No Washington or London Naval Treaties

[markp]

The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty put the brakes on massive capital ship construction programs planned by the US, UK and Japan. The later London treaty expanded the limitations on the construction of other ships. These treaties limited the size and armament of battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers and to a lesser extent destroyers and submarines. If these treaties did not happen the US, UK and Japan would each have completed by 1925 large fleets of battle ships many armed with 18" guns. The UK had 18" guns in WW1 and the US was close to deploying guns of this size at the end of WW1. France and Italy to a lesser extent were impacted by these treaties.

Mark

[lordroel]

Feb 6, 2020 3:20:31 GMT markp said:

The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty put the brakes on massive capital ship construction programs planned by the US, UK and Japan. The later London treaty expanded the limitations on the construction of other ships. These treaties limited the size and armament of battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers and to a lesser extent destroyers and submarines. If these treaties did not happen the US, UK and Japan would each have completed by 1925 large fleets of battle ships many armed with 18" guns. The UK had 18" guns in WW1 and the US was close to deploying guns of this size at the end of WW1. France and Italy to a lesser extent were impacted by these treaties.

Mark

What i have always understand is that Japan cannot afford this arms race without limits, unless i am wrong.

[stevep]

Feb 6, 2020 4:45:05 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 6, 2020 3:20:31 GMT markp said:

The 1922 Washington Naval Treaty put the brakes on massive capital ship construction programs planned by the US, UK and Japan. The later London treaty expanded the limitations on the construction of other ships. These treaties limited the size and armament of battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers and to a lesser extent destroyers and submarines. If these treaties did not happen the US, UK and Japan would each have completed by 1925 large fleets of battle ships many armed with 18" guns. The UK had 18" guns in WW1 and the US was close to deploying guns of this size at the end of WW1. France and Italy to a lesser extent were impacted by these treaties.

Mark

What i have always understand is that Japan cannot afford this arms race without limits, unless i am wrong.

  It would almost certainly have failed to complete the programme on anything like scheduled, even without the 1923 quake that caused considerable economic damage and loss of life.  Which could see up a hell of a lot of butterflies.  You might see the navy discredited and the army gain more prominence or a more democratic Japan because there is a reaction against very high military spending.  Also if the alliance with Britain remains in place, which seems likely, then Britain has some diplomatic influence to try and moderate Japan as well.

  The US seems to have been unwilling to complete its 1916 programme.  Congress was very reluctant to fund the programme and it was very much on a drip feed.  If there's no treaty then it would probably limp on until the Japanese economic collapse occurred then probably largely cancelled.  Going to see all four Colorado class completed but how many of the S Dakota and Lexington classes would be I don't know.  There was also some talk of converting some of the Lexington's into CVs but whether this would occur again would be uncertain.  Possibly the dominant big-gun element in the navy with money so tight would concentrate on the BBs and no conversions would occur.

  For Britain with no treaty the G3's would be started and given their capabilities and the fact they would be able to replace a lot of older, smaller BBs are very likely to be completed.  The N3's may be started but could be canceled once the naval race ends.  However if we still get something similar to WWII in Europe this could be a potential big game changer in terms of the abilities of the RN and shipyards, especially as you might get a new programme to replace some of the older ships starting ~1930 provided the depression doesn't interrupt this. 

  All the big three are likely to do some construction at a low [by pre-1914 levels] during the rest of the 20's and 30's, with more of the WWI ships scrapped.  France and Italy might also do some construction but given their weaker economies and shipyards they might have some resultant limit something like 35,000 tons and 15" guns.  Plus if you still get the rise of fascism, especially Hitler coming to power in Germany, that will concentrate attention more on their land forces and borders.

  Without the ban on BB construction more will be built which probably means less development of CVs so the naval air arms could be somewhat smaller and less influential.

[1bigrich]

Feb 6, 2020 11:36:41 GMT stevep said:

  It would almost certainly have failed to complete the programme on anything like scheduled, even without the 1923 quake that caused considerable economic damage and loss of life.  Which could see up a hell of a lot of butterflies.  You might see the navy discredited and the army gain more prominence or a more democratic Japan because there is a reaction against very high military spending.  Also if the alliance with Britain remains in place, which seems likely, then Britain has some diplomatic influence to try and moderate Japan as well.

