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

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Excellent, that really fills in some blanks I was coming up with.

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


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

TTL, HIJMS Izumi is the largest Japanese battleship yet to be completed, armed with 12 x 16" guns. Despite her impressive capability and appearance, she is nonetheless a compromise.


Initially proposed to be a class of 4, and armed with 8 x 18" guns, her class was reduced in caliber to 16" and number to 2 to satisfy the Treaty. Her sister Sagami was canceled before her keel could be laid, as her construction would demand the replacement of two other battleships, all relatively new, and cost Japan far too much in steel and money.

Worse, Sagami could only have been built at the expense of Japan's cruiser and destroyer forces, already stretched thin and in need of new and more capable ships. Japan's battle doctrine demanded that these ships take precedence.

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

I was thinking that as well on further reflection; the USA would have by far the slowest fleet otherwise.

The hulls would need new numbers painted on them, but they could be commissioned as CV-2 Lexington and CV-3 Saratoga for carriers (named for battles) , CC-1 Constellation and CC-2 Constitution (named for ships) as battlecruisers, and Ranger and United States as scrap.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

TTL, HIJMS Izumi is the largest Japanese battleship yet to be completed, armed with 12 x 16" guns. Despite her impressive capability and appearance, she is nonetheless a compromise.


Initially proposed to be a class of 4, and armed with 8 x 18" guns, her class was reduced in caliber to 16" and number to 2 to satisfy the Treaty. Her sister Sagami was canceled before her keel could be laid, as her construction would demand the replacement of two other battleships, all relatively new, and cost Japan far too much in steel and money.

Worse, Sagami could only have been built at the expense of Japan's cruiser and destroyer forces, already stretched thin and in need of new and more capable ships. Japan's battle doctrine demanded that these ships take precedence.

I was thinking that as well on further reflection; the USA would have by far the slowest fleet otherwise.

The hulls would need new numbers painted on them, but they could be commissioned as CV-2 Lexington and CV-3 Saratoga for carriers (named for battles) , CC-1 Constellation and CC-2 Constitution (named for ships) as battlecruisers, and Ranger and United States as scrap.

Lexington and Saratoga are most likely to be Battlecruisers, they were closest to completion, would guess Constellation and United States get converted to carriers, Ranger was the last laid down so likely least complete and US has a Constitution that had to be renamed Old Constitution, so being laid at same time as United States, would be the one cancelled

Edit: What's hilarious is that there is a good Kancolle fic with a #13 called Izumi

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Lexington and Saratoga are most likely to be Battlecruisers, they were closest to completion, would guess Constellation and United States get converted to carriers, Ranger was the last laid down so likely least complete and US has a Constitution that had to be renamed Old Constitution, so being laid at same time as United States, would be the one cancelled

Edit: What's hilarious is that there is a good Kancolle fic with a #13 called Izumi

Haha, I wasn't aware of that! A good name for such a ship though, glad I'm not alone in thinking that!

Thanks also for the advice on the Lexingtons. At least they're easier to keep track of than seeing which state names have/have not been used.

At a very, very rough estimate for an OOB for the great powers circa 1937, I'm now looking at:

EDIT: Re-crunched these numbers, now all reflecting standard load in tons, in as-built configuration.

IJN:

315K tons limit:

2x Kongo (27 000 rated tons each)
2x Nagato (32 000 rated tons each)
2x Tosa (39 000 rated tons each)
2x Amagi (39 000 rated tons each)
1x Izumi (47 000 rated tons)

321 000 tons total; some cheating and this will fit.

2 Kongos as training ships

RN:

525K tons.

4x G3 (51 000 rated tons eachl)
5x Lion (42 000 rated tons each)
1x Hood (48 000 rated tons)
2x Queen Elizabeth

526 000 tons total


3 Queen Elizabeths as training ships, or the better two and the better of Renown and Repulse, or both of the battlecruisers and scrap the worst two Queens.

USN:

525k tons.

2x Lexington (43 000 rated tons each, 88 000 total)
6x South Dakota (41 000 rated tons each, 252 000 total)
4x Colorado (32 000 rated tons each, 128K total)
2x Tennessee (33 000 rated tons each, 66K total)


526 000 tons total

Either the 3 New Mexicos as reserves, or due to a butterfly in her turbo-electric drive, she suffers a massive fire, and is scrapped, while a faction in Congress somehow leads to USS Texas being designated the third.

Depending on the national mood, may truncate the SoDaks to 3 or 4, and keep more Standards accordingly. Cutting 3 SoDaks buys me 4 Standards.

