What if the Washington Naval Treaty was never enacted?

Color-Copycat

Suppose that the five signatory nations (Japan, Italy, France, US, and the British Empire) never reached a consensus and the treaty never made it past the drawing board? How would the elimination of limits on big-gun warship construction affect naval doctrine? Presumably there'd be less emphasis on building aircraft carriers, which in OTL were built without limits due to a loophole in the Naval Treaty.

How would this affect a World War II- style conflict? How would the Pacific and North Atlantic naval theaters play out differently from OTL?

Anybody with a thorough understanding of mid-20th cen naval history want to help me out here?

edit: oops, wrong forum. Meant to post in After 1900.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
I would consider it likely that there would be another naval limitations conference within the following two years. There was one unsuccessful conference and then a successful conference between the US and Britain which established limits on cruisers within a few years of WNT.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
Paul V McNutt said:
I we a big build up in Japan.
Click to expand...

I actually think Japan came out the winner in the Washington Conference (and yes I know they didn’t think so). There was no way Japan could have kept up with the United States in a naval arms race, the British wouldn’t have been able to either but the probably would have managed better than Japan.

So the treaty restricted the United States more than Japan and it prevented any new naval bases being built in the Western Pacific – Far East Asia area by the US and Great Britain, and that is quite significant.
 

APreston

This is admittedly not an area in which I have much expertise, but I would imagine that any arms race in naval construction would be tempered significantly by the Great Depression. Also, moving down the timeline a bit, I would imagine battleships would hold a much higher role in World War II than in OTL, also Pearl Harbor would sting a lot worse especially if the US doesn't invest heavily into carriers.
 

HMS Warspite

Japan would not be a winner with the unrestricted navalbuilding, as it would certainly overstrain their economical capabilities and result in the cancelation, or cut back of other programs like building of the new large cruisers and aircraft carriers. It could however complete its 8-8-8 program, but that would be all. Support of any kind would not be available anymore, due to the budgetary problems resulting in the finishing of the 8-8-8 program.

The USA would not have a good possition either, as it was concentrating on building up a fleet of poor compossition. Only a pure battlefleet, with almost no support whatsoever in the form of cruisers and aircraft carriers. Besides this, all USN battleship designs were generally of a pre WW1 design, basically an updated Nevada Type and nothing in the line of the postwear period designs abroad, making them rather inferior in layout and capacity. (especially compared to the British G-3 type design)

The British had a large fleet already, but rather old and worn out by heavy service in wartime. It just needed to update its best ships and replace some older ones by a few postwar generation superships, such as the G-3 type and her offshoot. Technically this was possible within the defensebudget, but the British were not quite willing to put in money into defense after the Great War, just because of the extagering costs of the Great War.
 
Beedok

Beedok

While Japan might not be able to beat the US in an arms race, might it at least keep UK-Japanese relations better?
 

Alratan

The big loss for the British the treaty caused was the destrction of their massive cost advantage in warship design and construction.
 

Don Lardo

Beedok said:
While Japan might not be able to beat the US in an arms race, might it at least keep UK-Japanese relations better?
Click to expand...


If you're referring to the Anglo-Japanese alliance being renewed, no.

Before WW1, Japan was part of the solution to Britain's geopolitical concerns in Asia. After WW1, Japan was part of Britain's geopolitical concerns in Asia.
 

Da Pwnzlord

Banned
I think that the general consensus when the topic has come up before is that not much would have really changed. A few older ships would have been scrapped and a few newer ships would have been built. None of the nations had both the money and will to build many more ships then they did OTL.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Of the 'big three' without the WNT its likely that the British would have been the only ones completing at least their G3 battlecruisers. The big US Navy expansion program begun in 1917 or so was already dead before the WNT, Hughes just finalized its burying. The Japanese would have been bankrupted.

Historically, Italy achieved parity with France in the Mediterrenean because of the WNT. I think this will play out fairly much the same in an non-WNT timeline.
 

Grimm Reaper

At what point did the Italian fleet equal the French in size? As I recall come 1939 the French fleet outclassed Italy three to two in battleships, one to zero in carriers and had a larger expansion program in effect.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Grimm Reaper said:
At what point did the Italian fleet equal the French in size? As I recall come 1939 the French fleet outclassed Italy three to two in battleships, one to zero in carriers and had a larger expansion program in effect.
Click to expand...

In the 1920s, before Mussolini's naval expansion program, and at least during the time period covered by the WNT. The French also managed two fleets at the time, one in the Med and the other in the Atlantic.
 

Grimm Reaper

David, you just stated that the Italian fleet was equal in size to the French before Mussolini's expansion of the Italian fleet but not afterwards.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
Grimm Reaper said:
David, you just stated that the Italian fleet was equal in size to the French before Mussolini's expansion of the Italian fleet but not afterwards.
Click to expand...

GR, the WNT is predominately about capital ships and the Italians achieved parity with the French. They both have six capital ships thru most of the 1920s and 1930s. They both 'lost' warships projects that neither of them could afford to complete.
 

David S Poepoe

Banned
I find it interesting that people believe that without the WNT naval aviation will just sputter and stagnate - that some greater emphasis was applied on the carrier rather than the battleship.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
David S Poepoe said:
The French also managed two fleets at the time, one in the Med and the other in the Atlantic.
Click to expand...


Ships could be moved from one to the other in a matter of days.

It is not like Britain and the US’s need for a two ocean fleet.

re: French Aircraft Carrier.
The Bearn was experimental wasn’t it; not intended for operational use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top