  The US seems to have been unwilling to complete its 1916 programme.  Congress was very reluctant to fund the programme and it was very much on a drip feed.  If there's no treaty then it would probably limp on until the Japanese economic collapse occurred then probably largely cancelled.  Going to see all four Colorado class completed but how many of the S Dakota and Lexington classes would be I don't know.  There was also some talk of converting some of the Lexington's into CVs but whether this would occur again would be uncertain.  Possibly the dominant big-gun element in the navy with money so tight would concentrate on the BBs and no conversions would occur.

The major accomplishment of the treaty was preventing the block-obsolescence of the world's battlefleets. What is a Fuso, Nevada or Iron Duke going to do against a 16in or 18in armed battleship with nearly double their displacement? What is Lion or Kongo going to do against a BC that is 50 percent larger and armed with 16in or 18in guns? Without a treaty, navies are likely to be discredited in the eyes of many taxpayers and politicians. For example, "What do mean Renown needs to be replaced? She just commissioned in 1916 and is less than 10 years old?!?!?!"



The thing to remember with the US program is the delay the US entry into the war caused. South Dakota (BB49) was BB1918, slightly modified to BB1919, but not laid down until 1920 (1921 for Massachusetts). The US might have wanted newer ships, but it was stuck with what was already on the ways. The treaty helped them avoid commissioning 'new' but already obsolete (or obsolescing) ships.

 

For Britain with no treaty the G3's would be started and given their capabilities and the fact they would be able to replace a lot of older, smaller BBs are very likely to be completed.  The N3's may be started but could be canceled once the naval race ends.  However if we still get something similar to WWII in Europe this could be a potential big game changer in terms of the abilities of the RN and shipyards, especially as you might get a new programme to replace some of the older ships starting ~1930 provided the depression doesn't interrupt this. 

  All the big three are likely to do some construction at a low [by pre-1914 levels] during the rest of the 20's and 30's, with more of the WWI ships scrapped.  France and Italy might also do some construction but given their weaker economies and shipyards they might have some resultant limit something like 35,000 tons and 15" guns.  Plus if you still get the rise of fascism, especially Hitler coming to power in Germany, that will concentrate attention more on their land forces and borders.

Without a treaty environment, there would be even more pressure on France and Italy to complete new dreadnoughts.   Italy was already jumping caliber with the Caracciolo class, the Marine National wen the other direction to increase firepower; more barrels with the Normandies and Lyons.  

 

Without the ban on BB construction more will be built which probably means less development of CVs so the naval air arms could be somewhat smaller and less influential.

We often forget with the Treaty system, development of battleships/capital ships essentially stopped in 1922, while development of every other type of ship of ship continued for the next 15 years.  Destroyers, carriers, cruisers (the treaty cruiser being descended from the WWI light cruiser) and submarines all got larger.   And those that didn't larger, like carriers, got more efficient.   

I am increasingly viewing First London as a disaster for the US and especially the UK.   The extension of the holiday kept ships around that should have been replaced.  And while the RN got great value and service from the rebuilt Renown, Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant, I think we have to question if the resulting loss of capability in builders and industrial capacity could have been avoided with the Washington replacement schedule.    Of course, the Depression is an external driver for the holiday extension, and must be taken into account as well.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Feb 6, 2020 11:36:41 GMT stevep said:

Feb 6, 2020 4:45:05 GMT lordroel said:

What i have always understand is that Japan cannot afford this arms race without limits, unless i am wrong.

  It would almost certainly have failed to complete the programme on anything like scheduled, even without the 1923 quake that caused considerable economic damage and loss of life.  Which could see up a hell of a lot of butterflies.  You might see the navy discredited and the army gain more prominence or a more democratic Japan because there is a reaction against very high military spending.  Also if the alliance with Britain remains in place, which seems likely, then Britain has some diplomatic influence to try and moderate Japan as well.

  The US seems to have been unwilling to complete its 1916 programme.  Congress was very reluctant to fund the programme and it was very much on a drip feed.  If there's no treaty then it would probably limp on until the Japanese economic collapse occurred then probably largely cancelled.  Going to see all four Colorado class completed but how many of the S Dakota and Lexington classes would be I don't know.  There was also some talk of converting some of the Lexington's into CVs but whether this would occur again would be uncertain.  Possibly the dominant big-gun element in the navy with money so tight would concentrate on the BBs and no conversions would occur.

