No Washington Naval Limitation Treaty
dwelsh46
signed the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922. This document,
http://www.warships1.com/index_inro/INRO_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.htm,
provided for the famous 5:5:3 ratio between the United States, Britain and
Japan, and led to the scrapping of large numbers of capital ships both in
service and then building.
The United States cancelled plans to build the South Dakota class BBs and
United States class CCs, although two of those were completed as CVs.
Britain cancelled plans to build the G class battlecruisers and M class
battleships, while Japan also cancelled construction of many BBs and CCs.
Question to the group:
What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen through,
as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
1) Had the United States, Britain and Japan completed their planned
battleships and battlecruisers, how would these new ships have measured up
against each other?
2) What would have been the probable fate of the many older capital ships
that were scrapped? Would they have been retained in service?
3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
complete their planned naval programs?
4) Can any political consequences (war for instance) be predicted because of
the naval arms race?
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
Andre Lieven
"dwelsh46" (dwel...@cox.net) writes:
> On August 17, 1923 the United States, Britain, France, Italy and Japan
> signed the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922. This document,
> http://www.warships1.com/index_inro/INRO_Washington_Naval_Limitation_Treaty_1922.htm,
> provided for the famous 5:5:3 ratio between the United States, Britain and
> Japan, and led to the scrapping of large numbers of capital ships both in
> service and then building.
>
> The United States cancelled plans to build the South Dakota class BBs and
> United States class CCs, although two of those were completed as CVs.
>
> Britain cancelled plans to build the G class battlecruisers and M class
> battleships, while Japan also cancelled construction of many BBs and CCs.
>
> Question to the group:
Question to you: Have you read any history of this period and topic ?
It sure doesn't appear so...
> What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen
> through, as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
>
> 1) Had the United States, Britain and Japan completed their planned
> battleships and battlecruisers, how would these new ships have measured up
> against each other?
Interestingly.
> 2) What would have been the probable fate of the many older capital ships
> that were scrapped? Would they have been retained in service?
Yes, and yes.
> 3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
> complete their planned naval programs?
No. See " October, 1929. "
> 4) Can any political consequences (war for instance) be predicted because
> of the naval arms race?
Some. Not all.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
William Hamblen
wrote:
>What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen through,
>as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
One thing pwas that all those 8" gun, 10,000 ton, tinclad cruisers
would not have been built. Given that the UK barely could afford to
keep up the navy she already had, the 1920 orders for the large
battlecruisers would have been stretched out and possibly not all the
ships built. Japan was in almost as bad condition financially and
would have had slow capital ship construction as a result. The USA
had more money, but the people would have been reluctant to pay for
more ships. One good possibility is that there would have been more
aircraft carriers built and none would have been battle cruiser
conversions. Since aircraft carriers were cheaper than battleships it
might have been politically feasible to build an aircraft carrier when
it would have been infeasible to build a battleship.
Keith Willshaw
"dwelsh46" <dwel...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dsCSc.32006$Uh.9172@fed1read02...
No, you may recall the great depression slashed spending
on the armed forces. Washington was the result of the
governments wish to limit spending.
Keith
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> Yes, and yes.
All the British 12 inch ships had been placed on the disposal list
prior to the Washington Treaty, it is probable that the US would have
done the same once replacements were available.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
Andre Lieven
(ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk) writes:
> In article <cff1k5$923$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>> Yes, and yes.
>
> All the British 12 inch ships had been placed on the disposal list
> prior to the Washington Treaty, it is probable that the US would have
> done the same once replacements were available.
Sure. Consider the possibility if the USN was allowed to finish
USS Washington as a sister to California/Tenessee, with a twelve
14 inch main battery.
That would give the USN 15 BBs, in the following manner:
Three Marylands, with 8 X 16 inch.
Three Californias, with 12 X 14 inch.
Three Idahos, with 12 X 14 inch.
Two Pennsylvanias, with 12 X 14 inch.
Two Nevadas, with 10 X 14 inch.
Two Texases, with 10 X 14 inch.
Gunnery training ship, partly disarmed,
Arkansas, disarmed target ship, Wyoming.
All earlier 12 inch BBs, scrapped.
That gives the USN a more homogenous force, and
eliminates the 12 inch gun from their operational
battle fleet.
Peter H. Granzeau
wrote:
>Question to the group:
>
>What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen through,
>as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
>
>1) Had the United States, Britain and Japan completed their planned
>battleships and battlecruisers, how would these new ships have measured up
>against each other?
