WI:WNT allows 15,000 ton carriers?

And how many RN carriers would have been online by then (not too mention the FAA planes to fill them)...:D

Well 7 - Eagle to Ark Royal - no point building any more - just wait for the Essex design to be finalised - without 3 years of operational and combat experience - it may not be as good as OTL but hey whatever - I'm sure it will be more awesomerer than those crappy Armoured carrier that did all the actual fighting for the first couple of years.....

And with the Axis obligingly not going to war before the US is ready - no need for USS Robin to operate alongside USS Saratoga

Obviously none armoured carriers were a better idea just look at how many of Britain's 'Heretical' treaty Armoured carriers survived the war compared to all of those Treaty non - armoured types that err um....OH! :eek:
 
That's an awfully large loophole considering that the Majestic-class light carriers were only 750-tons heavier than that. The British are certainly going to like it since it means they can produce a number of slightly lighter Majestic-class type ships to operate with their cruisers in trade protection and patrol duties or in concert with fleet carriers whilst being able to use all their tonnage limit on the larger fleet carriers.
 
That's an awfully large loophole considering that the Majestic-class light carriers were only 750-tons heavier than that. The British are certainly going to like it since it means they can produce a number of slightly lighter Majestic-class type ships to operate with their cruisers in trade protection and patrol duties or in concert with fleet carriers whilst being able to use all their tonnage limit on the larger fleet carriers.

I'm not sure about that. IIRC it was the British who had the 10,000 ton loophole written in to the 1922 Treaty because they had already worked out that a useful aircraft carrier would have to displace at least 10,000 tons. Hermes displaced about 11,000 tons IIRC.

Again IIRC it was the Japanese that had the loophole removed in the 1930 Treaty after the Ruyjo proved that an aircraft carrier that was useful for fleet work could not be built on less than 10,000 tons.
 
As it says, what if the 1922 WNT had had the loophole as OTL, but for 15,000 ton carriers, instead of 10,000 carriers?

I don't have the numbers handy, but how many carriers would have 'not counted' had this been the rule? On a side note, what displacement was referenced in the treaties, normal, standard, or full load?

Now, what if the subsequent treaties had not closed this, what would we possibly have seen carrier fleet wise in the 1920-1940 time frame?

It would probably have started an arms race in unregulated aircraft carriers. Which would be ironic as the WNT existed to stop an arms race in battleships.

All the interwar Japanese aircraft carriers except Kaga and Akagi officially displaced less than 15,000 tons.

Ruyjo officially displaced 7,100 tons, Hiryu displaced 10,050 tons officially and Soryu displaced 10,050 tons officially. A total of 27,200 tons, which together with the 26,900 tons for each of the converted capital ships came up to 81,000 tons.

Therefore they probably build a third 27,000 ton carrier and build Ryujo as a third Soryu class ship.
 
The Americans had 69,000 tons left after Lexington and Saratoga so my guess is that Ranger, Yorktown and Enterprise would be built to 23,000 ton designs.

Wasp could still be built as she displaced 14,700 tons. But because ships of her size could be built in unlimited numbers the Americans would not have to cram the maximum number of aircraft into her. She could be built to a more balanced design carrying fewer aircraft, but faster and with better protection.

Therefore the ship might be a 15,000 ton improved Saipan, which displaced 14,500 tons.

And as I presume you are combining this with your 15,000 ton cruiser limit thread the Americans are building Baltimore class cruisers instead of the New Orleans and Wichita class 8" cruisers and a 6" gunned version instead of the Brooklyn class. These cruisers have hulls of the same dimensions and identical machinery to the Saipan class so the ships under construction could be converted to CVLs like the Independence class or new ships built relatively quickly.

Hornet might be built to this design rather than the 23,000 ton design.
 
Interesting. I would think though, that with the 'no limit' for CVL's, everyone would start off by building at least one, just to try and figure out what they could get on that tonnage, so I would see a ranger CVL, then the three improved Yorktown's, then more CVL's.
 
