No Washington or London Naval Treaties

[mostlyharmless]

The RN had decided before Washington to retire all their 12" ships apart from Australia, which was RAN, and New Zealand, which had been paid for by New Zealand. I think that there were proposals to use Agincourt, the newest of the 12" ships, possibly as a training ship but I don't know the details.
Thus we can imagine that Australia and New Zealand might survive without the WNT but rebuilding will probably depend on whether their "sponsors" are willing to pay.

[stevep]

Feb 10, 2020 21:29:33 GMT mostlyharmless said:

The RN had decided before Washington to retire all their 12" ships apart from Australia, which was RAN, and New Zealand, which had been paid for by New Zealand. I think that there were proposals to use Agincourt, the newest of the 12" ships, possibly as a training ship but I don't know the details.
Thus we can imagine that Australia and New Zealand might survive without the WNT but rebuilding will probably depend on whether their "sponsors" are willing to pay.

  That was the plan but it might change if an upgrade of Australia proved useful.  The latter is very likely in some form as the ship is both symbolic to Australia and an important element in their navy as the largest unit the country could support without very expensive upgrades to harbour and support facilities.  If the others are not yet scrapped when the proposals for HMAS Australia become know it might prompt a change.

  There were plans to use Agincourt as a mobile base facility IIRC but I can't remember a reference to the details.

[lordroel]

Feb 11, 2020 12:18:05 GMT stevep said:

Feb 10, 2020 21:29:33 GMT mostlyharmless said:

The RN had decided before Washington to retire all their 12" ships apart from Australia, which was RAN, and New Zealand, which had been paid for by New Zealand. I think that there were proposals to use Agincourt, the newest of the 12" ships, possibly as a training ship but I don't know the details.
Thus we can imagine that Australia and New Zealand might survive without the WNT but rebuilding will probably depend on whether their "sponsors" are willing to pay.

  That was the plan but it might change if an upgrade of Australia proved useful.  The latter is very likely in some form as the ship is both symbolic to Australia and an important element in their navy as the largest unit the country could support without very expensive upgrades to harbour and support facilities.  If the others are not yet scrapped when the proposals for HMAS Australia become know it might prompt a change.

  There were plans to use Agincourt as a mobile base facility IIRC but I can't remember a reference to the details.

Would it be this stevep: Plans for HMS Agincourt as Mobile Base

[stevep]

Feb 11, 2020 15:12:57 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 11, 2020 12:18:05 GMT stevep said:

  That was the plan but it might change if an upgrade of Australia proved useful.  The latter is very likely in some form as the ship is both symbolic to Australia and an important element in their navy as the largest unit the country could support without very expensive upgrades to harbour and support facilities.  If the others are not yet scrapped when the proposals for HMAS Australia become know it might prompt a change.

  There were plans to use Agincourt as a mobile base facility IIRC but I can't remember a reference to the details.

Would it be this stevep : Plans for HMS Agincourt as Mobile Base

  Good find Lordroel.  That would be it.  Irishopinion, AKA John is a very experienced researcher who has produced a number of articles on that site although a while since I remember him posting.  He has some serious doubts about the idea so there could be problems.  I can't see her being kept as a warship if there was no treaty as while the suggested I class conversions would provide a useful role there's nothing really that Agrincourt could do that other old ships couldn't do better.

[lordroel]

Feb 11, 2020 16:01:52 GMT stevep said:

Feb 11, 2020 15:12:57 GMT lordroel said:

Would it be this stevep : Plans for HMS Agincourt as Mobile Base

  Good find Lordroel.  That would be it.  Irishopinion, AKA John is a very experienced researcher who has produced a number of articles on that site although a while since I remember him posting.  He has some serious doubts about the idea so there could be problems.  I can't see her being kept as a warship if there was no treaty as while the suggested I class conversions would provide a useful role there's nothing really that Agrincourt could do that other old ships couldn't do better.

