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

Driftless

Donor
Sidebar development to no WNT, Island fortresses could be built up more than OTL, in some cases using the old guns, etc from the old ships. Philippines, Guam, Wake, Malta, Singapore, Malaya, just to name a few locations. Maybe even a few more set aside for railway guns. And that's not necessarily main battery guns either.

If you want to get heading really into possible, not plausible territory, let the respective Army's (the real enemy) get a change to play with some sidelined naval weaponry that could serve as prototypes for future AA and AT guns.
 
The big question I ponder is if any better sustained building program softens the Depression, a back door intervention, not because they believe Keynes but because they buy ships.
I dont think it would have much overall effect, but it would probably save several of the yards and prevent them closing and the loss of skills so that by the mid 30s the programs laid down for 1937 could be noticeably larger in UK and even US?
Sidebar development to no WNT, Island fortresses could be built up more than OTL, in some cases using the old guns, etc from the old ships. Philippines, Guam, Wake, Malta, Singapore, Malaya, just to name a few locations. Maybe even a few more set aside for railway guns. And that's not necessarily main battery guns either.
The main issue with that is unlike building battleships thats even worse and less likely to be funded than battleship as shipyard workers are at least home voters in US or GB....?
 
Other than possibly the Denmark Strait engagement, were battleships anything more than mobile artillery at the start of WW2?

ric350

A complex question. One simplistic example is Cape Matapan, where the Brit carrier scouted and stung the enemy fleet & the battleships destroyed them, all as per doctrine. Another would be the night action of 14-15 November off Guadlcanal. Neither side had a effective carrier remaining to intervene. Halsey gambled his two capable battle ships after effectively losing all his cruisers in a series of surface battles & with them Lee managed a win. The Japanese did not commit their best battleships to the Guadacanal campaign and the over rated Kongos committed failed.
 
Interesting stuff, thanks! However let me take a different tack, regarding something I alluded to earlier. Looking back on WW2, did the battleship prove to be anything more than ocean-going artillery? If Germany hadn’t built Bismarck/Tirpitz, (think of all the things Germany could have built instead - like lots of trucks!), would the RN have anything to do with their battleships? The RN put Sea Lion in the realm of fantasy, but wouldn’t that still have been true if the largest ship the RN had been a cruiser? (hell, a tug boat with large fire hose would be a serious threat)

So what if the WNT did happen, but in an effort to really rein in rearmament, it was much stricter. No new ship larger than a cruiser was allowed (10000 tons/8 inch guns). Or maybe something along the lines of the Deutschland class at most. Carrier/aircraft development continues as OTL. Would this change significantly impact any OTL WW2 campaigns? The only things I can think of are shore bombardment actions missing the larger caliber guns.

Or is this ASB because Admirals (and politicians) believe “only size matters”?

ric350

Recall around the time of London that there was a proposal by the UK to limit new capital ships to 25,000 tons and 12in guns. Vickers produced the 12in Mk XIV (IIRC) a built-up gun (as opposed to wire-wound like many World War I era heavy guns) and even produced a triple turret design. None of the other powers liked the idea, and I suspect the RN didn't either as new battleships would be death traps if engaged with existing 14in, 15in and 16in armed capital ships up to 10,000 tons heavier (nearly 17,000 tons in the case of Hood).

What the Washington treaty explicitly did was preserve the viability of recently constructed capital ships (say Kongo, Utah, Centurion) in the face of more recently completed opponents (Nagato, Maryland, Nelson) rather than making them hopelessly obsolete in a sea of the giants (Tosa, South Dakota (BB-49), N3/Saint class). Such a small limit as 25,000 or as you propose, 10,000 tons causes the inverse. The new ships are not viable against the their older predecessors.

As @Jellico mentions, even if the KM does not build capital ships, the RN still needs them. Capital ships will still be needed against the RM and the IJN.

It's easy to think of capital ships only as floating artillery, but they generally had busy lives. You can view the TROM of Royal Navy ships here


But consider one of my favorite example, Duke of York


specifically, Operations Camera and Governor. These feints had a strategic implication, to distract Germany from what was happening in the Mediterranean. But not ever weighing of an anchor has to result in engagement with the enemy, even in war. There are plenty of jobs to do.

My somewhat disjointed thoughts,
 
As an true naval amateur I will delve into the subject on a different tact maybe outside my real ability! So let us look at something other than the big three and ponder it from the lesser navies perspective.

First, I think carrier aviation is vey important in the first 20 years post-war, the aircraft are small, under performing, weak and we need a carrier to get any of the vital benefits they provide to scouting and spotting. Yes float planes can take up the task but initially that is sea plane tenders that do not really go with the fleet, especially in open water, and planes on ship tend to be a problem, either for fire, for recovery or what have you. Better is a fast ship that stays up near the scouting force to launch, recover and support aircraft. And with improvements the carrier can become the scouting force after that first 20 years of development work. Second, I think the other navies could make do, and might do better, with land-based naval aviation. Of the three (or more), France is the only one really even thinking of going that far from its land bases.