The Americans had 69,000 tons left after Lexington and Saratoga so my guess is that Ranger, Yorktown and Enterprise would be built to 23,000 ton designs.

Wasp could still be built as she displaced 14,700 tons. But because ships of her size could be built in unlimited numbers the Americans would not have to cram the maximum number of aircraft into her. She could be built to a more balanced design carrying fewer aircraft, but faster and with better protection.

Therefore the ship might be a 15,000 ton improved Saipan, which displaced 14,500 tons.

And as I presume you are combining this with your 15,000 ton cruiser limit thread the Americans are building Baltimore class cruisers instead of the New Orleans and Wichita class 8" cruisers and a 6" gunned version instead of the Brooklyn class. These cruisers have hulls of the same dimensions and identical machinery to the Saipan class so the ships under construction could be converted to CVLs like the Independence class or new ships built relatively quickly.

Hornet might be built to this design rather than the 23,000 ton design.

PS Wasp was ordered in FY1935 and Hornet was ordered in FY1939. ITTL the Americans might have ordered a pair of 15,000 ton carrier in FY1935 or one in FY1935 as in OTL and a second one in FY1937.

That would give the Americans 8 aircraft carriers in December 1941 instead of 7. However, all of them would be effective ships, when IOTL there were 5 effective carriers plus Ranger and Wasp.

Furthermore as this is combined with the 15,000 ton cruiser thread, the Cleveland class ITTL would be the Baltimore class hull and machinery mounting the Cleveland armament. Therefore the 9 hulls completed as aircraft carriers would effectively be Saipan class ships.
 
Last edited:
PS Wasp was ordered in FY1935 and Hornet was ordered in FY1939. ITTL the Americans might have ordered a pair of 15,000 ton carrier in FY1935 or one in FY1935 as in OTL and a second one in FY1937.

That would give the Americans 8 aircraft carriers in December 1941 instead of 7. However, all of them would be effective ships, when IOTL there were 5 effective carriers plus Ranger and Wasp.
I would think that everyone that built an early CVL would pretty much get a dud of a carrier, but that by building such a first ship, and then some more capable larger ones, they could then revisit the original limitations with the benifit of previous designes and get something much better on the same tonnage.


Furthermore as this is combined with the 15,000 ton cruiser thread, the Cleveland class ITTL would be the Baltimore class hull and machinery mounting the Cleveland armament. Therefore the 9 hulls completed as aircraft carriers would effectively be Saipan class ships.
That I don't know about, as why would the US simply give up 8" gunned CA's? I do agree that the Independence class would be of the 15,000 tons catagory most likely, rather than the OTL 11,000 tons, but then that would be butterflyed away because we could have all the 15,000 ton carriers we wanted, so no need to convert CVL's from CL's hulls in the first place.

I'm going back to the cruiser thread and ask again for the best design for "Unlimited CL's" that mount 6" guns, are armored against same, on a smaller displacement.
 
I would think that everyone that built an early CVL would pretty much get a dud of a carrier, but that by building such a first ship, and then some more capable larger ones, they could then revisit the original limitations with the benifit of previous designes and get something much better on the same tonnage.

AFAIK Ruyjo, Ranger and Wasp were not duds because they were the designers first attempt at a bespoke aircraft carrier. They failed because the designers crammed the maximum number of aircraft into the hull at the expense of other features such as machinery, protection and sea keeping.
 
AFAIK Ruyjo, Ranger and Wasp were not duds because they were the designers first attempt at a bespoke aircraft carrier. They failed because the designers crammed the maximum number of aircraft into the hull at the expense of other features such as machinery, protection and sea keeping.
well, that and wasn't the Wasp intended to 'use up' the rest of our allotted tonnage? So we built it to be a poor mans CV, but in this alternate history, we could have just built her to the 15,000 ton mark as an intended CVL, and perhaps then we would have seen a better ship, as opposed to a poorly done attempt to make her a better carrier.
 
well, that and wasn't the Wasp intended to 'use up' the rest of our allotted tonnage? So we built it to be a poor mans CV, but in this alternate history, we could have just built her to the 15,000 ton mark as an intended CVL, and perhaps then we would have seen a better ship, as opposed to a poorly done attempt to make her a better carrier.

