WI: A different Washington Naval Treaty and its Effects On WWII

[WaterproofPotatoes]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: A big thanks to "consulting admirals" @jsb @Luminous @hipper @RamscoopRaider @steamboy for their stellar contributions to this thread. It would not be half as interesting without them!

For the uninitiated, US hull classification symbols are used as abbreviations for ship types. This is not an exhaustive list, there are more but these are the ones used in this thread. They are, as follows:

BB: Battleship
FBB/BBF (unofficial) Fast Battleship
CC: Battlecruiser
CA: Heavy (8" main gun) Gun Cruiser
CL: Light (<6" main gun) Gun Cruiser
CV: Fleet Aircraft Carrier
CVL: Light Aircraft Carrier
CVE: Escort Aircraft Carrier
DD: Destroyer
DL: Destroyer Leader
SS: Submarine (now Diesel-powered Attack Submarine)
CLV: Light Aviation Cruiser (not used OTL)
CAV: Heavy Aviation Cruiser (not used OTL)

CB: Large Cruiser omitted with prejudice; please no Alaska-class debate ITT.

In orders of battle (OOB) posted, I have done so in the following format to make it easier if you are not already familiar with the ships, and to make direct comparisons easier, especially since I have modified some classes vs. their OTL completion. The format is:

Class name (year lead ship laid down) (number of ships in class)
Ship Type
Dimensions: Length (overall) x Beam (overall) x Draught
Displacement Tonnage at Standard Load, rounded down to nearest thousand
Main Armament (capital ships) / Air Wing (carriers)
Top Speed in Knots

Ship Names

Notes about class

POD: 1921-22

WASHINGTON, DC, USA:

April 17th, 1922

The world's major naval powers, after much debate, have finally settled on a treaty to curb the ever-growing threat of a naval arms race. The treaty achieved its aims of defining various ship types, and restricting the size of battle fleets in the years to come.

According to the Treaty:

Destroyer: Any combat vessel displacing no more than 1850 tons, and guns no more than 4.5" in caliber

Cruiser: Any combat vessel displacing between 1851 and 10 000 tons, and guns no more than 8" in caliber

Capital Ship: Any combat vessel, irrespective of speed, armor or armament, which displaces in excess of 10 000 tons at normal load. No further restrictions on size or gun caliber.

Aircraft Carrier: A vessel constructed primarily to launch and recover aircraft regardless of tonnage, provided it mounts guns no larger than 6" in caliber.

The signatories are permitted the following strength ratios for capital ships:

5 (USA, GB) : 3 (Japan) : 1.75 (France, Italy); this, in turn, translates to capital ship allotment of 20, 12, and 7 respectively.

The numbers are based on the powers' acceptance of Japan's ambitions to build an "Eight-Four" fleet. Initially, the Diet of Japan had approved an "Eight-Eight" plan, but the USA balked at this, and Britain too was concerned.

However, Japanese negotiators appealed to their British counterparts, citing the threat of an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union, which may turn East after the loss of the Polish-Soviet War, argued that a larger Japanese fleet would not be used as "escorts for invasion barges bound for Australia"; and that Japan and Britain were natural allies rather than enemies. The Anglo-Japanese Mutual Non-Interference Pact of 1921 solidified their case.

US negotiators were more skeptical; they appealed to Britain to talk the Japanese down. However, the British team was eager to end the negotiations, and confided to the US team that Japan would run out of money long before they'd be able to build sixteen capital ships and that even twelve would be a stretch. Even the Japanese fleet of the day cost Japan a third of her budget- if anything, if the USA were so worried, this simply gave Japan the rope to hang herself with.

Japan was reluctantly persuaded to accept the "Eight-Four" restriction- they could, without breaching the terms of the Treaty, construct the additional four, but doing so would trigger an escalator clause which would allow the USA and Britain to construct an additional number of ships to keep the strength ratio the same- when rounding, it would allow the USA and Britain to construct an additional 7 capital ships each - fourteen against the Japanese four.

Ships were required to be scrapped in order to maintain this ratio, but there was no further restriction on construction. As per the terms of the treaty, ships must be scrapped or demilitarized prior to the construction of new classes at this round of the treaty.

---------

London, 1930:

The major powers are concerned about the increasing costs (Japan, notably, is spending nearly or by some estimates more than half of her national budget on her Navy), and the huge destructive potential of their ever-growing navies. This second round introduces the following reforms:

-A five-year "Holiday" on shipbuilding; no new capital ship or aircraft carrier production would be permitted within that time frame

-After the 5 years, any new capital ships were to be restricted to 35 000 tons and only to replace ships older than 15 years, not to add fleet capacity. Britain proposed a main battery caliber restriction of 14", but Japan and the USA insisted on 16"; as such, the latter was adopted.

------------

By 1938, the Treaty is useless. Germany and the Soviet Union are no longer disguising the fact that they are planning and building capital ships. The USA and Japan have proposed designs that nearly double their allotted tonnage, and even Britain's King George V class is well in excess of it.

------

August 31st, 1939

According to WP's Fighting Ships, the nations' orders of battle for capital ships, is as follows:

*= under construction
**=proposed
^=under refit
o=training ship
x=broken up

Royal Navy (United Kingdom):

Battleships:

Queen Elizabeth Class (1914) (5 ships) 645'x104'x32', 33 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Queen Elizabeth
Warspite
Valiant
^Barham
^Malaya

The former 3 received significant reconstructions in the early 1930s, including block superstructures and revised armament. The latter are currently undergoing refit to match their sisters.

Revenge Class (1916) (5 ships) 625'x90'x33.7', 31 000 tons approx. at deep load.
xRevenge
Royal Sovereign
oRoyal Oak
Ramillies
Resolution

Slower, less capable, better protected, and cheaper than the "Queens", these ships were regarded as second-class and received little in the way of improvements after the Great War. Revenge damaged in a collision on exercises in 1932; never repaired after damage from subsequent grounding was discovered to be more extensive than previously thought.

N3 (Triumph) Class (1924) (2 ships) 820'x106'x32', 50 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Triumph
Swiftsure

Initially intended to be a class of 4 battleships named after the patron saints of the countries that form the United Kingdom, it was cut down to 2 due to budgetary constraints. Although slow, with only 56 000 shp from 2 shafts, they are currently the world's most heavily armed ships with a main battery of 9 Mark II BL 18-inch L/45 guns arranged in 3 triple turrets; and are among the world's best protected.

King George V Class (1937) (5 ships) 793'x105'x33.6', 45 000 tons approx. at deep load.
King George V
Prince of Wales
*Duke of York
*Lion
*Temeraire

Initially proposed with an armament of 10x14" guns, the design was revised to incorporate 9x16" guns in 3 triple turrets. These fast battleships are intended to sail at up to 28.25 knots and incorporate the latest advances in protection to date, having fully realized the lessons of Jutland

**Vanguard Class (1941) (1 ship) 955'x118'x32', 68 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Vanguard

Initially intended to be part of a 6-ship King George V class, Vanguard was instead split off to make use of spare 18" guns built for the never-completed members of the Triumph class. The design is essentially a modernized and scaled-up "KG5", and will carry the armament of the former at speeds greater than the latter. Design work is progressing, and the RN intends to have the keel laid by 1941

Battlecruisers:

Renown Class (1916) (2 ships) 794'x90'x31.9', 32 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Renown
Repulse

Britain's oldest battlecruisers; but still valuable members of the Fleet. Renown underwent modernization in 1936; Repulse scheduled to enter refit this year, but poor condition of HMS Hood will make postponement necessary

Admiral Class (1920) (1 ship) 860'x104'x32', 48 000 tons approx. at deep load (current); 911'x104'x33', 51 000 tons approx. at deep load (proposed)
^Hood

"The Mighty 'Ud" is the only battlecruiser of her kind, the world's largest warship at the time of her commissioning. After Jutland, her design was revised numerous times, but never fully rectified her issues. Still, with her high speed, long, lean lines and powerful armament, she has carried the White Ensign and Union Jack around the world.

In July of 1939, she finally entered drydock for a major reconstruction. Her deck armor is to be strengthened, anti-flash measures and improved protection for her 4" magazines and a block superstructure are to be added. Her 2 funnels will be trunked into 1, and reboilering and replacement of her turbines will take place; additional octuple "pom-pom" mounts to be added abaft her new funnel. To reduce weight, her torpedoes and their directors will be removed. To increase freeboard and solve the longstanding problems of her being a wet ship, she will be fitted with a higher bow and her stern will be lengthened to increase buoyancy.

G3 (Nelson) Class (1925) (2 ships) 856'x106'x35.8', 54 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Nelson
Rodney

Related to the development of the Triumph-class, these ships were also intended to be a class of 4, cut down to 2 due to budgetary constraints. Faster., with 4 shafts and 160 000 shp, they carry a lighter armament then their cousins, but heavy nonetheless, with 9 16" guns in 3 triple turrets.

Carriers:

As in OTL, except 2 incomplete Admirals (Anson, Howe) were converted to carriers instead of being scrapped.

Imperial Japanese Navy (Japan)

Battleships:

Fuso Class (1914) (2 ships) 665'x94'x28', 29 000 tons approx. at standard load.
xFuso
xYamashiro

Scrapped 1922 per Treaty

Ise Class (1916) (2 ships) 683'x94'x29.4', 31 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Ise
Hyuga

Converted to carriers to prevent scrapping

Nagato Class (1918) (2 ships) 738'x113'x31.2', 38 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Nagato
Mutsu

The foundation pillars of Japan's modern battle fleet


Tosa Class (1922) (1 ship) 790'x115'x32', 45 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Tosa

Much like an enlarged Nagato with an extra turret abaft the superstructure. The second ship was converted to a carrier part way through construction as more advanced battleship designs came available- the revolutionary Kii

Kii Class (1925) (1 ship) 860'x116'x33', 52 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Kii

HIJMS Kii represents the fusion of the battlecruiser and battleship concepts in the IJN. Fast as a battlecruiser and powerful as a battleship, it was nonetheless quickly eclipsed by the even larger Yamatos. One was built, as it was not yet known whether reliable 18" guns would be available for the Yamatos.