For me, only the USN and IJN are fighting in open water far enough from land to be divorced from concern despite Japan also innovating its RIKKO doctrine. Even the RN is operating near land everywhere, North Sea, Mediterranean, up the China coast through Singapore waters, etc. For the French, the Germanys, the Russians, the Dutch and especially the A-H navy, land bases are usually plentiful and well within range of a fleet at sea. For all of them the RIKKO strategy looks far cheaper, doable and successful. But even so, the carrier has its uses. So for anyone working in alternatives including Austria, Germany, Italy, the Dutch or even the Russians, I think a look at France might be useful. (And I include the many alternatives of a surviving A-H and German Imperial navies vaguely in the generalities).

I choose France because I think its carrier evolution is not entirely linked to the Treaty, is more focused to the role of aviation in battleship operations, and more applicable to the other navies, hopefully a less thought of but more thought provoking model:

France intended to build two modern Mediterranean “task forces” centered around modern, fast aircraft carriers--the Joffre-class--capable of operating 40 or more aircraft each, protected by new battleships of the Gascoigne-class (my guess is from 2 to 4 each) with the St Louis-class heavy cruisers following on from the Algérie, and the new 3900-tonnes Desaix-class destroyers, an improved Mogador “super destroyers”. The Joffre were about the size of USS Wasp. So with different aircraft somewhere up to 100 aircraft? And it appears the French were biased towards the strike mission, intending almost two-thirds the group to be strike rather than fighter aircraft.

Based on the above, despite seeking 8 to 10 battleships, the French were moving to the foundation of a carrier centric task force navy. And I believe from 1938 forward the carrier is going to have to be part of any battle group. It is now the center of the scouting force, it gives a better weapon to attrite an enemy battle fleet at distance, and if needed can fly more fighters to offset a land-based threat, likely more important as the 40s move on. Or this carrier centered task force could easily patrol the Atlantic, seek battle with an enemy task force in open water, or support the defense of a distant colony.

The French can easy fight Italy anywhere in the Med, it can also project into the Red Sea/East Africa theater if pushed. It could more easily contain A-H alone, or support Greece, or suppress the OE/Turks in re-plays of WW1 campaigns. It can at least go after Germany in the Atlantic, likely on equal terms given Germany's geography issues and likely inability to fully commit its fleet to beyond the North Sea and Baltic. France can certainly support its suppression of independence in its colonies but likely cannot truly defeat a serious Japan over sat Indochina.

So we can overlay that for Italy or Germany, the next more likely carrier navies. Carriers allow Italy to go beyond land-based umbrellas and seek battle with France deep into the Western Med, or threaten its position in the Levant, or actually project to the Red Sea/East Africa. An alternate Germany can now actually contemplate putting task forces into the Atlantic, against France that means the naval war gets real. Germany can also project force, albeit still likely far too little, to defend its colonies or its position in China, again not versus a top tier global or the biggest region power, but a carrier centered battleship task force becomes a genuine blue water naval arm for any of these lesser navies.

Without the Treaty we know the USA, GB and Japan are mirroring each other, likely more carriers, bigger carriers, better aircraft, more aircraft, and sooner. Japanese enthusiasts are already thinking aircraft not battleships are the decisive arm, land-based and carrier-borne are the new capital ship, and France shows that a carrier is going to be the necessary companion from 1938 even if you do not believe. So for the no Treaty world, the cycle should be an experimental carrier (or two), Langley, Ausonia, Argus, Hosho, etc., then a purpose built from lessons, two or more if you got the money, and lots of aircraft development. But before 1937/8 I suspect airplanes still look frightfully full of potential, only thereafter can we truly question who decides to gamble more on air than guns? I do not think we need the Treaty to loosen the grip of battleships of Taranto or Pearl Harbor to raise up the carrier, deeper beneath the surface the paradigm is shifting, even a smaller navy is going to need to have carriers and battleships before it can tap out of the race.
 
The Battleship actions of WW2 ( BB vs BB) are Lofoten, Mers el Kebir, Calabria, Dakar, Spartivento, Matapan Denmark Straight, Bismarck hunt, Casablanca, 2nd Guadalcanal, North Cape, Surigao Straight.

If you look at carrier operations i.e. the operations involving carriers here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carrier_operations_during_World_War_II#1939

You get an exhaustive list. But in the end it comes down these types of operation. Battles or support of battles ( there are carriers at Matapan and the Hunt for the Bismarck)
Invasion support - where there also BB present and firing
transport of aircraft, lots and lots of aircraft transport to various islands by everyone.
Convoy escort - where there also battleships present when there is an enemy BB capable of intervening,
More aggressive ASW,
Air raids on various things airbases anti shipping targets and minelaying.
Cruiser/Airborne sweeps.

