WI 1930 London Naval Treaty allowed replacement BBs

[GarethC]

I'm kind of toying with an ATL treaty with more of a push towards enabling public funds to be announced prior to the 1930 midterm elections in the US.

A high-profile way to do that would be to put some kind of replacement clause into the London treaty, with the intent of buoying up Republican sentiment in steelmaking or shipbuilding areas, by building new battleships. Cruiser construction is all well and good, but nothing says "Vote Hoover" like a massive mult-year program of capital ship construction to "make the USN the most modern and the powerful in the world (TM)."

If the actual ship constraints still adhere to the 1922 Washington treaty limitations (35,000 tons, 16" main batteries), what sort of ships would the USN design?

Where was USN battleship design doctrine in 1930? Still on improving the Standard type, with low top speed and good protection? Or would the 1935 discussions that ended in the North Carolina class be happening five years earlier than OTL?

I would expect that Arkansas would go, because of her 12" armament. Would the Navy push to keep the recently-refitted Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, or the newer New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho but which are due in the yard for major updates in the following year?

Where would Britain and Japan be? Would Britain even seek to start such a replacement programme immediately?

Japan was looking at much bigger ships than the treaty limitaions (Kii, Tosa, Amagi) before 1922. Before the mid-30s ascendancy of the militarists, would the IJN end up with a design that would more closely adhere to the treaty limitations to replace Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, and Hyuga?

 

[weasel_airlift]

A big problem would be cash. Japan at least has no money to replace Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga.

The UK is also having some cashflow problems, but if they can scratch up the cash, they may well opt to replace the R's, and give all of the QEs the Warspite treatment, along with Hood.

I think the US had a design in that period that was sort of inbetween the Standard design and the North Carolinas. Slower, that the NCs, but better armored. Still need cash, though

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I think one of the issues with this is that the 'gun line' is less than 20 years old in 1930 so unless the USA is abandoning the limitations on total numbers of ships (ie 15) then some of the older vessels will have to be scrapped and the 1922 Washington treaty forbade scrapping/replacing any ship less than 20 years old.

As for the design used - it could go either a SoCal type design or a slower better armed and armoured design

I would susepect that given the relative slow speed of the US Battleships some form of SoCal would be preffered to provide the USN with a faster battlefleet

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm kind of toying with an ATL treaty with more of a push towards enabling public funds to be announced prior to the 1930 midterm elections in the US.

A high-profile way to do that would be to put some kind of replacement clause into the London treaty, with the intent of buoying up Republican sentiment in steelmaking or shipbuilding areas, by building new battleships. Cruiser construction is all well and good, but nothing says "Vote Hoover" like a massive mult-year program of capital ship construction to "make the USN the most modern and the powerful in the world (TM)."

If the actual ship constraints still adhere to the 1922 Washington treaty limitations (35,000 tons, 16" main batteries), what sort of ships would the USN design?

Where was USN battleship design doctrine in 1930? Still on improving the Standard type, with low top speed and good protection? Or would the 1935 discussions that ended in the North Carolina class be happening five years earlier than OTL?

I would expect that Arkansas would go, because of her 12" armament. Would the Navy push to keep the recently-refitted Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, or the newer New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho but which are due in the yard for major updates in the following year?

Where would Britain and Japan be? Would Britain even seek to start such a replacement programme immediately?

Japan was looking at much bigger ships than the treaty limitaions (Kii, Tosa, Amagi) before 1922. Before the mid-30s ascendancy of the militarists, would the IJN end up with a design that would more closely adhere to the treaty limitations to replace Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, and Hyuga?

Are you aware that the OTL Washington Treaty had a replacement clause and replacement schedules for all the signatories.

This is the replacement schedule for the United States.

What the OTL First London Treaty did was to extend the battleship building holiday from the end of 1930 to the end of 1936.

IIRC the First London Treaty was negotiated because the UK and US didn't want to spend large sums of money on new warships.

Therefore what I think you really require is a no London Naval Treaty TL.

 

[McPherson]

I think one of the issues with this is that the 'gun line' is less than 20 years old in 1930 so unless the USA is abandoning the limitations on total numbers of ships (ie 15) then some of the older vessels will have to be scrapped and the 1922 Washington treaty forbade scrapping/replacing any ship less than 20 years old.

As for the design used - it could go either a SoCal type design or a slower better armed and armoured design

I would susepect that given the relative slow speed of the US Battleships some form of SoCal would be preffered to provide the USN with a faster battlefleet

Most likely this variation. The US was still teething high pressure boilers and its gearing final drive manufacture issues were not entirely solved.