  For Britain with no treaty the G3's would be started and given their capabilities and the fact they would be able to replace a lot of older, smaller BBs are very likely to be completed.  The N3's may be started but could be canceled once the naval race ends.  However if we still get something similar to WWII in Europe this could be a potential big game changer in terms of the abilities of the RN and shipyards, especially as you might get a new programme to replace some of the older ships starting ~1930 provided the depression doesn't interrupt this. 

  All the big three are likely to do some construction at a low [by pre-1914 levels] during the rest of the 20's and 30's, with more of the WWI ships scrapped.  France and Italy might also do some construction but given their weaker economies and shipyards they might have some resultant limit something like 35,000 tons and 15" guns.  Plus if you still get the rise of fascism, especially Hitler coming to power in Germany, that will concentrate attention more on their land forces and borders.

  Without the ban on BB construction more will be built which probably means less development of CVs so the naval air arms could be somewhat smaller and less influential.

Would you agree that having the Washington and London Naval Treaties saved Japan economy, that is until 1941 when it went to war that is, ore am i seeing this wrong.

[markp]

I agree that the Japanese would not have been able to afford their full program but would have built some of it given the political strength of the armed forces. This construction would probably come at the cost of the carrier arm making a Pearl Harbor type of attack nearly impossible. Relations between the US and the UK during the 20s was strained so both sides would have had some pressure to complete the programs started at the end of WW1. The depression would end most construction. FDR did have support the navy so it is possible that ship building may have been used earlier as an economic stimulus given the fact that there would be a larger number of shipyards and ship builders needing work. The British would probably build a larger number of smaller cruisers for trade protection this is what they wanted to do anyway. The US would have built a smaller number of larger long range cruisers. These ships would have been almost mini battleships with guns larger than 8" maybe in the 15,000 to 25,000 ton range. This construction would also come at the expense of naval aviation for both sides given the limited funds. Assuming that the Japanese attack the US the attack would be directed at the Philippians with a US response following War Plan Orange with the battle fleet sailing to the defense of the Philippians. The limited Japanese air power would still have some effect since the US ships would now be at sea and with poor AA capability. That is assuming that the US and British don't come to blows in the late 20s over their differences.

Mark

[stevep]

Feb 7, 2020 0:20:06 GMT markp said:

I agree that the Japanese would not have been able to afford their full program but would have built some of it given the political strength of the armed forces. This construction would probably come at the cost of the carrier arm making a Pearl Harbor type of attack nearly impossible. Relations between the US and the UK during the 20s was strained so both sides would have had some pressure to complete the programs started at the end of WW1. The depression would end most construction. FDR did have support the navy so it is possible that ship building may have been used earlier as an economic stimulus given the fact that there would be a larger number of shipyards and ship builders needing work. The British would probably build a larger number of smaller cruisers for trade protection this is what they wanted to do anyway. The US would have built a smaller number of larger long range cruisers. These ships would have been almost mini battleships with guns larger than 8" maybe in the 15,000 to 25,000 ton range. This construction would also come at the expense of naval aviation for both sides given the limited funds. Assuming that the Japanese attack the US the attack would be directed at the Philippians with a US response following War Plan Orange with the battle fleet sailing to the defense of the Philippians. The limited Japanese air power would still have some effect since the US ships would now be at sea and with poor AA capability. That is assuming that the US and British don't come to blows in the late 20s over their differences.

Mark

  Mark

  As I understand it part of the tension was because of the naval treaties and the problems it caused, especially as you say for Britain. Also since the USN was seeking to build new ships in any category it could it needed a reason to do this and especially once Japan was effectively reduced, either by treaty or without it economic collapse their only real option was to argue for competing with the RN.  As such there would be some tension but unless either nation goes totally off the rails into some sort of totalitarian state I think a conflict would have been pretty much impossible.

  Agree that the two treaties greatly restricted both construction and the capacity for such leading to a massive block obsolescent problem when the crisis came in the late 30's.  Without them things would have been a lot different.  The US, assuming say it completes 8-10 of its planned 1916 programme is going to face problems with getting money out of Congress for quite a while simply because they have spent so much and most of the remaining capital ships - suspecting some of the older dreadnoughts would be scrapped - would be pretty new.  For Britain also the front line battle fleet would dwindle as well as older ships were retired and also its ships are more worn by war service than the US ones.  Hence the battle-fleet would dwindle but be fresher and might still be larger than OTL come ~1935.  However definitely the capacity to produce new ships would be greater all around.

