WI: No Washington Treaty

A silly questain, but i was inspired when i read a quote from a hisotrian that went, "The Washington treaty is ofton critisized for not preventing WWII, for not preventing pearl harbour and so on, but it might have just prevented the Great Anglo-American War of 1928..."

Disscus.
 
What great Anglo-American War of 1928? I've heard the references also, but sort of doubt it. I'm not sure that the saber rattling became all that great between Britain and America. Also even without the WNT the US Navy building program of 1918/19 was being gutted by Congress and would have been dead by 1921 anyway.
 
What great Anglo-American War of 1928? I've heard the references also, but sort of doubt it. I'm not sure that the saber rattling became all that great between Britain and America. Also even without the WNT the US Navy building program of 1918/19 was being gutted by Congress and would have been dead by 1921 anyway.

Sorry Mate, but not my words. What he was saying was speculative to try and get a point across, all i wanted to know is a similar conflict was possible. But anyway, what would have happend without the washington treaty.
 
Is the Anglo-japanese alliance still functioning, or has it broken apart either through inertia or American meddling?

Might have a small impact on the course of the war, I would think, if no treaty leads to the alliance being renewed. IIRC the alliance was probably going to lapse anyways, but if no treaty combined with a greater threat of Anglo-American war is present, it might be retained.
 
A silly questain, but i was inspired when i read a quote from a hisotrian that went, "The Washington treaty is ofton critisized for not preventing WWII, for not preventing pearl harbour and so on, but it might have just prevented the Great Anglo-American War of 1928..."

Disscus.


1928? No. But if we are talking about the post Civil War Washington treaty, then yes, an Anglo-American war is possible in the late 1800's. The treaty ended alot of territorial and other disputes between the two, and without the treaty, and some time to ripen, these disputes could have ended in a war.
 
This was being discussed over a couple of naval boards, sa I recall. From what I could see, general consensus was that in the purely naval sphere, developments may not be all that revolutionary.

By the time of the treaty, the USN had already decided that it needed CVs approximately equal to the Lexingtons in capabilities. It seems that US Congress would be unlikely to fully fund the 1916 program in full. The South Dakota class would probably have at least a couple of units completed, but the Lexington CCs are less likely - it's probably that you'd get one or two competed as CC and one or two as CVs, with a total of three to four.

The IJN would have a crack at the 8-8 program, but the Great Kanto earthquake would still utterly root their economy for years to come.

The British are probably the most interesting, in that IIRC they had enough economic capacity to complete the G3-class battlecruisers.

In the political sphere, it becomes much more in Britain's interest to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance to strengthen their position in the far east. This would of course continue to state that the UK would not be drawn in to a Japanese war of aggression against the United States. However, it does make it much more likely that the UK and Japan cooperate more closely in the far east, particularly in keeping order in China and suppressing piracy. You could see a joint Anglo-Japanese move into Manchuria aimed at establishing a joint protectorate, which would very much be in Japans interested economically after Kanto, but which would prevent them from becoming diplomatically isolated. A strong relationship with Britain would also help to keep the ultranationalists and lunatic fringe of the Army and Navy under control.

In Europe, Italy and France would still be too economically poorly placed to realistically commit to building programs much in excess of what they did OTL. Italy may choose to build new ships rather than refitting their old dreadnoughts, but the Caracciolos had already been cancelled and the existing work scrapped by the time the treaty was signed. France was exploring the quad turret even before WW1, so they may look into something along the lines of the Gascogne or even the Alsace classes. The Dunkerques were explicitly a response to the German BCs, and so any analagous ships would probably be strongly contingent on German shipbuilding.

You would probably see, over the course of the 20s, the scrapping by the major navies of all ships with a main armament smaller than 13.5", followed by a scrapping of ships with armament smaller than 15" in the end of the 20s and the 30s. Many of these ships would be put up for sale before being scrapped, which could see second-tier nations like Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Spain and Greece snapping up some less-capable ships at bargain prices.

Psychologically, the impact on Japan of not being explicitly declared a second-rate power would be immense, and having limited expansionism sanctioned would bleed off quite a few of the more aggressive leaders. I wonder how it may affect the Japanese involvement in the Russian Far East - a more confident Japan and a strongly anticommunist Britain with an interest in the Far East might end up melding the Manchurian protectorate and the White Russian forces together.

Britain would probably feel much more secure with a full-strength fleet at its disposal and no real competition - German has been neutered, the Russian/Soviet Navy is no real threat, and Japan, France, Italy and the United States were most recently allies. The G3s are a remarkably powerful design, and a second set in the late 20s, possibly with a more conventional turret layout, would continue to keep British naval power well above the rest.