Now for plausible ASBattery.

I would like to address the cruiser problem somehow and sneak in a few "ghost" aircraft carriers masquerading as fast banana boats or some plausible conversion platform. With the current state of the 1930 art [British] naval [battle] doctrine, it is known that the USN is tactically way too slow and its scouting forces are woefully inadequate.

Or Plan AS "B"

Lengthen the Standards with a 30 meter forward of Turret 1 plug and refit with "bulb" bows and raised forecastle flanging for better weather keeping and speed. Elevate main armament to 40 degrees, fit bulges, re-engine with better turbines and LIE, LIE, LIE about the tonnage by claiming lighter newer engines.

Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Arizona

AS "B".

New Mexico, Mississippi, and Idaho

Ditto.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A big problem would be cash. Japan at least has no money to replace Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga.

Not necessarily...

IOTL the Japanese rebuilt its 10 existing capital ships more thoroughly than any other nation. The more thorough the rebuild. The greater the cost. Therefore the money spent on rebuilding them IOTL would have gone a long way towards buying 6 new capital ships ITTL.

I write 6 new capital ships because under the above schedule they could lay down 6 capital ships 1931-36 which replaced 7 existing ships (Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, Kirishima, Fuso, Yamishro and Ise). IOTL they laid down Yamato and Musashi in 1937 anyway.

 

[SsgtC]

The building holiday would have ended in 1932. The same year Arkansas turned twenty. Given the building times for a battleship, I think the US would have laid down 3 ships to replace Arkansas, New York and Texas. (Both New York class ships were commissioned in 1914.) The new class of ship would likely be a cutdown version of the 1920 South Dakota class. Likely mounting 9x16"/45 guns in 3xthree gun turrets. Top speed was likely to be between 23 and 25 knots. The three ships likely commission in 1935 when the ships they are replacing are between 20 and 23 years old.

These ships would be followed in 1933 by a further four ships to replace the Nevada and Pennsylvania classes (both commissioned in 1916). More than likely of an improved design. So within three years, the US would have replaced nearly half their battle line. After that, things would likely begin to slow a bit.

The three New Mexico class ships were commissioned between 1917 and 1919 (one each year). The US probably lays down two ships in 1935 with a projected completion date of 1938.

The final New Mexico class ships is probably replaced at the same time as the two Tennessee class ships (commissioned 1920 and 1921) and the first Colorado class (commissioned 1921). The US probably lays down two ships in 1937 and two more in 1938. More than likely all of the same class. The final two Colorado class ships (commissioned 1923) likely have their replacements laid down in 1940.

Of course, all that gets thrown out the window if/when WWII breaks out. Still, by that time (assuming WWII isn't butterflied away and starts roughly the same as in OTL), that would give the USN a battle line of 3x14" gunned ships, 12x16" gunned ships, with another 4 ships under construction by the time the war starts in 1939. At that point, the US probably speeds up construction of the four ships being built and decides to retain the last 3 14" ships as well. The planned replacements for the last two Colorado class ships, are probably redesigned to ignore treaty limits and resemble the OTL Montana class.

 

[Crowbar Six]

There is no reason why they could not have laid out a process for replacement of BB's from 1940 onwards something along the lines of replacement on a one for one basis ie scrap one build one.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The UK is also having some cashflow problems, but if they can scratch up the cash, they may well opt to replace the R's, and give all of the QEs the Warspite treatment, along with Hood.

This is the British Empire capital ship replacement schedule in the Washington Treaty.

HM Treasury would have had to find £75 million (i.e. £7.5 million x 10 ships) to pay for the 10 ships that could be laid down 1931-36 (C to L). However, as the money would be spent over 9 years they "only" have to spend an average £8.33 million a year.

The next 5 ships (M to Q) effectively take the place of the OTL King George V class.

Edit

The OTL full modernisations of Queen Elizabeth, Repulse, Valiant & Warspite and the partial modernisations of Malaya and Repulse cost about £14 million 1932-41. ITTL that would have been spent on new construction, but it's barely enough to pay for a pair of new 35,000 ton battleships.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

and give all of the QEs the Warspite treatment, along with Hood.

Definitely not. This is because the only reason why the old battleships were modernised in the first place was because the First LNT prevented the Admiralty from building new ships to replace them.

