Washington Naval Treaty never happens - does naval AirPower get sidelined?

CV12Hornet

ric350 said:
First, would the large naval powers go on a “bigger is better” battleship building spree, soaking up their economies?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, no. The Great Kanto Earthquake is a pretty hard stop by knocking the most willing of the participants out of the escalation race.

ric350 said:
If so, does carrier building get put on the back burner, and with it naval aviation?
Click to expand...
Japan, probably, without the Treaty-forced conversions of Akagi and Kaga. But a large chunk of the British carrier fleet predated Washington and the Courageous-class remain logical candidates for conversion, and the US intended to build Lexington-sized, purpose-built carriers in the early 1920s.
 

Hugh Third of Five

Carriers would still be built so the planes could be used to scout out submarines and other reconnaissance. There would probably be more battleships but carriers would still be built.
 

jsb

ric350 said:
I was wondering: using some “hand-wavium” let’s say the Washington Naval Treaty never occurs.

First, would the large naval powers go on a “bigger is better” battleship building spree, soaking up their economies?
Click to expand...
As has been said above the most likely is a stop in say 1925 with very few extra ships and some treaty or at least private agreement between GB and US that now IJN is out of the race under 50% of both of them they will stop or at least slow to a crawl and not go any over 16" and the current size so long as nobody else does....?
 

Protagoras

Honestly, US could end up building less without WNT; congress was very aggressive in trying to find ways to save money. With the treaty, it seemed like the US wasn't taking full advantage if they didn't build to treaty limits. Without the treaty, congress might very well decide a considerably smaller navy was plenty.
 

Jellico

ric350 said:
Folks, while reading this thread - (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/colorado-class-in-washington-naval-treaty.529649/ ), I was wondering: using some “hand-wavium” let’s say the Washington Naval Treaty never occurs.

First, would the large naval powers go on a “bigger is better” battleship building spree, soaking up their economies?

If so, does carrier building get put on the back burner, and with it naval aviation?

ric350
Click to expand...
They will go bigger is better, if only because it is. There are too many big ships on the stocks.

The RN isn't on a spree, eight ships over a decade. The Kanto quake will make 8/8 an impossibility so kill that spree. Finally there is no way to justify the USN's insane program if no one else is building so that is the end of that. The only question will be the quality of the last generation of ships. The USN ships have issues that could leave them with a block obsolescence problem depending upon how far the program progresses. Which leads into...



Naval aviation is very much a game everyone wants to play. That is why the treaty limited them. The problem is no one knows what a carrier is yet, and what a carrier is will change two or three times over the next twenty years anyway.
You will want an experimental carrier program. RN and USN will be looking at the now obviously flawed Lexingtons and Courageous as carrier conversions to use questionable hulls. Washington Treaty also favoured large hulls so expect more small carriers like Hermes till they figure out a cruiser analogue.
You might finally see some ground up fleet carriers by the 30s. They won't be that much different to what we saw originally. A single carrier can only handle 60 or so aircraft at a time. Armored carriers might see the biggest change. With a hardish limit of 60 aircraft you can build above 27000 tons and get armor and aircraft. The requirement for protection in enclosed seas before radar isn't going away.
 

ric350

If the naval powers do go on a build bigger spree, they’ll have a lot of new battleship construction on the slipways when the economic crash hits a few years later. Then they’ll be forced to use whatever funding they have to complete those projects, all the while worrying what the other guy is doing. In this environment I don’t think suggestions of new carrier building will go down to well politically or the among the deep water admirals. Plus you also have those impressive airships flying around, helping to enforce that bigger is better mentality. Think about how later on, when Japan and Germany were both in financial free fall, yet still built Musashi, Yamato, Bismarck, and Tirpitz, in a time when naval aviation was already a very real (though unproven) threat. Under these new conditions could the submarine replace the carrier as the ultimate anti-battleship weapon?

ric350
 
MichaelWest

MichaelWest

In a sane world the budgets are not much more so choices need made. The USN starved the rest to get Battleships. Cruisers likely continue to be deferred or penny packet built. Naval aviation early on gets about the same but has less certainty and less extra money for development. The RN might still go as it did or trim a carrier or two, not much change but then what happens over 20 years with a little cut here and another thing deferred there? From 1919 to 1929 not a lot might be deeply different, aviation is coming, it has value, but it might be just a little less.
 

naraic

I actually think that we might see more small carriers (meant as scouting carriers more than anything else) at an earlier stage if the treaties never happen.