Germany would still be bound by the Versailles limitations of a maximum of 10k ton ships, which historically was fudged into the 16 000+ ton Deutschlands. Without the WNT, and its 35 000 ton standard for battleships, the Scharnhorsts aren't really that viable as fleet units. An Anglo-German Naval Agreement is also less likely, as the UK would be less focused on putting everyone on a equal footing, and more inclined to see the newer German fleet units as aimed directly at the RN and commerce warfare.

Carrier warfare would continue to be developed - the RN, IJN and USN all saw the potential well before the end of WW1, and there may be fewer ruffled feathers if the Admirals are not forced to give up battlewagons to get CVs. The USN in particular was looking towards Carriers to be the scouts of the fleet, and their designs from before the WNT were based on the ships being able to carry strike bombers.

Another interesting area would be cruisers - Britain had identified a strong need for a large number of trade protection cruisers, and without the WNT Heavy/Light cruiser division there would not be the tendency to build to the limit as was seen in OTL - nations wanting line of battle ships are free to build them.

My summary, then, would be that you'd probably see a strong partnership between Japan and Great Britain - though Britain would probably still see Japan as being somewhat inferior and more of a regional power than itself - with joint commercial and military missions in China and Manchuria. The USN would be strengthened by some South Dakotas, some Lexington CCs and some fleet CVs, but weakened by the presence of large numbers of Standard ships with their limitations, and a very top-heavy fleet, combined with a Congress unlikely to authorise further large building programs. Japan would be more confident in its place, and would probably have a more stable and strong parliamentary democracy. The UK would have a stronger navy, and the British would probably draw confidence from that strengthening of their place in the world. It's probable that the Dominions would have strengthened navies to boot.

Things could start to get a little interesting if the far-right rise to power in Europe as in OTL, or if the USSR decides it needs to compete in the world. Ultimately, the only major changes would be that Japan is less likely to fall to the far right, the UK is likely to be more confident, and the US less likely to engage in new construction - anything other than that is just altering the equipment rather than the outcome.
 
1928? No. But if we are talking about the post Civil War Washington treaty, then yes, an Anglo-American war is possible in the late 1800's. The treaty ended alot of territorial and other disputes between the two, and without the treaty, and some time to ripen, these disputes could have ended in a war.

This thread is talking about the Washington Naval Treaty from 1922. It made a 3:3:1.8:1:1 ratio for naval weights (Britain, America, Japan, France, Italy respectively) and eased a lot of tensions Britain had about naval buildups.
 
The Japanese do not have the economic capability to pay for the entirety of the 8-8 Program, so they will basically default on the idea or go bankrupt. The Imperial Navy is divided internally by those that welcomed the WNT and those that didn't.

The British are not interested in continueing the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and consider the Japanese potential rivals. The Admiralty is already being selective on what technical information they pass onto the Japanese. The British have the economic capability of building the G3s, but not the political capital at home with the public to build them. They historically went to Washington with an offer of parity with the US that mirrored, but were deeper, than what Secretary of State Hughes offered.

The main spoilers of the Treaty are the French. They simply did not like the balance of naval power as it existed, but they can do little to correct it.
 
I think the main differences would be political, I think the Anglo-Japanese treaty links would linger for a while longer and Britain wouldn't adopt the 'ten year rule'. Maybe the RN wouldn't sink so low and be able to effectively counter the German threat in the 30s, and not have to enter into a naval treaty with them.
 

Redbeard

Banned
...The British have the economic capability of building the G3s, but not the political capital at home with the public to build them...


If a reasonable agreement could be found everybody in GB certainly could bring up ideas about how the peacedividend was to be utilised. First of all in bringing back taxes as close as possible to the pre war level.

But if such an agreement wasn't possible I'm quite certain, that the British public would be happy to meet any warship building race challenge. That would just bring the British back to "business as usual" from before the war, when there allways was some foreign state which had to be matched.

As others, I too doubt a no-WT PoD alone is enough to bring about an Anglo-US war, and the naval race in such a ATL might even not be very long.

USA continue the programme started before 1922 and end up with a huge but largely obsolescent and very unbalanced fleet. That is not the best background on which to ask the Congress for money to start all over again.

The British will start and finish the G3 programme, and scrap as many of the older ships as can be without dropping under the tonnage of USN. Some of the older ships will be expensive to maintain and in bad need of refit, but the RN will have a much better position from which to continously renew itself than the USN has. In this ATL it is the USN that risk suffering from a building pause.

