Sir Chaos
Banned
What would interwar-era warship design and building programmes have been like, had there been no Washington and London Naval Treaties?
I can see three major consequences.
The first, and most obvious, would be that many nations would have built more battleships - other ships, too, but mostly battleships, since they were "what really counts" -, no longer being restrained by the treaties in how many ships they could build.
The second is that there would be less of an emphasis on aircraft carriers; to me it seems that carriers really became "en vogue" because of the limit on battleship construction, so nations decided build carriers in an attempt to at least get an advantage there. There would probably have been fewer carriers by the time WW2 begins, and they would have been smaller - certainly the huge battlecruiser conversions like Akagi and the Lexingtons would never have existed as carriers.
The third consequence I see is that ships would have followed different designs; the heavy cruiser in particular practically did not exist prior to the treaties, and its basic characteristics were shaped by what was permitted for cruiser construction under the treaties. Similarly, lack of limits on battleship size and gun calibre should have led to larger, more impressively equipped battleships - for example I imagine that the US might have skipped the North Carolina and South Dakota classes entirely and built Iowas and perhaps even Montanas right away.
Does anyone else have any thoughts of this? Perhaps something I have missed?
I can see three major consequences.
The first, and most obvious, would be that many nations would have built more battleships - other ships, too, but mostly battleships, since they were "what really counts" -, no longer being restrained by the treaties in how many ships they could build.
The second is that there would be less of an emphasis on aircraft carriers; to me it seems that carriers really became "en vogue" because of the limit on battleship construction, so nations decided build carriers in an attempt to at least get an advantage there. There would probably have been fewer carriers by the time WW2 begins, and they would have been smaller - certainly the huge battlecruiser conversions like Akagi and the Lexingtons would never have existed as carriers.
The third consequence I see is that ships would have followed different designs; the heavy cruiser in particular practically did not exist prior to the treaties, and its basic characteristics were shaped by what was permitted for cruiser construction under the treaties. Similarly, lack of limits on battleship size and gun calibre should have led to larger, more impressively equipped battleships - for example I imagine that the US might have skipped the North Carolina and South Dakota classes entirely and built Iowas and perhaps even Montanas right away.
Does anyone else have any thoughts of this? Perhaps something I have missed?