Yamato (Number 13) Class (1927-9) (2 ships) 950'x118'x33', 55 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Yamato
^Musashi

Yamato and Musashi were the most advanced ships in the world when they were launched. 4 were planned, but their huge costs allowed only 2 to be built. Armed with 8 18.1" guns and with a speed of some 31 knots, they are the most heavily armed fast battleships in the world. Musahsi is currently refitting; Yamato having completed hers earlier this year. Reboilered, their pagoda masts made even taller, casemated secondaries replaced with turreted secondaries, torpedo bulges added; sterns lengthened 50' to improve freeboard and fineness to offset weight and beam increase.


Shinano (Yamato) Class (1941 estimated) (2-5? ships) 862'x127x34', 72 000 tons approx. at full load

*Shinano
** Unknown Hull

Little is yet known about these super battleships to be undergoing construction under top secrecy in Japan. Should these initial speculations as to their dimensions and capabilities prove true, they will be the most powerful ships ever launched, exceeding even the Yamatos.

Battlecruisers:

Kongo Class (1913) (4 ships) 728'x101'x28', 32 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Kongo
Hiei
Kirishima
Haruna

Japan's oldest battlecruisers, recently re-rated as fast battleships. They remain capable and versatile.

Amagi Class (1923) (1 ship) 866'x115'x31', 47 000 tons approx. at standard load.
xAmagi
Akagi
Takao (converted to carrier)

Amagi was damaged so badly during an earthquake she could not be completed and her remains scrapped; Takao converted to carrier during construction, leaving only Akagi in her class. Essentially a lengthened Tosa, she is much faster and her armor only one inch thinner. Re-rated fast battleship during her 1937 refit, during which her pagoda mast was increased in height, additional AA and directors added, and stern lengthened 40'.

United States of America (United States Navy)

To keep length manageable, same as OTL except:

3 Lexington class battlecruisers completed as such; the other 2 as carriers. Commissioned 1924-6

2 North Carolinas launched 1936

2 South Dakotas 1937-8

6 Iowas laid down starting 1938, the last completed in 1943

5 Montanas ordered, 3 laid down starting 1940, 2 completed 1944

Nazi Germany / Soviet Union

I'm not even sure you could build H-39 or Sovetsky Soyouz classes even taking as many liberties as I have.

Perhaps, 2 H-39s could have been built, Hindenburg and Friedrich der Grosse, as shorter, wider Bismarcks with six 42cm guns in 3 turrets and all-diesel propulsion, accepting a lower top speed. Hitler could also browbeat Raeder and Goering enough to make Graf Zeppelin sail as well.

France/Italy

With the state of industry and economy, not sure much more could have been built. Maybe some more Surcouf cruiser-submarines for France, or a bigger one with a 280mm+ gun



To all- do you think a scenario such as this would have impacted the course of the war at all, or would all this glorious iron simply mean bigger war graves, sent to the bottom by torpedoes and bombs?

 

[Luminous]

First, welcome to the forum! I see you've got a long and detailed post here, so I've gone through it with a fair amount of quibbles. Still, you've put thought into it, so I figure that a longer response is warranted.

Disclaimer: I'm going to be speaking mostly from the US side of things, as that's the one I'm the most familiar with, in regards to construction priorities and capabilities.

Destroyer: Any combat vessel displacing no more than 1850 tons, and guns no more than 4.5" in caliber

Just a question here... Why was this caliber chosen? OTL, the British and the Japanese had already transitioned to a 4.7" gun, while the US had begun the transition to the 5" gun on the last few of their destroyers built. I'm unsure as to why the three main powers of the group would have made it so they would have to develop a brand new artillery piece for their destroyers, especially the British, who had just introduced their new 4.7" gun.

Capital Ship: Any combat vessel, irrespective of speed, armor or armament, which displaces in excess of 10 000 tons at normal load. No further restrictions on size or gun caliber.

This makes me question the remainder of the build orders, as this means there is no limitation whatsoever in regards to cancelling the new construction - the lack of size limit makes it pointless to retain older vessels. This is doubly so, considering Japan continues to construct newer and larger vessels while the US doesn't even complete Washington as per your records. There is apparently no construction pause at all, giving that you have Japan continuing to build

I don't think Japan would want to agree to such a deal, as the US could more easily upgrade their existing naval line in its entirety. The South Dakota battleships were 20-30% built, roughly, when they were cancelled, meaning that they would've taken about 2-3 years to complete. With this early Yamato on the way, you could guarantee that there'd be a response from the US.

Not quite sure why you've included carrier and battleship tonnage in the same category, honestly. There were plenty of theories about how naval aviation could be useful with flattops (and, honestly, I think there were some successes in WW1, though I can't remember specific instances off the top of my head). By conflating carriers and battleships in the same category, you pretty much guarantee that large vessel naval aviation doesn't take off - it's instead restricted to vessels below 10k tons. (well, on paper. Gonna be loooots of cheating here).

Also, does that mean the Anglo-Japanese Alliance continues? As far as I know, one thing the US insisted on was for the UK to end their treaty of alliance for the US to stop its production. If there is even a whiff of a continuation of the alliance (and, while a treaty to prevent them from interfering with each other, this has the appearance of a possible continuation), then the US might threaten to walk out of the treaty. It did not want to risk the possibility of war against Red-Orange, after all. That's on top of the British saying not to worry, the Japanese can't possibly afford to continue capital ship construction, right before the Japanese apparently build a superbattleship a decade earlier than OTL. That sounds suspiciously close to the British negotiators lying to the American ones.

London, 1930:

Not sure that this would even come to pass. By this time, the only nation that is driving itself into the ground is Japan. The terms as presented would be to limit new construction to under a hard limit... but the Japanese (and the British) have already exceeded the limits imposed by quite a lot. The Japanese have 4BB/1CC well above the limits they're opposing, while the British have 2BB/3CC above those limits - the US has 0BB/2CC. The terms would not be very satisfactory for the US, unless of course they involve the scrapping of the foreign vessels, which would not happen. (If we compare to OTL, the British only had one vessel above the limits, but that was acceptable, as she still counted against an overall tonnage limit. Here, only the number of vessels matter, as there is no tonnage limit to take into account).

One thing I'd see is that, since the WNT, carriers have become more viable - the powers would probably try to actually delineate how much tonnage could be put towards carriers, so that no nation could construct a surfeit thereof (say, on top of existing capital ships produced, 1/4 of that number of large carriers would be allowed).

Also, I don't think the US would be so eager to limit caliber to 16". After all, the US's own 18" gun project was cancelled only by the WNT - it would have been completed here. Considering the Japanese and the British both have vessels of their own with 18" guns, actually using their own 18" gun will be considered.

I see here that there is also no delineation made between light and heavy cruisers as was made OTL, and there is no restrction on numbers. As such, the US will likely continue with its heavy cruiser trend, as there is no light cruiser tonnage that suddenly needs filling (no Brooklyns, basically). There's no restrictions on submarine displacement or armament, so expect more cruiser subs to be made.

If there is a tonnage limit, it would be pegged at 55,000 tons, mostly because the British and the Japanese already have two vessels apiece near that limit. The only other realistic option is to institute a total tonnage cap, but with so many converted carriers, it'll be hard to get them included in the overall tonnage limits without separating them as mentioned.

Nazi Germany / Soviet Union

I'm not even sure you could build H-39 or Sovetsky Soyouz classes even taking as many liberties as I have.

Perhaps, 2 H-39s could have been built, Hindenburg and Friedrich der Grosse, as shorter, wider Bismarcks with six 42cm guns in 3 turrets and all-diesel propulsion, accepting a lower top speed. Hitler could also browbeat Raeder and Goering enough to make Graf Zeppelin sail as well.

As Germany and the Soviet Union were never party to the treaties in the first place, the changes in the treaty only indirectly affect them. The question is, rather, if the Bismarck built first would have been a ship that could outmatch the best British ship built at the time.

To all- do you think a scenario such as this would have impacted the course of the war at all, or would all this glorious iron simply mean bigger war graves, sent to the bottom by torpedoes and bombs?

It would have hampered the growth of naval aviation (lumping CV in with BB/CC numbers means that CVs would get short shrift in general) and would have done nothing to inhibit the growth in tonnage of warships that was ongoing (after all, the US was laying down 6 new CC and 6 new BB in the 45k/55k ton range, and I believe they threatened to lay down another 6 BB in a follow-on class). With no penalties to new construction and with no tonnage limits, there is no reason to accept pre-Standard dreadnoughts into the US Navy, at least. This means that New York, Texas, Wyoming, Arkansas get the shaft earlier (are there any provisions of training ships? I see none). Heck, even Oklahoma could get retired, what with the triple expansion engines she uses rather than turbines.

It hampers the growth in destroyers, even though destroyer growth never even approached that size until the LNT, so nothing really is changed there. Cruisers are unaffected at first, as mentioned earlier. There would be tons of cheating on carriers with nominal tonnage of 10k, but in reality much, much more.

 

[jsb]

Capital Ship: Any combat vessel, irrespective of speed, armor or armament, which displaces in excess of 10 000 tons at normal load. No further restrictions on size or gun caliber.

I think this will cause issue with your build order.....

London, 1930:
The major powers are concerned about the increasing costs (Japan, notably, is spending nearly or by some estimates more than half of her national budget on her Navy), ...
-A five-year "Holiday" on shipbuilding;.....
-.....new capital ships were to be restricted to 35 000 tons ,,,,14,,,,16"; .....

