WI: No naval treaties

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?
 
One other result would be lots of obsolete ships present for WWII, as naval construction and manning/maintenance budgets run out.

Historically some old ships were disposed of, and the treaties held construction in check for a number of years while designs continued to progress.

Imagine a US fleet build around a few Ranger-style carriers, a mixed bag of 14" and 16" gun slow battleships, and destroyers with lots of torpedo tubes loaded with questionable ordnance. Oh, and Buffaloes flying top cover.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
One other result would be lots of obsolete ships present for WWII, as naval construction and manning/maintenance budgets run out.

Historically some old ships were disposed of, and the treaties held construction in check for a number of years while designs continued to progress.

Imagine a US fleet build around a few Ranger-style carriers, a mixed bag of 14" and 16" gun slow battleships, and destroyers with lots of torpedo tubes loaded with questionable ordnance. Oh, and Buffaloes flying top cover.

Right... less advanced aircraft technology, I forgot that.
 
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?

Afraid I cant agree with you there.

certainly the major naval powers would have built more battleships, but all of them had plenty after WW1 so there wouldnt have been some mad building spree. The RN, for example, had a tentative building program of a bit less than one BB a year, but you would expect the size of the ships to keep going up avery 5-6 years as new classes emerge.

Aircraft carriers certainly wouldnt have been ignored. The RN was rather keen on naval aircraft in 1918, when they had a generous surplus of battleships! However I would expect the battle line concept to be the centre of the fleet, with less chance of the standalone carrier based force developing until the late 30's ( by then, better aircraft and radar would be starting to drive the uses of carriers0; until then they will be fleet defence, reconnaisance and maybe A/S units.
The RN conversions would go ahead, the units they used were of questionable use anyway. However I agree its quite possible the USN and IJN conversions wouldnt happen - maybe we would see earlier specialised units if they can find the money.

The heavy cruiser wasnt a result of the treaty, it was simply defined by it. The cruiser development during the war had led up to not much smaller ships at gun calibre, so they merely formulated what was in development anyway.

The big changes come from the 1930 treaty vanishing. Until then, its mainly a slow and steady improvement/build/replace program. After that, the disastrous effects on the RN are to some extent butterflied away (although everyone will be short of money till around 1934), and its possible to start rebuilding the RN earlier in view of the threats envisaged for some years
 
There's also the fortification clause of Washington which absence would mean Japan making more of its mandates IIRC

One major result is going to be that the naval building programmes which Washington effectively ended are going to have to be played out in some way or other. One reason the various powers were OK with signing a limitation treaty was that they realised they were building huge and expensive ships which would soon be obselete because of what their rivals laid down in reply. Britain had plans to jump a stage and lay down its next generation to catch up, but it really couldn't afford to and political considerations at home would have played merry hell with an attempted naval expansion bill

But national pride is going to make the various nations want to complete and compete. The US can probably complete all of its battleships and hope they'll be useful, but its major problem is going to be with the Lexingtons which by now it doesn't want but doesn't know what to do with. It MIGHT even choose to convert them to carriers, and maybe not just just 2

Japan is in a worse position since the earthquake not only wrecks one of the ships but shreds its economy. It will probably get by with a combination of scrapping hulls, converting others, and laying down something new for the late 1920s

Britain is going to struggle, and will probably make do with laying down one class combining the virtues of the planned 2, and staggering it over a number of years.

But this sudden burst in construction is going to be superceded by a pause, except perhaps for Italy which mght well go with new designs from the late 1920s onwards.

It might also be the case that more older dreadnoughts get sold to minor nations rather than scrapped

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
There's also the fortification clause of Washington which absence would mean Japan making more of its mandates IIRC

It might also be the case that more older dreadnoughts get sold to minor nations rather than scrapped

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Two very good points there - anyone want to write an ATL where the Bismark sinks the Brazilian Battlecruiser Hood? :)
 
One interesting butterfly is what does germany do in the 30's?

In OTL, building capital ships made sense as much of the RN was obsolescent, and a few fast BB's could tie up a lot of ships. Only 3 old BC's could match the speed, and the 5 KGV's werent built yet.

However now we'd see the G3 and N3 built in the 20's (yes, they did have the money, and in any case its keeping employment going in the shipyards), and by the early 30's the follow on class would be on the stocks - probably an updated G3 design. Since the heavy warship capability hasnt been decimated by the treaties, Britains building capacity will be greater than in OTL as well.
Given many more fast, very powerful ships to contend with, would Germany raise the stakes with even bigger BB's (the H class), with all the tremendous expense, or would they simply decide it isnt worth it, and go for smaller, faster 'raider' ships in the heavy cruiser class plus more UBoats?
 
First off, it was in the best interests for all the Great Powers that there were naval treaties. At the time they simply could not afford increased spending while the world economy recovered from the after effects of the Great War.

