WI Ryujo, Hiryu and Soryu are larger?

The Ryūjō din't count towards the tonnage-limit, she was below 10k tons which was a loophole in the treaty the Japanese used, that loophole was closed off in 1930 in London. But there is a very good reason the Japanese didn't build in sisters, it was a very expensive ship to build for very little fighting power.

Ryūjō was counted as part of Japan's 81,000 tons because as you wrote the 10,000 ton loophole was closed by the 1930 LNT. IIRC it was the Japanese who asked for it to be closed because Ryūjō demonstrated that an effective light fleet carrier could not be built on less than 10,000 tons.

And as for your last comment, no it doesn't require ASB.

My idea was that Japan would be in a stronger bargaining position at the Washington Conference because the country had a bigger Gross National Product. The Japanese Government would use some of its extra tax revenues to build up a bigger navy between 1895 and 1920-ish.

If the Japanese did get 5:5:5 that would allow them to maintain a navy that was 67% larger than what was allowed by the treaties IOTL. A bigger economy solves the problem of how the Japanese could pay for the increase.

It also allows Japan to maintain a larger Naval Air Force, Army Air Force, Army Ground Force (and/or the Japanese equivalent of the USMC or to created one if it didn't have an equivalent of the USMC IOTL), build up a larger merchant marine and build up bigger stockpiles of strategic raw materials and oil.

If the American Delegation walks away from the Washington Conference the Japanese would have had the money to complete the 8+8 Program. The American economy would still be several times larger than Japan's, but as the Japanese could build more the Americans would have to build even more back to win the arms race. Many American politicians and tax payers might think winning the arms race wasn't worth the financial cost. E.g. the opposition to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Plus as there was no Washington Treaty the Anglo-Japanese Alliance did not have to be cancelled.

All the above requires a Japanese economy double the size of the real world between 1895 and 1922. Which is probably ASB and if it isn't it requires a POD before 1900.
 
Rolls:Rolls:Rolls

For the record these are the tonnage limits of the WNT and 1930 LNT IOTL

Submarines

52,000 tons each (1930 LNT) each for Japan, GB and USA

Aircraft Carriers (WNT, but 10,000 ton loophole abolished under 1930 LNT)

135,000 tons GB
135,000 tons USA
81,000 tons Japan

Battleships (WNT)

525,000 tons GB
525,000 tons USA
315,000 tons Japan

Cruisers (1930 LNT)

339,000 tons British Empire of which 146,800 tons 8" guns and 192,200 tons 6" guns.
323,500 tons USA of which 180,000 tons 8" guns and 143,500 tons 6" guns
208,850 tons Japan of which 108,400 tons 8" guns and 100,450 tons 6" guns.

Destroyers (1930 LNT)

150,000 tons British Empire
150,000 tons USA
105,000 tons Japan
 
On the website "All the World's Battlecruisers," a guy had done research into this problem (either as his PhD, or already had one ina research field, so not just some guy talking). He thought if there was an increase for Japan, it would be 6:6:4 as the most likely ratio. That might be enough of a compromise to pass- I simply don't see the USA accepting parity, as well as the UK (who was starting to get worried about Japan in 1919). Any fleet from either one would have to get to Japan, and since not all could be counted to make it (other duties), keeping Japan at a lower level gave a chance of equality. Japan had (part of) one ocean to worry about;while the USA had 2; the UK 3.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
.

The Soryu could have been built heavier, the mechanism for verification of compliance was less than perfect (and everyone cheated their brains out wherever they thought they could get away with it), the problem was that the IJN, as was its habit, was determined to squeeze out every possible offensive bit from every ton of displacement (an issue that was very common across different ship types, resulting in remarkably top heavy designs that pushed the builder to and beyond their limits). Hiryu was modified after some serious issues were found regarding sea keeping in really heavy weather.

s to limit the number of hulls, and reduce the turn-over rate of older hulls.

So which ships did the USA cheat on most?
 
Lexington and Saratoga were supposed to be 27,000 tons, but the US used the clause that "existing" ships could have 3,000 tons added to protect against torpedoes. Since the 2 carriers were not covered by this clause, pretty blatant cheating. Also seems the most effective, as the ships were more capable, while cheating on the Mogami's didn't really seem as effective. Not sure if any other ships, or which was the most.
 