I simply don't think you can go back to 16" and 35,000t after going to the 18" ships...

In detail,

Royal Navy (United Kingdom):
Battleships:

Queen Elizabeth Class (1914) (5 ships) 645'x104'x32', 33 000 tons approx. at deep load.

The former 3 received significant reconstructions in the early 1930s, including block superstructures and revised armament. The latter are currently undergoing refit to match their sisters. Why rebuild anything when they are totally obsolete now?

Revenge Class (1916) (5 ships) 625'x90'x33.7', 31 000 tons approx. at deep load.
almost scrap if the IJN can scrap newer BBs?
N3 (Triumph) Class (1924) (2 ships) 820'x106'x32', 50 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Why not the 4 G3s? and why go slow if no limit?
King George V Class (1937) (5 ships) 793'x105'x33.6', 45 000 tons approx. at deep load. 28.25 knots
Why would they go slower than G3 or less in size?
**Vanguard Class (1941) (1 ship) 955'x118'x32', 68 000 tons approx. at deep load.

Battlecruisers:

Renown Class (1916) (2 ships) 794'x90'x31.9', 32 000 tons approx. at deep load.

Britain's oldest battlecruisers; but still valuable members of the Fleet. Renown underwent modernization in 1936; Repulse scheduled to enter refit this year, but poor condition of HMS Hood will make postponement necessary Why rebuild obsolete ships now only fit to be cruiser killers

Admiral Class (1920) (1 ship) 860'x104'x32', 48 000 tons approx. at deep load (current); 911'x104'x33', 51 000 tons approx. at deep load (proposed)
^Hood

"The Mighty 'Ud" is the only battlecruiser of her kind, the world's largest warship at the time of her commissioning. After Jutland, her design was revised numerous times, but never fully rectified her issues. Still, with her high speed, long, lean lines and powerful armament, she has carried the White Ensign and Union Jack around the world.

In July of 1939, she finally entered drydock for a major reconstruction. Her deck armor is to be strengthened, anti-flash measures and improved protection for her 4" magazines and a block superstructure are to be added. Her 2 funnels will be trunked into 1, and reboilering and replacement of her turbines will take place; additional octuple "pom-pom" mounts to be added abaft her new funnel. To reduce weight, her torpedoes and their directors will be removed. To increase freeboard and solve the longstanding problems of her being a wet ship, she will be fitted with a higher bow and her stern will be lengthened to increase buoyancy. Why when she is obsolete and no longer special in a world with G3s

G3 (Nelson) Class (1925) (2 ships) 856'x106'x35.8', 54 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Why only 2? I think 4 is more likely. Not really BC any more just fast battleships....

Carriers:
As in OTL, except 2 incomplete Admirals (Anson, Howe) were converted to carriers instead of being scrapped. They where scraped before treaty?

Imperial Japanese Navy (Japan)
Battleships:

Fuso Class (1914) (2 ships) 665'x94'x28', 29 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Scrapped 1922 per Treaty Newer than R class (and QEs)

Ise Class (1916) (2 ships) 683'x94'x29.4', 31 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Converted to carriers to prevent scrapping really slow for CVs

Nagato Class (1918) (2 ships) 738'x113'x31.2', 38 000 tons approx. at standard load.
The foundation pillars of Japan's modern battle fleet

Tosa Class (1922) (1 ship) 790'x115'x32', 45 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Why only one, what happens to sister?

Kii Class (1925) (1 ship) 860'x116'x33', 52 000 tons approx. at standard load.
How is this funded post kanto quake?

Yamato (Number 13) Class (1927-9) (2 ships) 950'x118'x33', 55 000 tons approx. at standard load.

Yamato and Musashi were the most advanced ships in the world when they were launched. 4 were planned, but their huge costs allowed only 2 to be built. Armed with 8 18.1" guns and with a speed of some 31 knots, they are the most heavily armed fast battleships in the world. Musahsi is currently refitting; Yamato having completed hers earlier this year. Reboilered, their pagoda masts made even taller, casemated secondaries replaced with turreted secondaries, torpedo bulges added; sterns lengthened 50' to improve freeboard and fineness to offset weight and beam increase.
Why so early? Why do the others get for them?

Shinano (Yamato) Class (1941 estimated) (2-5? ships) 862'x127x34', 72 000 tons approx. at full load

*Shinano
** Unknown Hull

Little is yet known about these super battleships to be undergoing construction under top secrecy in Japan. Should these initial speculations as to their dimensions and capabilities prove true, they will be the most powerful ships ever launched, exceeding even the Yamatos.

Battlecruisers:

Kongo Class (1913) (4 ships) 728'x101'x28', 32 000 tons approx. at standard load.
recently re-rated as fast battleships.
Why waste money rebuilding then and would they be kept over other newer 14" ships?

Amagi Class (1923) (1 ship) 866'x115'x31', 47 000 tons approx. at standard load.
xAmagi
Akagi
Takao (converted to carrier)

Amagi was damaged so badly during an earthquake she could not be completed and her remains scrapped; Takao converted to carrier during construction, leaving only Akagi in her class. Essentially a lengthened Tosa, she is much faster and her armor only one inch thinner. Re-rated fast battleship during her 1937 refit, during which her pagoda mast was increased in height, additional AA and directors added, and stern lengthened 40'.


United States of America (United States Navy)

To keep length manageable, same as OTL except:

3 Lexington class battlecruisers completed as such; the other 2 as carriers. Commissioned 1924-6

2 North Carolinas launched 1936

2 South Dakotas 1937-8

6 Iowas laid down starting 1938, the last completed in 1943

5 Montanas ordered, 3 laid down starting 1940, 2 completed 1944
What about Colorado and earlier SDs?

5 (USA, GB) : 3 (Japan) : 1.75 (France, Italy); this, in turn, translates to capital ship allotment of 20, 12, and 7 respectively.
....escalator clause which would allow the USA and Britain to construct an additional number of ships to keep the strength ratio the same- when rounding, it would allow the USA and Britain to construct an additional 7 capital ships each - fourteen against the Japanese four.

It would think it would help to show what ships get allowed at each stage, and if escalator is exercised?

You have added more earlier IJN than the others I think?
4 IJN Tosa Kill and Y&M
4-2 RN 2 G3 and 2N3s and -2 O3s (and removed 5 13.5" ships)
3 USN 3 LEX

This really doesn't fit the 5,3 ratio or even the 3 v 2 post Jutland of OTL?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Destroyer: Any combat vessel displacing no more than 1850 tons, and guns no more than 4.5" in caliber

At this point destroyers with 5.9" guns have already been built by Germany, operated by France/Italy, US has 5" and Japan UK 4.7" armed vessels, plus those 8" and 7.5" ASW howitzers

Capital Ship: Any combat vessel, irrespective of speed, armor or armament, which displaces in excess of 10 000 tons at normal load. No further restrictions on size or gun caliber.

Restrictions on Size/Gun Caliber are the whole reason the Treaty was called. Plus what defines a combat vessel, if I stick some oil tanks and hoses on a battleship and classify it as an oiler is it now not a combat vessel?

Aircraft Carrier: A vessel constructed primarily to launch and recover aircraft regardless of tonnage, provided it mounts guns no larger than 6" in caliber.

What is the point with no limits on battleships, OTL further definition was needed to prevent someone from strapping a fight deck to a battleship and calling it a carrier and getting around the limit

However, Japanese negotiators appealed to their British counterparts, citing the threat of an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union, which may turn East after the loss of the Polish-Soviet War, argued that a larger Japanese fleet would not be used as "escorts for invasion barges bound for Australia"; and that Japan and Britain were natural allies rather than enemies. The Anglo-Japanese Mutual Non-Interference Pact of 1921 solidified their case.

US was against an Anglo/Japanese alliance and so were the Dominions, unlikely this is approved

The major powers are concerned about the increasing costs (Japan, notably, is spending nearly or by some estimates more than half of her national budget on her Navy), and the huge destructive potential of their ever-growing navies. This second round introduces the following reforms:

Japan would hit this point in 1923

-A five-year "Holiday" on shipbuilding; no new capital ship or aircraft carrier production would be permitted within that time frame

Given your below ratios, US not going to accept this

-After the 5 years, any new capital ships were to be restricted to 35 000 tons and only to replace ships older than 15 years, not to add fleet capacity. Britain proposed a main battery caliber restriction of 14", but Japan and the USA insisted on 16"; as such, the latter was adopted.

35,000 ton ship is dead meat to a 55,000 ton ship, no way anyone agrees to a blanket shrink

By 1938, the Treaty is useless. Germany and the Soviet Union are no longer disguising the fact that they are planning and building capital ships. The USA and Japan have proposed designs that nearly double their allotted tonnage, and even Britain's King George V class is well in excess of it.

USSR publically bought battleship designs in 1935 OTL, the same year Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were laid down by Germany

Queen Elizabeth Class (1914) (5 ships) 645'x104'x32', 33 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Queen Elizabeth
Warspite
Valiant
^Barham
^Malaya

The former 3 received significant reconstructions in the early 1930s, including block superstructures and revised armament. The latter are currently undergoing refit to match their sisters.

Why modernize, when you can build new battleships? They can't fight modern ships, even less than OTL

N3 (Triumph) Class (1924) (2 ships) 820'x106'x32', 50 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Triumph
Swiftsure

Initially intended to be a class of 4 battleships named after the patron saints of the countries that form the United Kingdom, it was cut down to 2 due to budgetary constraints. Although slow, with only 56 000 shp from 2 shafts, they are currently the world's most heavily armed ships with a main battery of 9 Mark II BL 18-inch L/45 guns arranged in 3 triple turrets; and are among the world's best protected.

