No Naval Limit Treaties-How Far Does 1920's Naval Race Go?

[Kevin C. Smith]

After WWI, a naval arms race picked up again as the US/UK/Japan, etc. started planning larger fleets of larger battleships. Eventually, with ruinous costs facing them, the major powers agreed to naval limitations (Washington & London Treaties). But if they couldn't come to agreement, what would have ended up happening? I'm not a believer in "the 1923 Anglo-American Naval War" type of scenario. Someone is going to say "uncle" and drop out of the race. But who first? Who last? Which player have to go away before everyone left decides game over? How far do the "winners" have to go with there build programs? How far can they go-realistically (i.e., politically and economically speaking)? What do the world's fleets look like once everyone (or enough that count) finally toss in the towel?

I think it's gong to end with a whimper, not a bang. But whose whimpering?

Any good existing threads about this that I can reference?

 

[PhilKearny]

The US imposes a de facto naval treaty by it's financial power.

 

[King Augeas]

Probably not much different from OTL. AIUI, the UK is short of money but strong on political will to find divert money to maintain a powerful fleet. In contrast, the US has plenty of money but rather less desire to spend it on battleships unless it really has to. Neither side actually wanted an arms race, which is why Washington was relatively straightforward.

Japan is the wild card, but the Kanto earthquake of 1923 probably takes her out of the race. After that, with G3s and the Lexingtons being built, the naval race just fizzles out IMO, probably with some informal understanding between US and UK.

 

[AdA]

Some of the ships ordered will be completed. They will set the standard for their categories. The main issue next will be manpower. Old ships will be placed in reserve to reduce personnel costs. There will be no race to build treaty cruisers, and 30s fleets will have heavier battle lines but less heavy cruisers. Carriers development will be affected.
The lack of a 35000t limit for BB and 10000t for CA will eliminate the somehow compromised designs and allow better balanced ships.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The US imposes a de facto naval treaty by it's financial power.

Or not. Congress in the early 1920s was heavily salted with fiscal conservatives, who allied with assorted anti military factions to cut the defense budget as far as possible. The US Army & militas/National Guard were reduced to a cadre, frivolous things like motorization were disposed of, development programs slashed. The USN budget was not so slash & burn, but the disillusionment post Versailles Treaty hung on into the 1920s & support for increased defense budgets was thinner than October ice. I might be Congress would have folded leaving Japan, Britian & any others to waste their national treasure.

 

[jsb]

Japan ...., but the Kanto earthquake of 1923 probably takes her out of the race. After that, with G3s and the Lexingtons being built, the naval race just fizzles out IMO, probably with some informal understanding between US and UK.

I would agree, Japan is spending by far the largest % of her GDP on ships and will fail first (especially after quake) and then GB/US will agree to stop building to save money as soon as they have a sufficient margin over Japan. (this might be larger than OTL due to inertia and desire to punish Japan for not signing treaty's say 50% ratio)

This would lead to a few more better ships (Tosa/Amagi, SD/LEX, G3s etc) and a few more in cheap reserve (old 12"/14"/13.5" ships) and far fewer CAs (8" replaced by smaller cheaper 6" ships)

No treaty (you might still get a mid/late 20s treaty?) might well help the shipbuilding industry's as the final ship might be built slowly due to cost savings and that would help close the gap from 20s to 30s rearmament v Germany and Italy.

The biggest point is that it might make the IJN realise it cant out build USN/RN with all the implications for the southern option in WWII....

 

[BlueTrousers]

The US will run out of willingness to spend before it runs out of money. If external factors force the US to spend, it will handily outcompete the rest of the world.

The UK will run out of money before it runs out of willingness to spend. On the other hand, the country was basically a battleship factory and could build much more cheaply than the USA - something like a factor of four, IIRC.

Japan will run out of money before it runs out of willingness to spend. and do so before the UK, but will try to ignore the fact, and the Kanto earthquake will knock the feet from under the Japanese economy and shipbuilding plan.

The US and the UK have a de facto 'gentleman's agreement' not to compete with each other. Both countries then build to counter Japan, which winds up spending itself into economic ruin in the mid/late 1920s; I don't think they'd take the hint when three of their four slips are heavily damaged by the earthquake, and would throw good money after bad.

By default, the relative proportions of the three fleets would be similar to OTL, but somewhat larger. Everybody would be worse off financially, with Japan totally ruined, the UK on the brink of collapse, and the US best off in relative terms but worse than OTL.