NEW! Exciting Minor Power Action

Allotted Tonnage: 183 750 tons

Marine Nationale:

4x Richelieu (assuming 46 000 rated tons each)

184 000 tons total

Not sure about the training ship, I can see all 4 Richelieus coming up instead of the Dunquerques



Regia Marina:

4x Littorio (40 000 rated tons each)
1x Andrea Doria (24 000 rated tons)

Remaining Andrea Doria as the training ship

184 000 tons total.

 

[Luminous]

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).

Mind, the British were probably the strictest of the treaty members in constructing their vessels at treaty limits. Don't see them cheating so flagrantly ATL.

Be interesting if the G3s actually ended up being limited because their weights wouldn't be allowed to balloon, but that's just me.

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

Yes, but they'd be chasing down the enemy battleships anyway (fast battleships) or be caught against an enemy line. Also, the Italian and French aren't going for new builds immediately, are they? They should maintain their fleets at present capabilities.

To get to a situation where the British would be facing a French/Italian fleet that has been completely rebuilt with multiple modern super battleships along with large cruisers, then those two fleets would have to be completely replaced - and that is not something that I believe that either nation would be willing to do in the next 10-15 years. This wasn't a major concern OTL, so I'm not sure how this has changed things.

I know I've gamed this out before with regards to my 15k ton 10" aviation cruiser, and they're not much more capable than a smaller vessel. 12k tons would buy you 4x3 triple turrets if you're a US design, compared to

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

Just like OTL, honestly - and here, the Japanese (the main trigger for battlecruiser worries) will likely lose one of the Kongo class as a training vessel, so that threat vector is actually reduced in relation to OTL. If the IJN gets two Tosa class, they're not much more capable than the OTL. While Great Britain is adding a few more fast vessels (be they G3 or another design) the US is assuming they're going to be lightly armored on the lines of Hood, and would not be a match for the more heavily armored (in their minds) Sodak vessels.

Also, one of the major points of the OTL WNT was to drive the Japanese and the British apart. If that is accomplished, the threat of facing both enemy fleets is diminished, and they will instead maintain their policy as it had been through the Colorado.

I was thinking that as well on further reflection; the USA would have by far the slowest fleet otherwise.

The hulls would need new numbers painted on them, but they could be commissioned as CV-2 Lexington and CV-3 Saratoga for carriers (named for battles) , CC-1 Constellation and CC-2 Constitution (named for ships) as battlecruisers, and Ranger and United States as scrap.

Haha, I wasn't aware of that! A good name for such a ship though, glad I'm not alone in thinking that!

Thanks also for the advice on the Lexingtons. At least they're easier to keep track of than seeing which state names have/have not been used.

This is up to you in the end; I know I and the others have my own opinions on everything else. Mind, the US fleet was the slowest one in OTL anyway, as they didn't have a ship exceeding 21 knots at rated flank speed - this alteration doesn't change that. Knowing the general apathy of the Americans to the battlecruiser concept and their fondness for firepower and armor taking precedence over speed, I personally would believe they'd be chosen over the Lexingtons for completion as the vessels they were intended to be, just because they continue along the US's preferred design characteristics and would fit better in the fleet. Lexington vessels would be a bit of an albatross, given that they only had a combined deck of 7 inches in total (in 4 separate decks, compared to what was believed by the Americans to be the 4.75" of the Hood in three separate decks and the up to 8" of the G3, not sure in how many decks), while Lex had only 7" of armor angled (equivalent to 9" vertical) vs Hood's varying 12 or 7" angled on the belt line. So better deck armor than the Hood, and... not terrible belt armor so long as you actually maintain at long range and don't close in. It could be better, and likely would be refit if there is an incentive to.

That also goes along with American strategy at the time, where the very presence of the fleet would force the enemy to engage the slower fleet, as its continued existence threatens supply lines and requires a fleet to oppose it. They were encouraged along this thought process by one of the comments made by the British officers that US designers spoke to when designing the Lex. While some British officers (two I have on record) did see the Hood as a revolution in warship design, making old battlecruisers and battleships obsolete, one did suggest that the heavily armed and armored Sodaks would force the British to counter with their own vessels that could engage along similar lines (even if they had to sacrifice speed)... Or they would have to bump tonnage up even more to try to get everything (which, I'll point out, is what Admiral Sims of the US Navy was arguing for, so that instead of sacrificing armament OR armor OR speed, they would instead sacrifice nothing but displacement, and therefore sacrificing cost).

Mind, North Carolina and South Dakota were both more complete than Lexington and Saratoga were, so if we're picking the most complete vessels to finish, it's the former two. But that's only a few thousand tons.