Japan, France and Italy will not have the funds to do much more than OTL, but the Japanese might try hard. That might increase the OTL economical and political chaos of OTL interwar years, but as this chaos will be connected with a militarist wet-dream of being allowed to build everything but only achieving chaos and poverty, I think the militarist period in Japanese history might end prematurely and not necessarily as a result of being flattened by a foreign power.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
This was being discussed over a couple of naval boards, sa I recall. From what I could see, general consensus was that in the purely naval sphere, developments may not be all that revolutionary.

By the time of the treaty, the USN had already decided that it needed CVs approximately equal to the Lexingtons in capabilities. It seems that US Congress would be unlikely to fully fund the 1916 program in full. The South Dakota class would probably have at least a couple of units completed, but the Lexington CCs are less likely - it's probably that you'd get one or two competed as CC and one or two as CVs, with a total of three to four.

The IJN would have a crack at the 8-8 program, but the Great Kanto earthquake would still utterly root their economy for years to come.

The British are probably the most interesting, in that IIRC they had enough economic capacity to complete the G3-class battlecruisers.

In the political sphere, it becomes much more in Britain's interest to renew the Anglo-Japanese alliance to strengthen their position in the far east. This would of course continue to state that the UK would not be drawn in to a Japanese war of aggression against the United States. However, it does make it much more likely that the UK and Japan cooperate more closely in the far east, particularly in keeping order in China and suppressing piracy. You could see a joint Anglo-Japanese move into Manchuria aimed at establishing a joint protectorate, which would very much be in Japans interested economically after Kanto, but which would prevent them from becoming diplomatically isolated. A strong relationship with Britain would also help to keep the ultranationalists and lunatic fringe of the Army and Navy under control.

In Europe, Italy and France would still be too economically poorly placed to realistically commit to building programs much in excess of what they did OTL. Italy may choose to build new ships rather than refitting their old dreadnoughts, but the Caracciolos had already been cancelled and the existing work scrapped by the time the treaty was signed. France was exploring the quad turret even before WW1, so they may look into something along the lines of the Gascogne or even the Alsace classes. The Dunkerques were explicitly a response to the German BCs, and so any analagous ships would probably be strongly contingent on German shipbuilding.

You would probably see, over the course of the 20s, the scrapping by the major navies of all ships with a main armament smaller than 13.5", followed by a scrapping of ships with armament smaller than 15" in the end of the 20s and the 30s. Many of these ships would be put up for sale before being scrapped, which could see second-tier nations like Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Spain and Greece snapping up some less-capable ships at bargain prices.

Psychologically, the impact on Japan of not being explicitly declared a second-rate power would be immense, and having limited expansionism sanctioned would bleed off quite a few of the more aggressive leaders. I wonder how it may affect the Japanese involvement in the Russian Far East - a more confident Japan and a strongly anticommunist Britain with an interest in the Far East might end up melding the Manchurian protectorate and the White Russian forces together.

Britain would probably feel much more secure with a full-strength fleet at its disposal and no real competition - German has been neutered, the Russian/Soviet Navy is no real threat, and Japan, France, Italy and the United States were most recently allies. The G3s are a remarkably powerful design, and a second set in the late 20s, possibly with a more conventional turret layout, would continue to keep British naval power well above the rest.

Germany would still be bound by the Versailles limitations of a maximum of 10k ton ships, which historically was fudged into the 16 000+ ton Deutschlands. Without the WNT, and its 35 000 ton standard for battleships, the Scharnhorsts aren't really that viable as fleet units. An Anglo-German Naval Agreement is also less likely, as the UK would be less focused on putting everyone on a equal footing, and more inclined to see the newer German fleet units as aimed directly at the RN and commerce warfare.

Carrier warfare would continue to be developed - the RN, IJN and USN all saw the potential well before the end of WW1, and there may be fewer ruffled feathers if the Admirals are not forced to give up battlewagons to get CVs. The USN in particular was looking towards Carriers to be the scouts of the fleet, and their designs from before the WNT were based on the ships being able to carry strike bombers.

Another interesting area would be cruisers - Britain had identified a strong need for a large number of trade protection cruisers, and without the WNT Heavy/Light cruiser division there would not be the tendency to build to the limit as was seen in OTL - nations wanting line of battle ships are free to build them.

My summary, then, would be that you'd probably see a strong partnership between Japan and Great Britain - though Britain would probably still see Japan as being somewhat inferior and more of a regional power than itself - with joint commercial and military missions in China and Manchuria. The USN would be strengthened by some South Dakotas, some Lexington CCs and some fleet CVs, but weakened by the presence of large numbers of Standard ships with their limitations, and a very top-heavy fleet, combined with a Congress unlikely to authorise further large building programs. Japan would be more confident in its place, and would probably have a more stable and strong parliamentary democracy. The UK would have a stronger navy, and the British would probably draw confidence from that strengthening of their place in the world. It's probable that the Dominions would have strengthened navies to boot.

