What if the British Royal Navy was allowed to keep the two power standard and build 3 more battlecruisers and 2 more battleships?

[Repulse212]

What if the Washington naval treaty of 1922 had allowed the British Royal Navy to keep its prior two power standard and build the Nelson class battleships and complete the rest of the admiral class (HMS Hood’s class) rather than have the same amount of capital ships as the American Navy?

For context the two power standard meant the royal naval would have more capital ships than the next to largest naval powers after the UK combined, in the context of this scenario, the USA and Japan.

Assuming the Americans, Italians, French and Japanese accept this agreement, what happens next?

How would a bigger Royal Navy affect ww2?

What ships that the Royal Navy scrapped would be retained?

Would this just mean the British empire had to spend more money on the Royal Navy to keep its ships running or would it be worth it for the Second World War?

How would this alter the naval strategies for the Kriegsmarine, Regia Marina and the Imperial Japanese Navy?

How could this alter some naval battles in the Second World War?

 

[CV12Hornet]

This is literally impossible? Hood's sisters were cancelled in 1919, they can't be completed after Washington since they don't exist anymore.

 

[sparky42]

Even apart from the scrapping of the other Admirals, you have the domestic pressure for arms restrictions, and the financial pressure of post WW1 issues, and of course the reality of how unlikely it would be that the other powers would accept the British Empire maintaining such a position.

Even if the U.K. was willing to fund the G3 and N3 classes, they were still looking at dropping the size of the fleet for more powerful individual hulls, keeping more of the Pre Jutland hulls would just be another financial loadstone. As to the impact… I would imagine the naval conferences fail and some sort of a new Arms race kicks off until something akin to the Depression hits.

 

[DougM]

You are not getting a treaty if GB is that much more powerful and no one else changes.
Japan will have a FIT. They didn’t like the treaty we got.
And the US was not so desperate that they were willing to accept that power balance.
This treaty sounds like the US would be better off to sit back and wait until everyone else stops building because they can’t afford it.

So what would be different in the POD that would allow a noticeable power shift vs what the real treaty was like?

 

[Dorknought]

What if the Washington naval treaty of 1922 had allowed the British Royal Navy to keep its prior two power standard and build the Nelson class battleships and complete the rest of the admiral class (HMS Hood’s class) rather than have the same amount of capital ships as the American Navy?

The 2 Power standard had been dropped prior to WW1 and replaced with 1.6 over Germany. This was a measure of economy and designed to not trigger Germany into a building spree The WNT ratio was acceptable to the RN in that 5:3 in respect to Japan is comparable to the pre-War Standard.

Assuming the Americans, Italians, French and Japanese accept this agreement, what happens next?
None of the legislatures would ratify it and it would fail. UK builds 4 G3's and 4 N3's. US completes 4 Colorados, 4 South Dakotas (2 cancelled as cost saving) and 4 Lexingtons (2 CV conversions). Japan completes Tosa and Amagi class but Owari class are long delayed and the IJN settles on an 8:4 Fleet of 2 Nagato 2 Tosa and 4 Owari BB and 4 Amagi BC or a 6:4 fleet with the last pair of Owari being cancelled after the earth quake in 1923. There is good speculation that these two ships would have been a new class anyway. No one is building Heavy Cruisers.

How would a bigger Royal Navy affect ww2?
RN can cover the Pacific better but it was always assumed that France could hold the Med against Italy.

What ships that the Royal Navy scrapped would be retained?
The WNT was to head off construction of fast battleships. The 13.5" Super Dreadnoughts should be replaced by the mid - late 1920's. Retaining them in any circumstances is a bad idea. The guns are smaller than their contempories, the engines are not geared and would need to be replaced (1/3rd cost of ship).

Would this just mean the British empire had to spend more money on the Royal Navy to keep its ships running or would it be worth it for the Second World War?
The problem was not ships but the men. The Treasury withdrawing support for the RN after 1930 was a huge 'own goal'. The RN was insurance for the £. The 1931 Invergordon mutiny, triggered a run on the £, a slide on the London Stock Exchange and then GB dropping off the Gold Standard.

How would this alter the naval strategies for the Kriegsmarine, Regia Marina and the Imperial Japanese Navy?
Probably little as they didn't really hope to prevail.

How could this alter some naval battles in the Second World War?
Bismarck is taken out at Denmark Strait by 2 G3s. The Italian fleet is crushed at Calabria. The N3s are badly damaged in a carrier strike on Singapore at the outset of the war in the Pacific.

 

[muddyleathers]

They can’t hit Singapore and pearl at the same time with carriers, so which is the priority?

 

[Dorknought]

They can’t hit Singapore and pearl at the same time with carriers, so which is the priority?

If carrier development is stunted by the need to replace elderly Super-Dreadnoughts with Fast Battleships in a treaty-less world then something like the Kido Butai may not exist.

 

[muddyleathers]

So then how do they sink 4 b/c’s at Singapore? The Japanese empire was pretty crazy, desperate, and stupid, but would they choose to start he war if they had to deal with not only the USN, but also a stronger RN far eastern fleet?

 

[Dorknought]

So then how do they sink 4 b/c’s at Singapore? The Japanese empire was pretty crazy, desperate, and stupid, but would they choose to start he war if they had to deal with not only the USN, but also a stronger RN far eastern fleet?

