Exactly. They felt that cruisers were more important for colonial operations, which was a higher priority. One fact that seems to be being ignored is the lack of perceived need for more dick-waving capital ships.
What if the British Royal Navy was allowed to keep the two power standard and build 3 more battlecruisers and 2 more battleships?
- Thread starter Repulse212
- Start date
RN cruiser designers were in the interwar period trying to balance conflicting requirements. The RN needed to balance numbers of cruisers with the fighting capabilities of individual ships. Hence three turret heavy cruisers like Exeter and York. The Light 6" gunned cruisers verses the 8" gunned heavy cruisers was a fundamental part of this debate within the Admiralty. All in all the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors produced some very fine cruiser designs in the interwar period that proved themsleves in the crucible of conflict often in scenarios never envisaged when they were designed.
I have seen several aspects drawn together to demonstrate that the RN could be funded beyond what it was with the WNT. For example, His Majesty's Government ran surpluses in the 1920's - there is alot of money right there. The RN underpinned the £ and the global currency at the time. It was worth the investment. Treasury pushed the navy to get under £60m and when they said they can only go to £80m the Treasury said OK, thanks for trying. The RN still had popular support, what didn't have support was an army to interveine on the continent. For that matter the IJN was also well supported. The military today say that security is like oxygen, you don't think about it when you have it but if you have none then its ALL you can think about. Island nations will find a willingness to fund their navies to gain security.
If you are building G3 Fast Battleships then a Heavy Cruiser looks a poor investment. You have the
The RN can afford to delay carrier development while it learns with Furious(Fast), Hermes(Small), Argus(mercantile) and Eagle(Slow) already complete without resorting to converting C&G.
In regards to cruisers, what the RN wanted was between a Arethusa/Dido and a Leander but it was the Naval Treaties that created the artificial environment that created over gunned Mogami/Brooklyn/Towns.
Is this ALT-WNT followed by ALT-LNTs which allow the UK/British Empire/British Commonwealth to have the same number of submarines, cruisers and destroyers as the USA & Japan combined?
The OTL WNT also set qualitative and quantitative limits for aircraft carriers. The tonnage quotas were:
135,000 tons British Empire
135,000 tons United States
81,000 tons Japan
60,000 tons France
60,000 tons Italy.
ITTL the quotas would have been:216,000 tons British Empire (135,000 tons + 81,000 tons)
135,000 tons United States
81,000 tons Japan
60,000 tons France
60,000 tons Italy.
My guess is that the Admiralty would want five 27,000 ton (or six 22,500 ton) heavy carriers (total 135,000 tons) to work with the main fleets and six 13,500 ton light carriers (total 81,000 tons) to work with the cruisers on the stations. The latter would show the flag in peace and protect the trade routes in war. Whether, the extra money required to buy the extra ships and aircraft would have been provided is another matter.
Last edited:
There's no chance the US and Japan sign a treaty with those numbers for the Empire.
It's in accordance with the OP which I'm playing along with it. If you don't like it the worst is yet to come.
The OTL Treaty allowed the British Empire to retain 22 capital ships of 580,450 tons, which would reduce to 20 capital ships of 558,950 tons when Nelson & Rodney were completed. Then it was allowed to lay down fifteen 35,000 ton capital ships (total 525,000 tons) 1931-39 which would complete 1934-42 and replace the 20 existing capital ships (including Nelson & Rodney).
Meanwhile, the USA was allowed to keep 18 capital ships of 525,800 tons, which in common with the British Empire's capital ship fleet would be replaced by fifteen 35,000 ton capital ships (total 525,000 tons) to be laid down 1931-39 and completed 1934-42.
And Japan was allowed to keep 10 capital ships of 301,320 tons. They could be replaced by nine 35,000 ton capital ships to be laid down 1931-39 and completed 1934-42.
Except the First London Naval Treaty extended the battleship building holiday to the 31st December 1936 and the British, American & Japanese Governments agreed to reduce their capital ships to 15, 15 & 9 ships respectively (with immediate effect) by scrapping or demilitarising their oldest capital ships.
Last edited:
As other's have written, it's not going to happen, but I'll play along.
The OTL tonnage quotas were:
525,000 tons British Empire
525,000 tons United States
315,000 tons Japan
175,000 tons France
175,000 tons Italy
ITTL the tonnage quotas would be:
840,000 tons British Empire (525,000 tons plus 315,000 tons).