Things could start to get a little interesting if the far-right rise to power in Europe as in OTL, or if the USSR decides it needs to compete in the world. Ultimately, the only major changes would be that Japan is less likely to fall to the far right, the UK is likely to be more confident, and the US less likely to engage in new construction - anything other than that is just altering the equipment rather than the outcome.

Very Good. This could make a good TL.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
Technically the Washington realty had some severs disadvantages for Britain when it came to the development of Carriers and the Tonnage limitations of there ships, They developed Carrier early and and was left with a few that are best described as Lam Ducks That counted towards there Tonnage Limitations such as HMS Eagle Displacement: 21,630 tons standard and capacity for 21 Aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_(1918)
Compare that to the Light weight Hermes also a small airarm capacity vessel yet Displacement: 10,850 tons standard, and 20 Aircraft being over the 10,000 limit of size had to be counted towards Britain’s Tonnage limitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(95)
This is more to do with they developed Carriers first and lots of trial and error
The Biggest winner in the Whole Washington Treaty of course was the U.S Navy as was aimed at what it wanted to Maximize in it’s own goals and slightly later start Gave US navy the superb advantage after there development Carrires like The Langley the USS Lexington and Japan Akagi as great examples, Vessels Far more compatible to till the much latter Developments the Ark Royal finaly being on a Par with the Massive Air Arms of these Vessels
Aim of a Carrier is to support it’s Air group Sorry Armour decks and the like aside and all else aside HMS Eagle Displacement: 21,630 tons standard and capacity for 21 Aircraft is a poor trade off when you get 33,000 on Lexington 50% more weight and 4 times the Air Arm , likes the 34 Knots top speed also

The Treaty Meant a major stalling of Carrier development for the Navy that started it.
 
Technically the Washington realty had some severs disadvantages for Britain when it came to the development of Carriers and the Tonnage limitations of there ships, They developed Carrier early and and was left with a few that are best described as Lam Ducks That counted towards there Tonnage Limitations such as HMS Eagle Displacement: 21,630 tons standard and capacity for 21 Aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_(1918)
Compare that to the Light weight Hermes also a small airarm capacity vessel yet Displacement: 10,850 tons standard, and 20 Aircraft being over the 10,000 limit of size had to be counted towards Britain’s Tonnage limitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(95)
This is more to do with they developed Carriers first and lots of trial and error
The Biggest winner in the Whole Washington Treaty of course was the U.S Navy as was aimed at what it wanted to Maximize in it’s own goals and slightly later start Gave US navy the superb advantage after there development Carrires like The Langley the USS Lexington and Japan Akagi as great examples, Vessels Far more compatible to till the much latter Developments the Ark Royal finaly being on a Par with the Massive Air Arms of these Vessels
Aim of a Carrier is to support it’s Air group Sorry Armour decks and the like aside and all else aside HMS Eagle Displacement: 21,630 tons standard and capacity for 21 Aircraft is a poor trade off when you get 33,000 on Lexington 50% more weight and 4 times the Air Arm , likes the 34 Knots top speed also

The Treaty Meant a major stalling of Carrier development for the Navy that started it.

Please read the treaty before writing nonsense.
The early UK carriers were counted as developmental, and they could have replaced them at any time had they wished.
They used them during the 20's for development of naval air techniques, and planned to start new build in the early 30's - Ark Royal was then delayed due to budgetary reasons (the depression) rather than through any RN plans.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
I sit Corrected
The 2 earlier mentioned Lam Ducks I mentioned being Hermes and Eagle
where around and not due to Direct limitations. due to Bugetary restraints
. Was noting there Commisions Dates
Commissioned: 26 February 1924
and
Commissioned: 1923
" And noting " existence or building " was well before these dates
And the Bugetory restraints you mentioned Astrodragon
Still far less worthy ships as part of the a Fleet than others had when the next shooting war started, And will retract Hermes in this List as she was a small carrier and usful for development, Still thinking Eagle was a poor and apparantly expencive Vessel to run for the size of Air Arm

Article VII

The total tonnage for aircraft carriers of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for the British Empire 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons); for France 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Italy 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons); for Japan 81,000 tons (82,296 metric tons).

Article VIII

The replacement of aircraft carriers shall be effected only as prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, provided, however, that all aircraft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 1921, shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard to its age.

Article IX

No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby exceeded,

Page 251

build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard displacement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight.
 
Top