OTL the Treasury no matter how the treaty turned out they were not getting 4 G3's, 2 N3 and 2 G3 would cost the same ergo not happen

King George V Class (1937) (5 ships) 793'x105'x33.6', 45 000 tons approx. at deep load.
King George V
Prince of Wales
*Duke of York
*Lion
*Temeraire

Initially proposed with an armament of 10x14" guns, the design was revised to incorporate 9x16" guns in 3 triple turrets. These fast battleships are intended to sail at up to 28.25 knots and incorporate the latest advances in protection to date, having fully realized the lessons of Jutland

Jutland lessons already learned, plus building smallerr ships puts them at a disadvantage

Renown Class (1916) (2 ships) 794'x90'x31.9', 32 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Renown
Repulse

Britain's oldest battlecruisers; but still valuable members of the Fleet. Renown underwent modernization in 1936; Repulse scheduled to enter refit this year, but poor condition of HMS Hood will make postponement necessary

Why refit when can build new battlecruisers? They can't fight modern ships, even less than OTL

Admiral Class (1920) (1 ship) 860'x104'x32', 48 000 tons approx. at deep load (current); 911'x104'x33', 51 000 tons approx. at deep load (proposed)
^Hood

"The Mighty 'Ud" is the only battlecruiser of her kind, the world's largest warship at the time of her commissioning. After Jutland, her design was revised numerous times, but never fully rectified her issues. Still, with her high speed, long, lean lines and powerful armament, she has carried the White Ensign and Union Jack around the world.

In July of 1939, she finally entered drydock for a major reconstruction. Her deck armor is to be strengthened, anti-flash measures and improved protection for her 4" magazines and a block superstructure are to be added. Her 2 funnels will be trunked into 1, and reboilering and replacement of her turbines will take place; additional octuple "pom-pom" mounts to be added abaft her new funnel. To reduce weight, her torpedoes and their directors will be removed. To increase freeboard and solve the longstanding problems of her being a wet ship, she will be fitted with a higher bow and her stern will be lengthened to increase buoyancy.

See above

G3 (Nelson) Class (1925) (2 ships) 856'x106'x35.8', 54 000 tons approx. at deep load.
Nelson
Rodney

Related to the development of the Triumph-class, these ships were also intended to be a class of 4, cut down to 2 due to budgetary constraints. Faster., with 4 shafts and 160 000 shp, they carry a lighter armament then their cousins, but heavy nonetheless, with 9 16" guns in 3 triple turrets.

As above, Treasury said no 4 full size ships at this time

As in OTL, except 2 incomplete Admirals (Anson, Howe) were converted to carriers instead of being scrapped.

Too late if treaty is POD

Ise Class (1916) (2 ships) 683'x94'x29.4', 31 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Ise
Hyuga

Converted to carriers to prevent scrapping

Why convert when you can build new ships, and there are other loopholes around scrapping (see OTL Hiei being demilitarized but rapidly rearmed)

Tosa Class (1922) (1 ship) 790'x115'x32', 45 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Tosa

Much like an enlarged Nagato with an extra turret abaft the superstructure. The second ship was converted to a carrier part way through construction as more advanced battleship designs came available- the revolutionary Kii

Kii is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and Kaga was on schedule to be finished 3 months before Tosa

Kii Class (1925) (1 ship) 860'x116'x33', 52 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Kii

HIJMS Kii represents the fusion of the battlecruiser and battleship concepts in the IJN. Fast as a battlecruiser and powerful as a battleship, it was nonetheless quickly eclipsed by the even larger Yamatos. One was built, as it was not yet known whether reliable 18" guns would be available for the Yamatos.

She's an enlarged Amagi that drops .25knots for 43mm of extra belt armor and 25mm deck armor, evolutionary not revolutionary. Japan started testing an 18.9" gun in 1920 they know 18" is possible. Plus Kii is post Earthquake, likely cancelled

Yamato (Number 13) Class (1927-9) (2 ships) 950'x118'x33', 55 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Yamato
^Musashi

Yamato and Musashi were the most advanced ships in the world when they were launched. 4 were planned, but their huge costs allowed only 2 to be built. Armed with 8 18.1" guns and with a speed of some 31 knots, they are the most heavily armed fast battleships in the world. Musahsi is currently refitting; Yamato having completed hers earlier this year. Reboilered, their pagoda masts made even taller, casemated secondaries replaced with turreted secondaries, torpedo bulges added; sterns lengthened 50' to improve freeboard and fineness to offset weight and beam increase.

Next ship after Kii was to be called Owari, plus post quake, where is money coming from

Kongo Class (1913) (4 ships) 728'x101'x28', 32 000 tons approx. at standard load.
Kongo
Hiei
Kirishima
Haruna

Japan's oldest battlecruisers, recently re-rated as fast battleships. They remain capable and versatile.

Why rebuild when can build new ships and cannot fight modern ships?

Amagi Class (1923) (1 ship) 866'x115'x31', 47 000 tons approx. at standard load.
xAmagi
Akagi
Takao (converted to carrier)

Amagi was damaged so badly during an earthquake she could not be completed and her remains scrapped; Takao converted to carrier during construction, leaving only Akagi in her class. Essentially a lengthened Tosa, she is much faster and her armor only one inch thinner. Re-rated fast battleship during her 1937 refit, during which her pagoda mast was increased in height, additional AA and directors added, and stern lengthened 40'.

What happened to Atago? Plus Amagi would likely survive quake if not converted to CV, be afloat not in dock, and why convert Takao when can build a new ship?

To keep length manageable, same as OTL except:

What happened with Washington (BB-47) and the 1916 program South Dakota class?

3 Lexington class battlecruisers completed as such; the other 2 as carriers. Commissioned 1924-6

Where is Lexington #6?

2 North Carolinas launched 1936

No new battleships to respond to Japan or UK, when the US had on average the oldest battle line and no battlecruisers? Plus why build a weaker ship than foreign competitors

2 South Dakotas 1937-8

Why build something weaker than already existing foreign ships

5 Montanas ordered, 3 laid down starting 1940, 2 completed 1944

Why not build something stronger given foreign threat

I'm not even sure you could build H-39 or Sovetsky Soyouz classes even taking as many liberties as I have.

Perhaps, 2 H-39s could have been built, Hindenburg and Friedrich der Grosse, as shorter, wider Bismarcks with six 42cm guns in 3 turrets and all-diesel propulsion, accepting a lower top speed. Hitler could also browbeat Raeder and Goering enough to make Graf Zeppelin sail as well.

Why not? H-39 was reasonable and laid down OTL, though proposed names according to Hitler were Ulrich von Hutten and Goetz von Berlichingen. Sovietsky Soyuz had an overly optimistic schedule but could be built eventually if Germany not invaded, plus there were other projects (Kronstadhts, previous light BB/BC designs, what became the Stalingrads)

France/Italy

With the state of industry and economy, not sure much more could have been built. Maybe some more Surcouf cruiser-submarines for France, or a bigger one with a 280mm+ gun

Britain hated idea of cruiser submarine, and it did not work out, why not banned in 1930. Italy could do reasonable thing and not rebuild older ships to get *Littorios faster, France could build full on BC instead of Dunkerques, had money

To all- do you think a scenario such as this would have impacted the course of the war at all, or would all this glorious iron simply mean bigger war graves, sent to the bottom by torpedoes and bombs?

War does not happen near as OTL, Japan goes bankrupt in mid 20's, butterflies probably prevent Hitler from rising to power or keeping it until summer 1939

 

[AdA]

The only way not to have a tonnage or caliber limit would be to have fixed maximum toonage for each country. For example 500.000t would allow ten 50.000t BBs or twenty 25.000t ones with each nation to choose a balance.You would also need to limit construction dates to prevent cost. For example you could only build 5% of your toonage per year, meaning you'd have a 20 year renovation cycle for your fleet.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

The only way not to have a tonnage or caliber limit would be to have fixed maximum toonage for each country. For example 500.000t would allow ten 50.000t BBs or twenty 25.000t ones with each nation to choose a balance.You would also need to limit construction dates to prevent cost. For example you could only build 5% of your toonage per year, meaning you'd have a 20 year renovation cycle for your fleet.

I was thinking I need something along those lines- thanks to the above points and all the excellent research from the above commentators, I've realized that the scenario as it stands would create a disastrous arms race rather than the more limited one I was envisioning.

Among my other mistakes, I also realize I forgot to give the G3s and N3s a refit. Imagine the mighty Nelson, sailing to meet Tirpitz, with her bilge pumps on, leaking steam from every pipe, and water dripping on the ratings as they eat their mutton! I also made the proposed Vanguard too wide for the Suez canal - a mistake I made by enlarging the dimensions of the 1944 Lion proposal to take on 18" turrets.

That, and I think by 1937 I have Japan spending 120% of her budget on the Navy once you factor in cruisers since I gave the IJN three extra uselessly slow carriers and a full reconstruction for every BB and CC.

It also creates an interesting scenario when Japan suffers an economic collapse and what happens with the power vacuum!

I'm thinking:

- The same overall capital ship tonnage limits as OTL, but no per-ship restrictions

-Maximum caliber of 16", with an escalator clause- if any one power installs 18"s, the others may follow suit.

-As in OTL, separate tonnage allowance for carriers. That also leaves more interesting ways to cheat with cruisers.

-This too would shape the way German battleships develop- they need to keep access to the Atlantic open, with their sights set on the best British ship.

Revised Treaty and order of battle to follow!

 

[Luminous]

The only way not to have a tonnage or caliber limit would be to have fixed maximum toonage for each country. For example 500.000t would allow ten 50.000t BBs or twenty 25.000t ones with each nation to choose a balance.You would also need to limit construction dates to prevent cost. For example you could only build 5% of your toonage per year, meaning you'd have a 20 year renovation cycle for your fleet.

My major concern here would be that the smaller countries then have no leeway to construct as needed.