Also, for names of American battleships, the next 6 to be produced were:

South Dakota
Indiana
Montana
North Carolina
Iowa
Massachusettes

Of those not above, but used later on, there was
Alabama (last of the 1939 South Dakota's)
New Jersey (second of the Iowas)
Missouri (third of the Iowas)
Wisconsin (fourth of the Iowas)
Illinois (fifth of the Iowas)
Kentucky (sixth of the Iowas)
Ohio (second of the Montanas)
Maine (third of the Montanas)
New Hampshire (fourth of the Montanas)
Louisiana (fifth of the Montanas)

Of course, the order can differ (as it did OTL). And, in the end, it's your choice, as I can see the reasoning behind either option being completed. I'm just more inclined that the US would build ships that were similar to its previous strategy, rather than pursuing their troubled CC aspirations.

I mean, we're cramming months of negotiations into a few blog posts, in the end!

So, what are the tonnage limits that you're looking at? Same as OTL? (525k). I know I suggested 575k as well, or did you have other limits in mind?

Also, is a construction holiday going to be established? If there isn't, the moment the G3s and their capabilities become apparent, there might be a renewed race.

 

[steamboy]

Re the G3's didn't the RN be not exactly trutful about their design when they first came out, everyone else was making squinty eyes and wondering how they got the performance on the tonnage and the RN went "Oh yeah..7-inch belt." without mentioning that was the belt above the MAIN belt.

 

[James Ricker]

Japan has a few more fuel hungry battleships, that's not going to help their logistics
The Bismarck will be larger and armed with 8x18" guns. Hitler liked big but the Bismarck is just a step in that direction.

 

[Dorknought]

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.

The expenditure on the uncompleted vessels that were scrapped totaled $153,814,000. It cost $70m to cancel the contracts. It would have cost an additional $282,986,000 to complete the ships. There was also a depression on in the lead up to the WNT. The US Navy really wanted to be rid of the 1916 program and build fast battleships instead. They could see quite clearly that Hood was the 'Dreadnought' of her era but its really unlikely that Congress would come to the party.

Apparently the last 2 Kii class were to be named Suruga and Omi, possibly from the guns construction records.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Re the G3's didn't the RN be not exactly trutful about their design when they first came out, everyone else was making squinty eyes and wondering how they got the performance on the tonnage and the RN went "Oh yeah..7-inch belt." without mentioning that was the belt above the MAIN belt.

Well the US and Japan bought that because the British did something they completely dismissed and decided that 100% citadel reserve buoyancy was unnecessary. Everything's a tradeoff and the USN and IJN both though that the survivability of the extra buoyancy was worth the thinner belt, and Britain that it wasn't, though Britain was looking far ahead with the G3/N3 scheme while they were looking at the near future, though with the WNT the future the RN predicted in 1919 and 1920 did not happen

Japan has a few more fuel hungry battleships, that's not going to help their logistics
The Bismarck will be larger and armed with 8x18" guns. Hitler liked big but the Bismarck is just a step in that direction.

No Bismarck won't, Germany had a hiatus in large gun construction, it takes time to relearn how to do this, Bismarck and Tirpitz will still probably have 15" guns because that is what would be available when she is being built, he settled on those when the USN, RN and IJN had 16" guns OTL

 

[Luminous]

The expenditure on the uncompleted vessels that were scrapped totaled $153,814,000. It cost $70m to cancel the contracts. It would have cost an additional $282,986,000 to complete the ships.

It's almost like you didn't read my post, where I suggested, at most, for the Washington and two Sodaks, or three Sodaks, to be completed. Not all of them. Though, the cost of completing three Sodak, by your figures, would be ~ 70 million, of course rounding.

Though, source for figures? I'm afraid I don't have a copy of Friedman's battleships on me anymore, so I can't verify there.

Also, while the US was dealing with a spendthrift Congress, they had suffered none of the economic damage that Great Britain had experienced, and didn't have the weighty burdens of loans on her back... and she didn't have the enormous pressure of the Japanese economy, which was lopsided in its devotion to increase the size of the fleet. So, yes, while the US would never have wanted to pay for it, they would have been in the best position to continue the race... Though a depression might be exacerbated by the levels of government spending.

They could see quite clearly that Hood was the 'Dreadnought' of her era but its really unlikely that Congress would come to the party.

Not necessarily, there were many who saw this (see Admiral Sims), but they were still in the minority for most of the US community.

Admitting that the fast battleship, not the slow battleship or fast battlecruiser, was the future would have entailed declaring the entire battlefleet the US had constructed obsolete, hence the determination to prevent the new arms race from evolving in the first place.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Mind, the British were probably the strictest of the treaty members in constructing their vessels at treaty limits. Don't see them cheating so flagrantly ATL.

Be interesting if the G3s actually ended up being limited because their weights wouldn't be allowed to balloon, but that's just me.

I have them rated pretty accurately now; I should have used standard rather than deep load! Now, they're more fairly rated.