 

[DaveB]

From an earlier thread:

Actually a "Treaty Vanguard" could be quite a decent ship, after all, it can be a fair bit bigger than the updated QEs. I've spring-sharped several variants, the most recent is:

Laid down 1937

713' (oa) x 112' (over bulges) x 33' (normal), flush deck, bulbous bow & transom stern

34990 tons standard, 40532 full

8x15" (4x2), 16x4.7" (or 4.5") DP (8x2), 32x2pdr AA (4x8), (+ 40x20mm AA (20x2) added)

Main belt 14.5"x360'x40', TDS 2"x360'x40', turrets 14.5", barbettes 9", deck 6", forward conning tower 4"

120000 shp, 4 shafts = 29.7 knots, 10000 nm @ 15 knots

Basically take the turrets off the Rs (starting with the four spares from the Outrageous class) and drop a new ship in underneath.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

This is the British Empire capital ship replacement schedule in the Washington Treaty.

View attachment 426101

HM Treasury would have had to find £75 million (i.e. £7.5 million x 10 ships) to pay for the 10 ships that could be laid down 1931-36 (C to L). However, as the money would be spent over 9 years they "only" have to spend an average £8.33 million a year.

The next 5 ships (M to Q) effectively take the place of the OTL King George V class.

Edit

The OTL full modernisations of Queen Elizabeth, Repulse, Valiant & Warspite and the partial modernisations of Malaya and Repulse cost about £14 million 1932-41. ITTL that would have been spent o new construction, but it's barely enough to pay for a pair of new 35,000 ton battleships.

Well during that period the UK Also laid down the 5 KGVs (Jan/May/June/July 37 @ £7,393,134 each = £36,965,650) and 2 Lions (June/July 39 @ ??? similar to the KGVs? So lets say 15 mil) and of course laid down Vanguard (Oct 41 - eventually 11+ Million) So would an extra 2 KGV/Lions/Vanguards be better/more useful than the 4 refits if ordered earlier?

 

[Killer in]

Unless the two extra KGVs are ready with KGV herself then I doubt they'd made much difference might even be worse for the RN as that leaves the Med Fleet weaker in ship capabilities.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

From an earlier thread:
Basically take the turrets off the Rs (starting with the four spares from the Outrageous class) and drop a new ship in underneath.

I did come up with a mid 30 'O' class Fast BB design that used the MK1 N turrets from the WW1 ships

The controversial thing is that they are a 35,000 ton KGV type vessel but with the 'O' type layout to allow for a shorter main belt - so 3 x 2 x 15" guns and the Secondaries and AA Suit of the KGVs - eventually by using up all the available turrets (4 spares, 20 from revenge, 20 from QE and 6 from RnR / 3 = 16.66666 so possible 16 such ships with 2 spare turrets for either battle damage replacement or to arm a pair of monitors.

So lay down 3/2/3/2/3/3 a year between 32 and 36

So by 42 - 16x KGV/Renowns

Not sure how much money would be saved by reusing the Mk1 turrets (I understand they by upgrading them 1 MK1N standard they were not as much as a new turret?)

 

[GarethC]

Are you aware that the OTL Washington Treaty had a replacement clause and replacement schedules for all the signatories.

This is the replacement schedule for the United States.

[Snip build schedule]

What the OTL First London Treaty did was to extend the battleship building holiday from the end of 1930 to the end of 1936.

IIRC the First London Treaty was negotiated because the UK and US didn't want to spend large sums of money on new warships.

Therefore what I think you really require is a no London Naval Treaty TL.

Not no treaty at all. But a bit less of one.

In my incomplete headcanon, alt-Hoover and Adams are looking at a number of populist measures in1930 to try to stem the tide of public opinion, turning against the Republicans mid-Depression. Money for the military that goes to at-risk industrial states like Pennsylvania, creating jobs and prosperity and electoral loyalty. AFAICT Hoover wasn't all that laissez-faire after the Depression began to bite; here he's being even more Keynsian/Reaganomic and looking at additional deficit spending into military-industrial sectors to prop up the economy.

No London treaty at all, however, risks a arms race that leads to naval expansion, not naval replacement, which sucks bodies out of the labor market and dollars out of the economy - a poor idea when there's a Depression on.

So alt-Adams wants in effect to bring forward that replacement schedule by four years. It's an aggressive timescale, aiming to announce procurement in October '30 (just in time for those midterms), with (in a perfect GOP-favoring world) launch just about two years later, with commissioning and working up to follow, and similar progranmes to follow.