I thought I had already suggested that? I.e. fewer aircraft for more powerful machinery etc. I think we both want the same thing but have got a cross purposes.
 
I thought I had already suggested that? I.e. fewer aircraft for more powerful machinery etc. I think we both want the same thing but have got a cross purposes.
Oh no, I think we are on the same sheet of music, as it were. I think that you pointed out correctly that the US would improve the Yorktown class, and what I meant was that in this TL, where we have all the free CVL's that we want, and the experience of more and better CV's than OTL, we wouldn't have needed the compromise that was USS Wasp, but rather, as you pointed out, and ATL USS Wasp that was built not to be the poor mans CV, but rather as a new and improved CVL design.
 
Oh no, I think we are on the same sheet of music, as it were. I think that you pointed out correctly that the US would improve the Yorktown class, and what I meant was that in this TL, where we have all the free CVL's that we want, and the experience of more and better CV's than OTL, we wouldn't have needed the compromise that was USS Wasp, but rather, as you pointed out, and ATL USS Wasp that was built not to be the poor mans CV, but rather as a new and improved CVL design.

However, the legal right to build as many 15,000 ton aircraft carriers as the admirals want does not mean that a large number are built. For example the US Treasury and US Congress will only allow a few more than the real world unless it is as a reaction to mass production of them by the Japanese.
 
However, the legal right to build as many 15,000 ton aircraft carriers as the admirals want does not mean that a large number are built. For example the US Treasury and US Congress will only allow a few more than the real world unless it is as a reaction to mass production of them by the Japanese.
Too be sure. I still think that congress would be good for at least an earlier and improved 3rd Yorktown, and then a second go at the CVL, if for no other reasons than OTL, ie use up our CV tonnage, and try to see if we can do better with a smaller carrier than we did with Ranger.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
However, the legal right to build as many 15,000 ton aircraft carriers as the admirals want does not mean that a large number are built. For example the US Treasury and US Congress will only allow a few more than the real world unless it is as a reaction to mass production of them by the Japanese.

Spam 15KT carriers would actually fit with 30s US provisional doctrine - they might do them over the Yorktowns.
 

Driftless

Donor
Until you've got real operational experience to back up theory, might the financial arm of congress support the idea of more hulls allowing for greater flexibility, even if somewhat more costly? i.e, one ship goes east, one goes west; or one's in for a refit, while the others on station.

As they learned, your mileage may vary considerably with the actual capabilities of several smaller ships vs a few larger decks.
 
Until you've got real operational experience to back up theory, might the financial arm of congress support the idea of more hulls allowing for greater flexibility, even if somewhat more costly? i.e, one ship goes east, one goes west; or one's in for a refit, while the others on station.

As they learned, your mileage may vary considerably with the actual capabilities of several smaller ships vs a few larger decks.
I goin off the idea that the USA started off with the {Lexington class} as our first 'real' carriers, then the penny pinchers wanted a cheaper version {Ranger}, then we realized that bigger really is better {Yorktown class}, and then we try for something less, but still good and doable {Wasp}. I think that maybe, just maybe, congress could find it within their little hearts to allow the USN to 'use up' our CV tonnage with an early 3rd improved YT class, and then at least one additional CVL. Plus, of course, counters too anything the other guy is cooking up.
 
Last edited:
Royal Navy

To be honest I think being allowed to build 15,000 ton carriers in unlimited numbers between 1922 and 1937 would have nil effect on the Royal Navy.