Just like OTL, honestly - and here, the Japanese (the main trigger for battlecruiser worries) will likely lose one of the Kongo class as a training vessel, so that threat vector is actually reduced in relation to OTL. If the IJN gets two Tosa class, they're not much more capable than the OTL. While Great Britain is adding a few more fast vessels (be they G3 or another design) the US is assuming they're going to be lightly armored on the lines of Hood, and would not be a match for the more heavily armored (in their minds) Sodak vessels.

Also, one of the major points of the OTL WNT was to drive the Japanese and the British apart. If that is accomplished, the threat of facing both enemy fleets is diminished, and they will instead maintain their policy as it had been through the Colorado.

...

Of course, the order can differ (as it did OTL). And, in the end, it's your choice, as I can see the reasoning behind either option being completed. I'm just more inclined that the US would build ships that were similar to its previous strategy, rather than pursuing their troubled CC aspirations.

ITTL, the Japanese are down two of the Kongos. I also went with a split for the US fleet- two Lexingtons and the full six SoDaks; or four and keep three-four extra Standards. I'm assuming US doctrine stays largely intact, but two are approved as something of an experiment.

Also, for names of American battleships, the next 6 to be produced were:

South Dakota
Indiana
Montana
North Carolina
Iowa
Massachusettes

Of those not above, but used later on, there was
Alabama (last of the 1939 South Dakota's)
New Jersey (second of the Iowas)
Missouri (third of the Iowas)
Wisconsin (fourth of the Iowas)
Illinois (fifth of the Iowas)
Kentucky (sixth of the Iowas)
Ohio (second of the Montanas)
Maine (third of the Montanas)
New Hampshire (fourth of the Montanas)
Louisiana (fifth of the Montanas)

A thousand thanks! Let's see, this gives me all 6 OTL Iowas and 4 OTL Montanas when the treaty falls apart

I mean, we're cramming months of negotiations into a few blog posts, in the end!

So, what are the tonnage limits that you're looking at? Same as OTL? (525k). I know I suggested 575k as well, or did you have other limits in mind?

Also, is a construction holiday going to be established? If there isn't, the moment the G3s and their capabilities become apparent, there might be a renewed race.

I went with the same limit as in OTL; I found that increasing the limits to 575 buys the USA and GB an extra new battleship, Japan an extra old battleship/battlecruiser, and France and Italy get... well, a fat cruiser. On the whole, it really doesn't benefit anybody that much. Interestingly enough, what I'm finding is that now a "Treaty Battleship" still exists, but in the 45 000-50 000 ton range. Any more than that in the 1920s is not only impractical if not impossible to build, but really messes up your distribution- too much is concentrated in a single ship.

I'm picturing the spirit behind the 1921-2 negotiations to go something like this: Nobody wants an arms race, but nobody wants to give up the advantages they have or the ships they are building. There is the spectre of the USSR and what they might do. So, instead of the mantra being "To disarm, disarm", it becomes "Preparedness in peace, to prevent war". This allows each side to build some of what they want, and each side sees the others being held back.

A 5-year holiday in 1930 was something I am considering, but not sure how it would play out. If I'm...

GB: Yes, I want one. I have several ships under 10 years old (Hood and the 4 G3s), and a few old battlewagons that are still capable (5 Queen Elizabeths, 2 Renowns) and 3 second-class battleships with 2 as training ships (Revenges). The Depression is eating at my economy and no way the Treasury and Parliament will agree to let me build more. Besides, now I have a few years to make plans for the best replacements for the old iron

JP: Holy crap, do I ever want one! I finally built as much as I could, including the pride of my fleet, Izumi, but it's killing me economically. My cruiser and destroyer forces need new ships. I want to make sure the USA and Britain can't build anymore, because I couldn't even absent a tonnage limit. Most likely, 50+% of my national budget is going to my Navy and I'm drowning in debt.

USA: Yes, I want a holiday. My fleet has the most 16" rifles on the water, the Depression is raging, Congress will never approve more construction now -and what they are approving is spent fooling around with airships and other projects. I don't want Britain and Japan building any more fast battleships that could cause me problems. I also need new cruisers and destroyers. I have the capacity, but the Depression is sucking money and political will away from that.

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

France and Italy are trickier. It could either go:

France: Mais non! I'm working on a new design of battleship, and les Bosches still owe me a lot of money from Versailles so I can afford it. Besides, fascist Italy may get aggressive in the Mediterranean.

Italy: Agree to not build when all I have are some old WWI battleships? Che cazzo voi! I'm planning four ships that I want to build

or, they can allow a holiday, take a wait-and-see approach while their spies see what the other powers are planning, and begin building in 1935 accordingly, most likely Dunquerques and Littorios respectively, with France planning some Alsaces later as a counter; after the predicted collapse of the Treaty in 1937-8

 

[RamscoopRaider]

It's almost like you didn't read my post, where I suggested, at most, for the Washington and two Sodaks, or three Sodaks, to be completed. Not all of them. Though, the cost of completing three Sodak, by your figures, would be ~ 70 million, of course rounding.