Historically most countries had limited carrier tonnage and didn't want to commit it in a certain direction long term when they weren't sure what an ideal carrier should look like.
 

alspug

The Royal Navy was fully on board with aircraft carriers for Scouting, Zeppelin interception and torpedo attacks. The size and power of aircraft limited performance but they knew enough to build for the future. An example of this is the worlds first aircraft carriers and purpose built aircraft carriers and even most of the doctrine was done by the Royal Navy. The US Navy was also fully invested in the future of Naval Air Power. When the two largest navies say something is worth building Capital sized Warships around in terms of the Idea then if you aspire to that position you follow it. Japan in 1918 and beyond was a member of the victorious combatants of WW1 and had a significant Navy with close ties to the RN. The ties to the USA also had generally been positive. The size of the Navies agreed at WNT literally saved the USA and GB a fortune in that they could have a powerful navy at minimum cost. The WNT actually did more to restrict the Carrier as a replacement of the Battleship for a decade. BTW a 15,000 ton carrier would have been a better commerce protection ship than the Cruiser during daylight. Any raider under air attack is already compromised and toast.
 

Jellico

naraic said:
I actually think that we might see more small carriers (meant as scouting carriers more than anything else) at an earlier stage if the treaties never happen.

Historically most countries had limited carrier tonnage and didn't want to commit it in a certain direction long term when they weren't sure what an ideal carrier should look like.
Click to expand...

A good example is the RNs interest in slow fleet carriers. They looked into both slow and fast fleet carriers essentially mirroring the battleship battle cruiser split. The slows would shield the battleships while the fast carriers would probe and scout.
This makes more sense in a 20s/30s context when aircraft lethality is limited and massive engines are expensive. By the 40s with better aircraft and faster capital ships, less so.


A description of Hermes I once heard really changed my mind on the 20s. Seaplanes are still a viable thing and have to be considered. Aircraft are very limited. Imagine Hermes anchored in an an Indian Ocean atoll. Cranes out supporting sea planes. Occasional biplane taking off from the deck. 5.5" ready to ping any raider that sticks it nose in. It is less a modern carrier and more a mobile base. The early years of carrier aviation were just different.
 

RanulfC

Don't forget experimental and long-range submarines were also limited by the WNT and without they likely get a boost as well...

Randy
 

fester

ric350 said:
Folks, while reading this thread - (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/colorado-class-in-washington-naval-treaty.529649/ ), I was wondering: using some “hand-wavium” let’s say the Washington Naval Treaty never occurs.

First, would the large naval powers go on a “bigger is better” battleship building spree, soaking up their economies?

If so, does carrier building get put on the back burner, and with it naval aviation?

ric350
Click to expand...
IMO, not much of a change. Perhaps the first purpose built carriers are built in numbers earlier instead of the USN, RN and IJN relying on conversions. But the carriers provide one hell of a scouting and counter-scouting capability so there is still a need to fill even if there will be another half dozen post-Jutland battleships completed for the USN and RN in the 20s and a few more for the Japanese before geology and the Treasury intervene. The naval budgets weren't flush in the 20s but they weren't tight either. The capacity to get at least a few 2nd generation ships to experiment with what most of the thinkers think will be the next big thing should be plausible.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
I'd think any country looking for an edge, would try something different in the 20s, especially with aviation technology rapidly improving. "Jeez, no matter how fast we build dreadnoughts, or how many, we're still playing catch up(or, just staying even)!! Let's change the way the game is played!!"
 

1Big Rich

ric350 said:
Folks, while reading this thread - (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/colorado-class-in-washington-naval-treaty.529649/ ), I was wondering: using some “hand-wavium” let’s say the Washington Naval Treaty never occurs.

First, would the large naval powers go on a “bigger is better” battleship building spree, soaking up their economies?

If so, does carrier building get put on the back burner, and with it naval aviation?

ric350
Click to expand...
I don't think that less aviation necessarily follows a 'no treaty' environment.