IOTL the RN produced the 10-year modernisation plan that I often refer to. Under that plan the RN was going to keep Courageous, Glorious and Furious which between them absorbed 66,000 tons of the 135,000 tons allowed under the 1922 Treaty. The remaining 69,000 tons would be absorbed by four 17,000 ton carriers to be ordered in 1924, 1928, 1931 and 1934 for completion in 1928, 1932, 1935 and 1938. Of these only the 1934 Carrier, the 22,000 ton Ark Royal was actually built. The 1924 plan also included 3 or 4 smaller carriers displacing less than 10,000 tons for trade protection and these weren't built either.

ITTL I think the RN would instead plan to build three 23,000 ton carriers with the remaining 69,000 tons because 17,000 ton ships would not be significantly better than unregulated 15,000 ton ships. However, only one would be built and that would be a 23,000 ton version of Ark Royal. If it was up to me I would have used the extra 1,000 tons to fit better lifts and if anything was left after that increase the width of her hangars from 60 to 62 feet.

Under the above plan Eagle would have been scrapped or converted to an auxiliary. However, Argus and Hermes would have been retained as trade protection ships because they displaced less than 15,000 tons. As the requirement was for 3 or 4 trade protection ships a 15,000 ton ship would be designed, but it would not be built because the Treasury, Parliament and Great British Public would not put up the money.

When the purse strings were loosened in the middle 1930s and the tonnage quotas abolished the RN initially planned a mixed carrier force of 23,000 ton fleet carriers and trade protection ships of about 15,000 tons. However, the estimated costs were £4 million for the Illustrious class and £3 million for the trade protection ship, which was not considered satisfactory. As the Illustrious cost only one million Pounds more and was a satisfactory design (among other things it could carry 36 aircraft vs 18 in the smaller ship) it was decided to only build the larger ships.
 
USN

To recap:

FY1923-ish completion of the Lexington and Saratoga as 33,000-ton aircraft carriers approved. They absorb 66,000 tons of the 135,000 tons allowed under the Washington Treaty.

FY1930 Ranger ordered, but she is built to a 23,000 ton design, essentially an improved Yorktown instead of the 13,800 ton design of OTL. She and the two converted battlecruisers absorb 89,000 tons of the 135,000 tons allowed under the Washington Treaty.

FY1933 Yorktown and Enterprise ordered, but built to a 23,000 ton design instead of the 20,000 ton design of OTL. These ships use up the 135,000 tons

FY1935 a pair of carriers ordered to a balanced design displacing 15,000 tons rather than the unbalanced Wasp of OTL.

FY1939 in reaction to Japan ordering the Shokaku and Zuikaku in 1937 Congress authorises an increase of the US Carrier force from 165,000 tons (135,000 tons from the WNT plus 30,000 for the pair of unregulated carriers) to 211,000 tons. A repeat 23,000 ton carrier (Hornet) is ordered immediately and the second carrier planned for FY1940 becomes the first of the 27,000 ton Essex class.
 
Last edited:
IJN

To recap:

1922-ish completion of Kaga and Akagi as aircraft carriers approved.

1927 - Ruyjo ordered. However, built as an 15,000 ton ship instead of the 7,000 ton official displacement of OTL. Her real displacement IOTL was 8,000 tons and ITTL it would be over 16,000 tons as it was built to the Soryu design.

1931 - Soryu and Hiryu ordered. Officially they displace 15,000 tons (instead of 10,050 tons IOTL) but they actually displace over 17,000 tons as they were both built to the Hiryu design.

1934 - A 27,000 ton carrier is ordered to use up the remainder of their 81,000 ton quota for big aircraft carriers. It would be ordered to an enlargement of the Shokaku class design of OTL (which displaced 25,675 tons) and given Japanese habit of lying about the size of its ships the actual displacement could have been more than 30,000 tons.

1937 - Shokaku and Zuikaku ordered, but they would be a development of the 27,000 ton carrier ordered in 1934 and probably displaced more than 30,000 tons.
 
Top