Though, source for figures? I'm afraid I don't have a copy of Friedman's battleships on me anymore, so I can't verify there.

Also, while the US was dealing with a spendthrift Congress, they had suffered none of the economic damage that Great Britain had experienced, and didn't have the weighty burdens of loans on her back... and she didn't have the enormous pressure of the Japanese economy, which was lopsided in its devotion to increase the size of the fleet. So, yes, while the US would never have wanted to pay for it, they would have been in the best position to continue the race... Though a depression might be exacerbated by the levels of government spending.

The Depression in question ended in July 1921 while the Washington Conference started in November 1921. Extra spending might actually have a positive effect on the Great Depression as the money would have to come from taxes, which means they would be cut less and the economy would overheat less

Or you could just have Charles Forbes fall down some stairs prior to August 1921, the money he and his cronies stole between then and February 1923 would cover completing the 1916 program

 

[James Ricker]

No Bismarck won't, Germany had a hiatus in large gun construction, it takes time to relearn how to do this, Bismarck and Tirpitz will still probably have 15" guns because that is what would be available when she is being built, he settled on those when the USN, RN and IJN had 16" guns OTL

the Germans were capable of building huge guns in the 1940s. A little shifting of funds, meterials and personnel and you should get 8x18" guns ready in 1940.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

the Germans were capable of building huge guns

Yes they could, after they took time to learn how to do it again. Bismarck and Tirpitz were able to be fitted with 8 38cm guns each and enter commission in August 1940 and February 1941. By contrast Germany managed its first 40.6cm naval weapon in 1942 and its first 80cm in September 1941, smaller guns are quicker to design and build

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Yes they could, after they took time to learn how to do it again. Bismarck and Tirpitz were able to be fitted with 8 38cm guns each and enter commission in August 1940 and February 1941. By contrast Germany managed its first 40.6cm naval weapon in 1942 and its first 80cm in September 1941, smaller guns are quicker to design and build

Germany will present an interesting quandary ITTL; and is my next focus now that I have hammered out roughly how I think the major and minor powers will go.

OTL, Bismarck and Tirpitz were excellent ships for what they were intended for: slugging it out at close ranges in the North Sea with limited visibility and possibility of air cover. Her armament of 8 15" in 4 heavily armoured turrets matched or exceeded what most British ships had, and she could outrun all of them except Hood.

TTL, the OTL Bismarcks would be overmatched. With the RN equipped with 5 Lions (armed with 9x16" BL Mark II 16" guns, and a 28.5kt top speed) and 4 G3s (9x16" BL Mark I, 30 kt top speed) and a freshly refitted Hood (8x15" BL Mark I guns, equipped with supercharges to increase range, 33kt top speed from her new bow, stern and boilers, and overhauled turbines)

The question is, what can they do to counter it?

First, they're going to want to build battleships, and France will not want them in the treaty, as in OTL

What I was thinking was the KM realizes that they can't possibly counter these RN ships with a single ship class like the Bismarcks. They want surface raiders- the Scharnhorsts ae very good at that; as are the pocket battleships.

I'm thinking a different concept than the OTL KM. Raeder realizes that the North Sea must be kept open, to allow the raiders to raid. Not even the Royal Navy can protect its entire merchant fleet with battleship escorts.

To deal with that, I'm thinking (and incorporating a precious few butterflies) that the idea of a fast battleship is out- too resource intensive and would just get beaten by numbers anyway. Then, the task of keeping the North Sea lanes open falls to a class of smaller, slower, but extremely well protected battleships, almost analogous to a N3 class.

This is the Schwerer Panzerschiff.

They would have 2 shafts, all-diesel propulsion, and an initial class armed with eight 38cm or 40.6cm guns in 4 double turrets, followed by a class with six 42cm guns in 3 double turrets with some ridiculous amount of face armour, and a distributed armour scheme designed to defeat multiple targets in a close-range punch up.

It is already accepted that these ships will not use speed to choose their range, but that the conditions in which they operate dictate close ranges.

On the other hand, now the KM is even more of a glorified brown-water navy than it was OTL. Maybe two Bismarcks and two Schwerer Panzerschiffe instead of H-39s?

Next up is having Herr Doktor Morrell inject Hitler with some Temporary Reason Serum and upon its taking effect, the Fuehrer calls Raeder and Goering to his side.