525,000 tons United States
315,000 tons Japan
175,000 tons France
175,000 tons Italy
The OTL Treaty classed the 3 Colorado class the USA ship was allowed to retain as Post Jutland Ships and the Japanese Nagato & Mutsu were also classed as Post Jutland Ships. The only Post Jutland Ship possessed by the British Empire was Hood. Therefore, the Treaty allowed it to build 70,000 tons of capital ships by 1930 (which was used to build Nelson & Rodney).
The TTL Treaty would allow the British Empire to build 140,000 tons of capital ships by 1930 which it would have used to build four Nelson class battleships. That would have given the British Empire five Post Jutland Ships to match the five possessed by Japan & the USA (Nagato, Mutsu & the 3 Colorados).
I'll get back to you on that one.
And this one.
As already related the UK was allowed to have 20 capital ships displacing 558,950 tons when Nelson & Rodney were completed IOTL. However, ITTL the British Empire's allowed at least 827,170 tons in 1930 to match the 525,850 tons the USA was allowed and the 301,320 tons was allowed. (Or if it was done strictly by the tonnage quotas 840,000 tons). Which is a shortfall of 268,220 tons.
IOTL Thunderer, King George V, Ajax & Centurion (which were replaced by Nelson & Rodney) came to 91,500 tons. They'll be retained ITTL, but that still leaves nearly 177,000 tons to find. Keeping the other three superdreadnoughts (Orion, Monarch and Conqueror) would add 67,500 tons which means about 110,000 tons left to find. Lion & Princess Royal add another 52,500 tons so the remaining 55,000-odd tons would have to be the older 12in gunned battleships or battle cruisers.
That would make a total of 34 or 35 capital ships in 1930 consisting of 4 Nelson class, 5 Queen Elisabeth class, 5 Revenge class, 4 Iron Duke class, 3 King George V class, 4 Orion class, Hood, Repulse, Renown, Tiger, Princess Royal, Lion and three or four 12in gunned dreadnoughts. The WNT would allow these to be replaced by twenty-four 35,000 ton capital ships (total 840,000 tons) to be laid down 1931-39 and completed 1934-42.
Except that all other things being equal the First London Naval Treaty would extend the battleship building holiday to the end of 1936 and the British Commonwealth would reduce its existing capital ship force to 24 ships with immediate effect. My guess is that the 24 ships would be the 4 Nelson class, 5 Queen Elisabeth class, 5 Revenge class, 4 Iron Duke class, Hood, Repulse, Renown, Tiger, Princess Royal and Lion which works out as 18 battleships and 6 battle cruisers.
I'll have to get back to you on that one.
Don't know.
Don't know.
Last edited:
Surely that’s even worse? Now you have the added costs of trying to support non British hulls with all the supply issues that brings along with any shortcomings of the designs themselves.
...im not a Naval expert, but you are telling me, that building completely new Dreadnought, some of the most expensive ships to be ever built in human history, is supposedly less expensive than maintaining already existing ones?
The upfront capital costs for the new build is of course high, but it’s all domestic spending in your economy and uses all your nations standard equipment, engines, weapons etc. Using a foreign hull (even if free) means either buying spares/parts/weapons from a foreign supplier (who you just beat and slapped penalties on) so helping their economy, or setting up entirely new domestic supply chains for these one off hulls. Hulls that have a range of different fit outs even within their own fleet let alone the differences between German and British designs, then if you use them for distant stations shipping those spares/ammo etc to those stations but also I imagine having to ship RN standard equipment as well.
That’s not even getting into the question of pre/post Jutland changes etc. I mean hell, just the metric/imperial issues would be a pain.
Last edited:
Over the 20 years or so prior to the Washington Conference, the Royal Navy moved from 'next two largest combined' as its standard to '60% more than the next largest' to '60% more than the next largest, but ignoring the United States' as it became apparent that the US would be able to outspend the UK.
With that in mind, even if the UK somehow walked out of the Washington Conference with no limits whatsoever on the ships it was permitted to build, whilst everyone else kept their OTL restrictions, the Royal Navy wouldn't have appreciably more or bigger capital ships. The only limitation placed on cruisers was that they couldn't exceed 10,000 tons, which the Royal Navy thought was too big anyway, so no real change there.