The US battle cruisers would have been wartime disasters waiting to
happen.
In addition, all that money spent on battleships and battle cruisers
would have made US aircraft carrier development even slower than it
was.
>2) What would have been the probable fate of the many older capital ships
>that were scrapped? Would they have been retained in service?
The USN probably would have disposed of the 12" ships, but maybe not
as quickly as happened.
>3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
>complete their planned naval programs?
Only the US could have (but probably wouldn't have built all of them).
The UK was virtually bankrupted by WW I. The Japanese built only two
BBs (not including Nelson and Rodney) after the arms limitation, the
British six, and the US ten, which probably gives some idea of the
relative economic strengths of the various countries.
>4) Can any political consequences (war for instance) be predicted because of
>the naval arms race?
I have no idea.
dwelsh46
"Peter H. Granzeau" <pgr...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mvPSc.20931$Bb.12963@lakeread08...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:35:21 -0700, "dwelsh46" <dwel...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Question to the group:
> >
> >What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen
through,
> >as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
> >
> >1) Had the United States, Britain and Japan completed their planned
> >battleships and battlecruisers, how would these new ships have measured
up
> >against each other?
>
> The US battle cruisers would have been wartime disasters waiting to
> happen.
I agree with that, but I'm also curious to see what the group thinks of the
South Dakotas (particularly their strange funnel configuration), the British
Bc and BB designs and the Japanese designs.
> In addition, all that money spent on battleships and battle cruisers
> would have made US aircraft carrier development even slower than it
> was.
> >2) What would have been the probable fate of the many older capital ships
> >that were scrapped? Would they have been retained in service?
>
> The USN probably would have disposed of the 12" ships, but maybe not
> as quickly as happened.
Do you think Arkansas and Wyoming would have been retained?
> >3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
> >complete their planned naval programs?
>
> Only the US could have (but probably wouldn't have built all of them).
Why not? The US had plenty of money. Enough to build even more ships than
had been projected.
> The UK was virtually bankrupted by WW I. The Japanese built only two
> BBs (not including Nelson and Rodney)
?? Those were British of course
> after the arms limitation, the
> British six, and the US ten, which probably gives some idea of the
> relative economic strengths of the various countries.
I don't understand your arithmetic:
Britain built Nelson, Rodney, King George V, Prince of Wales, Anson, Howe,
Duke of York and Vanguard, total eight
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen through,
>as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
Very possibly a war between the US and Great Britain. A large part of
the British push for the treaty was so as to maintain parity with the
US.
>3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
>complete their planned naval programs?
Yes to the US. They had indicated that without some such treaty that
they were prepared to expand their plan significantly.
>4) Can any political consequences (war for instance) be predicted because of
>the naval arms race?
Not with certainly, but it is quite possible that without an assurance
of parity with the US the Brits might have tried to forge a coalition
of naval powers against the US.
Jack Love
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:35:21 -0700, "dwelsh46" <dwel...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen through,
>>as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
>
>Very possibly a war between the US and Great Britain. A large part of
>the British push for the treaty was so as to maintain parity with the
>US.
>
>>3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
>>complete their planned naval programs?
>
>Yes to the US. They had indicated that without some such treaty that
>they were prepared to expand their plan significantly.
>
Which expenditures might have prevented the Depression...at least in
the US. US international trade was around 5% of GNP at the time. The
infusion of deficit generated capital would have been far better
economic policy than the 'remove free capital' from the economy policy
of the SecTreas of the time.
Keith Willshaw
"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:2lqqh01eocghf87in...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:35:21 -0700, "dwelsh46" <dwel...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >What would have happened if negotiations for this treaty had fallen
through,
> >as they nearly did, and the naval arms race had continued?
>
> Very possibly a war between the US and Great Britain. A large part of
> the British push for the treaty was so as to maintain parity with the
> US.
>
Highly unlikely IMHO
There was no Casus Belli and no serious point of conflict
unlike those existing between Japan and the USA. Indeed
Britain had already abandoned its alliance with Japan
to maintain good realations with the USA.
Additionally both nations were rather isolationist if not
pacifist and war weary after WW1
> >3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
> >complete their planned naval programs?
>
> Yes to the US. They had indicated that without some such treaty that
> they were prepared to expand their plan significantly.
>
> >4) Can any political consequences (war for instance) be predicted because
of
> >the naval arms race?