What do i need to think about a Mobile Base.

[stevep]

Feb 11, 2020 16:05:06 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 11, 2020 16:01:52 GMT stevep said:

  Good find Lordroel.  That would be it.  Irishopinion, AKA John is a very experienced researcher who has produced a number of articles on that site although a while since I remember him posting.  He has some serious doubts about the idea so there could be problems.  I can't see her being kept as a warship if there was no treaty as while the suggested I class conversions would provide a useful role there's nothing really that Agrincourt could do that other old ships couldn't do better.

What do i need to think about a Mobile Base.

  Not sure.  I suspect its probably intended to provide say fueling, rearming and general support and spares for light forces in distant areas but that would be a guess.

[lordroel]

Reading this link: How Promise Turned to Disappointment it also has a little bit of Alternative History in it which reads:

What would have happened had the General Board’s naval conference wishes been followed and the 1916 ships completed as planned? In the late 1920s, the United States certainly would have had the most powerful fleet of modern battleships armed with big 16-inch guns. The Japanese might have completed their own “Eight-Eight Fleet Program” (eight first-class battleships and eight battle cruisers), which included impressive ships, some with 18-inch guns. But neither navy would have felt pressured to develop naval aviation, and neither would have had the resources to do so.

Completion of the 1916 shipbuilding program would probably have exhausted congressional willingness to buy new warships, at least until after 1930. There is no reason to imagine that a more powerful U.S. battle line would have deterred World War II, although the absence of a strong naval air arm would surely have changed the way the Pacific conflict began and was fought. For example, the Japanese could still have seized the Philippines but would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. Most important for the U.S. Navy was the fact that it still would have been starved of cruisers—and in a major naval war the lack of cruisers would have been especially crippling because of the absence of naval aircraft to carry out their scouting mission.

For us, the lesson of the Naval Act of 1916, if there is one, is that a U.S. president’s determination to buy dominant sea power is not enough. Sea power costs money. Ultimately that money has to come from the American public, which can register its distaste for the expense through Congress. By complying with President Wilson’s request, Congress made the 1916 shipbuilding program possible—and six years later, when the Senate ratified the Washington Naval Treaty, it made the program disappear

[stevep]

Feb 12, 2020 15:48:51 GMT lordroel said:

Reading this link: How Promise Turned to Disappointment it also has a little bit of Alternative History in it which reads:

What would have happened had the General Board’s naval conference wishes been followed and the 1916 ships completed as planned? In the late 1920s, the United States certainly would have had the most powerful fleet of modern battleships armed with big 16-inch guns. The Japanese might have completed their own “Eight-Eight Fleet Program” (eight first-class battleships and eight battle cruisers), which included impressive ships, some with 18-inch guns. But neither navy would have felt pressured to develop naval aviation, and neither would have had the resources to do so.

Completion of the 1916 shipbuilding program would probably have exhausted congressional willingness to buy new warships, at least until after 1930. There is no reason to imagine that a more powerful U.S. battle line would have deterred World War II, although the absence of a strong naval air arm would surely have changed the way the Pacific conflict began and was fought. For example, the Japanese could still have seized the Philippines but would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. Most important for the U.S. Navy was the fact that it still would have been starved of cruisers—and in a major naval war the lack of cruisers would have been especially crippling because of the absence of naval aircraft to carry out their scouting mission.

For us, the lesson of the Naval Act of 1916, if there is one, is that a U.S. president’s determination to buy dominant sea power is not enough. Sea power costs money. Ultimately that money has to come from the American public, which can register its distaste for the expense through Congress. By complying with President Wilson’s request, Congress made the 1916 shipbuilding program possible—and six years later, when the Senate ratified the Washington Naval Treaty, it made the program disappear

lordroel,

  A decent summary although I can't see either Japan or the US completing their programmes in full.  Japan was running into serious economic stain even before the 23 quake did do much damage.  The US programme was pretty much on a drip feed as Congress was allowing only limited amounts of funds.  Once Japan basically ends its construction the funding from Congress is likely to be even tighter as the main argument of the programme has gone.  Some sources have suggested that when the WNT negotiations started the US government had already decided not to continue with the construction even if no agreement was reached.  As such I could see from as little the 4 Colorado class BBs being completed to possibly say another 4 or at most 6 other units, probably a mixture of slow S Dakota BBs or Lexington class BCs. 