That such a treaty change also allows Japan to modernise its OOB to present a much greater threat to the USN than in a Kongo vs Standard matchup is an acceptable price for continued government... and of course story fodder.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well during that period the UK Also laid down the 5 KGVs (Jan/May/June/July 37 @ £7,393,134 each = £36,965,650) and 2 Lions (June/July 39 @ ??? similar to the KGVs? So lets say 15 mil) and of course laid down Vanguard (Oct 41 - eventually 11+ Million) So would an extra 2 KGV/Lions/Vanguards be better/more useful than the 4 refits if ordered earlier?

I could have phrased the "edit" to that post better.

Although the money spent on the 6 refits (not 4 because there were 4 "full modernisations" and 2 "partial modernisations") was only enough to pay for 2 of the 10 ships that the British Empire was allowed to lay down 1931-36 it means that HM Treasury "only" has to find £60 million to pay for the other 8 and it would be spread over 9 years (1931-39) which works out at £6.66 million a year.

It's a lot of money by 1930s standards, but HM Treasury could have raised it had the political will and public support been there.

Another thing worth considering is that IOTL King George V and Prince of Wales were ordered in the 1936-37 Navy Estimates, but could not be laid down until 1st January 1937 because of the First London Naval Treaty. ITTL there would be no such legal impediment and the two ships would have been laid down before the end of 1936. Therefore ITTL: KGV and POW would be taking the place of the 2 ships that could be laid down in 1936 (K and L); Duke of York would be taking the place of M; Anson and Howe would be taking the place of N and O; and Lion and Temeraire would be taking the place of P and Q.

This means that the 8 extra capital ships would have been the 8 that the British Empire was allowed to lay down 1931-35 (C to J). They would cost £60 million to build over 8 years (1931-38) or an extra £7.5 million a year. If we deduct the money spent on the OTL modernisations of the old battleships that's £45 million over 8 years which reduces it to £5.625 million over 8 years. However, in this case I'm not sure if the £6 million spent on Queen Elizabeth and Valiant 1937-41 can be included.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not no treaty at all. But a bit less of one.

In my incomplete headcanon, alt-Hoover and Adams are looking at a number of populist measures in1930 to try to stem the tide of public opinion, turning against the Republicans mid-Depression. Money for the military that goes to at-risk industrial states like Pennsylvania, creating jobs and prosperity and electoral loyalty. AFAICT Hoover wasn't all that laissez-faire after the Depression began to bite; here he's being even more Keynsian/Reaganomic and looking at additional deficit spending into military-industrial sectors to prop up the economy.

No London treaty at all, however, risks a arms race that leads to naval expansion, not naval replacement, which sucks bodies out of the labor market and dollars out of the economy - a poor idea when there's a Depression on.

So alt-Adams wants in effect to bring forward that replacement schedule by four years, but still. It's an aggressive timescale, aiming to announce procurement in October '30 (just in time for those midterms), with (in a perfect GOP-favoring world) launch just about two years later, with commissioning and working up to follow, and similar progranmes to follow.

That such a treaty change also allows Japan to modernise its OOB to present a much greater threat to the USN than in a Kongo vs Standard matchup is an acceptable price for continued government... and of course story fodder.

In that case you need a London Naval Treaty which does not change the capital ship and aircraft carrier restrictions imposed by the Washington Naval Treaty but still includes the restrictions on submarines, cruisers, destroyers and minor war vessels.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well during that period the UK Also laid down the 5 KGVs (Jan/May/June/July 37 @ £7,393,134 each = £36,965,650) and 2 Lions (June/July 39 @ ??? similar to the KGVs? So lets say 15 mil) and of course laid down Vanguard (Oct 41 - eventually 11+ Million) So would an extra 2 KGV/Lions/Vanguards be better/more useful than the 4 refits if ordered earlier?

Tricky...

Making the following assumptions:

1. Iron Duke is still converted to a gunnery training ship and her 3 sisters are still scrapped.
2. Tiger is still scrapped.
3. The scrapping/demilitarization of these ships releases enough tonnage from the British Empire's quota of 525,000 to build two new capital ships of 35,000 tons each
4. One KGV is laid down in 1931 for completion in 1934
5. One KGV is laid down in 1934 for completion in 1937
6. As IOTL five KGVs are laid down 1937 for completion 1940-41.

The ships laid down in 1931 and 1934 suffered from the same delays as the first 3 KGVs IOTL, but both ships were still in full commission by the end of August 1939. Furthermore the RN should be well on the way to eliminating the faults in the new turrets.

The British Empire has 17 capital ships in September 1939 plus 7 building instead of 15 plus 7 building.

IOTL 2 of the 15 battleships had received full modernisations and 2 partial modernisations. Another 2 ships (QE and Valiant) hadn't completed their full modernisations.