There, he tells the Reichsmarschall and the Grand Admiral that he is sick of their infighting surrounding their new toy, the carrier Graf Zeppelin. Officers and men owe their loyalty to the Reich, not their branch of service. As such, the Luftwaffe will be responsible for the air wing, the provision of planes, and pilot training, the Kreigsmarine will own the ship and the planes in combat will be considered an extension of the weapons of the ship- the KM will give orders to the pilots through a Luftwaffe liason officer. The Fuehrer remarks he is now bored of this- if he has to address the issue again, won't Doenitz be happy to have a new pile of scrap metal to be turned into more U-boats?

-----------

The Soviets are a bit trickier.

They probably could build 4 Sovetsky Soyuz -class battleships.

The problem is I can't see them starting earlier than 1935-7 even with the increased naval threats worldwide, and then I have the whole issue of the Great Purge going on and disorganized industry. The fact that they can't produce cemented armour more than 7" or 9" thick pales in comparison to this issue.

---------------------
I also realize I have a potential problem with my Izumi buildout. I simply replaced the 4x2 18" guns with 4x3 16"/L45 models. The problem is that since Japan never made a triple 16" turret that I'm aware of, so I'm not sure if this would make them too wide and/or increase her weight too much.

I know Japan successfully tested an improved 16"/L50 design in the 1920s, but had plenty of the older ones stockpiled. I'm going to go ahead and assume the 4 Tosas and Amagis I have TTL use those stockpiles up. Kii , like those 2 classes, was also to have 5x2 16" guns, but this class was not built OTL or TTL.

Fortunately, the heavier shell makes her better armed, so I can justify her considerable length and increased armour, but, the question is whether 5 double turrets take up more space (well, less widthwise and more lengthwise) and weight than 4 triples. Thus, would it make more sense to have Izumi armed with 10 16"/L50 guns in 5 double turrets (and maybe a couple extra boilers to squeeze an extra knot or two out of her), or 12 16"/L50 guns in 4 triple turrets which would still fit her 101' as projected beam?

 

[jsb]

From the UK perspective:

I know I have some of the finest ships in the world, But realise after WWI that they are worn out and have far more battle experience to design better than anybody else. 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 This is more 30s RN not 20s thinking (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) This was also to minimize flooding historically. 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 This has far to much hindsight involved IMO and not really early 20 plans....


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 keeping old ships is very cheap if in reserve so the requirement to scrap is simply treaty numbers the Fusos and Ises. some of them are very new and not had worn like the RN ships.... 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. Not sure if you can move it via the canal? The Panama Canal isn't as important for me as Suez is for the British,Disagree this is critical and RN can go via the cape if needed, its also easier to move flat sand than build lock gates. 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. This is the real USN limit But what do I build and what do I give up? 1920 South Dakotas? Lexingtons? A combination?

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

the USA would have by far the slowest fleet otherwise.

But USN was relatively happy with a slow fleet as they intended to fight a single battle that others could not avoid so they might well prefer SDs if as likley they have a choice?

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Thanks to all the excellent feedback, I will now embark on the foolhardy endeavor of attempting to condense years' worth of negotiations into a single post, despite being neither a diplomat nor naval architect! Here goes!

POD: 1921-22

Intro:

The following excerpts are taken from contemporary accounts; as such, there may be inaccuracies.


AFTER the Great War, the battleship was the most awesome and terrifying weapon the world had yet known, much like the hydrogen bomb and the ballistic missile of today.

In a different world, the watchword of the day would have been "To disarm, disarm!" In the world in which we live, it was "Preparedness in Peace, to prevent the Outbreak of War". Each party, as much as they had wanted to beat their swords into ploughshares, feared having to plow for those who didn't.



The ships of the Royal Navy are the once-wooden and now cemented steel walls which guard little Albion's mighty island fortress. Albion herself was bloodied by a war which had gone on far longer than she wanted, and dealt her a blow in blood and treasure that even victory did not heal. The wound called "Jutland" still festered- there was something "bloody wrong with (their) ships that day", but many of those ships were still the ones that made up the Royal Navy's battle line.

Parliament balked at the expense of building warships, especially in what was then peacetime, and then to replace nearly new ones!

However, when members and ministers saw the plans of the United States and the Empire of Japan, they could not stand idly by if Brittania was to continue to rule the waves.


The Empire of Japan is another island nation, but very different from Great Britain. Isolated from the world for centuries, Japan's seafarers drew blood against the Russians at Tsushima, which was their very own Trafalgar, and took their place among the nations as a major naval power. Steeped in the ancient ways of bushido, the warriors' code that governed the ancient Samurai warriors, their society is prepared to make sacrifices that the Western nations will not in order to build their great battle fleet. They feared an emergent Soviet Union, and a resurgent China, their centuries-long mortal enemy, who may coalesce behind one or a coalition of warlords and challenge Japanese ambitions.