>
> Not with certainly, but it is quite possible that without an assurance
> of parity with the US the Brits might have tried to forge a coalition
> of naval powers against the US.
>
>
Again this is unlikely, Britain was concerned to protect its
Imperial trade, IMHO the most likley outcome of no Washington
treaty would have been a naval building race between Japan
and the USA. This MIGHT have brought about the pacific war
earlier when the Japanese realised they couldnt compete.
Keith
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
brad...@juno.com (Brad Meyer) wrote:
> A large part of
> the British push for the treaty was so as to maintain parity with
> the US.
The British fleet at the end of WW1 was superior in numbers to the US
fleet. I am not going to argue quality, too subjective. The US could
probably outbuild the UK but getting parity in numbers would have to
be a long term aim. Britain was the only nation that had to scrap
ships armed with larger than 12 inch guns. By the way authorisation
and funding are different processes in the US. I have seen it
mentioned (on this group IIRC) that it was doubtful that Congress
would continue to fund the US construction process. There was pressure
from the US side as well, as a way to get parity on the cheap.
Peter H. Granzeau
wrote:
>> >1) Had the United States, Britain and Japan completed their planned
>> >battleships and battlecruisers, how would these new ships have measured
>up
>> >against each other?
>>
>> The US battle cruisers would have been wartime disasters waiting to
>> happen.
>
>I agree with that, but I'm also curious to see what the group thinks of the
>South Dakotas (particularly their strange funnel configuration), the British
>Bc and BB designs and the Japanese designs.
I haven't done a study of the cancelled South Dakotas. Possibly, the
trunked funnels wouldn't have been on the completed design. Look at
the changes the Lexingtons went through in the course of design.
>> >2) What would have been the probable fate of the many older capital ships
>> >that were scrapped? Would they have been retained in service?
>>
>> The USN probably would have disposed of the 12" ships, but maybe not
>> as quickly as happened.
>
>Do you think Arkansas and Wyoming would have been retained?
Not if the South Dakotas were built.
>> >3) Would the US, Britain and Japan have had the financial capability to
>> >complete their planned naval programs?
>>
>> Only the US could have (but probably wouldn't have built all of them).
>
>Why not? The US had plenty of money. Enough to build even more ships than
>had been projected.
Getting Congress to actually appropriate money for warship
construction would have been a major problem.
>> The UK was virtually bankrupted by WW I. The Japanese built only two
>> BBs (not including Nelson and Rodney)
>
>?? Those were British of course
I know. I added the parenthetical comment after writing everything
else, and got it in the wrong place. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...
>> after the arms limitation, the
>> British six, and the US ten, which probably gives some idea of the
>> relative economic strengths of the various countries.
>
>I don't understand your arithmetic:
>
>Britain built Nelson, Rodney, King George V, Prince of Wales, Anson, Howe,
>Duke of York and Vanguard, total eight
I don't consider Nelson or Rodney to be post-building moratorium
designs, they were rather the last of the pre-moratorium designs.
That was why I added the parenthetical comment you complained about
above.
dwelsh46
> >Britain built Nelson, Rodney, King George V, Prince of Wales, Anson,
Howe,
> >Duke of York and Vanguard, total eight
>
> I don't consider Nelson or Rodney to be post-building moratorium
> designs, they were rather the last of the pre-moratorium designs.
> That was why I added the parenthetical comment you complained about
> above.
Actually they were an intermediate class, whose design was very heavily
influenced by the problems of trying to fit everything into 35,000 tons. It
is true that their design was influenced by the projected G and M classes,
but these ships were really quite different from those designs.
Dave Welsh
dwel...@cox.net
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk (Keith Willshaw) wrote:
> . Indeed
> Britain had already abandoned its alliance with Japan
> to maintain good realations with the USA.
I think you will find that that alliance was not abandoned until the
Washington Treaty.
RENABORNEY
sister to California/Tenessee, with a twelve 14 inch main battery.
That would give the USN 15 BBs, in the following manner:
Three Marylands, with 8 X 16 inch.
Three Californias, with 12 X 14 inch.
Three Idahos, with 12 X 14 inch.
Two Pennsylvanias, with 12 X 14 inch.
Two Nevadas, with 10 X 14 inch.
Two New Yorks with 10 X 14 inch.
Gunnery training ship, partly disarmed,
Arkansas, disarmed target ship, Wyoming.
All earlier 12 inch BBs, scrapped.
