Tweaked Washington Naval Treaty
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
In this scenario, A & B (OTL Nelson & Rodney) would be completed in 1925, C & D in 1929, E & F in 1932, G & H in 1935 - all to 9 x 15" and 35,000 tonne limits.
Overall it's probably reasonably cost-neutral for the UK:
That then means Thunderer, Ajax, King George V and Centurion are to be scrapped in 1925 as OTL. The Iron Duke class would presumably be next (100,000 tonnes total) - Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow and Emperor of India going 2 years earlier than OTL (and 5 years earlier than required by the OTL treaty) in 1929 to provide the tonnage for C & D.
Tiger & 2 R-class (Revenge & Royal Sovereign?) - being scrapped in 1932 to provide tonnage for E & F. With this the RN is standardised on a single heavy gun type.
The rest of the R-class (Ramillies, Royal Oak and Resolution) would be scrapped in 1935 to provide tonnage for G & H.
I would also assume that the Queen Elizabeth class don't get the OTL "large repair" in order to save money.
This leaves the UK going into WW2 having lost the 5 battleships of the R-class and with 6 newer post-Jutland battleships in their place. The KGVs of this world would then be evolutionary developments of ships G & H, with far fewer build problems.
Overall it's probably reasonably cost-neutral for the UK:
- Re-use of existing 15" guns and shell stocks - not exactly a Vanguard, but certainly cheaper than developing a new gun. The RN won't like it but can live with it.
- C & D are moved forward by 5 years, E & F by 3, G & H by 1.
- Spend is front-loaded but allows for the earlier scrapping of pre-Jutland ships and reduction in total crew numbers. With the Admiralty not having to pay to keep shipyards open and unused, total spend should be similar.
That then means Thunderer, Ajax, King George V and Centurion are to be scrapped in 1925 as OTL. The Iron Duke class would presumably be next (100,000 tonnes total) - Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow and Emperor of India going 2 years earlier than OTL (and 5 years earlier than required by the OTL treaty) in 1929 to provide the tonnage for C & D.
Tiger & 2 R-class (Revenge & Royal Sovereign?) - being scrapped in 1932 to provide tonnage for E & F. With this the RN is standardised on a single heavy gun type.
The rest of the R-class (Ramillies, Royal Oak and Resolution) would be scrapped in 1935 to provide tonnage for G & H.
I would also assume that the Queen Elizabeth class don't get the OTL "large repair" in order to save money.
This leaves the UK going into WW2 having lost the 5 battleships of the R-class and with 6 newer post-Jutland battleships in their place. The KGVs of this world would then be evolutionary developments of ships G & H, with far fewer build problems.
Last edited:
Not very. I seriously doubt the Japanese and Americans would agree to a 15” gun limit. The limit on rate of construction is somewhat more plausible, but with the first clause non-viable this one probably isn’t as well.
Not enough guns available. The Brits have about 74 spare gun barrels and they need those to replace worn-out guns on existing ships. Add in the 35,000-ton limit and it’s incentive to maximize weight savings, and this all points to the Brits having to make a new gun anyway.
They were likely going to use a new gun design anyway for new construction. The Admiralty did experiments with wire wound, partially wire wound and built up barrels as a part of investigations into the G3 class. Though they did eventually decide to stick with full wire-winding for the time being several internal elements of the new guns were different to previous practice. Thus a change in treaty limit to 15” is still likely to use an updated 45 calibre gun design rather than the 15”/42.
A lot. The degree of improvement in shell design between the wars was considerable and the main reason the 15”/42 remained competitive in WW2.
Both the US and British appeared to have issues compared to what was possible, though the US certainly progressed a lot.
I've written it so it only applies to post-treaty ships - so the US and Japan get to keep their existing 16" ships, but the British don't get any. That means the US and Japan aren't affected until they start building new battleships - 1934 in the OTL agreement, sooner in this version.
A post-Jutland armour scheme with 15" guns should actually stand up pretty well against a pre-Jutland design with 16", possibly even being better balanced on 35,000 tons.
Ammunition, etc. would still be common, and the Treasury would see it as a cost saving even if it isn't in reality.
Rather a lot had already happened - the difference between RN shells at Jutland and the late war Greenboy shells is pretty huge.
Would be interesting to see if they could be made backwards-compatible with the 15"/42 mounting. Should be feasible if that's made a requirement.
No, I understand, I just plain don’t think either the US or Japan would agree to that. Both navies were very invested in the 16” gun and would IMO be unwilling to give it up.
Two points
1. The Treasury cares about expenditure, not the size of guns. This would involve more expenditure (whether guns are 15 or 16 inch affects the cost hardly at all if the ships are the same size). So the Treasury wouldn't see this as a deal where both sides give some ground, they'd just see it as a call for more expenditure and oppose it as such.
2. What about other countries? I think it was the US that called for a building holiday, not the UK.
The question I keep thinking about (on and off) was what if the 1st LNT hadn't extended the building holiday and the replacements under the WNT had actually been built. Assuming the extra naval funding comes through this would have sustained the British naval construction industry until rearmament and meant a much better British battleship fleet compared to other navies in the late 1930s/early 1940s as block obsolescence was a particular problem for the UK.
PS sorry if this is off topic, I just thought it accomplished much of what you might want in a more plausible way (IMHO)
PS sorry if this is off topic, I just thought it accomplished much of what you might want in a more plausible way (IMHO)
Perhaps instead of specifying a maximum calibre of gun the treaty could instead specify the maximum weight of a shell?
Its a disarmament treaty. Most 'improvements' to the original treaty tend to overlook this. In a perfect world, just one without Hitler really, Naval disarmament could have followed up with controls on land armaments and be made to stick.