Part of the OP.
My guess is that the extra old battleships would be put into the Reserve Fleet, which would minimise the cost of keeping them. That is if they are kept in the first place. France & Italy scrapped some of the ships the Treaty allowed them to keep. The British Government might do the same on the grounds that their fighting value wasn't worth the cost of keeping them even if they were laid up.
FWIW the OTL Nelson & Rodney cost about £7.5 million each to build, which was spread over 5 years (1922-27) so the 2 extra ships that I think would have been built would have cost a total of £15 million over 5 years (1922-27). I don't know what the extra running cost would have been.
My guess is that the extra old battleships would be put into the Reserve Fleet, which would minimise the cost of keeping them. That is if they are kept in the first place. France & Italy scrapped some of the ships the Treaty allowed them to keep. The British Government might do the same on the grounds that their fighting value wasn't worth the cost of keeping them even if they were laid up.
FWIW (1) the pre-Great War "60% more then the next largest plus 60%" standard would be "the two-power standard" under an ALT-WNT because the USA was allowed 100% of the British Empire's strength in aircraft carriers & capital ships and in turn Japan was allowed 60% of the United States' strength in those types of warship.
FWIW (2) from 1922 to circa 1937 the British Government wanted a "One Power Standard Fleet" which was a fleet strong enough to fight a war against another first class naval power (Japan) and from circa 1937 the policy was to return to the "Two Power Standard" by the middle 1940s. This was a fleet capable of fighting two first class naval powers at the same time. Except that instead of being equal the World's second and third largest navies (the USN & IJN) it would be capable of fighting the KM & IJN at the same time.
Any attempt to give GB/RN this big a boost over the US and Japan would have resulted in 1) Japan taking this as a HUGE insult and refusing to accept it and the US would simply see it as no restriction on GB at all so why bother signing? keep in mnd that the US was the one country that could aford to keep building if it wanted to but it perfered not to. So its goal was to place a reasonable restrition on EVERYONE in order to save money. It was mostly everyone else that want a restriction because they knew that ultimately they could mot keep it up.
And arguably the US had a more compelling reason to have a two ocean navy then GB as by this point in History the GB had mostly lost the empire and while it was still trying to protect overseas areas the reality is that Canada, Australia and India (for example) were becoming more and more independent. The US which also had over sea territories to worry about had to worry about Protecting The west coast and the East cost of its home territory. No matter what happened to India or the Falklands or the Hawaii the reality is that GB and the US’s primary concern was protecting GB and the Continental US. everything else is secondary to that. For this GB needed a large fleet in the eastern Atlantic and or the north Sea or the channel or wherever you want to put it, meanwhile the US had two coast separated by a long distance between even WITH the Canal. So if GB has a reason for a huge navy then so does the US.
And while we often look back on this with the idea that the US and GB were destined to be alloes and thus had each others backs. or at least were not enemies. Keep in mind that the US and GB had fought two wars and the last was only a tough over 100 years before and we are currently 85 years removed from WW2 and 110 years removed from WW1. And GB and the US had issues durring the ACW and that was only even closer in history. Add in GB tendency to use its navy to oush around other countries and the way it enforced a blockaid in WW1 that was at best questionably legal. And it is not completely unreasonable for the US to be concerned that GB may turn into an opponent.
Add in that in the Pacific the biggest concern for the US was Japan. A country that had for a good amount of time bern more or less an allie of GB it is not impossible that the US could conceivably find itself in a two front way with Japan and GB.
So frankly the US would be much much better off to sit back and let GB and Japan build whatever they want and to just out last them at the spending game.
And arguably the US had a more compelling reason to have a two ocean navy then GB as by this point in History the GB had mostly lost the empire and while it was still trying to protect overseas areas the reality is that Canada, Australia and India (for example) were becoming more and more independent. The US which also had over sea territories to worry about had to worry about Protecting The west coast and the East cost of its home territory. No matter what happened to India or the Falklands or the Hawaii the reality is that GB and the US’s primary concern was protecting GB and the Continental US. everything else is secondary to that. For this GB needed a large fleet in the eastern Atlantic and or the north Sea or the channel or wherever you want to put it, meanwhile the US had two coast separated by a long distance between even WITH the Canal. So if GB has a reason for a huge navy then so does the US.