That gives the USN a more homogenous force, and eliminates the 12 inch gun from
their operational battle fleet.
SNIP
Sorry, but it couldn't happen
1) The Washington Treaty (1922) halted new battleship construction and mandated
scrapping of certain older capital ships
Under this, the US retained four 12-inch gunned ships (out of a total of 18
capital ships)., so scrapping one 12-inch and adding one 14-inch armed vessel,
would have little effect on the composition of the battlefleet
2) It was the London Conference (1930) which limited the US to 15 capital ships
- leaving the Arkansas as the sole surviving US 12-inch ship. The Washington
had long since been expended as a gunnery target at that point
The Washington Treaty as originally proposed would have left the US with
Delaware & North Dakota (12-inch)
Florida & Utah (12-inch)
Wyoming & Arkansas (12-inch)
New York & Texas (14-inch)
Nevada & Oklahoma (14-inch)
Pennsylvania & Arizona (14-inch)
New Mexico, Idaho & Mississippi (14-inch)
California & Tennessee (14-inch)
Colorado (16-inch)
TOATL 18
Under the compromise that allowed the Japanese to retain the Mutsu, the US
agreed to scrap the Delawares in return for being allowed to complete two more
Colorados
Delete Delaware & North Dakota (12-inch)
Add Maryland & West Virginia (16-inch)
NET TOTAL 18
Adding a 14-inch gunned Washington would
1) Cause only one of four 12-inch gunned ships to be decommissioned
2) Set off further deabte on who knows what exceptions for other countries
(Coming to agreement was hard enough without throwing more problems in its way)
Britain would have retained
Orions (13.5 inch, 4 ships)
Iron Dukes (13.5-inch, 4 ships)
Tiger (13.5 -inch)
Queen Elizabeths (15-inch, 5 ships)
Royal Sovereigns (15-inch, 5 ships)
Renowns (15-inch, 2 ships)
Hood (15-inch)
TOTAL 22
This would be modified when the British were allowed to build the Nelson class
as response to the Colorados & Nagatos
Delete Orions (13.5-inch, 4 ships)
Add Nelsons (16-inch, 2 ships)
NET TOTAL 20
Japan would have retained
Settsu (12-inch)
Kongos (14-inch, 4 ships)
Fusos (14-inch, 2 ships)
Hyuga s(14-inch, 2 ships)
Nagato (16-inch)
TOTAL 10
This was modified when the Japanese argued that the Mutsu was not under
construction, but commssioned
Delete Settsu (12-inch)
Add Mutsu (16-inch)
NET TOTAL 10
2) The London Conference limited the battlefleets to 15 vessels each for
Britain & the US and 9 for Japan
Britain agreed to scrap/demilitarize the four Iron Dukes & Tiger for a total of
15 capital ships
The US agreed to scrap/demilitarize the two Floridas and the Wyoming for a
total of 15 vessels
The Japanese agreed to demilitarize Hiei
for a total of 9 capital ships
From the web
http://www.warships1.com/index_inro/INRO_Battlefleet.htm
"When conference opened in November 1921, Secretary of State Hughes
(made)...the following concrete proposals:
All battleships actually under construction should be scrapped.
A further reduction in capital ships should be effected by scrapping older
vessels.
A ratio should be established to determine the number of ships to be scrapped
by each nation from among their existing ships.
Hughes then pledged that the United States would abandon all new capital ship
construction and scrap all of the Navy's older battleships through the
Delaware, the oldest operational dreadnought, for a total of 845,740 tons of
capital ships.
Hughes went on to recommend that the British should abandon building their four
newly-ordered battlecruisers and scrap nineteen older ships totaling 583,375
tons, while the Japanese should abandon new construction and scrap ten older
vessels, for a total of 448,928 tons. Those reductions would have left the
three major naval powers with:
The United States:
18 capital ships totaling 500,650 tons
Great Britain:
22 capital ships totaling 604,450 tons
Japan:
10 capital ships totaling 299,700 tons.
The United States Navy and Royal Navy capital ship fleets were considered to be
equal under the preceding formula because the United States ships were newer
and more powerful.