Having the 10 year holiday meant that the Super-Dreadnoughts gained many more years of service and didn't need to be replaced until the 30's. However, part of the aim was to neuter the arms industry as it was believed at the time that arms led to wars. The problem was security can be provided by means other than arms but a LoN without the US, Germany and Russia wasn't the solution.
Having the 10 year holiday meant that the Super-Dreadnoughts gained many more years of service and didn't need to be replaced until the 30's. However, part of the aim was to neuter the arms industry as it was believed at the time that arms led to wars. The problem was security can be provided by means other than arms but a LoN without the US, Germany and Russia wasn't the solution.
Last edited:
pdf,
I don't think you need much of a tweak for this one, it almost happened. When the treaty was coming about, the RN was looking at the F2 and F3 designs
All the World's Battlecruisers-F2 and F3 Battlecruisers
I just stumbled across an image from the 3.0 version of Warship Projects. Red Admiral created the image, and I've enlarged it a bit. The image i
www.tapatalk.com
In an offline conversation, BC board member JohnFrench mentioned that the F3 battlecruiser was the ship the RN really wanted, but once the treaty was signed, the Admiralty felt compelled to build a 16in gunned ship. Hence battleship O3 becoming Nelson and Rodney
IIRC, the 15in/42 was a compromise, using the same gun pits as the 13.5in/45. The 15in of the F2 and F3 would have been a 15in/45, but using the same ammunition as the 15in/42.
I do like your slow incremental idea of continuing capital ship construction. I've often said one of the major accomplishments of the treaty was it effectively stopped capital ship development for 15 years while EVERY other type of warship continued to improve.
I do think if we had a 15in/42 armed version of F3 with the RN, one of your later capital ships would probably move to a 15in/45, probably a built-up type to save weight.
My thoughts,
That might be a very interesting PoD - deciding that the incremental improvement from 16" shells wasn't worth the reduction in speed, and sticking with the F3 design. The logic would then flow that:
- Admiralty is concerned about the state of the UK shipyards and industry with a building holiday, and succeeds in getting a construction rate limit instead with the same total number of ships build over the course of the treaty. There will be people who don't like it, but it's unlikely to completely derail the treaty if the UK digs their heels in. Otherwise the treaty is as OTL.
- Treasury then fight back and tighten the purse-strings, Admiralty agree to a 15" ship (which in the F3 design is what they kind of want anyway) which can "re-use" existing guns and ammunition in triple turrets.
- Some time after they quietly "discover" that the existing guns aren't available in sufficient numbers, and order some new ones - built up 15"/50 ones which are backwards-compatible with the 15"/42.
- The Ansaldo 15"/50 weighed almost exactly the same as the BL 15"/42 and fired much the same weight of shell with a significantly higher muzzle velocity, to the extent that it had a higher muzzle energy than the BL 16"/45 on Nelson & Rodney. I doubt they'd get that far in the first attempt, but switching to a built-up gun with a longer barrel should be feasible and give some sort of performance improvement.
NavWeaps says 186 15in/42 guns produced for the RN, including 2 prototypes.
15-inch (38.1 cm) Mark I - NavWeaps
That makes for a pretty large spares pool, but that number is increased by also recasting Renown and Repulse from R class BB to BC and cancelling the 8th R battleship and an additional QE. Still, there's a 100 guns in service on 13 different capital ships, not counting large light cruisers or monitors.
That said, more ships using more guns from the same pool restricts the number of spares available.
Also, improvements such as the move from 4crh shells to 6crh shells will improve range and keep the older guns competitive, while giving their newer cousins even more range.
IMO, F3 is a great historical 'what if'.
Whitley says in his German Capital Ships that Hood was the terror of the interwar WM and KM exercises and wargames, with her combination of speed and firepower. What would the German navies look like if the RN had two more ships, more powerful, better protected and nearly as fast?
My additional thoughts,
One of the challenges faced by POD’s that change the WNT for the British is that the people who don’t like it will include much of the British government. In particular the British PM. Lloyd George wanted any and all limitations he could get to save funds without causing an unmanageable uproar from the naval lobby. And the building holiday was kind of the starting basis of the treaty that all parties were willing to enforce on their navies and the navies grudgingly accept. Balfour was meant to represent the Navy in cabinet, and he did, but he is also a senior minister in L-G’s cabinet and a supporter of L-G. So him “going rogue” seems unlikely.
So to get the suggested tweaks it seems like you would have to have L-G on board with them. Which feels like a very big ask.
The RN tested wire wound, partially wire wound and built up guns as a part of the G3 process. They settled on keeping wire winding. This has sometimes been presented as a mistake due to over conservatism. However, I think this is incorrect. The British had experience with both German and American built up gun construction in RN service, and in their experience the shrunk on tubes of such guns tended to separate slightly in service and cause the barrel to droop, affecting accuracy.
Thus I think any gun designed by the British prior to the early 30’s (the design practices of the naval gun constructors were demonstrated to have reached a high enough level to avoid this in 1933 with a prototype 12” gun) would be wire wound. Based on British experience with the 12”/50, this would mean that the 15” would be 45 calibre as 50 caliber wire wound guns also tended to have inconsistent accuracy.
The Italian guns had a barrel life much shorter than would have ever been accepted for British service. So even an eventual British 15”/50 all steel gun is likely to be built fairly differently than the Italian gun.
FWIW Spain ordered 18 Vickers 15"/45 Mark B guns as part of their 1926 Coast Artillery Plan and they were delivered between 1929 & 1935.