5% of 500k tons is only 25k tons - so, say the US and the UK get that. IT'd take over 2 years to save up the tonnage for a single N3 or SoDak. Alright, reasonable, it'd take longer than that to build one, though you really don't want to build one at a time...

The issue then gets to, say, Japan. Say you give them 300k tons based on the old 5:3:1 ratio, then that means Japan gets only 15k tons a year of capital ship production - that would take nearly 4 years for the Japanese to save up for their 50k+ warships. That starts to become a problem, as then ships aren't being built in classes, they're being built sequentially, far enough apart that they'd not even resemble each other.

Then, say... take France and Italy, who would only be getting 5k tons per year, when they could build an unlimited number of cruisers. There's not much incentive for them to agree to it when it disadvantages them from actually constructing new classes of warships, they'd be restricted to a few smaller one spaced years apart.

Of course, you could have people just build it whenever they want and then space it apart over time, but then that part of the treaty basically becomes meaningless, as the limitation on tonnage can just be earned back over time on credit.

I'm thinking:

- The same overall capital ship tonnage limits as OTL, but no per-ship restrictions

-Maximum caliber of 16", with an escalator clause- if any one power installs 18"s, the others may follow suit.

-As in OTL, separate tonnage allowance for carriers. That also leaves more interesting ways to cheat with cruisers.

-This too would shape the way German battleships develop- they need to keep access to the Atlantic open, with their sights set on the best British ship.

Revised Treaty and order of battle to follow!

My comments...

No per-ship does set an interesting quandry, but it will likely lead to the various nations retaining and continuing construction of existing ships and scrapping more archaic vessels. of course, after the Great Kanto quake, the Japanese may want to reconsider...

So, 17" guns would be ok by the escalator clause? Joking aside, Just make it a blanket line not to pass, otherwise you "will" get cheating as people try 16.5" or something different in an attempt to up-armor.

But what of allowances for conversions of vessels? Same as before? More/less? And if you're referring to hybrids, while I'm sympathetic (the 1930 US CLV just looks good, dangit), I believe that, for the US, the construction of the hybrids was more short-circuited by the depression than anything else. You want those hybrids produced, you need to make them earlier or later, or find some way to alter the timing of the depression (though an earlier depression might work as well).

Well, I'm sure everyone will be happy that the Germans throw tens of thousands of tons of steel and valuable materials into a fight they can't win vs on land. Though, I do believe the Germans would try to contest, though I'm unsure who the Bismarck was trying to outclass, the Nelsons or the Hood in particular.

-

So, let me make an example here. Let's say you remove the upper cap on construction size. So, for the US, they could continue on construction of their Sodaks. But let's look at tonnage. After completion of Colorado and West Virginia, and after disposing North Dakota and Delaware, they had 525,850 tons. They also had 3 post-Jutland battleships, compared to 1 for the UK and 2 for the Japanese (though that doesn't mean as much, as Jutland didn't alter US battleship design greatly; the Colorado class was relatively similar to the preceding Tennessee class). So part of the discussion will both be on maintaining parity of post-Jutland designs (perceived or otherwise), while also maintaining tonnage. That's part of the reason that Washington was cancelled and used as a target ship, same as Tosa. The British were opposed to continued construction of newer warships, and had great desires to curb the construction thereof.

So, the US would be perfectly willing to finish up as many new builds as possible. Scrap/convert to target/training all non-Standard battleships, and you could build Washington and 2 Sodaks while only coming in at 8252 tons under their previous value of tonnage (still fewer tons than the British have by far, but in newer ships). However, the British would then be at a disadvantage, having only one (1) post-Jutland design to the US's now 6 (the Japanese here would go ahead and complete Tosa and Kaga as battleships in this case), with a 6:4 post Jutland ratio likely being accepted (Being the same as OTL's 3:2, effectively) This would leave the US trading 6 older battleships for three newer ones (though, one could argue for retaining Texas, probably unsuccessfully given the number of newer vessels. At the least, Texas would become a training vessel, with New York either joining her or becoming a target ship).

However, that still leaves the British hanging, and as mentioned earlier, the British would only have 1 new capital ship to the 6 of the US and the 4 of the Japanese. That would be an impediment to negotiations, as then the British would demand that they be allotted a similar number of new vessels, which would call for about 5 new battleships of about 40k tons. Assuming that the tonnage would come from the disposal of Benbow, Iron Duke, Emperor of India, and Marlborough for the three not built OTL, that would result in a total tonnage for the British being ~578950, compared to US being at ~517598, a difference of 61352 tons roughly, nearly double the OTL difference. (and then you have 9 pre and 6 post Jutland for the US (15 total), 13 pre and 6 post for the UK (19 total), and probably 5/6 pre and 4 post for Japan (9/10 total). So, even here, you have trouble with numbers of ships vs tonnage, with the UK retaining a surfeit in tonnage.

Of course, that's all assuming the British are willing to pay for three more capital ships just to maintain parity... Although, I have a feeling that it would be something that is slow walked even if it somehow got approved.

The only compromise I could think of is that the US is allowed to either construct another SoDak, and while the UK may not have parity in numbers (being shy one), they would have five newer vessels (and the US would still only have 21/23 knot vessels, while the British still have the world's best fast ship in the Hood. That would put US tonnage at 558998. Or, you could let the US retain the New York class straight out, putting US tonnage at ~ 571598, giving you rough parity right there (here, Wyoming/Arkansas would become the training vessel).

So, with that established, let's say that the US/UK tonnage would be estimated at 575000. That puts Japanese tonnage at 345000, theoretically. With two Tosa class constructed, that'd put the Japanese at 381120 tons over their limit. They could get away, here, by converting one older vessel, be it a Fuso (taking total to 5520 over limit) or a Kongou (taking total to 8620 over limit). Then you would have US: 11/6/17 UK: 13/6/19 Japan: 7/4/11. And, with that, you get 18 (the average of US/UK)/11 = 1.636, which is close to the 5/3 ratio desired in numbers and tonnage.

Of course, biggest issue: will the UK be willing to pay for five new ships to be built over the remainder of the twenties?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

This is getting really interesting now! Before I do up a new OOB and write up an interesting backstory, let's set the parameters for the treaty in this timeline to be:

Destroyer: Maximum 1 850 tons, maximum 6" guns

Cruiser: Between 1 851 and 10 000 tons; split into heavy (8" or greater) and light (6" gun) cruisers

Capital Ship: In excess of 10 000 tons, max 16" guns, no tonnage restriction per ship. If any power builds a gun larger than 16", others may increase by however much they deem necessary.

Aircraft Carrier: Flight deck and no guns larger than 6"; no tonnage restrictions per ship.

Training Ships: Three capital ships may be reduced training ships by the UK and USA;2 by Japan and one by France and Italy.

Total tonnage restrictions for capital ships and carriers as in OTL

--------

And before I get out the calculator and start crunching some numbers, I think I have a rough outline as to what I can realistically do:

From the UK perspective:

I know I have some of the finest ships in the world, and a huge navy. The problem is that 115 years after Trafalgar, the burden is becoming heavy. More than anything, I want to restrict my rivals and ensure that by the time they can match what I have, after a rest I can lead once more. I'm going to try to argue for smaller calibers, size restrictions (my ships can be no wider than 106' in order to fit through Suez, and I want my ships to have a shallower draft as well as be able to fit my current docks). I need a two-ocean navy that also rules the Mediterranean.

For this scenario to work:

I'm going to have to pension off the Revenges, and convince the Treasury that my 8 year old discount battleships need replacing, so I can get something better (or at least faster) than OTL Nelsons, even if it's only 2 ships. Then, during the 1930s, the Renowns will have to go, in order to get an appreciable number of Lions as well as squeeze in reconstructions for the best Queen Elizabeths with the rest as training ships (hardly ideal, but I need enough ships for all Home and Imperial obligations) and Hood, and refits for whatever I build in the 1920s


From the Japanese perspective:

In some ways, I have advantages that my rivals do not have. I only need a one-ocean navy, and my ships do not need to transit canals, so they can be longer, wider and deeper. Bunkerage is of less concern than the USA's ships. However, my disadvantages are greater. My economy is much smaller than either the USA or Great Britain, and my existing fleet is much smaller. I have far fewer resources, especially oil. Many of my ships still rely on mixed firing; stokers toiling hard to shovel coal sprayed with fuel oil into the boilers. I want an "Eight-Eight" fleet, but that will cost twice my national budget and more shipbuilding capacity than I could hope to have, and it would still be hopelessly outnumbered. Yamamoto was wise to note that the Treaty benefits me more than anyone else, as it greatly restricts my rivals.. At the same time, what ships I do build must be qualitatively superior to what the Western powers have.

For this to work and without butterflying away the Great Kanto Earthquake:

I'm very ambitious about building, and I'm more restricted than the USA and GB, so as much as I need to, scrapping a ship hurts me more than it hurts them. By the time the Treaty is signed, I have completed:

CC: Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna

BB: Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga, Nagato, Mutsu.

Near completion, or with at least good progress:

BB: Tosa, Kaga

CC: Amagi, Akagi

Then, Kanto happens.

On the other side of it is Owari, the massive fast battleship with 4x2 18"s planned for it.

This is already too much. I'm definitely going to have to scrap the Fusos and Ises. Nagato and Mutsu stay, as do the Tosas. As @RamscoopRaider mentioned, if Amagi were not converted, she likely would have survived Kanto. I convert Akagi and two Kongos to carriers, (scrapping one if I hit a tonnage cap) reducing the other 2 to training ships. They're the fastest, but still armed with 14"s, so they need to be sacrificed.

Due to the huge cost and tonnage, I skip over Kii and straight to Owari, most likely as a single-ship class. The question is, do I arm her with 18"s, or provisionally with 12x16" so as not to break the Treaty? By 1934, I won't butterfly Mukden, so it will be moot anyway, but I'm thinking 1931 for completion would be reasonable.