So most of what carriers do is either truck driving, riding shotgun for truck drivers or attack on ground/Sea targets when land based air is out of range. Pure Naval combat is a rarity and even rarer when both sides have battleships they are willing to risk.
 
I've considered a no wnt tl elsewhere...

Its difficult to do considering all that WNT did.

With no WNT, the A-J treaty still exists; Japanese would use the avenue for aid after Kanto, causing Canada to get further estranged from BE as the British use influence to send wood to Japan for rebuilding assistance. Of course, due to no WNT, A need to review dockyard practices arises, and certain ships are floated to other areas of the country. Thusly, when Kanto occurs, this results in very few ships lost, and as industry and damaged areas are rebuilt...

But, with no WNT, would Japan still decide to expand into China?

What other butterflies would happen with no WNT?

Washington, which was at 80% completion, would be finished. Possibly one of the BCs would be finished at least with the other hulls going to carriers. Mutsu would be completed, as would Amagi and Akagi; with Atago and Takao being converted for cvs...

Yeah... Japan would not necessarily be as embittered against the west... To an extent.
 
So is the consensus that:
- without WNT, the naval powers would build bigger, badder, battleships, but there would be minimal impact on carrier/naval aviation development?
- with an even stricter WNT, the naval powers would build bigger anyway, and again carrier/naval aviation gets minimal impact?

Finally let’s say, again using ”super hand-waveum” a 10,000 ton/8 inch gun limit is agreed on, so that by 1939 the largest naval vessels (other than carriers) is the size of a heavy cruiser. Does this reduction in size/firepower change the outcome of any OTL WW2 naval engagement/operations?

ric350
 
So is the consensus that:
- without WNT, the naval powers would build bigger, badder, battleships, but there would be minimal impact on carrier/naval aviation development?
- with an even stricter WNT, the naval powers would build bigger anyway, and again carrier/naval aviation gets minimal impact?

Finally let’s say, again using ”super hand-waveum” a 10,000 ton/8 inch gun limit is agreed on, so that by 1939 the largest naval vessels (other than carriers) is the size of a heavy cruiser. Does this reduction in size/firepower change the outcome of any OTL WW2 naval engagement/operations?

ric350
Well, yes. The Bismarck chase immediately comes to mind, given the Germans chucked the treaty regime out for her while King George V and Prince of Wales were treaty-compliant ships. Second Guadalcanal, too. Any engagement involving the VVs, which were designed under the treaty regime.
 
I've considered a no wnt tl elsewhere...

Its difficult to do considering all that WNT did.

With no WNT, the A-J treaty still exists; Japanese would use the avenue for aid after Kanto, causing Canada to get further estranged from BE as the British use influence to send wood to Japan for rebuilding assistance. Of course, due to no WNT, A need to review dockyard practices arises, and certain ships are floated to other areas of the country. Thusly, when Kanto occurs, this results in very few ships lost, and as industry and damaged areas are rebuilt...

But, with no WNT, would Japan still decide to expand into China?

What other butterflies would happen with no WNT?

Washington, which was at 80% completion, would be finished. Possibly one of the BCs would be finished at least with the other hulls going to carriers. Mutsu would be completed, as would Amagi and Akagi; with Atago and Takao being converted for cvs...

Yeah... Japan would not necessarily be as embittered against the west... To an extent.
No WNT pulls a lot of stoppers in our boats. Although I think the Anglo-Japanese estrangement was set in motion by the demands Japan made in China during the war, a history of predation upon China, anti-European pushes in China, and ultimately the reality that her ambitions land square on British interests, the surface reality should be a renewed AJA. And that should dampen the more militarist voices longer. The Army is desperate for a mission and purpose, defending against Russia was it, conquering China is part of it, so I do not think we can quash that impulse fully. And without the threat offered by the USN, the IJN is in a similar one oared boat. So again, even with or perhaps because of an AJA, Japan is squaring itself against the USA.

For my thinking I have the USA completing the four Colorado- and six South Dakota-class and I kept the Lexington-class as a 35k ton 14-inch gunned ships. And I have at least four G3 built but with a 16-inch main gun and I would think another four are sought. (I also have the Germans alive so there is my dash of salt).

My belief is that Canada is already torn between its loyalty to the Empire and its trail of Dollars to the USA. A more robust imperial trade would help, no Depression will hurt, but like the USA, Canada is a bit paranoid of the Asian "threat". Yet, expanding trade from Canada and Australia with Japan would give both profit and linkages, a renewed AJA just might help that instead of a foolish trade barrier.