Japan also wished to retain the battleship Mutsu (33,800 tons), which Hughes,
the victim of an inadequate intelligence system, had listed as incomplete and
therefore a candidate for scrapping; the Japanese insisted that she was
actually in commission.Compromise was finally reached when Japan offered to
scrap instead the Settsu, the oldest ship listed for retention on Hughes'
original list; to keep the British American/Japanese ratio at 5:5:3, the
Americans were to be allowed to finish two of the nearly completed Maryland
class battleships while scrapping the United States Navy's two oldest
dreadnought battleships, Delaware and North Dakota. The effect of the
compromise was to boost the United States' total tonnage to 525,000.
Great Britain, to preserve the balance, had to scrap four battleships of the
Orion class (ten 13.5-in guns in five turrets) and build two new vessels; the
resulting 35,000 ton Rodney and Nelson were reduced versions of the 48,000 ton
1921 Program battlecruisers..
London Conference of 1930:
Great Britain agreed to "dispose" (scrap or convert to non-combat status) of
five battleships, while the United States agreed to part with three and the
Japanese one. That reduced the capital ship fleets of the three major naval
powers to fifteen each for the British and Americans and nine for the Japanese.
"
Andre Lieven
RENABORNEY (renab...@aol.com) writes:
> Consider the possibility if the USN was allowed to finish USS Washington as a
> sister to California/Tenessee, with a twelve 14 inch main battery.
>
> That would give the USN 15 BBs, in the following manner:
>
> Three Marylands, with 8 X 16 inch.
> Three Californias, with 12 X 14 inch.
> Three Idahos, with 12 X 14 inch.
> Two Pennsylvanias, with 12 X 14 inch.
> Two Nevadas, with 10 X 14 inch.
> Two New Yorks with 10 X 14 inch.
>
> Gunnery training ship, partly disarmed,
> Arkansas, disarmed target ship, Wyoming.
>
> All earlier 12 inch BBs, scrapped.
>
> That gives the USN a more homogenous force, and eliminates the 12 inch
> gun from their operational battle fleet.
>
> SNIP
>
> Sorry, but it couldn't happen
Sure, it could. Note that I was speaking of the resulting 1930-31
fleet structures as per the Treaty.
> 1) The Washington Treaty (1922) halted new battleship construction and
> mandated scrapping of certain older capital ships
> Under this, the US retained four 12-inch gunned ships (out of a total of
> 18 capital ships)., so scrapping one 12-inch and adding one 14-inch armed
> vessel, would have little effect on the composition of the battlefleet
In 1922-30, agreed. I was speaking of the 1930-31 onwards fleet
structure, as per the 1930 Treaty, when the USN pre-Arkansas BBs
went away.
> 2) It was the London Conference (1930) which limited the US to 15 capital
> ships - leaving the Arkansas as the sole surviving US 12-inch ship. The
> Washington had long since been expended as a gunnery target at that point
I know. As Japan was allowed to complete Mutsu, and the USMN, Colorado
and West VA, finishing WA. as a 14 inch ship sould not have been
impossible.
> The Washington Treaty as originally proposed would have left the US with
>
> Delaware & North Dakota (12-inch)
> Florida & Utah (12-inch)
> Wyoming & Arkansas (12-inch)
> New York & Texas (14-inch)
> Nevada & Oklahoma (14-inch)
> Pennsylvania & Arizona (14-inch)
> New Mexico, Idaho & Mississippi (14-inch)
> California & Tennessee (14-inch)
> Colorado (16-inch)
>
> TOTAL 18
>
> Under the compromise that allowed the Japanese to retain the Mutsu, the
> US agreed to scrap the Delawares in return for being allowed to complete
> two more Colorados
>
> Delete Delaware & North Dakota (12-inch)
>
> Add Maryland & West Virginia (16-inch)
>
> NET TOTAL 18
>
> Adding a 14-inch gunned Washington would
>
> 1) Cause only one of four 12-inch gunned ships to be decommissioned
>
> 2) Set off further deabte on who knows what exceptions for other countries
> (Coming to agreement was hard enough without throwing more problems in
> its way)
Not relaly, it would have been a deal over a non 16 inch ship.
> Britain would have retained
>
> Orions (13.5 inch, 4 ships)
I think you mean the KGVs, and one Orion.
> Iron Dukes (13.5-inch, 4 ships)
> Tiger (13.5 -inch)
> Queen Elizabeths (15-inch, 5 ships)
> Royal Sovereigns (15-inch, 5 ships)
> Renowns (15-inch, 2 ships)
> Hood (15-inch)
>
> TOTAL 22
>
> This would be modified when the British were allowed to build the Nelson
> class as response to the Colorados & Nagatos
>
> Delete Orions (13.5-inch, 4 ships)
Ibid.