Japan's parliament, the Diet, approved an enormously ambitious plan to build an "Eight-Eight" fleet; one which comprises eight modern battleships and eight equally modern battlecruisers. Such a plan would cost more than Japan's entire budget! This still did not satisfy the most ambitious admirals, who demanded a "Triple-Eight" fleet; which has varied in meaning from the ships all being eight years old or newer, or three squadrons of eight ships.

The Japanese, however, are as clever as they are hardworking, and knew that they could not out-produce either the United States or Great Britain. Instead, they sought out a pared-down plan of ships that outmatch the West's best, accepting fewer ships in exchange for their rivals being further restricted.


The United States's shipyards and factories are the world's envy. They process a continent's worth of resources and reserves of treasure that even the ancient Pharaohs cold not dream of. However, neither the American populace nor their representatives in government were keen to spend their riches on instruments of war. The United States possessed a mighty Navy, mostly unravaged by war, and was capable of outbuilding Britain and Japan combined! At the time of the treaty's signing, they had no fewer than twelve capital ships on the building ways! Had it not been for one Charles Forbes' unfortunate tumble down the Capitol steps, caused, by of all things, a butterfly flying about his face, it would have been the mighty American fleet rather than her who would have taken a blow to the head and been incapacitated!

As is often the case in the United States, a compromise settlement was undertaken. About half of the new ships were completed; albeit some to different configurations, and the rest scrapped to build the motor cars and skyscrapers of which Americans are so fond!


The Treaties:

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:

All tonnage figures refer to standard load

Destroyer: To displace no more than 1850 tons, and mount guns no more than 6" in caliber

Cruiser: To displace between 1851 and 10 000 tons, and mount guns no more than 8" in caliber (In the following 1930 London Naval Treaty, this ship class was split into heavy cruisers mounting guns of up to 8" and light cruisers guns of up to 6.1"

Capital Ship: Vessels displacing in excess of 10 000 tons, with a maximum gun caliber of 16". An "escalator clause" stipulates that if one power mounts guns larger than 16", the others may install guns as large as they believe necessary to counter. There are no size restrictions beyond this 10 000 ton limit, but each country is restricted to a tonnage total for their capital ships.

In the preceding negotiations, minimum and maximum per ship tonnages of 17 500 tons (ostensibly to prevent unused capital ship allotment from being used to construct "super cruisers") and 35 000 tons were proposed, but the parties failed to agree on a number, and as such

Aircraft Carrier: A vessel constructed primarily to launch and recover aircraft regardless of tonnage, provided it mounts guns no larger than 6.1" 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 525 000, 315 000 and 183 500 per.

The tonnage limits for aircraft carriers were 135 000 tons for the USA and Great Britain, and 81 000 for Japan. Any carriers currently under construction shall be deemed "experimental" and not count towards tonnage limits.

---------

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:

-Submarines are restricted from carrying guns larger than 6.1"

-Cruisers are split into "heavy" and "light" classes

-Japan proposes a five year "holiday" on the construction of new capital ships. However, the major powers never reach a settlement. Instead, something of a "gentlemen's agreement" pops up, with no major power staring to construct new battleships in those five years- indeed, it was not until 1936 that Britain laid the keels for her King George V [OTL Lion] class battleships. This was not done so much out of generosity, but because each nation's intelligence services were eagerly probing their rivals' plans to see what they were building, so whatever was built in response could counter it, and no nation in this period of economic anxiety wanted to build a ship that was obsolescent on launch.

-Existing capital ships could be refitted or reconstructed with torpedo bulges and other "purely defensive" modifications, up to 3500 tons' worth without affecting their Treaty tonnage. Japan was notorious for her "creative" interpretation of this term.

In this interim period, Italy and France each laid the keels for 4 battleships, France in 1934 and Italy later the same year.


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

London, 1935:

The uneasy agreement proceeds.

-Germany begins constructing capital ships, in addition to her 10 000 nominal ton Panzerschiffe. Britain proposes allowing Germany into the treaty to curb this development; first with a strength ratio of 1.5 (notably under France's), and later 1.25, but the French delegation threatens to walk out.

-The Soviet Union begins constructing very large slips, increasing mining and steel production efforts, and Soviet representatives are frequent visitors to the headquarters of Brown, Boveri &Cie.

-Japan is nearly expelled over the Mukden incident, but remains in the Treaty, as it wants to ensure that her rivals are restricted by the Treaty, much as Great Britain and the USA are concerned about rumors of even further Japanese naval expansion.

-The United States, seeing how its fleet has failed to anticipate the fast battleship, begins procuring design studies for two classes of six battleships, the first to be among the fastest in the world, the next to be slower, but much faster than a "slow" battleship and be among, if not the uncontested, armed and armoured ships in the world. The full complement would shatter the Treaty, but by now nobody is certain how long it will last.