If I am correct Amagi was in the yard still nearing completion when the earthquake struck and was too damaged to use. So the other three are completed along with the two Tosa. Japan will need to fund a new purpose built carrier, given the money spend on Akagi and Tosa to convert I will guess they could build two from scratch. If I am not mistaken the Kii-class were Japan's fast battleship so that ends BC construction? If funds are there maybe update Kongo-class to fast carrier escorts, the traditional cruiser killer mission in those separate carrier divisions, otherwise they wind out and that leaves the 4 Kii-, 2 Tosa-, 2 Nagato-, and 3 Amagi-class BC plus 2 "big" carriers. The question I puzzle is will there be a follow to Amagi as the fast vanguard or carrier escort or another batch of fast Kii battleships shooting now for that last 2 more knots. I tend to think this sucks the oxygen out of the Yamato path unless we are leaping to 18-inch main guns (N3 or post-South Dakota design).

On paper the IJN compares okay to the USN, 8 16-inch armed BB versus 10, 7 better and worse BC to 6 with the 3 Amagi being potentially equal to those 6 (as I watered down here). Realistically the other 9 standards are in the Atlantic facing the British with even some of these 16-inch drawn off. Japan is not as desperate away from the paper numbers. That pushes the USN to another 16 inch BC class (Proto or actual Iowa-class from OTL?) and those 6 soak up funds 2 per year through say 1928. And then we need another batch of 16-inch fast super-super dreadnoughts, hello Montana! At least the cruiser race might be far less robust, the RN really back footed aside from the apparent superlative G3, yet 8 may never be enough.

So what does it do to the carriers?

I would tend to think it dries up the money around the edges. So there is impact. In fact fleet wide there will be pressure to trim training, manning, lesser craft, defer or make do, so auxiliaries put off, bases--especially fortifications--delayed, aircraft numbers tweaked, development money lessened, etc. etc., etc. The RN managed to muddle through in much the same way, the USA has scope to fund both, but I think Japan is a wild card. We know that a lot got sacrificed to keep big guns afloat, I will dare say, the Japanese might trip themselves into missing a critical step along this path. Like how the Fleet Air Arm was really hurt by being inside the RAF, the IJNAS may look far less ready and differently aimed at the beginning of the take off for airpower. Maybe RIKKO gets more love or just never goes beyond the theory. Maybe carriers remain scouting units shackled to the battle line, but as I parse it more and more I think Japan is the one player who could be left at the curb.
 
If I am correct Amagi was in the yard still nearing completion when the earthquake struck and was too damaged to use.
Amagi was still on the ways because construction stopped while design work occurred for conversion to being a CV, if she is being finished on schedule in a no WNT world she's launched and survives the quake, construction stopped in Feb '22, quake Sep '23, 18 months to get her launched at least. Owari and material for ship #13 are what would get destroyed, so only 3 Kii class at most
 
If funds are there maybe update Kongo-class to fast carrier escorts, the traditional cruiser killer mission in those separate carrier divisions, otherwise they wind out and that leaves the 4 Kii-, 2 Tosa-, 2 Nagato-, and 3 Amagi-class BC plus 2 "big" carriers. The question I puzzle is will there be a follow to Amagi as the fast vanguard or carrier escort or another batch of fast Kii battleships shooting now for that last 2 more knots. I tend to think this sucks the oxygen out of the Yamato path unless we are leaping to 18-inch main guns (N3 or post-South Dakota design).
On paper the IJN compares okay to the USN, 8 16-inch armed BB versus 10, 7 better and worse BC to 6 with the 3 Amagi being potentially equal to those 6 (as I watered down here). Realistically the other 9 standards are in the Atlantic facing the British with even some of these 16-inch drawn off. Japan is not as desperate away from the paper numbers. That pushes the USN to another 16 inch BC class (Proto or actual Iowa-class from OTL?) and those 6 soak up funds 2 per year through say 1928. And then we need another batch of 16-inch fast super-super dreadnoughts, hello Montana! At least the cruiser race might be far less robust, the RN really back footed aside from the apparent superlative G3, yet 8 may never be enough.
Do we think after the quake that the IJN will be able to finish its program without going bankrupt? Thats 9BB/BC OTL.... if they try and go for them the I think both USN and RN beat them in 20s with an easy arms race that lead to national financial collapse of Japan?
 
Do we think after the quake that the IJN will be able to finish its program without going bankrupt? Thats 9BB/BC OTL.... if they try and go for them the I think both USN and RN beat them in 20s with an easy arms race that lead to national financial collapse of Japan?
Yes, indeed, properly called out. All on paper, we know Japan was likely already bankrupt, thus why the sane leadership inked the treaty, the navy did not want to hear. Post quake I doubt they can get much beyond Tosa and the 3 Amagi, but that introduces a civil war in Toyko, so we paper over it to just say what the picture is supposed to look like if we had paints, paper, an artist. But this is what London and Washington are lying to themselves about, what was planned, it too eased the budget war with the cabinet and congress critters.
 
Top