  Not sure that such large cruisers, which would be effectively 2nd class BBs would be that efficient as likely to be nearly as expensive as full scale units.  A bit like the Alaska's OTL.  Although being built earlier and with carrier a/c retarded their going to have less top-weight when constructed with less AA guns and infrastructure, no radar and the like.  However as long as they have the scope to take on more weight when such additions are needed.  They might be good raiders, at least until a/c and probably especially airbourne radar become more efficient.  To counter such efforts could be a later impulse to further development of carriers and their a/c.

  I'm not sure Italy and France would build that much simply because of their economic position and the anti-war feeling in the aftermath of WWI.  Also, assuming they agree between them a ceasure or other limits of any race between then who would they be building against?  Britain, the US and Japan, especially with the new construction are so massively ahead of them that any challenge to them as a battle fleet would seem pointless.  Austria has disappeared, as has the Ottoman empire, Germany is prevented by treaty from having an effective navy and Russia is in chaos.  If Italy still descends into fascism, which does seem likely then there is an argument that Mussolini might push for new construction on prestige grounds but that would be expensive and its likely to cause a reaction from other powers which could be bad for Italy's actual position. 

  Of course all those arguments are based on the assumption that no alternative treaty is agreed, even if not as restrictive as the OTL ones.  Say with limited rates of new construction of new BBs for each power and some agreement on maximum tonnage and guns.  Something like this might be popular with the powers say ~1923-24 after Japan hits the war and with their programme stalled opposition to new construction in the US and Britain.  Whether this would still lead to equality in tonnage between the UK and US and what the ratios would be of other powers would depend on the circumstances.

[markp]

There was some tension between the US and the UK regarding trade and fishing rights on the Grand Banks and a desire in some circles to get the British to repay the war loans. You are right that a full on shooting war between the US and UK would be unlikely unless there was a major shift in either government. The larger amount of ships could increase the chance of an accidental war happening over a minor incident such as a seized merchant ship or squabble about fishing rights.

Both sides did have designs for larger cruisers that did not get built because of the treaties. Also without any limitations in place warships do tend to get larger both in tonnage and in the size of the main battery weapons.

The French and Italians wanted to maintain parity with each other and would have built as much as they could have afforded to match what the other did.

The US navy does have a long standing tradition or building ships that are larger and more capable than their enemies when they do build. Given that their cruiser needs were for larger long range more capable ships for Pacific service. US large cruisers in the 20s and 30s are a distinct possibility. They would have been more useful then given the smaller network of bases that the US had at the time. When the Alaska entered service the US had a vast network of bases and the ability to bring mobile bases to any location in the world they needed one.

Mark

Mark

[stevep]

Feb 8, 2020 5:17:59 GMT markp said:

There was some tension between the US and the UK regarding trade and fishing rights on the Grand Banks and a desire in some circles to get the British to repay the war loans. You are right that a full on shooting war between the US and UK would be unlikely unless there was a major shift in either government. The larger amount of ships could increase the chance of an accidental war happening over a minor incident such as a seized merchant ship or squabble about fishing rights.

Both sides did have designs for larger cruisers that did not get built because of the treaties. Also without any limitations in place warships do tend to get larger both in tonnage and in the size of the main battery weapons.

The French and Italians wanted to maintain parity with each other and would have built as much as they could have afforded to match what the other did.

The US navy does have a long standing tradition or building ships that are larger and more capable than their enemies when they do build. Given that their cruiser needs were for larger long range more capable ships for Pacific service. US large cruisers in the 20s and 30s are a distinct possibility. They would have been more useful then given the smaller network of bases that the US had at the time. When the Alaska entered service the US had a vast network of bases and the ability to bring mobile bases to any location in the world they needed one.

Mark

Mark

    Mark

    As far as I'm aware Britain was fully repaying war loans until ~1931 I think it was when the depression and the further increases in US tariffs which had a big impact on world trade forced Britain to cancel repayments.  Know there was some problems with US pressure on Canada on some economic issues, unlimited access to Canadian forests being another one but that never got that serious despite some loud talk by politicians.

  The France and Italians wanted to avoid any deterioration in their position relative to the other but that could lead to an agreement as easily as a new race that both sides would find very costly.