And while we often look back on this with the idea that the US and GB were destined to be alloes and thus had each others backs. or at least were not enemies. Keep in mind that the US and GB had fought two wars and the last was only a tough over 100 years before and we are currently 85 years removed from WW2 and 110 years removed from WW1. And GB and the US had issues durring the ACW and that was only even closer in history. Add in GB tendency to use its navy to oush around other countries and the way it enforced a blockaid in WW1 that was at best questionably legal. And it is not completely unreasonable for the US to be concerned that GB may turn into an opponent.
Add in that in the Pacific the biggest concern for the US was Japan. A country that had for a good amount of time bern more or less an allie of GB it is not impossible that the US could conceivably find itself in a two front way with Japan and GB.
So frankly the US would be much much better off to sit back and let GB and Japan build whatever they want and to just out last them at the spending game.
What if rather than completing and keeping the Hawkins class 7.5" gunned Cruisers the RN was able to discard them in the ALT treaty in compensation being allowed one extra Nelson and all treaty cruisers were limited to 6". Any ship with guns over 6" having to come out of your Battleship tonnage would effectively kill the large cruiser.
Losing the 50,000 tons of the five Hawkins class Cruisers for one 35,000 ton battle ship might sound like a bad deal but it does give the RN 50,000 tons for extra 6" cruisers.
Using a standard displacement of 7500 tons for a light cruisers this gives you six extra cruisers plus 5000 tons of wriggle room, go for 7000 tons each for seven ships.
The OTL County Class took up around 130,000 tons of treaty cruiser weight using our ATL 7,500 6" gun design gives you around four extra ships on that tonnage. The 7,000 ton cruiser would give you an extra five ships. The RN having one extra Nelson and 10 or twelve more cruisers would IMHO be significant in an ALT WW2.
Losing the 50,000 tons of the five Hawkins class Cruisers for one 35,000 ton battle ship might sound like a bad deal but it does give the RN 50,000 tons for extra 6" cruisers.
Using a standard displacement of 7500 tons for a light cruisers this gives you six extra cruisers plus 5000 tons of wriggle room, go for 7000 tons each for seven ships.
The OTL County Class took up around 130,000 tons of treaty cruiser weight using our ATL 7,500 6" gun design gives you around four extra ships on that tonnage. The 7,000 ton cruiser would give you an extra five ships. The RN having one extra Nelson and 10 or twelve more cruisers would IMHO be significant in an ALT WW2.
Thats a... interesting claim seeing as the empire reached its territorial height after WW1 when the WNT was signed
Perhaps if taking the OP at 'all 4 Hoods have been completed' then the situation for a treaty could be:
RN: 29 Capital Ships (21BB and 8BC)
US: 19 Capital ships (15BB and 4BC)
IJN: 10 Capital ships (6BB and 4BC)
The above are split 2:1 in BB and 2:1 in BC
RN is 13 13.5" Orion, KGV and Iron Duke BB, 5 QE and 5 R class. 2 13.5" Tiger and a Lion BC, 2 15" Renown BC and 4 Hoods
USN is 2 New York, 2 Nevada, 2 Pennsylvania, 3 New Mexico, 2 California, 4 Colorado and 4 Lexington
IJN is 2 Fuso, 2 Ise, 2 Nagato and 4 Kongo.
A concession to Japan could be adding Tosa and Kaga for a 3:5 ratio against the USN and the RN has nearly a 2:1 lead. The US has 8 Post Jutland ships, Japan 2 or 4 and RN 4.
RN: 29 Capital Ships (21BB and 8BC)
US: 19 Capital ships (15BB and 4BC)
IJN: 10 Capital ships (6BB and 4BC)
The above are split 2:1 in BB and 2:1 in BC
RN is 13 13.5" Orion, KGV and Iron Duke BB, 5 QE and 5 R class. 2 13.5" Tiger and a Lion BC, 2 15" Renown BC and 4 Hoods
USN is 2 New York, 2 Nevada, 2 Pennsylvania, 3 New Mexico, 2 California, 4 Colorado and 4 Lexington
IJN is 2 Fuso, 2 Ise, 2 Nagato and 4 Kongo.
A concession to Japan could be adding Tosa and Kaga for a 3:5 ratio against the USN and the RN has nearly a 2:1 lead. The US has 8 Post Jutland ships, Japan 2 or 4 and RN 4.