From the USA perspective:

I have the fastest growing Navy in the world and I have the shipyards of the coasts and the Gulf. I have all the oil in Texas, the ore mines in Minnesota, all the railways to move it and the money in New York City to pay for it. What I don't have is the will in Washington to do it. I need a two-ocean Navy. The Panama Canal isn't as important for me as Suez is for the British, as my landmass is much larger and I can have a fleet on each coast. Bunkerage is important because my territories are farther apart and fewer in number. I don't want to get involved in unnecessary conflicts though, but I also don't want to get caught flat footed. I'll catch up faster than anybody, but I don't want to be behind.

For this scenario to work:

I need to build, yet I can't build everything I want to due to public pressure and the Treaty. But what do I build and what do I give up? 1920 South Dakotas? Lexingtons? A combination?

 

[jsb]

....The British were opposed to continued construction of newer warships, and had great desires to curb the construction thereof.

Everybody (well US++GB) had this other wise why would the US have called the conference in the first place....

Of course, that's all assuming the British are willing to pay for three more capital ships just to maintain parity... Although, I have a feeling that it would be something that is slow walked even if it somehow got approved.......Of course, biggest issue: will the UK be willing to pay for five new ships to be built over the remainder of the twenties?

They might not have liked it but just look at who actually spent money on CAs early on in 20s..... RN massively out built everybody else.

So, the US would be perfectly willing to finish up as many new builds as possible. Scrap/convert to target/training all non-Standard battleships, and you could build Washington and 2 Sodaks while only coming in at 8252 tons under their previous value of tonnage (still fewer tons than the British have by far, but in newer ships). However, the British would then be at a disadvantage, having only one (1) post-Jutland design to the US's now 6 (the Japanese here would go ahead and complete Tosa and Kaga as battleships in this case), with a 6:4 post Jutland ratio likely being accepted (Being the same as OTL's 3:2, effectively) This would leave the US trading 6 older battleships for three newer ones (though, one could argue for retaining Texas, probably unsuccessfully given the number of newer vessels. At the least, Texas would become a training vessel, with New York either joining her or becoming a target ship).

However, that still leaves the British hanging, and as mentioned earlier, the British would only have 1 new capital ship to the 6 of the US and the 4 of the Japanese. That would be an impediment to negotiations, as then the British would demand that they be allotted a similar number of new vessels, which would call for about 5 new battleships of about 40k tons. Assuming that the tonnage would come from the disposal of Benbow, Iron Duke, Emperor of India, and Marlborough for the three not built OTL, that would result in a total tonnage for the British being ~578950, compared to US being at ~517598, a difference of 61352 tons roughly, nearly double the OTL difference. (and then you have 9 pre and 6 post Jutland for the US (15 total), 13 pre and 6 post for the UK (19 total), and probably 5/6 pre and 4 post for Japan (9/10 total). So, even here, you have trouble with numbers of ships vs tonnage, with the UK retaining a surfeit in tonnage.
..
The only compromise I could think of is that the US is allowed to either construct another SoDak, and while the UK may not have parity in numbers (being shy one), they would have five newer vessels (and the US would still only have 21/23 knot vessels, while the British still have the world's best fast ship in the Hood. That would put US tonnage at 558998. Or, you could let the US retain the New York class straight out, putting US tonnage at ~ 571598, giving you rough parity right there (here, Wyoming/Arkansas would become the training vessel).

So, with that established, let's say that the US/UK tonnage would be estimated at 575000. That puts Japanese tonnage at 345000, theoretically. With two Tosa class constructed, that'd put the Japanese at 381120 tons over their limit. They could get away, here, by converting one older vessel, be it a Fuso (taking total to 5520 over limit) or a Kongou (taking total to 8620 over limit). Then you would have US: 11/6/17 UK: 13/6/19 Japan: 7/4/11. And, with that, you get 18 (the average of US/UK)/11 = 1.636, which is close to the 5/3 ratio desired in numbers and tonnage.

I don't think its that bad, GB can simply build the 4 G3s and count them as 5 40K ships..... everybody will be happy (especially as USN/IJN think G3s have 7" belts)...

RN would also be happy to cut the 13.5" ships if it gets new, the larger number than USN in OTL was to compensate for the weakness of them v standards.

 

[steamboy]

One possible thing is basically have an early OTL Vanguard. When making a battleship, one of the most expensive parts to make is the gun due to the metals and time involved and the limited number of places where heavy naval guns can be made which creates a natural bottleneck.

The R's are, whilst potent ships going to be obsolete rapidly, their design and hull form precluded much in the way of modernization for them so the RN should basically retire these ships and put their guns into mountings on new ships. They could also move the turrets but these turrets were not the best and you'd need to modify them for increased elevation etc. The 15-inch Mk1 gun is still a very formidable weapon by any standard and even up to 1945 it was still a darn good gun so there's no real need to replace it (plus you get commonality with the QE's for ease of supply). Heck you could probably use some of the metal from the R's in the construction of any new ships.

Really the Renown and Repulse would probably need to go or be modernized and upgraded to something like the OTL Renown level and then be told THESE ARE CARRIER ESCORTS!!! And in truth, probably its the same for the Hood too. But again, their 15-inch rounds will still make a mess of anything afloat up to and including the No13 and would be a terrible threat to a Lexington class Battlecruiser with their horribly thin 7 inch belts and massive area of hull that wasn't protected.

I agree that building 4 x G3 esque ships would probably give better results than 2 x G3 and 2 x N3, again you probably want something homegenous and having 2 shell types to worry about instead of 3 - 4 is a better economic return. One thing with the G3 design, that amidships turret seems to be rather poorly sighted and its probably the only bad thing about the design (considering these ships were basically Iowa's built in the 1920s) and I would suggest that the admidships turret be moved to a more traditional position astern. This would probably increase the citadels length and thus drive up weight but with the RN not being entirely truthful about the design to be with, and with the treaty as is, you could probably sneak in a few hundred tons with a polite smile and nod of the head.

And yes, scrap the 13.5-inch gunned ships, put their guns in storage or send them to Singapore or elsewhere, the WW1 Super-Dreads really are obsolete now and are probably quite worn out from all the miles they sailed in WW1.

Welcome aboard though to the forum and I look forwards to seeing where you take this

 

[Cryhavoc101]

My suggestion would be to list 'the intention' of each Nation before and at each Naval Treaty and then write what actually happens

IE look at Japans intentions before the earthquake and then comment on what was actually acheived

Regarding the Hoods - the only reason Hood was not cancelled post Jutland was because of incomplete intel regarding the German Mackensen Class BCs and subsequant Ersatz Yorcks class BCs none of which were completed and also because Hood was already laid down (the same day as Jutland!) and when the decision was made to review and revise the design Hood was already building so it made sense to continue it.

The other 3 ships were much easier to halt and cancel so I do not think that we would see 2 of them built as Lexington large Carriers - I could however see 'Hood' completed as a carrier if the delay happened earlier and she was not scrapped!

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Capital Ship: In excess of 10 000 tons, max 16" guns, no tonnage restriction per ship. If any power builds a gun larger than 16", others may increase by however much they deem necessary.

Britain is not exactly going to be happy if France/Italy can build 15kton super cruisers using excess capital tonnage

Total tonnage restrictions for capital ships and carriers as in OTL

Numbers are oddball without 35k to be multiples of, and UK is pretty far in excess, would be higher most likely

I'm going to have to pension off the Revenges, and convince the Treasury that my 8 year old discount battleships need replacing, so I can get something better (or at least faster) than OTL Nelsons, even if it's only 2 ships. Then, during the 1930s, the Renowns will have to go, in order to get an appreciable number of Lions as well as squeeze in reconstructions for the best Queen Elizabeths with the rest as training ships (hardly ideal, but I need enough ships for all Home and Imperial obligations) and Hood, and refits for whatever I build in the 1920s

Unless you ban building new ships, why reconstruct the QE's and Hood at all?

In some ways, I have advantages that my rivals do not have. I only need a one-ocean navy, and my ships do not need to transit canals, so they can be longer, wider and deeper. Bunkerage is of less concern than the USA's ships. However, my disadvantages are greater. My economy is much smaller than either the USA or Great Britain, and my existing fleet is much smaller. I have far fewer resources, especially oil. Many of my ships still rely on mixed firing; stokers toiling hard to shovel coal sprayed with fuel oil into the boilers. I want an "Eight-Eight" fleet, but that will cost twice my national budget and more shipbuilding capacity than I could hope to have, and it would still be hopelessly outnumbered. Yamamoto was wise to note that the Treaty benefits me more than anyone else, as it greatly restricts my rivals.. At the same time, what ships I do build must be qualitatively superior to what the Western powers have.

Do not forget their mail is being read, the US knows the lowest they will go

On the other side of it is Owari, the massive fast battleship with 4x2 18"s planned for it.

That's #13, Owari was #10, thte second Kii

This is already too much. I'm definitely going to have to scrap the Fusos and Ises. Nagato and Mutsu stay, as do the Tosas. As @RamscoopRaider mentioned, if Amagi were not converted, she likely would have survived Kanto. I convert Akagi and two Kongos to carriers, (scrapping one if I hit a tonnage cap) reducing the other 2 to training ships. They're the fastest, but still armed with 14"s, so they need to be sacrificed.

Converting existing ships is expensive, gets you inferior ships, and you have Atago and Takao to convert, make uniform force

Due to the huge cost and tonnage, I skip over Kii and straight to Owari, most likely as a single-ship class. The question is, do I arm her with 18"s, or provisionally with 12x16" so as not to break the Treaty? By 1934, I won't butterfly Mukden, so it will be moot anyway, but I'm thinking 1931 for completion would be reasonable.