  With the proposed very large cruisers the US might well build them presuming they can get Congress to loosen the purse strings.  With fewer bases and needing longer range as the prime realistic expectation would be a war with Japan they would look logical.  However would they, like the BBs of the 1916 class have much capacity for reconstruction which would be needed later on as electronics and increased AA facilities become more important?  If so their OK but if not they could become white elephants if something like OTL WWII occurs.  Also while they lack the bases and with air power becoming more significant lone raiders are risking damage while isolated from assistance and distant from any support bases.  They can be used as a fast element of the battle-fleet, although as new ships are presumably construction in the 1930s their likely to be true fast BBs.  That's why I have concerns about how effective they might be.

  Steve

[markp]

The US need for cruisers before WW2 was primarily as fleet scouts and the larger ships would be effective in this role. The extra weight would allow for more fuel and speed with similar armament as the treaty cruisers. The Japanese cruisers at this time where built in violation the the treaties and weighed in at about 15000 tons with improved protection slightly increased fire power 10 8" guns vs 9 8"guns and a very effective torpedo system. Also the US, UK, France and Japan experimented with very large submarine cruisers. There may have been more of these but not many. Even cruiser designs based on the 10,000 ton limit would have grown without the treaty limitations. That growth is just the normal desire to build better ships than your likely enemies. The development of naval air power would pay the price for these larger ships except possibly Japan that thought it would be able to wear down an attacking fleet as it sailed towards Japan. When WW2 ended the treaty limitations US cruiser construction did result in larger ships ending with Des Moines class at 17,000 tons still armed with 8" guns but with heavier mounts to allow for a much higher rate of fire. Given the battleship building programs that would have happened without the Washington treaty. The US/UK/Japan would have had a fleet of battleships and battle cruisers. These ships would not be very old by the 30s so the development of fast battle ships in the late 30s would not have happened. Once the war broke out. If the weaker airpower in this time line did not cripple the US battle line and become the decisive weapon maybe fast battleships would be built. If the war was fought with a Jutland type fleet action when the US battle line met the Japanese near the Philippines both sides battle fleets would be pounded into scrap. The end result would still be a US victory due to the ability to replace it's losses much faster than the Japanese could. The War in the Atlantic would probably have followed a course similar to OTL.

Mark

[stevep]

Feb 8, 2020 20:32:25 GMT markp said:

The US need for cruisers before WW2 was primarily as fleet scouts and the larger ships would be effective in this role. The extra weight would allow for more fuel and speed with similar armament as the treaty cruisers. The Japanese cruisers at this time where built in violation the the treaties and weighed in at about 15000 tons with improved protection slightly increased fire power 10 8" guns vs 9 8"guns and a very effective torpedo system. Also the US, UK, France and Japan experimented with very large submarine cruisers. There may have been more of these but not many. Even cruiser designs based on the 10,000 ton limit would have grown without the treaty limitations. That growth is just the normal desire to build better ships than your likely enemies. The development of naval air power would pay the price for these larger ships except possibly Japan that thought it would be able to wear down an attacking fleet as it sailed towards Japan. When WW2 ended the treaty limitations US cruiser construction did result in larger ships ending with Des Moines class at 17,000 tons still armed with 8" guns but with heavier mounts to allow for a much higher rate of fire. Given the battleship building programs that would have happened without the Washington treaty. The US/UK/Japan would have had a fleet of battleships and battle cruisers. These ships would not be very old by the 30s so the development of fast battle ships in the late 30s would not have happened. Once the war broke out. If the weaker airpower in this time line did not cripple the US battle line and become the decisive weapon maybe fast battleships would be built. If the war was fought with a Jutland type fleet action when the US battle line met the Japanese near the Philippines both sides battle fleets would be pounded into scrap. The end result would still be a US victory due to the ability to replace it's losses much faster than the Japanese could. The War in the Atlantic would probably have followed a course similar to OTL.

Mark

  Mark

  Yes cruisers will get larger earlier without the treaties but would Congress especially after lashing out so much on say half the 1916 programme be willing to build such large cruisers, especially if armed with only 8" main guns?  The Des Moines had not only very advanced guns but also a hell of a lot more AA guns and supporting facilities including manpower as well as electronics which are unlikely to appear in a large cruiser constructed in the early 20's say.

  Britain was already building fast BBs.  While it had flaws in its armour that's basically what Hood was and similarly the G3's while they were formally called BCs were armoured to a very high level.  Similarly with some of the Japanese designs.  The US might wait until its next generation of BB construction, possibly in the late 20's but their likely to feel obliged to follow suit in part because such fast BBs - as well as the "we want them too" reaction - will threaten to render obsolete those large cruisers just as the early BCs did the pre-WWI armoured cruisers.