Lexington and Saratoga were supposed to be 27,000 tons, but the US used the clause that "existing" ships could have 3,000 tons added to protect against torpedoes. Since the 2 carriers were not covered by this clause, pretty blatant cheating. Also seems the most effective, as the ships were more capable, while cheating on the Mogami's didn't really seem as effective. Not sure if any other ships, or which was the most.

That's nearly right. They were officially 33,000 tons each, but actually 36,000 tons and unlike the Japanese the Americans didn't set out to break the treaty limits.

If they had displaced 27,000 tons (in fact or officially) the Americans would have had 81,000 tons to play with instead of 69,000 tons. They might have decided to build five 16,200 ton ships with the available tonnage instead of the five 13,800 ships they tried to build IOTL. That might have turned Ranger into a satisfactory ship so that Yorktown and Enterprise would have been repeats of her instead of a new 20,000 ton design. Then there would have been two 16,200 ton enlarged Wasps instead of the single 14,700 ton design of the real world.

However, I would have built four 20,000 ton carriers so Ranger and Wasp would have been built as Yorktowns.
 

Rubicon

Banned
That and the cost of her, she cost about the same with all her reconstructioning not much less then the Hiryū and she occupied the same slipway that later would build the Hiryū amongst others for example.

Waste of money, steel, and a slipway.

Damn realized I made a mistake here, it was the Ryūhō that occupied that slipway, not the Ryūjō. The Ryūjō was built at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries slipway #1 at Yokohama. Not the slipway #1 at the Naval Yard at Yokosuka.
Sorry.
 
5/5/3 accounted for the USN and the RN operating on two oceans. The PacFleet would, if the USN split its fleets 2/3, be on par with the IJN, and the RN, having a stronger commitment to the Atlantic, would be probably inferior to the IJN in the Pacific. Anything less than the WNT ratios would mean that the USN and RN would have to depend on one another for containing the IJN, and such level of dependence would not have been acceptable for the US at the time, and probably not for the UK either.
 

iddt3

Donor
Ryūjō was counted as part of Japan's 81,000 tons because as you wrote the 10,000 ton loophole was closed by the 1930 LNT. IIRC it was the Japanese who asked for it to be closed because Ryūjō demonstrated that an effective light fleet carrier could not be built on less than 10,000 tons.



My idea was that Japan would be in a stronger bargaining position at the Washington Conference because the country had a bigger Gross National Product. The Japanese Government would use some of its extra tax revenues to build up a bigger navy between 1895 and 1920-ish.

If the Japanese did get 5:5:5 that would allow them to maintain a navy that was 67% larger than what was allowed by the treaties IOTL. A bigger economy solves the problem of how the Japanese could pay for the increase.

It also allows Japan to maintain a larger Naval Air Force, Army Air Force, Army Ground Force (and/or the Japanese equivalent of the USMC or to created one if it didn't have an equivalent of the USMC IOTL), build up a larger merchant marine and build up bigger stockpiles of strategic raw materials and oil.

If the American Delegation walks away from the Washington Conference the Japanese would have had the money to complete the 8+8 Program. The American economy would still be several times larger than Japan's, but as the Japanese could build more the Americans would have to build even more back to win the arms race. Many American politicians and tax payers might think winning the arms race wasn't worth the financial cost. E.g. the opposition to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Plus as there was no Washington Treaty the Anglo-Japanese Alliance did not have to be cancelled.

All the above requires a Japanese economy double the size of the real world between 1895 and 1922. Which is probably ASB and if it isn't it requires a POD before 1900.
A Japan with a 67% larger economy butterflies away WWI and II. You need a PoD somewhere in pre 1900, and probably an earlier Japanese opening to the West to give them enough of a head start to pull that off. Increased Japanese strength has all sorts of knockdown effects in terms of their interactions with Russia, China, the US, the UK... basically everyone involved in the Pacific. A more powerful Japan is a more respected Japan, which means that the snubs and competition the plagued Japan OTL play out differently. It would certainly make for an interesting for an interesting TL, but it doesn't really solve the OP's question.
 
Ryūjō was counted as part of Japan's 81,000 tons because as you wrote the 10,000 ton loophole was closed by the 1930 LNT. IIRC it was the Japanese who asked for it to be closed because Ryūjō demonstrated that an effective light fleet carrier could not be built on less than 10,000 tons.