The USN wanted large carriers before the treaty intervened. In October 1918, the Bureau of Construction & Repair provided a sketch design for a carrier of 24,000 tons and 825ft long capable of 35 knots on 140,000 shp. In 1919, BuC&R proposed a carrier of 34,500 tons and 35 knots (based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down). Next was a design of about 29,180 tons. See Friedman's US Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, p. 35.

If the USN is building large carriers in a treaty-less environment, some of the other powers might well follow suit.

My thoughts,
 

ric350

Then I guess I don’t understand what happened IOTL. With the treaty in place, and as you say plans were already in the works for big carriers, then why did the Naval powers continue down the build big battleship path? Why did the US navy feel the need for the Iowa class ships, and the British with the Nelsons?
Then the Japanese building the Musashi/Yamato, and the Germans the Bismarck/Tirpitz, when all that steel could have been used for tanks and subs.
If they all knew that large carriers were the way forward, why the new bigger battleships, especially with the treaty in place?

ric350
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
ric350 said:
hy did the US navy feel the need for the Iowa class ships, and the British with the Nelsons?
Click to expand...
Iowa were better than the North Carolinas and SoDaks, and Standards were all but obsolete.
The Brits wanted G3s, but couldn't afford them, even without a Treaty,and got Nelsol and Rodsol instead.

But while USN going thru three BB classes, also did the same for carriers.
Then as War got going, Montana went nowhere, while Midway were planned.
 

fester

ric350 said:
Then I guess I don’t understand what happened IOTL. With the treaty in place, and as you say plans were already in the works for big carriers, then why did the Naval powers continue down the build big battleship path? Why did the US navy feel the need for the Iowa class ships, and the British with the Nelsons?
Then the Japanese building the Musashi/Yamato, and the Germans the Bismarck/Tirpitz, when all that steel could have been used for tanks and subs.
If they all knew that large carriers were the way forward, why the new bigger battleships, especially with the treaty in place?

ric350
Click to expand...
The USN wanted both. The carriers, especially in the 20s were a supporting arm. The power to weight ratio was too low for the aircraft to be a decisive striking arm on their own. That had to wait until probably 1938 OTL when if you squint hard enough and grant the USN working air dropped torpedoes that an air group of Devastators and Vindicators could really ruin a battleship's day with a mission/mobility kill. But up to that point, carriers are an excellent scout and counter scout, cripple kill and skirmisher to complement the battle line. The battle line was an all weather, strategically deployable, resilient decisive and deployable combat power. If they could catch something, they could kill it. And given the USN mission set from 1920-1945 was "FIGHT ACROSS THE PACIFIC, SEIZE ADVANCE BASES, DEFEAT THE IJN IN A SERIES OF DECISIVE BATTLES AND THEN BLOCKADE THE HOME ISLANDS" the USN did not have to worry too much about tactical speed. The enemy eventually had to make a stand somewhere important. Finding the enemy fleet with cruisers or carriers was always a challenge.
 

Jellico

ric350 said:
Then I guess I don’t understand what happened IOTL. With the treaty in place, and as you say plans were already in the works for big carriers, then why did the Naval powers continue down the build big battleship path? Why did the US navy feel the need for the Iowa class ships, and the British with the Nelsons?
Then the Japanese building the Musashi/Yamato, and the Germans the Bismarck/Tirpitz, when all that steel could have been used for tanks and subs.
If they all knew that large carriers were the way forward, why the new bigger battleships, especially with the treaty in place?

ric350
Click to expand...
Because battleships were proven effective and carriers were not.
You will get some simple answers that aircraft didn't have the carrying capacity and ruggedness to be effective until the 40s and that is part of it, but it is more subtle.

Look at the loss of the Yamatos. It took hundreds of aircraft each. Multiple carriers. No one would blink if you said a battleship lost to multiple battleships. But a multi-ship pile-on is supposed to indicate the end of the battleship? Then carrier and land aircraft sinkings get mixed up all the time. For example PoW was sunk by land aircraft which were more capable than carrier aircraft. Sinking of battleships by airpower gets a lot of coverage. Battleships resisting airpower doesn't.

Really what is happening us utility per dollar. Even then its a bit messy because carrier wings were worth entire battleships in dollar terms. But a carrier offered a lot more utility for the dollars than a battleship. With no hostile peer navies after 45, why keep building battleships when you are literally mothballing five year old ships? By 1950 it is not a question any more and you can razor blade them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top