  Going to be a lot of butterflies even if political and economic events come close to OTL.  Even if that occurs the RN is going to a hell of a lot better positioned against the European Axis and possibly to a degree against Japan assuming that's still an opponent.  Of course this could prompt a revanchist Germany, not necessarily lead by Hitler and the Nazis, to go directly to a primary U boat and light raider stance but that would ease the pressure in terms of new construction of heavy ships and Britain would be able to concentrate more on escorts in such a case. 

  If carriers have been retarded as much as they might be the the war in the Pacific is likely to be markedly different.  Coupled with a stronger British position which means that Malaya and the DEI may possible stay outside Japanese control that would drastically shorten the war in the Far East/Pacific.

  Steve

[mostlyharmless]

The development of British cruisers will be completely different without a WNT because the RN will have an excellent set of five cruiser killers, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger, Repulse and Renown for the next twenty years, assuming conversion of the Cats to oil burning geared turbines. None of these will be needed for battleship versus battleship actions so they can take most of the roles of the County Class, station flagships in peace time and pocket battleship hunters in war time. There will be little sense in other powers building ships such as Zara Class with armour to defeat 8" shells. If anyone wants to build a large cruiser, they would have to build an Alaska or stronger design. Other cruisers will be cheap and/or fast.

Of course there also won't be much money for building large cruisers as the extra battleships will take most of the money.

The danger for the old battlecruisers is that they might meet Akagi, Amagi (saved from the earthquake by being launched), Atago or Takeo (the 16" versions). However, they will just have to run to the shelter of a G3 if that happens.

[1bigrich]

I'm not sure cruisers are going to get bigger without a real external driver. The 10,000 ton/8in cruiser was a product of the times. RN had went to the Elizabethans, nearly 10,000 tons. But they were unsatisfied with them as the RN has always needed numbers. And the USN had gone to 10in guns with the last of the Big 10 armored cruisers, and the 10in was felt to be too big. So the USN wanted to go back to the 8in for a main battery gun. The Japanese had laid down the Furutakas with 20com guns in six single turrets



and they were well under 10,000 tons. I think Japan's treaty cruisers only grew because of the treaty itself. Their job was attrition of the US battleline, so they needed heavy torpedo armament and as many main 8in guns as possible.


My thoughts,

[mostlyharmless]

The Hawkins Class were similar to the Alaska Class as both were a response to false information and were designed to fight ships that were never built, the mythical German 170 mm armed cruisers and the Japanese Chichibu class. Without the WNT, I initially suspected that the RN would have developed the Emerald Class directly into something like the Leander Class. However, the IJN had started designing the Furutakas as a response to the Hawkins Class before Washington, so it is possible that the RN might have built something like the York Class.

[stevep]

Feb 9, 2020 20:26:50 GMT mostlyharmless said:

The development of British cruisers will be completely different without a WNT because the RN will have an excellent set of five cruiser killers, Lion, Princess Royal, Tiger, Repulse and Renown for the next twenty years, assuming conversion of the Cats to oil burning geared turbines. None of these will be needed for battleship versus battleship actions so they can take most of the roles of the County Class, station flagships in peace time and pocket battleship hunters in war time. There will be little sense in other powers building ships such as Zara Class with armour to defeat 8" shells. If anyone wants to build a large cruiser, they would have to build an Alaska or stronger design. Other cruisers will be cheap and/or fast.

Of course there also won't be much money for building large cruisers as the extra battleships will take most of the money.

The danger for the old battlecruisers is that they might meet Akagi, Amagi (saved from the earthquake by being launched), Atago or Takeo (the 16" versions). However, they will just have to run to the shelter of a G3 if that happens.

  Not only that, but I've seen it suggested that for less than the cost of a new 'treaty' type cruise the surviving four old I class ships could be upgraded, with new engines and fire control, converting into oil propulsion, increased range of guns you could get a very effective cruiser killer that while it wouldn't be up to clashing 1-to-1 with the large new cruisers Mark was suggesting - although even then possibly if their still armed with only 8" guns - would be able to kill a lot else.  They were originally designed as cruiser killers and would still be a pretty effective in the role if upgraded.  They might be worn out by ~1935-40 but could be very useful before then and possibly even afterwards in the right locations and uses.

  Yes the old BCs would need to avoid the really big new fast ships but they could do a lot else and probably be pretty damned efficient in defeating the sort of raiders that Germany sent out in WWI and WWII.