See ibid re KGV class...
> London Conference of 1930:
>
> Great Britain agreed to "dispose" (scrap or convert to non-combat status) of
> five battleships, while the United States agreed to part with three and the
> Japanese one. That reduced the capital ship fleets of the three major naval
> powers to fifteen each for the British and Americans and nine for the Japanese.
> "
( Line wrap thingy )
Indeed. I know all that. Certainly, my reference library is well
supplied on such topics.
I was merely suggesting one possible change to the deliberations,
and the results therof, about one ship.
RENABORNEY
Washington with twelve 14-inch guns instead of eight 16-inch in the early
1920's as a way to retire all 12-inch gunned US ships a decade later after the
London Conference
SNIP
Technically possible, I think - although the barbettes might need modification
and the turrets would at least need their faceplates replaced.
You could ask the question why go through the bother of completing her with
14-inch guns. Realizing that the 16-inch would have better penetration, here
are
the broadside weights
14-inch 16,800 lbs
16-inch 16,840 lbs
Considering you could probably make the argument that the guns were nearly
completed, if you could persude the other delaates to allow you to complete
her, why not with 16-inch guns?
That being said, to complete the Washington on the basis of "it will allow us a
battleline armed with guns of 14-inch caliber or larger after we are restricted
to 15 ships by the London Conference" seems, well, an exanple of crystal ball
gazing Who in 1922 could predict the results of the London Conference in 1930?
The agreed force level could have been 14 ships for the US and Britain (what''s
so sacred about 15?), meaning the Arkansas would have left the battleline and
all 12-inch gunned ships retired anyway.
>> Set off further deabte on who knows >> what exceptions for other countries
>> (Coming to agreement was hard
>> enough without throwing more problems >> in its way)
> Not really, it would have been a deal over a non 16 inch ship.
It seems to me that you are forgetting the purpose of the Treaty was to stop
capital ship construction NOW. Secretary of Sate Hughes made clear in his
opening remarks that he was proposing scrapping all uncompleted capital ships -
launched or not.
So you get the initators of the conference trying to weasel out of one of the
cornerstones of the Treaty. That doesn't bode too well for negotiaitions, does
it? I think you forget, Washington was the first disarmament conference in
history. The mutual suspicion was high. France and Italy were looking to decide
who owned the Med, the US and Japan were starting to glare out over the Pacfic
and Britain was jealous that someone was going to cheat it out of its rightful
position as Neptune's favored daughter. Just think of how difficult negotations
over nuclear weapons between the US and USSR were - now throw in, say, Britain,
France and China - all with their own agendas
So if the US wanted to finish the Washington, I can see the Japanese saying,
"OK, but we get to finish the Tosa or Amagi...er, we had a littlke earthquake,
make that the Tosa, after all" with a possible fall back of building another
Nagato. Britain would insist on a third Nelson. The ratios having been thrown
out of balance, Italy would complete the Francisco Carraciolo and the Beran
would have been completed as a battleship.
The end result of a conference to limit naval spending and stop battleship
construction could well have resulted in
half a dozen ships being built.
Charles Evans Hughes goes home that night and shoots himself...
>> Britain would have retained the Orions >> (13.5 inch, 4 ships)
>I think you mean the KGVs, and one Orion.
SNIP
Oddly enough (grin), I tend to agree with you, but my primary refrence said
four Orions so I went with it
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
renab...@aol.com (RENABORNEY) wrote:
> 1) The Washington Treaty (1922) halted new battleship construction
> and mandated scrapping of certain older capital ships
I thought we were discussing the case as per subject line, no treaty.
British 12 inch ships were put onto the disposal list prior to the
start of treaty negotiation. With or without the treaty they would
have gone. The question about US policy is whether or not the USN
would have thought it's 12 inch ships worth keeping to keep up
numbers. Personally I doubt it. I also think that the British would
have started scrapping older 13.5 inch ships as the G3 and N3 classes
came into service, or at least retired them to reserve. There are
limits on manpower in peace time which are just as important to fleet
size as construction costs.
Without the treaties money would have been spent on new construction
rather than rebuilding existing ships, though some would probably get
limited refits.