1. The older battleships would be sold off and scrapped. Predreadnoughts and the first generation dreadnoughts are worthless compared to the post-Jutland dreadnoughts.

2. Naval aviation will be pursued, anybody thinking otherwise just isn't looking at the trends. The carrier was gaining in importance and all that General Mitchell's sinking of the Ostfriesland proved was that aircraft could sink an old, immobile, undefended battleship.

3a. The heavy cruiser was making an appearance by 1920, while the British did have the Hawkins class the US was preparing a reply to them at about 10,000 tons, but were really developing cruisers for the Pacific. The genesis of both the later heavy and light cruisers were present by the end of the war.

3b. What would be interesting, tho unlikely, would be the continued use of the large cruiser as embodied in Glorious and Courageous. Furious is already converted to a carrier. The concept was not unique to the Royal Navy and designs were prepared by most navies of the world.

4. An importance related treaty, as mentioned by Grey Wolf, dealt with the fortification of mandates and possessions in the Pacific, which was adopted in order placate the Japanese. Without the WNT Subic Bay and Singapore will be fortified.
 
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?

With no Washington Treaty you get the G3's and maybe the N3's for the Royal Navy but it then depends on what the US does next. Beatty wanted a 20 ship Battlefleet. No Treaty then he will get that.

The signs are that President Harding wasn't very interested in foreign entanglements or big spending. Congress was going isolationist too.

The Americans would probably complete the ships they had on the stocks and the Lexington Battlecruisers but the size of the fleet would remain smaller than the RN. I agree carrier development may initially slow but I think you would get Enterprise size carriers being ordered 5 or 6 years earlier in order to fill the gap.

The Japanese get hit by the earthquake and this holds them back.

If the British get a decent 18" gun working on the N3 then I think the US and Japan will have 18" battleships 50,000 tonnes plus on the stocks by 1930. The British will then have to order BB's to replace the Revenge class and they would probably try to upgrade the QE's.

I guess they will try to keep costs down as much as possible so I see the British ordering KGV's but with 16" guns. The Americans wouldn't order any Iowas because 16" BB's would not be seen as the epitome of sea power. The 18" would be.

The Germans would probably not even try to build a surface fleet because the odds are just ridiculous. If they break Versailles then they will give Doenitz his 300 U boats.
 
I'd think the affects of the Great Depression would have a major impact on
reckless spending but it would have been interesting to see all of the
battleships and battle cruisers being built. Without the conversion
of the Lexington/Saratoga for the US and the Akagi/Kaga for Japan, I
would wonder if we would seen more Enterprise class carriers along
with either more Hiryu's or Shokaku's for how different WW2 would be
if the US had a dozen Enterprise class carriers in 1941 making war
impossible for Japan.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
I think mostly there would have been light carriers, perhaps a Hiryu or two for Japan, a Ranger or two for the US, a couple of mid-sized ones (Indomitable? Ark Royal?) for Britain in addition. There was no empirical data yet on what carriers are capable of, so I think most nations would have stuck to the tried and tested technology of the battleship - the bigger the better.
 

Markus

Banned
The US can probably complete all of its battleships and hope they'll be useful, but its major problem is going to be with the Lexingtons which by now it doesn't want but doesn't know what to do with. I

Japan is in a worse position since the earthquake not only wrecks one of the ships but shreds its economy. It will probably get by with a combination of scrapping hulls, converting others, and laying down something new for the late 1920s

Britain is going to struggle, and will probably make do with laying down one class combining the virtues of the planned 2, and staggering it over a number of years.

Grey Wolf


And that is IMO the reason why "no treaty" is very unrealistic. Japan wanted to build more capital ships but couldn´t, the UK sort-of could but did not want to, the USA coud have build anything in almost any numbers but also did not want to.

The likely case would be Japan bankrupting itself in the very near future and having to agree to a ratio lower than 10:10:8.

My guess the Brits will build to just match the Japanese new construction, two, three N3 battlecruiser-in-name-only should do fine and the USA would add the same number of 1920´s South Dakotas, maybe upgun some of the 14" BB to 16". Than the treaty comes.
 
I think mostly there would have been light carriers, perhaps a Hiryu or two for Japan, a Ranger or two for the US, a couple of mid-sized ones (Indomitable? Ark Royal?) for Britain in addition. There was no empirical data yet on what carriers are capable of, so I think most nations would have stuck to the tried and tested technology of the battleship - the bigger the better.

To a degree there was. The British had carried out experiments aboard HMS Furious, not to mention the attack on the Tondern zeppelin hangers. There were members of the Royal Navy that was early as 1912 advocated the use of airstrikes and plans were drawn up to launch an aerial attack on the High Seas Fleet at Wilhelmshaven in 1919. These plans were dusted off in the 1930s when there was the possibility of war with Italy over their actions in Abyssinia and some writers contend that the plans may have also been discussed with the Japanese when they had British trainers.
 
Top