  For Britain I can't see the N3 class being completed unless possibly Japan do complete some of their 18" ships but the 4G3s are almost certain to and possibly say another 4 such ships later in the decade.  If their early enough not to get killed by the depression, assuming that still occurs, which seems likely, that would give the RN 8 modern fast and powerful capital ships which would give it a massively better position against any equivalent to the OTL Axis build up.  Even if  Italy builds any ships, which seems unlikely to me, they wouldn't be able to match the G3's, which Germany is nullified by the Versailles Treaty.

  Would agree that carrier aviation will be delayed as both so much additional resources would be put into big gun ships and also it would be politically difficult for the admirals, after such programmes to argue for more spending on new CVs.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Feb 12, 2020 16:27:39 GMT stevep said:

Would agree that carrier aviation will be delayed as both so much additional resources would be put into big gun ships and also it would be politically difficult for the admirals, after such programmes to argue for more spending on new CVs.

So Lexington and Saratoga ending up as battle cruisers as intended instead of ending up as carriers.

[stevep]

Feb 12, 2020 16:33:44 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 12, 2020 16:27:39 GMT stevep said:

Would agree that carrier aviation will be delayed as both so much additional resources would be put into big gun ships and also it would be politically difficult for the admirals, after such programmes to argue for more spending on new CVs.

So Lexington and Saratoga ending up as battle cruisers as intended instead of ending up as carriers.

  It would depend on the exact circumstances.  There were some in the USN calling for a couple of the planned BCs to be completed as CVs instead so it might be that two still get converted, although I suspect that at least a couple would be completed in the later BC designs before that as the navy as a whole would see them as more valuable.  You might get a couple of other hulls completed, albeit probably at a slow rate as CVs over the next few years although they might not be completed until the late 20's.  It all depends on how things go but I suspect that given a choice between BB/BC and CV the navy would choose the latter as the funding is further cut off.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Feb 12, 2020 16:51:52 GMT stevep said:

Feb 12, 2020 16:33:44 GMT lordroel said:

So Lexington and Saratoga ending up as battle cruisers as intended instead of ending up as carriers.

  It would depend on the exact circumstances.  There were some in the USN calling for a couple of the planned BCs to be completed as CVs instead so it might be that two still get converted, although I suspect that at least a couple would be completed in the later BC designs before that as the navy as a whole would see them as more valuable.  You might get a couple of other hulls completed, albeit probably at a slow rate as CVs over the next few years although they might not be completed until the late 20's.  It all depends on how things go but I suspect that given a choice between BB/BC and CV the navy would choose the latter as the funding is further cut off.

  Steve

Same with the 3 Japanese Amagi-class battlecruiser
, will we also see them.

[stevep]

Feb 12, 2020 16:56:59 GMT lordroel said:

Feb 12, 2020 16:51:52 GMT stevep said:

  It would depend on the exact circumstances.  There were some in the USN calling for a couple of the planned BCs to be completed as CVs instead so it might be that two still get converted, although I suspect that at least a couple would be completed in the later BC designs before that as the navy as a whole would see them as more valuable.  You might get a couple of other hulls completed, albeit probably at a slow rate as CVs over the next few years although they might not be completed until the late 20's.  It all depends on how things go but I suspect that given a choice between BB/BC and CV the navy would choose the latter as the funding is further cut off.

  Steve

Same with the 3 Japanese Amagi-class battlecruiser
, will we also see them.