-----

1937-39:

The Treaty has collapsed.

-Japan lays the keels for two 70 000 ton battleships

-The United States assigns shipyards for the first four of the new Alabama [OTL Iowa] class ships, and all six by 1938; three keels laid in 1938 and remaining in 1939; 2 keels for the even larger Ohio [OTL Montana] class as well as a carrier program of unprecedented scale.

-Britain begins studying designs, ranging from a ship that utilizes 8-12 15" guns from the Revenges, Renowns, Courageous and Glorious , or fresh designs with unprecedented torpedo and bomb protection.

-Germany begins laying keels for her new shipbulding programme, Plan Z; Hermann Goering unsuccessfully lobbies the Fuehrer to name Germany's first aircraft carrier after himself.

-The Soviets begin stockpiling materials; this is very difficult with the Purge, and many samples of metallurgy are rejected.



TO FOLLOW:

Order of Battle: Capital Ships and Carriers of Great Britain, the United States, the Empire of Japan, the Kingdom of Italy and National Socialist Germany as of Aug.31, 1939.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

But USN was relatively happy with a slow fleet as they intended to fight a single battle that others could not avoid so they might well prefer SDs if as liley they ahve a choice?

For their battleships yes, but the scouting element needs higher speeds. As long as the US has no Battlecruisers they lack a force that can fight for information, the airplane has started to fill this hole in good weather, but cannot fully do it in the period. Without being able to fight for information, one could easily be blinded by enemy cruiser forces, and that makes it easier to sail into unfavorable circumstances, for all the USN planned on forcing the enemy to fight on a strategic level, on the operational and tactical levels there is flexibility

 

[StevoJH]

I could be missing something here, but everyone seems to be focusing on OTL battleship designs which are getting bigger and bigger.

What is the minimum number of ships Britain (for example) requires to meet their commitments?

You can get 12x 43,750t ships on 525,000t, which gives you 3 squadrons of 4, but obviously not all ships available at once. And this is not going to be an issue until probably the late 1930’s when the last of the WW1 ships are due for replacement and the treaty may have been renegotiated by then.

On the other hand, you can get 15x 35,000t ships. While having the most powerful ships is a good bragging point, it is pointless if they are in the wrong place. Of course if your weaker ships come up against their more powerful ships and lose...that is also bad...

As for aircraft carriers, if experimental carriers don’t count towards the limit, that gives the RN a huge advantage in numbers for the next 20 to 30 years if they have the budget to capitalise on it.

Argus, Eagle, Hermes, Courageous, Glorious and Furious all count as experimental. And the last 3 are big and fast.

 

[Luminous]

For their battleships yes, but the scouting element needs higher speeds. As long as the US has no Battlecruisers they lack a force that can fight for information, the airplane has started to fill this hole in good weather, but cannot fully do it in the period. Without being able to fight for information, one could easily be blinded by enemy cruiser forces, and that makes it easier to sail into unfavorable circumstances, for all the USN planned on forcing the enemy to fight on a strategic level, on the operational and tactical levels there is flexibility

An ability the US was willing to sacrifice in OTL, I'll point out - they had their light cruisers that could suffice for such reasons. Then again, the US historically did have an anathema to the cruiser role.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

I could be missing something here, but everyone seems to be focusing on OTL battleship designs which are getting bigger and bigger.

What is the minimum number of ships Britain (for example) requires to meet their commitments?

You can get 12x 43,750t ships on 525,000t, which gives you 3 squadrons of 4, but obviously not all ships available at once. And this is not going to be an issue until probably the late 1930’s when the last of the WW1 ships are due for replacement and the treaty may have been renegotiated by then.

On the other hand, you can get 15x 35,000t ships. While having the most powerful ships is a good bragging point, it is pointless if they are in the wrong place. Of course if your weaker ships come up against their more powerful ships and lose...that is also bad...

As for aircraft carriers, if experimental carriers don’t count towards the limit, that gives the RN a huge advantage in numbers for the next 20 to 30 years if they have the budget to capitalise on it.

Argus, Eagle, Hermes, Courageous, Glorious and Furious all count as experimental. And the last 3 are big and fast.

There's a method to my madness in keeping Hood and the Queen Elizabeths around. In the interwar years, the duties of carrying the White Ensign around the world fall to them. They look impressive, the Queen Elizabeths' records are proven and the Hood is fast.

Imperial commitments will play a large part for Britain, which is why I have them going for an intermediate Lion design and refits for some older ships. Will refits get you the best ships? No. But you will get a ship faster, and sometimes it's what the Empire needs.

I'm also trying to be particularly cognizant of keeping drafts as shallow as possinle and widths under 108' for Suez.