WI minor navies could of bought battle ships after the Washington Treaty

So the Washington Treaty is signed in 1922 and the Big Three have to many Battle ships what if minor nations were allowed to buy the Ships from them .

Greece sued Germany for the price of a battle ship she ordered pre war and never received what if she could of had Germany or even A-H finish one of there Battleships on the Slip for them . Or they could buy an Iron Duke Class from the British RN .
There were a lot of minor navies that were hoping to buy a Battle ship on the cheep after the War .
The Battle ship was still the Queen of the Seas in the 1920's so yes the smaller nations would of bought them if they could of cheep .
 

The Vulture

Banned
Well, if everybody and their mother has battleships, I would expect naval doctrine to drift away from that if only to keep a monopoly on application of force.
 
So the Washington Treaty is signed in 1922 and the Big Three have to many Battle ships what if minor nations were allowed to buy the Ships from them.
There was nothing in the treaty that prevented minor powers ordering new Battleships off any of the major powers... just, said major powers couldn't sell off old ships and new construction, even on behalf of non-treaty signatories, had to meet treaty limits on displacement and armourment.
 
Leave out the big five nations for a moment (UK, USA, France, Japan, Italy)

Minor battleship nations in 1921:

Argentina (2 dreadnoughts)
Brazil (2 dreadnoughts)
Chile (1 dreadnought)
Soviet Union (4 dreadnoughts, mostly inoperable)
Spain (3 dreadnoughts)
White Russia (1 dreadnought, soon to be interned in Bizerte)

Germany (6 predreadnoughts)
Greece (2 predreadnoughts)
Turkey (1 battlecruiser)
Sweden (3 coastal defence ships)
Australia (1 battlecruiser to be disposed)

Europe:

Spain and the Soviets will look to get newer ships in the 1930s, but will run into internal problems.

Dreadnoughts are well back on the list of things to acquire for Greece and Turkey, but if one get one at some stage down the line in a world where everything goes right for them, then the other may feel motivated to mirror that move.

Sweden could afford a smaller dreadnought theoretically, but it would be too large for their use and purposes in the Baltic, just as the Tre Kronor cruisers were post WW2.

Other than these nations, there were precious few who could afford to buy and maintain a battleship, with only the Netherlands coming to mind as a realistic operator.

Poland occasionally gets a mention in some neverwere ship compilations, but lacks a deepwater port or a definitive need, not to mention funding.

Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria similarly lack the money and support, although they would be an interesting prestige ships in a very, very, very unlikely state of affairs.

Denmark, Norway, Albania, Belgium and Portugal are out.

There were a few Austrian predreadnoughts that were ceded to Britain, France and Italy that were scrapped in the 1920s that could be played with given the right (and twisted) motivation.

Outside Europe:

Canada and Australia could get into the battleship game in the interwar period, but are constrained by treaties, finance and internal politics. Fisher did recommend South Africa and New Zealand operate battlecruisers, but that is extremely unlikely in view of manning and economy.

A battleship as flagship of the Royal Indian Navy would not be impossible, but would need so many changes as to be close; funding could come from some princely states in a similar fashion to HMS Malaya.

Siam wouldn't be able to afford even a predreadnought in 1920, but did get two 3000t coastal defence ships in the late 30s; something to work with there.

China would theoretically be able to purchase a predreadnought if it was going cheap, but would need a lot of stability, funding and quite a few changes to do so.

Of the other South American nations, Peru is the only possible battleship operator, and did operate cruisers; I do remember reading somewhere about a possible sale of Vanguard that really was much ado about nothing.

Mexico is too broke after the Revolution, and Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia would require a strange world indeed to operate battleships.
 
There was nothing in the treaty that prevented minor powers ordering new Battleships off any of the major powers... just, said major powers couldn't sell off old ships and new construction, even on behalf of non-treaty signatories, had to meet treaty limits on displacement and armourment.

most of all the minor country's would of bought the older ships or the ships build .
 
There was nothing in the treaty that prevented minor powers ordering new Battleships off any of the major powers... just, said major powers couldn't sell off old ships and new construction, even on behalf of non-treaty signatories, had to meet treaty limits on displacement and armourment.

Cockroach

Pushed for time at the moment so can't look it up until later but think you're wrong here. There was concern, especially in the US that Britain, which had supplied a number of ships to foreign powers, could keep its military shipyards ticking over with such sales. Plus the fact that in a crisis it could commander any such ships under construction as it did the Chilean and Ottoman ones in 1914.

Steve
 

Flubber

Banned
Pushed for time at the moment so can't look it up until later but think you're wrong here.


He pretty much got it right and you got it pretty much right. Here are the applicable articles:

Article XV No vessel of war constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers for a non-Contracting Power shall exceed the limitations as to displacement and armament prescribed by the present Treaty for vessels of a similar type which may be constructed by or for any of the Contracting Powers; provided, however, that the displacement for aircraft carriers constructed for a non-Contracting Power shall in no case exceed 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement.

Article XVI If the construction of any vessel of war for a non-Contracting Power is undertaken within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers, such Power shall promptly inform the other Contracting Powers of the date of the signing of the contract and the date on which the keel of the ship is laid; and shall also communicate to them the particulars relating to the ship prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, Section I (b), (4) and (5).

Article XVII In the event of a Contracting Power being engaged in war, such Power shall not use as a vessel of war any vessel of war which may be under construction within its jurisdiction for any other Power, or which may have been constructed within its jurisdiction for another Power and not delivered.

Article XVIII Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy of any foreign Power.

As Cockroach wrote, sales are of new construction are allowed and, with the exception of carriers which have an upper tonnage limit per hull, they must meet the all applicable treaty restrictions. The Signatories also have to inform each other of the details concerning construction for third parties.

As you wrote, the Signatory Powers cannot play various shell games with third party sales. Not only must ships for third parties meet the treaty requirements, but a Signatory cannot seize or otherwise use ships built for third parties.

Finally, and addressing one aspect of the OP's question, the Signatories cannot "save" ships due to be scrapped by transferring them in any manner to third parties.

Chapter II of the Treaty listed by name and tonnage those capital ships which the Signatories could keep. In the case of the UK and US, when specific hulls still being constructed were completed ships specifically identified by name and tonnage had to be scrapped. Article 18 forbid the transfer to third parties of those ships due to be scrapped while several other articles set restrictions on new ships built for third parties.

The TL, DR version of all this? Minor navies could buy newly constructed battleships built to Treaty requirements but could not buy already existing battleships due to be scrapped. Signatories could also not complete hull due to be scrapped, like a G3, Lexington, or Nagato for example, "sell" it to a third party, and then seize the vessel under any pretext.

The only loopholes in the Treaty were the ones the Japanese used: Cheating.
 
Top