ITTL none of the 15 "old" battleships had been modernised to any degree, but the total force available was 17 ships rather than 13.

I was going to write that the 6 modernised (4 full and 2 partial) old ships of OTL were probably a better investment that 2 new ships and no modernisations because the 6 old ships could be in 6 places at once while the 2 new ships could only be in 2 places at once.

However, that was before I realised that because of the way the Washington Treaty worked there would actually be 17 capital ships rather than 15. I also didn't make allowance for QE and Valiant not being in refit at the start of the war.

Furthermore, I think the British would have laid down more that 2 battleships 1931-36 ITTL in the first place.

When I wrote Posts 9 and 16 what I was trying to do was show what the marginal cost between the cost of building the 10 battleships that the UK was allowed to lay down 1931-36 and the costs of the 6 modernisations of old capital ships that were carried out 1932-41 IOTL.

Unless the two extra KGVs are ready with KGV herself then I doubt they'd made much difference might even be worse for the RN as that leaves the Med Fleet weaker in ship capabilities.

See above.

This probably has a knock-on effect on the 5 OTL KGVs, which is, that they don't take as long to build. This would be because all the problems that the late switch to twelve 14" in quadruple turrets and then to ten 14" in one twin and two quadruple turrets created IOTL would have been transferred to the ships laid down in 1931 and 1934 ITTL. The ships laid down in 1937 would have been completed between June 1940 and January 1941 instead of December 1940 to August 1942.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Tricky...

Making the following assumptions:

1. Iron Duke is still converted to a gunnery training ship and her 3 sisters are still scrapped.
2. Tiger is still scrapped.
3. The scrapping/demilitarization of these ships releases enough tonnage from the British Empire's quota of 525,000 to build two new capital ships of 35,000 tons each
4. One KGV is laid down in 1931 for completion in 1934
5. One KGV is laid down in 1934 for completion in 1937
6. As IOTL five KGVs are laid down 1937 for completion 1940-41.

The ships laid down in 1931 and 1934 suffered from the same delays as the first 3 KGVs IOTL, but both ships were still in full commission by the end of August 1939. Furthermore the RN should be well on the way to eliminating the faults in the new turrets.

The British Empire has 17 capital ships in September 1939 plus 7 building instead of 15 plus 7 building.

IOTL 2 of the 15 battleships had received full modernisations and 2 partial modernisations. Another 2 ships (QE and Valiant) hadn't completed their full modernisations.

ITTL none of the 15 "old" battleships had been modernised to any degree, but the total force available was 17 ships rather than 13.

I was going to write that the 6 modernised (4 full and 2 partial) old ships of OTL were probably a better investment that 2 new ships and no modernisations because the 6 old ships could be in 6 places at once while the 2 new ships could only be in 2 places at once.

However, that was before I realised that because of the way the Washington Treaty worked there would actually be 17 capital ships rather than 15. I also didn't make allowance for QE and Valiant not being in refit at the start of the war.

Furthermore, I think the British would have laid down more that 2 battleships 1931-36 ITTL in the first place.

When I wrote Posts 9 and 16 what I was trying to do was show what the marginal cost between the cost of building the 10 battleships that the UK was allowed to lay down 1931-36 and the costs of the 6 modernisations of old capital ships that were carried out 1932-41 IOTL.

See above.

This probably has a knock-on effect on the 5 OTL KGVs, which is, that they don't take as long to build. This would be because all the problems that the late switch to twelve 14" in quadruple turrets and then to ten 14" in one twin and two quadruple turrets created IOTL would have been transferred to the ships laid down in 1931 and 1934 ITTL. The ships laid down in 1937 would have been completed between June 1940 and January 1941 instead of December 1940 to August 1942.

The other point which I may have alluded to earlier is that a lot of the infrastructure and supporting industries necessary for the construction of 'gurt great battleships' was allowed to wither during these years - an earlier end to the battleship holiday would see less of it gone and this too would contribute to the speed and cost of battleship construction

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The other point which I may have alluded to earlier is that a lot of the infrastructure and supporting industries necessary for the construction of 'gurt great battleships' was allowed to wither during these years - an earlier end to the battleship holiday would see less of it gone and this too would contribute to the speed and cost of battleship construction

Yes. You are quite correct and many of the problems that the naval portion of the Rearmament Programme suffered IOTL would not exist ITTL or at the worst be considerably less bad than IOTL. This would help with the construction of all types of warship after 1936, not just capital ships.