They did sink a BC and a Fast Battleship. Would the Japanese attack if Force Z was Repulse, Renown, KGV and PoW? Probably as even at twice the size the deterrent would be insufficient if Japan had to have access to oil.

 

[Catsmate]

Where does the money for all this construction come from?

 

[Lee-Sensei]

I don’t think the Americans would accept that. The two power standard was effective when Britain was the worlds leading industrial power and there were only a handful of major powers preoccupied with continental affairs. That time has passed. Accepting parity with the Americans was wise from the British perspective, because it preserved their dominance for another two decades before being outstripped by the Americans.

 

[Belisarius II]

The Americans, and Japanese would never accept such a permanent inferiority. As CV12Hornet pointed out the other 3 Hood Class BC's were canceled in 1919 because the RN wasn't really satisfied with the Hood's design. Without the treaty limits the RN would complete the Rodney & Nelson, and 2 more of the class to their original design with more powerful engines giving a speed of 25kts with 4 propellers rather than 2. Armament would be 9 18" guns. Then they'd build the 4 32kts heavily armored G3 BCs. These ships would be very powerful units theoretically more powerful and better protected than any other capital ships in the world. They might retain the HMS Tiger to keep up on numbers giving the RN 8 BC's.

The problem with these ships I think would be the guns. The 18" guns were never actually built or even fully designed. Although they'd be very hard-hitting rate of fire would be very slow making long range fire less accurate because the long gap in corrective fire would give the enemy ship time to alter course. In the OTL Rodney and Nelson got the 16" guns intended for the G3 BC's and the RN was always dissatisfied with their performance. They were good enough to sink the Bismarck, but the situation was very favorable. So, the RN would end up with 7 more capital units than in the OTL.

In response the Americans would complete the 4th Colorado, the 6 ships of the South Dakoda Class, and the 6 Lexington's. The first large USN carriers would be purpose-built ships. The Japanese economy would be very hard pressed to complete their 8-8 program. The British would gain very little from this kind of unnecessary arms race so everyone really was better off with the Washington Treaty. Sure, some of these ships could give good service in WWII but by then they'd be showing their age, and in the end carriers and smaller classes of warships had more utility in that conflict.

 

[muddyleathers]

They did sink a BC and a Fast Battleship. Would the Japanese attack if Force Z was Repulse, Renown, KGV and PoW? Probably as even at twice the size the deterrent would be insufficient if Japan had to have access to oil.

Well, you originally stated they'd do it with carriers at Singapore, and I questioned how they could pull off both raids with carriers, which you declined to answer, saying there night not be carriers, so which is it? They attack Pearl or Singapore with carriers? They go after the new force z at sea with land based air, like OTL? They manage to roll two more sixes, with four ships taken out not two?

 

[Dorknought]

Well, you originally stated they'd do it with carriers at Singapore, and I questioned how they could pull off both raids with carriers, which you declined to answer, saying there night not be carriers, so which is it? They attack Pearl or Singapore with carriers? They go after the new force z at sea with land based air, like OTL? They manage to roll two more sixes, with four ships taken out not two?

If carriers are less developed then Pearl Harbor may be beyond their capability but Singapore would be a natural target if they had to invade Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. IF SE Asia IS better defended then the Japanese MAY NOT attack but they can't really survive long without access to oil so they probably will. This IJN would probably still be more powerful than even a bigger or more up to date RN as per the OP. In reality, Force Z was a tripwire and then little more than a speed bump. Actual Plans for a proper Eastern Fleet was several BB and CV. The advantage the Japanese have at this stage is being grossly underestimated as an opponent, you don't need to roll sixes for that.

 

[Dorknought]

Where does the money for all this construction come from?

Not spending it on Heavy cruisers. The RN subsidised the armour and armament firms in the 20’s to maintain the capacity. There is always debt. This is how rearmament was funded in the mid30’s. They just have to do this earlier.

 

[muddyleathers]

I don't see the Japanese or British economies supporting this either.

 

[Catsmate]

Not spending it on Heavy cruisers. The RN subsidised the armour and armament firms in the 20’s to maintain the capacity. There is always debt. This is how rearmament was funded in the mid30’s. They just have to do this earlier.

Have you numbers to support that? And what troubles does the paucity of cruisers lay in for the future?

I don't see the Japanese or British economies supporting this either.

Indeed.

 

[naraic]

Have you numbers to support that? And what troubles does the paucity of cruisers lay in for the future?

I doubt that the not building cruisers would fund the naval expansion suggested in the op but I do agree that the cruisers would be a cost of the capital ship expansion.

The Navy might try and keep as many older battlecruisers as they can to try and relieve pressure on cruiser forces but a 28 knot lion won't do anything in an alternative ww2.

 

[Catsmate]

I doubt that the not building cruisers would fund the naval expansion suggested in the op but I do agree that the cruisers would be a cost of the capital ship expansion.

The Navy might try and keep as many older battlecruisers as they can to try and relieve pressure on cruiser forces but a 28 knot lion won't do anything in an alternative ww2.

That's entering a worst of both worlds scenario regarding costs, both capital expenditure and running costs.

 

[naraic]

That's entering a worst of both worlds scenario regarding costs, both capital expenditure and running costs.

I agree with you there.

The Royal Navy really needed to rebuild their cruiser fleet post ww1. They won't have the capital to do this if they get the 2 power standard for capital ships. Unless of course the British are much much better off than otl.