My idea was that Japan would be in a stronger bargaining position at the Washington Conference because the country had a bigger Gross National Product. The Japanese Government would use some of its extra tax revenues to build up a bigger navy between 1895 and 1920-ish.

If the Japanese did get 5:5:5 that would allow them to maintain a navy that was 67% larger than what was allowed by the treaties IOTL. A bigger economy solves the problem of how the Japanese could pay for the increase.

It also allows Japan to maintain a larger Naval Air Force, Army Air Force, Army Ground Force (and/or the Japanese equivalent of the USMC or to created one if it didn't have an equivalent of the USMC IOTL), build up a larger merchant marine and build up bigger stockpiles of strategic raw materials and oil.

If the American Delegation walks away from the Washington Conference the Japanese would have had the money to complete the 8+8 Program. The American economy would still be several times larger than Japan's, but as the Japanese could build more the Americans would have to build even more back to win the arms race. Many American politicians and tax payers might think winning the arms race wasn't worth the financial cost. E.g. the opposition to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Plus as there was no Washington Treaty the Anglo-Japanese Alliance did not have to be cancelled.

All the above requires a Japanese economy double the size of the real world between 1895 and 1922. Which is probably ASB and if it isn't it requires a POD before 1900.

Interesting ideas, so perhaps one could have had a UK-Japan alliance facing the US. :) I have read that historically british ships like G3 and N3 were aimed to counter US opposition.

Not sure how accurate, but i'm thinking that even without the POD you mention before 1900, if US or Japan (perhaps Japan is more likely) quit the negotiations, the main losers will be the british if what some say is true, i.e. there were in the least position among the 3 powers to keep up to the arms race. So i'm thinking if the US builds 10-12 BB/BC in the twenties, Japan perhaps 8 and UK perhaps 4 or 6, then everybody is kneeled down by the Big Depression which may come earlier and HAVE to negotiate. UK's position will be weakened now isn't it?
 
On another note, i'll just say that i qute like Glenn's idea about the Kongos being converted to CVs (more material for an ATL:)). I was thinking even just converting Hiei to CV rather that rebuild it as BB would serve Japan far better. After OTL Midway, when conversion of all majors CAs and BBs was contemplated it was estimated that it will take 18 months to convert a Kongo to CV, and able to carry 54 aircraft (like Soryu).

Speaking of the Junyos and their slow speed, apart from the fact that obviously two Hiryus or Shokakus would have been far better, considering how extensive their conversion was (including their new-style island) how plausible would have been for them to fit more powerful machinery to at least get Junyo and Hiyo as fast as Kaga (about 28kt). The options i was thinking are either half-Mogami machinery (76,000HP), twin-destroyer (104,000HP) or Agano-type (100,000HP). Not sure if the last two options absolutely require four shafts and how difficult would that be to implement. Obviously this will probably mean they will be delayed a few months, but on the other hand, they are more capable ships.

I was reading that Junyo's machinery was four times heavier that Hiryu's, but not sure if that refers to power to weight ratio, or it was both four times heavier AND one third as powerful!
 

Rubicon

Banned
Speaking of the Junyos and their slow speed, apart from the fact that obviously two Hiryus or Shokakus would have been far better, considering how extensive their conversion was (including their new-style island) how plausible would have been for them to fit more powerful machinery to at least get Junyo and Hiyo as fast as Kaga (about 28kt). The options i was thinking are either half-Mogami machinery (76,000HP), twin-destroyer (104,000HP) or Agano-type (100,000HP). Not sure if the last two options absolutely require four shafts and how difficult would that be to implement. Obviously this will probably mean they will be delayed a few months, but on the other hand, they are more capable ships.

I was reading that Junyo's machinery was four times heavier that Hiryu's, but not sure if that refers to power to weight ratio, or it was both four times heavier AND one third as powerful!

Don't know about weight of the boilers, but the Jun'yō and the Hiyō had six boilers each with two shafts, while the Hiryū had eight boilers and four shafts. Then it also comes down to power of each turbine. The Hiryū is also both narrower and longer then the Jun'yō which again improves speed.
 
To flesh out my idea, which is probably ASB.