Not in Japan's interest to break treaty, then everyne else builds new 18" ships, also Japan cannot afford any real new capital ship building without neglecting smaller craft/carriers after Kanto

 

[fester]

This is getting really interesting now! Before I do up a new OOB and write up an interesting backstory, let's set the parameters for the treaty in this timeline to be:



Capital Ship: In excess of 10 000 tons, max 16" guns, no tonnage restriction per ship. If any power builds a gun larger than 16", others may increase by however much they deem necessary.

Total tonnage restrictions for capital ships and carriers as in OTL

--------

And before I get out the calculator and start crunching some numbers, I think I have a rough outline as to what I can realistically do:

From the UK perspective:

I know I have some of the finest ships in the world, and a huge navy. The problem is that 115 years after Trafalgar, the burden is becoming heavy. More than anything, I want to restrict my rivals and ensure that by the time they can match what I have, after a rest I can lead once more. I'm going to try to argue for smaller calibers, size restrictions (my ships can be no wider than 106' in order to fit through Suez, and I want my ships to have a shallower draft as well as be able to fit my current docks). I need a two-ocean navy that also rules the Mediterranean.

For this scenario to work:

I'm going to have to pension off the Revenges, and convince the Treasury that my 8 year old discount battleships need replacing, so I can get something better (or at least faster) than OTL Nelsons, even if it's only 2 ships. Then, during the 1930s, the Renowns will have to go, in order to get an appreciable number of Lions as well as squeeze in reconstructions for the best Queen Elizabeths with the rest as training ships (hardly ideal, but I need enough ships for all Home and Imperial obligations) and Hood, and refits for whatever I build in the 1920s

I have a major problem with the RN thought process here. There is no building freeze so ships will be built in the 20s at a higher rate than OTL. 35,000, 40,000, 50,000 ton ships with 8-12 16 inch guns will be what the RN will see their opponents build. The Queen Elizabeth rebuilds will only produce fairly slow (23-25 knot) 33,000 ton ships with 8x15 inch guns. These rebuilds will cost about half of a brand new battleship that is vastly superior to the rebuilt ship. Rebuilds only make sense when there is one hell of a hard constraint on new build ships. I don't think those constraints are present in this scenario.

I could understand keeping the QEs with routine upkeep and a modest refit in the late 20s to keep fleet numbers up until the G3/N3/O3 derived ships are worked up. Once the modern, post-Jutland ships are the core of the battlefleet, the QEs take the role of the R class (heavy gun ships with severe limitations that are useful in secondary theatres/convoy escort) and if the RN needs tonnage, they look at Renown and Repulse and then the worst condition of the QEs

 

[Luminous]

The Panama Canal isn't as important for me as Suez

Correct only in the sense that the Panama canal is more important to the US than the Suez is to Britain. After all, Britain still has its network of friendly ports scattered throughout Africa, allowing safe haven for vessels and locations to restock. The US, on the other hand, has nothing of that sort when sortying around South America. So maintaining Panama is vital.

If we look at OTL, the only deviation from Panama Canal restrictions were for the Midway and Montana classes, and that's because the US was preparing an even bigger canal to fit them.

1920 South Dakotas? Lexingtons? A combination?

Lexingtons. Lexingtons every time. They can be converted to carriers and serve other uses, while the Sodaks are just a continued evolution of the Standard design. (though not Standards, at least in the true sense). The Sodaks are the better bet, anyway, as the Lex's were just made to counter the Kongous and the Hood.

Plus, dat wishbone

Also, one thing to note, the US was in love with turbo-electric propulsion at this time (Which, despite the incident with Saratoga that everyone derides turboelectric for, I feel it had plenty of advantages to justify its existence). The biggest issue with turbo-electric is that it requires bulkier vessels with greater displacement.

Everybody (well US++GB) had this other wise why would the US have called the conference in the first place....

More to the point that the major impediment to the US was political desire, not the more dire economic straits that the British were in. So while the US has the desire to limit construction, they continue to have the most capacity to continue it. That's the major distinction.

They might not have liked it but just look at who actually spent money on CAs early on in 20s..... RN massively out built everybody else.

Indeed, as what the RN called heavy cruisers, the US called light cruisers

Joking aside, correct here, as the US fell back into its standard peacetime trap of slow-walking construction, and the US never did well to emphasize their cruisers until the late 20s, as the first of the Pensas and Northamptons came into service. I mean, Pensa's design was ready in 21, but even after modification to the OTL WNT she didn't get laid down til 26.

I don't think its that bad, GB can simply build the 4 G3s and count them as 5 40K ships..... everybody will be happy (especially as USN/IJN think G3s have 7" belts)...

RN would also be happy to cut the 13.5" ships if it gets new, the larger number than USN in OTL was to compensate for the weakness of them v standards.

Only issue is the number of post-Jutland ships, but 4 G3 (or G3-like ships) + Hood would likely be accepted vs 4 Col and 2 Sodak and 2 Nagato and 2 Tosa.

And fair enough on the lower armament vessels as well.

 

[Luminous]

Britain is not exactly going to be happy if France/Italy can build 15kton super cruisers using excess capital tonnage

But there was nothing preventing them from doing so in the first place?

NOTE.-France expressly reserves the right of employing the capital ship tonnage allotment as she may consider advisable, subject solely to the limitations that the displacement of individual ships should not surpass 35,000 tons, and that the total capital ship tonnage should keep within the limits imposed by the present Treaty.

NOTE.-Italy expressly reserves the right of employing the capital ship tonnage allotment as she may consider advisable, subject solely to the limitations that the displacement of individual ships should not surpass 35,000 tons, and the total capital ship tonnage should keep within the limits imposed by the present Treaty.

So both France and Italy were well within their rights to use some of their capital ship tonnage to construct capital vessels larger than 10k tons but not approaching 35k tons, as they saw fit. Here, I guess the argument is that, instead of building 35k ton battleships, they could build a 50k ton battleship and a 20k ton large cruiser, which is possible. Though, if the UK has Hood and a bunch of G3s, then such 20k ton cruisers aren't a threat to them, or to Japan with their Kongous.

The only nation it'd really be a threat to would be the US, which has no fast battleship (or fast large-caliber cruisers) at the PoD, as it stands, France and Italy would only have 175k tons OTL (probably more in ATL). And even matching numbers would take, say, 80-100k for 4 or 5 20k large cruisers (60-75k for 4 or 5 15k ones) leaving only 115k at best for real battleships (or, say for 3 bb, less than 40k a piece)

And, well, I don't see the point of a 15k capital vessel, as it would only provide marginal advantages over a 10k cruiser, and with an unlimited number of them, two 10k would beat one 15k, likely.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

But there was nothing preventing them from doing so in the first place?

Huh your right, I thought there was a floor of 17,500 tons, guess I was mistaken

So both France and Italy were well within their rights to use some of their capital ship tonnage to construct capital vessels larger than 10k tons but not approaching 35k tons, as they saw fit. Here, I guess the argument is that, instead of building 35k ton battleships, they could build a 50k ton battleship and a 20k ton large cruiser, which is possible. Though, if the UK has Hood and a bunch of G3s, then such 20k ton cruisers aren't a threat to them, or to Japan with their Kongous.

Such cruisers are totally a threat. For the UK, know their 5 most powerful ships are going to be busy chasing cruisers, rather than being available to fight capital ships, for Japan the Kongo's are too slow without a rebuild, which means 2 fewer new battleships

The only nation it'd really be a threat to would be the US, which has no fast battleship (or fast large-caliber cruisers) at the PoD, as it stands, France and Italy would only have 175k tons OTL (probably more in ATL). And even matching numbers would take, say, 80-100k for 4 or 5 20k large cruisers (60-75k for 4 or 5 15k ones) leaving only 115k at best for real battleships (or, say for 3 bb, less than 40k a piece)

Italy and France only used up their OTL tonnage by counting Pre Dreadnoughts (and for Italy the hulk of Da Vinci), after France wrecks, France has 34030 tons free once pre dreads scrapped, Italy 65,100 tons, by the time the Dunkerques and Littorios launched, the Treaty system was dead

And, well, I don't see the point of a 15k capital vessel, as it would only provide marginal advantages over a 10k cruiser, and with an unlimited number of them, two 10k would beat one 15k, likely.

While yes two would likely beat one, it would have a significant advantage one on one, and if you have the tonnage available, why not? If nothing else the threat forces your opponent to be more constrained in operations

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I have a major problem with the RN thought process here. There is no building freeze so ships will be built in the 20s at a higher rate than OTL. 35,000, 40,000, 50,000 ton ships with 8-12 16 inch guns will be what the RN will see their opponents build. The Queen Elizabeth rebuilds will only produce fairly slow (23-25 knot) 33,000 ton ships with 8x15 inch guns. These rebuilds will cost about half of a brand new battleship that is vastly superior to the rebuilt ship. Rebuilds only make sense when there is one hell of a hard constraint on new build ships. I don't think those constraints are present in this scenario.

I could understand keeping the QEs with routine upkeep and a modest refit in the late 20s to keep fleet numbers up until the G3/N3/O3 derived ships are worked up. Once the modern, post-Jutland ships are the core of the battlefleet, the QEs take the role of the R class (heavy gun ships with severe limitations that are useful in secondary theatres/convoy escort) and if the RN needs tonnage, they look at Renown and Repulse and then the worst condition of the QEs

This makes a lot of sense.

I'm thinking that in this TTL, the Treasury may warm more to heavier construction in the 1920s. If I have 525K tons available, I can spend roughly 200K tons on 4 50K tonners (more likely 55 000 apiece, as I'm envisioning scaled-up underrating and cheating commensurate with the increased ship sizes).

This leads into the next point:

One possible thing is basically have an early OTL Vanguard. When making a battleship, one of the most expensive parts to make is the gun due to the metals and time involved and the limited number of places where heavy naval guns can be made which creates a natural bottleneck.