Andre Lieven
RENABORNEY (renab...@aol.com) writes:
> The way I understand your argument is that the US should have completed
> the USS Washington with twelve 14-inch guns instead of eight 16-inch in
> the early 1920's as a way to retire all 12-inch gunned US ships a decade
> later after the London Conference
Not should have. Could have. Leaving aside the question of a more
homogenous force, come 1931, there also the question that such a
ship would be far more useful to the USN of, say, 1925, over a
Utah type 12 inch BB. More modern and all.
> SNIP
>
> Technically possible, I think - although the barbettes might need
> modification and the turrets would at least need their faceplates
> replaced.
Sure.
> You could ask the question why go through the bother of completing her
> with 14-inch guns. Realizing that the 16-inch would have better
> penetration, here are the broadside weights
>
> 14-inch 16,800 lbs
>
> 16-inch 16,840 lbs
>
> Considering you could probably make the argument that the guns were nearly
> completed, if you could persude the other delaates to allow you to complete
> her, why not with 16-inch guns?
Fall back position. If the UK was to be given parity, completing
Washington as a 16 inch gunned ship, would require letting the RN
build four Nelsons, not to mention a third 16 inch BB for Japan.
I would imagine that the USN reps would not have preferred that
to come to pass.
> That being said, to complete the Washington on the basis of "it will
> allow us a battleline armed with guns of 14-inch caliber or larger after
> we are restricted to 15 ships by the London Conference" seems, well,
> an exanple of crystal ball gazing
Getting a new ship, replacing a weaker, 12 inch ship, wouldn't have
been seen as a good thing ?
> Who in 1922 could predict the results of the London Conference in 1930?
No one, but thats not at issue.
> The agreed force level could have been 14 ships for the US and Britain
> (what''s so sacred about 15?), meaning the Arkansas would have left the
> battleline and all 12-inch gunned ships retired anyway.
That would cause the UK/US/Japanese ratios to change.
>>> Set off further deabte on who knows what exceptions for other countries
>>> (Coming to agreement was hard
>>> enough without throwing more problems >> in its way)
>
>> Not really, it would have been a deal over a non 16 inch ship.
>
> It seems to me that you are forgetting the purpose of the Treaty was to stop
> capital ship construction NOW. Secretary of Sate Hughes made clear in his
> opening remarks that he was proposing scrapping all uncompleted capital ships -
> launched or not.
Indeed. Yet, thats not what the result was. The IJN got Mutsu. The RN
got to build N&R. So, why not slip in efectively a third California ?
> So you get the initators of the conference trying to weasel out of one of the
> cornerstones of the Treaty. That doesn't bode too well for negotiaitions, does
> it? I think you forget, Washington was the first disarmament conference in
> history. The mutual suspicion was high. France and Italy were looking to decide
> who owned the Med, the US and Japan were starting to glare out over the Pacfic
> and Britain was jealous that someone was going to cheat it out of its rightful
> position as Neptune's favored daughter. Just think of how difficult negotations
> over nuclear weapons between the US and USSR were - now throw in, say, Britain,
> France and China - all with their own agendas
Sure. I'm not saying, go nuts, and give everyone four 45,000 tonners...
> So if the US wanted to finish the Washington, I can see the Japanese saying,
> "OK, but we get to finish the Tosa or Amagi...er, we had a littlke earthquake,
> make that the Tosa, after all" with a possible fall back of building another
> Nagato. Britain would insist on a third Nelson. The ratios having been thrown
> out of balance, Italy would complete the Francisco Carraciolo and the Beran
> would have been completed as a battleship.
I'm not sure that just adding in Washington as a 14 inch ship would have
had those effects.
> The end result of a conference to limit naval spending and stop battleship
> construction could well have resulted in half a dozen ships being built.
Maybe. But, history is not inevitable.
> Charles Evans Hughes goes home that night and shoots himself...
Driving himself to distraction with drink, music, and hookers,
sounds more fun... <g>
>>> Britain would have retained the Orions >> (13.5 inch, 4 ships)
>
>>I think you mean the KGVs, and one Orion.
>
> SNIP
>
> Oddly enough (grin), I tend to agree with you, but my primary refrence
> said four Orions so I went with it
Well, Conways 1922-1946 states that only two Orions made it past
1922, Monarch, expended Jan 20, 1925, and Thunderer, sold Dec 1926.
The three KGVs, went: Ajax, sold Nov 9, 1926, KGV, sold Dec 1926,
and of course, Centurion, target ship 1927. The Iron Dukes all
made it to 1931. Ditto Tiger.
Given that the KGVs were the next class from Orion, thats likely
why they lasted a bit longer.