According to my copy of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-21 the Imperial Japanese Navy wanted an 8+8 Fleet by the early 1900s and it was approved by the Imperial Defence Council on 4th April 1907. This actually meant a fleet of 48 capital ships, each with a service life of 30 years consisting of 3 "fleets" (my term not Conway's) each of 8 battleships and 8 armoured cruisers (later battlecruisers) of 0-10, 11-20 and 21-30 years of age respectively. (When the service life of Japanese capital ships was reduced to 24 years the first fleet became ships under 8 years of age; the second fleet 9-16 years and the 3rd Fleet 17-24 years of age.)

IOTL the Japanese built:
-6 battleships and 6 armoured cruisers under the 1893 and 1896 programmes (6+6);
-6 battleships, 6 armoured cruisers were ordered in the 1903 to 1907 programmes (4+4). It was 4 battleships instead of 6 because 2 battleships replaced 2 ships ordered in the 1890s that were sunk in the Russo-Japanese War. It was 4 armoured cruisers instead of 6 because 2 ships were re-designated 1st Class Cruisers and the other 4 were re-designated battlecruisers;
-The 4 Fuso/Ise class battleships and 4 Kongo class battlecruisers were ordered roughly 1909-1914 (4+4);
-Finally 8 battleships (Nagato, Mutsu, Kaga, Tosa, Kii, Owari, No. 11 and No. 12) and 8 battlecruisers (4 Amagi class and Nos. 13-16) ordered from 1916 to be completed 1920-27 (8+8). However, according to Conway's a third of Japan's national budget was being spent on the Navy.

So ITTL Japan is twice as rich and buys:
-8 battleships and 8 armoured cruisers in the 1893 and 1896 programmes (First 8+8);
-12 battleships, 8 battlecruisers and 2 armoured cruisers between 1903 and 1907 (Second 8+8). It is 8 battleships instead of 12 because 4 battleships were lost in the Russo-Japanese War of this timeline (can anyone think of plausible reasons for that). IOTL the 2 smallest armoured cruisers were being built in Italy for the Argentine Navy and were purchased by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War and there were still only 2 to purchase ITTL.
-8 Kongo class and 8 Fuso/Ise class ordered 1909-14 (Third 8+8) in part because the Japanese could afford to reduce the service life of their capita ships from 30 years to 24 years earlier;
-16 Capital Ships (Nos. 1 to 16) of the real world (Fourth 8+8 to replace the First 8+8). However, as Japan was twice as big only one sixth of Japan's national budget was being spent on the Navy.

IOTL the Washington Naval Treaty allowed the 3 major naval powers to keep:

20 capital ships of 558,950 tons - Great Britain
18 capital ships of 525,850 tons - United States
10 capital ships of 301,320 tons - Japan

ITTL the Washington Naval Treaty allowed the 3 major naval powers to keep:

20 capital ships of 558,950 tons - Great Britain
18 capital ships of 525,850 tons - United States
18 capital ships of 535,320 tons - Japan - The 8 extra ships being the 4 extra Fuso/Ise class and 4 extra Kongo class

IOTL the 1930 London Naval Treaty reduced the 3 major naval powers to:

15 capital ships of 430,450 tons - Great Britain
15 capital ships of 456,200 tons - United States
9 capital ships of 273,820 tons - Japan - The Hiei was converted to a training ship, but was re-militarised later.

ITTL the 1930 London Naval Treaty reduced the 3 major naval powers to:

15 capital ships of 430,450 tons - Great Britain
15 capital ships of 456,200 tons - United States
15 capital ships of 452,540 tons - Japan - One Kongo class scrapped, one converted to a target ship and one converted to a training ship.

ITTL the Washington Naval Treaty allowed aircraft carrier forces as follows:

135,000 tons - Great Britain
135,000 tons - United States
135,000 tons - Japan instead of 81,000 tons.

ITTL the 1930 London Naval Treaty allowed cruiser forces as follows:

339,000 tons - Great Britain
323,500 tons - United States
313,275 tons - Japan instead of 208,850 tons

ITTL the 1930 London Naval Treaty allowed destroyer forces as follows:

150,000 tons - Great Britain
150,000 tons - United States
150,000 tons - Japan instead of 105,500 tons.
 
Top