The R's are, whilst potent ships going to be obsolete rapidly, their design and hull form precluded much in the way of modernization for them so the RN should basically retire these ships and put their guns into mountings on new ships. They could also move the turrets but these turrets were not the best and you'd need to modify them for increased elevation etc. The 15-inch Mk1 gun is still a very formidable weapon by any standard and even up to 1945 it was still a darn good gun so there's no real need to replace it (plus you get commonality with the QE's for ease of supply). Heck you could probably use some of the metal from the R's in the construction of any new ships.

Really the Renown and Repulse would probably need to go or be modernized and upgraded to something like the OTL Renown level and then be told THESE ARE CARRIER ESCORTS!!! And in truth, probably its the same for the Hood too. But again, their 15-inch rounds will still make a mess of anything afloat up to and including the No13 and would be a terrible threat to a Lexington class Battlecruiser with their horribly thin 7 inch belts and massive area of hull that wasn't protected.

I agree that building 4 x G3 esque ships would probably give better results than 2 x G3 and 2 x N3, again you probably want something homegenous and having 2 shell types to worry about instead of 3 - 4 is a better economic return. One thing with the G3 design, that amidships turret seems to be rather poorly sighted and its probably the only bad thing about the design (considering these ships were basically Iowa's built in the 1920s) and I would suggest that the admidships turret be moved to a more traditional position astern. This would probably increase the citadels length and thus drive up weight but with the RN not being entirely truthful about the design to be with, and with the treaty as is, you could probably sneak in a few hundred tons with a polite smile and nod of the head.

And yes, scrap the 13.5-inch gunned ships, put their guns in storage or send them to Singapore or elsewhere, the WW1 Super-Dreads really are obsolete now and are probably quite worn out from all the miles they sailed in WW1.

Welcome aboard though to the forum and I look forwards to seeing where you take this

The issue with the turrets raises an interesting question- to build 4 per original design or a split class of 2 and 2 with a relocated turret and accepting a higher weight?

In order to stay within tonnage, the Renowns are probably going to have to be sent to the breakers by the early 1930s. Their age, plus light armour and only 6 guns will most likely mean that they will be sailing to Faslane rather than Singapore after the G3s are built.

The next question- now I have a lot of extra 15" guns. Do I try to build out the Lions with spare 15"s or new Mark II 16"s?

That's #13, Owari was #10, thte second Kii

What would I name a potential #13? The next in the sequence OTL was Yamato so I initially thought I could use that. Would that not be the case?

Converting existing ships is expensive, gets you inferior ships, and you have Atago and Takao to convert, make uniform force

Ah, right- one must not simply forget Atago and Takao. With apologies to the two Kongos in the worst shape, it's to the breakers' yards for you. I may have to hustle to get one Amagi-conversion classified as "experimental" in order to fit.

Not in Japan's interest to break treaty, then everyne else builds new 18" ships, also Japan cannot afford any real new capital ship building without neglecting smaller craft/carriers after Kanto

I'm envisioning a pause in shipbuilding after Kanto, followed by a much-truncated in number and delayed in timeline #13, and a single or pair (neccesitating more ships being broken up or reduced, so not likely) at that. Since there is no per-ship limit, there is less need for super cruisers. Perhaps there would be considerable internal debate within the IJN as to whether more cruisers should be built, with those admirals seeing a single, massive, 12x16" armed , 900 foot long 31kt fast battleship as a white elephant and a battleship faction viewing more large cruisers as an unacceptable compromise which fails to strike fear into the enemies' hearts like such a battleship would, and simply be overwhelmed by numbers.

The other problem that this creates, is that even at 48 000 tons, that's still about one-sixth of my allotted tonnage right there. If I'm giving any serious views to more capital shipbuilding, then I'm going to have to reduce the other Kongos to my two training ships, and have a small fleet of four slow BBs, two CC's (most likely to be re-rated as fast BBs), and one proper fast BB. Even being very generous with underrating tonnage and classifying everything I do to modify them as purely for protection, it will be a very tight squeeze to fit into treaty limits, even with fewer ships than in OTL.

Correct only in the sense that the Panama canal is more important to the US than the Suez is to Britain. After all, Britain still has its network of friendly ports scattered throughout Africa, allowing safe haven for vessels and locations to restock. The US, on the other hand, has nothing of that sort when sortying around South America. So maintaining Panama is vital.

If we look at OTL, the only deviation from Panama Canal restrictions were for the Midway and Montana classes, and that's because the US was preparing an even bigger canal to fit them.



Lexingtons. Lexingtons every time. They can be converted to carriers and serve other uses, while the Sodaks are just a continued evolution of the Standard design. (though not Standards, at least in the true sense). The Sodaks are the better bet, anyway, as the Lex's were just made to counter the Kongous and the Hood.

Plus, dat wishbone

Also, one thing to note, the US was in love with turbo-electric propulsion at this time (Which, despite the incident with Saratoga that everyone derides turboelectric for, I feel it had plenty of advantages to justify its existence). The biggest issue with turbo-electric is that it requires bulkier vessels with greater displacement.

2 Lex's to be converted, 3 to be broken up, and then we can see some wishbones on the water! Duly noted on Panama too.

Only issue is the number of post-Jutland ships, but 4 G3 (or G3-like ships) + Hood would likely be accepted vs 4 Col and 2 Sodak and 2 Nagato and 2 Tosa.

And fair enough on the lower armament vessels as well.

As it stands, with these latest revisions, how are my ratios looking? I've got enough headaches calculating this without angry diplomats blowing up my telegraph demanding an emergency naval conference!

Also, not trying to farm out the work, but if anyone would like to add their own order of battle, I wouldn't look on it as threadjacking, and would indeed consider it very interesting and most welcome! Thanks again to all that have contributed!

 

[fester]

This makes a lot of sense.

I'm thinking that in this TTL, the Treasury may warm more to heavier construction in the 1920s. If I have 525K tons available, I can spend roughly 200K tons on 4 50K tonners (more likely 55 000 apiece, as I'm envisioning scaled-up underrating and cheating commensurate with the increased ship sizes).

This leads into the next point:


The next question- now I have a lot of extra 15" guns. Do I try to build out the Lions with spare 15"s or new Mark II 16"s?

Assuming that there is money available and assuming that there is time available and assuming that there is a meaningful difference in operational outcomes (as defined by the Admiralty), I have a hard time seeing the RN accepting refurbished 15 inch turrets if they have a working 16 inch mount that they like. Vanguard was built with stored turrets because it was the fastest way to get a modern battleship out of the yards. The RN's preferred path to a King George V follow-on was a 16 inch armed Lion but the critical path of turrets/guns was going to be a pain in the ass. If the RN is laying down a battleship every twelve to eighteen months on average, they'll be arming those new ships with their preferred weapons. As a secondary reminder, the gun pits that were such a constraint in WWII were far more common/numerous pre-Depression as the RN was paying to keep those sites open. Building new turrets and new guns is expensive but in this timeline it seems like it is not as much of a constraint as it was in OTL post 1/1/1937

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Assuming that there is money available and assuming that there is time available and assuming that there is a meaningful difference in operational outcomes (as defined by the Admiralty), I have a hard time seeing the RN accepting refurbished 15 inch turrets if they have a working 16 inch mount that they like. Vanguard was built with stored turrets because it was the fastest way to get a modern battleship out of the yards. The RN's preferred path to a King George V follow-on was a 16 inch armed Lion but the critical path of turrets/guns was going to be a pain in the ass. If the RN is laying down a battleship every twelve to eighteen months on average, they'll be arming those new ships with their preferred weapons. As a secondary reminder, the gun pits that were such a constraint in WWII were far more common/numerous pre-Depression as the RN was paying to keep those sites open. Building new turrets and new guns is expensive but in this timeline it seems like it is not as much of a constraint as it was in OTL post 1/1/1937

Quite true. I also save some money and shipyard space by not building the 5 10x14" KGVs, so I can skip right to the Lions earlier. I can see them replacing the OTL KGVs, as well as retiring the Queens in the worst condition to accommodate them. Then, the question is, would there be a follow-on class, perhaps analogous to the later Lion designs, or perhaps multiple Vanguards?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

What would I name a potential #13? The next in the sequence OTL was Yamato so I initially thought I could use that. Would that not be the case?

OTL the sequence was
#1#2 Nagato class: Nagato and Mutsu
#3&4 Tosa class: Tosa and Kaga
#5-8 Amagi class: Amagi, Akagi, Atago, and Takao
#9-12 Kii class:Kii, Owari #11&12 (unnamed)
#13-16 #13 class: #13-16 (unnamed)

So 9th ship of the program named Kii, 10th Owari. Yamato and Musashi as names are in use already by patrol craft so pick other Japanese province names, Iki, Izumi and Sagami are free and used before

I'm envisioning a pause in shipbuilding after Kanto, followed by a much-truncated in number and delayed in timeline #13, and a single or pair (neccesitating more ships being broken up or reduced, so not likely) at that. Since there is no per-ship limit, there is less need for super cruisers. Perhaps there would be considerable internal debate within the IJN as to whether more cruisers should be built, with those admirals seeing a single, massive, 12x16" armed , 900 foot long 31kt fast battleship as a white elephant and a battleship faction viewing more large cruisers as an unacceptable compromise which fails to strike fear into the enemies' hearts like such a battleship would, and simply be overwhelmed by numbers.

Japanese doctrine needed both, the idea was that they would have one or more night battles where cruisers and destroyers with torpedoes would attrit the US battle line for a grand daylight battle

2 Lex's to be converted, 3 to be broken up, and then we can see some wishbones on the water! Duly noted on Panama too.

The US actually still needs the Lexingtons, unlike UK or Japan they have no Battlecruisers at all, I'd think a mixture more likely, 2 converted, 2 scrapped, 2 completed