you want to be able to over match the Russians, which might take weeks, while having a decent size fleet remain ready for action in the North Sea. I guess it is a matter of taste, really.

I would also save money in a different way if getting rid of BB. I would scrap more of the older ships, and admit that I built ships with a 10 year useful life. I would propose that building 4 fewer ships in your classes and scrapping 6 older capital ships would be a better option if you want to keep the ratios down. And the guns would make good shore defense artillery.

 

[DaveBC]

I think this is assuming that the construction costs of new battleships is very significant to the overall GB budget, I don't think it necessarily is compared to other things like the debt from WWI or other civilian programs. Remember that big new ships would allow the old ships to be scraped or put into very cheap reserve so the crew lifetime costs would not be far larger.

Although I certainly agree with you that old ships will have to be retired as they become obsolete, I would not be optimistic about this saving costs even in personnel terms. If memory serves, Dreadnought had a crew of something like 600. It might have been a bit bigger. 1940s-era fast battleships would have had crew sizes approaching 2,000 or more. No, you are definitely right about one aspect of the analysis: an arms race naval or any other kind generally is going to continue until either somebody reaches their breaking point voluntarily or until both sides do involuntarily in the form of a war.

B) (the one I find more likely as of now) Build more ships, say 20 BBs to outmatch the germans, AND spare money on Airforce and Army...ok th e german will screw France as in OTL and then bomb the shit out of you...and you will either have no bombers to retaliate, or no fighters to respond, because buoding ships is THAT costly, and it sucks THAT much metal, and engineering, and everything.

Yes, this is what I see too. I'm not so sure it's as dire as you suggest -- for instance, it's just possible that in the context of a naval race more attention goes into carriers, and more resources, and therefore naval aviation is much bigger and more advanced along with the ships -- but yes, I would expect that Britain would begin sacrificing advances in land and air warfare long before it willingly ceded its naval position to a European rival.

For exactly the same reason, as I've said, that I would expect a sensible German government to call off a naval race before it seriously impeded their ability to conduct land warfare.

 

[jsb]

Dreadnought had a crew of something like 600. It might have been a bit bigger. 1940s-era fast battleships would have had crew sizes approaching 2,000 or more.

Just a quick look suggests,
HMS Dreadnought 700–810 HMS KGV 1422 (1941) so its only twice as many but a lot of that is going to be the AA and flag staff you need to add anyway? The really big numbers are conscripts with 20mm guns spread everywhere.

The real comparison is anyway from a rebuilt QE with 1,262 in 1920 to the KVG (or any other new ship) so actually only adds a couple of hundred for a massive addition in ability.

 

[Ludwig von Stieglitz]

Although I certainly agree with you that old ships will have to be retired as they become obsolete, I would not be optimistic about this saving costs even in personnel terms. If memory serves, Dreadnought had a crew of something like 600. It might have been a bit bigger. 1940s-era fast battleships would have had crew sizes approaching 2,000 or more. No, you are definitely right about one aspect of the analysis: an arms race naval or any other kind generally is going to continue until either somebody reaches their breaking point voluntarily or until both sides do involuntarily in the form of a war.



Yes, this is what I see too. I'm not so sure it's as dire as you suggest -- for instance, it's just possible that in the context of a naval race more attention goes into carriers, and more resources, and therefore naval aviation is much bigger and more advanced along with the ships -- but yes, I would expect that Britain would begin sacrificing advances in land and air warfare long before it willingly ceded its naval position to a European rival.

For exactly the same reason, as I've said, that I would expect a sensible German government to call off a naval race before it seriously impeded their ability to conduct land warfare.[/QUOTE
Mine was an exageration, but it showed the point...the britishstaf plainly admited that during the 30s anything east of Cairo was underfunded even OTL.
Now...as shown In had a significant,but not overwhelming shipbuilding advantage over Germany...less so against Japan.
OTL UK had unexpected difficulties besting ill-manage me Italian navy, while facing an insignificant German surface fleet.
ITTL is unrealistic that UK can maintain an advantage over Germany and Japan ccombined...they can maintain ww1 advantage over Germany ,sure, to avfreay cost,an they will have ti spare somewhere else. The qqqtimes of rule britannia were over for good by true 30s, while history showed how Germany was the emerging power by the time,as proven by the level of political and economical power owned by Germany even in OTL Europe, despite having lost two world wars

 

[Cryhavoc101]

In the 1930s everyone was underfunded - not just Britain

Perhaps with the exception of the Facist nations who expended a great deal of national 'treasure' in unsustainable military expansion programs that a peacetime Democractic government could not even begin to match until war looms (by which time it was too late).

Also 'again' lets recall that the ability to build lots of capital ships etc was 'limited by treaty' not 'ability' - note that Britain's late 30s post treaty capital ship building plans just before the invasion of Poland was 6 Fleet carriers (all built) and 9 possibly 11 Battleships (5 KGV all laid down and built and 4-6 Lions all cancelled*).

This was greater than Germany and Italy combined - even with their Governments conducting unsustainable building programmes

Britains difficulty in dealing with both the Italian fleet and the German fleet was that from June 1940 Britains main ally - France - whome was building more capital ships than Germany up until that point and would have matched Italy in the Med - was knocked out of the war - quite rapidly in fact

This meant that Britain had not only to take up the burden of the Med and oppose the Italians but also had to oppose the potential threat of 'Vichy' ships being handed over to the Axis or even worse joining them.

And note that the RN did pretty much deal with it and despite the disadvantage of Geography in operating in the central Med operating under enemy aircover for much of that campaign was the victor

I appreciate your point regarding an emerging Germany - this is obvious from a Geography standpoint (centre of modern Europe and size) and population (largest in Europe).

But from a Naval POV Britain as an industrialised Island and global Empire trader was focused in the mid 30s on its maritime economy with its Navy being the more important of the 3 services and the rapid increase in military funding beign lavished on the RAF with the army (not neccesary to be a continental style one) only really getting improved funding from 1937 - such was the priorities of the UK.

Germany in the mid/late 30s again due to geography (potentially surrounded by enemies) and lack of Empire was obviously focused on maintianing a continental style army with increasingly a powerful supporting airforce with its Navy a distinct 3rd best. Such was the priorities of Germany.



*They were cancelled as it was expected that the war would be over before they were completed and the resources best used for shorter term projects such as escorts etc