  Well the 2 Natagos's will be completed.  There were also 2 Tosa BBs and 4 Amagi BCs as the 1st 8 of the 16 ships in the programme so if the Japanese push it they will probably at least launch most of those 8 but you could see some either damaged by the quake or cancelled because of a dire lack of funds.  I suspect that the Japanese would prefer as many battleships as possible so their less likely than the US to convert any hulls to CVs.

[markp]

The Omahas, the last US cruisers built before the treaty had torpedo tubes. Not being restricted to 10,000 tons I could see the next class of US cruisers having 8" guns similar speed and protection as the treaty cruisers and adding a bank of torpedo tubes to each side ending up with a ship similar to the Japanese CA's. The British not limited to overall tonnage would build a large number of smaller trade protection cruisers and a few large ones to replace the WW1 BC's these ships could end up having 12" guns and very high speed to act as cruiser killers and to hunt down commerce raiders. The Japanese ships would be similar to what they built since they stretched the treaty limits anyway. Although construction of a few 12" cruisers to counter the British ships would be possible. This construction would open the door to the US Alaskas with less AA. The lack of naval aviation would increase the need for cruisers for fleet scouting. Since the US used their cruisers as fleet scouts the possibility for the construction of hybrid cruiser/aircraft carriers would be a possibility. In this time line all of the large hulls that became carriers would have been completed as either battleships or battlecruisers. Carriers would remain small and much less capable until some event demonstrated the power of naval aviation against capital ships.

Mark

[stevep]

Feb 13, 2020 3:18:28 GMT markp said:

The Omahas, the last US cruisers built before the treaty had torpedo tubes. Not being restricted to 10,000 tons I could see the next class of US cruisers having 8" guns similar speed and protection as the treaty cruisers and adding a bank of torpedo tubes to each side ending up with a ship similar to the Japanese CA's. The British not limited to overall tonnage would build a large number of smaller trade protection cruisers and a few large ones to replace the WW1 BC's these ships could end up having 12" guns and very high speed to act as cruiser killers and to hunt down commerce raiders. The Japanese ships would be similar to what they built since they stretched the treaty limits anyway. Although construction of a few 12" cruisers to counter the British ships would be possible. This construction would open the door to the US Alaskas with less AA. The lack of naval aviation would increase the need for cruisers for fleet scouting. Since the US used their cruisers as fleet scouts the possibility for the construction of hybrid cruiser/aircraft carriers would be a possibility. In this time line all of the large hulls that became carriers would have been completed as either battleships or battlecruisers. Carriers would remain small and much less capable until some event demonstrated the power of naval aviation against capital ships.

Mark

  markp,

  OTL the US stopped putting torpedoes on their cruisers after the Omahas.  Are you saying this was basically because of tonnage limits due to the treaties as I had the impression where I'd seen it discussed was more because they thought torpedoes were best limited to destroyers?

  I'm not sure whether many cruisers would be constructed in the early-mid 20's other than possible by Britain to replace the number of short ranged light cruisers built mainly to face the German threat with something more appropriate to protecting distant trade routes.  OTL IIRC neither Japan or the US built that many cruisers until the 1930's and here, with more of their 1916 & 8:8 programmes completed there will be less money and political will. 

  Britain may build modern fast armoured cruisers or refit their older I class and BCs for the larger cruiser killer role. 

  You might still see some large CVs constructed as I can't see both either the IJN or the USN completing all 16 of their designs so its possible that some might be considered for conversion to CV although money and will will be issues.  With the loss of the FAA and the number of experimental CVs already in place I can't see Britain following this path other than the conversion of Fisher's follies.  Otherwise all CVs are likely to be small in size and seen as a secondary unit largely for scouting purposes and aiding capital ship gunfire.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Do not know if there are many TLs out there about a What if there No Washington or London Naval Treaties, but did find these two:

No Washington Treaty (Changing times)

The Cherry Trees Spared - Naval possibilities post-WWI – Washington Revisited (Changing times)