Tons
Tons

Many nations would have tonnage limits that allowed for some new construction, and there was also the issue of the replacement of ships as they aged. If there were no restrictions, with limits as high as 750,000 tons, a major navy might legitimately wish to build an average of 50-70,000 tons of ships per year, simply to maintain a modern fleet.

A simple ‘one ship per year’ arrangement was suggested, but it would penalise the larger powers and without an agreement on the tonnage of individual ships, both the British and Americans could see it would lead to the creation of a few very expensive super-heavy vessels.
Leading the conference, the Americans tried a new tactic, which ultimately proved to be successful. They suggested ‘annual replacement quotas’, in the hope that these would provide de-facto limits on size. Under their proposal, Britain and the USA would be allowed to complete 36,000 tons per year. Japan could complete 24,000 tons/year, and the others 12,000 tons/year. These allocations could be rolled over into subsequent years and would remain subject to not exceeding the total tonnage allowance of a nation’s fleet.

Over a three-year period, the system amount to a simple 3-2-1 ratio, if all powers built 36,000-ton ships. It therefore encouraged restriction of size without legally restricting it, and it provided all the powers with the ability to renew their fleets over about a 20-year period. Even so, Britain pushed for a 40 or 42,000-ton quota (with the others being adjusted respectively), as British designers had concluded that this would allow fast 16” vessels to be built without grossly compromising their armour or fighting ability.
However, the Americans stayed firm. Even at 40,000 tons, they were aware that Britain and Japan would build fleets of fast battleships, which would place the USN’s existing 21-knot squadrons at a severe disadvantage. American designers were confident that at 36,000 tons, it was impractical to build a balanced battleship with both 16” guns and a speed of more than 23-24 knots.

There had to be a caveat that Treaty powers whose tonnage did not already exceed their allocated total could complete some vessels currently under construction, subject to the limit not being exceeded. In practice, this meant that both the USA and Japan could complete some of the ships that they had already partially completed.
However, not all was sweetness and harmony here either, as there was debate as to whether this should include tonnage from ships that might be decommissioned before the Treaty came into force. For instance, Japanese delegates were concerned that if the Americans scrapped the obsolete ‘South Carolina’ class, they could legally finish an additional ‘South Dakota’ or ‘Lexington’.

On this occasion, it was the British who acted as a (relatively) neutral arbiter, by suggesting that both the USA and Japan be allowed to complete four of the vessels they currently had under construction, with the oldest vessels scrapped to make room for the required tonnage.
To some degree, this was returning a favour to the other two regarding the ‘Australian exemption’. Both Japan and the USA wanted to secure the right to construct modern vessels to match the British ‘Admirals’, Furious and Rodney.
It also removed an issue with the tonnage limits that had concerned both British and American negotiators; namely that Japan might seek to use a combination of her unused tonnage and her replacement quotas to produce 40 or 45,000-ton ships over a sustained period. Having agreed to the implied 36,000-ton limit, neither the British nor Americans wanted to see it exceeded without at least some difficulty.

Britain, the USA and Japan would enter into the Treaty with their tonnage quotas filled, and all future ships could only be constructed under the replacement quotas. The smaller powers would not receive this benefit, but as none of them were likely to complete a capital ship by 1924, the third year of the treaty, their 12,000-ton annual quota was not particularly restrictive.

To try to avoid any future abuse of the tonnage rules, limits would also be imposed on the modifications that would be allowed to ships while in service. These would be subject to a limit of an additional 3,000 tons of displacement each, with such additions not counted towards tonnage totals. No increases in vertical armour were permitted, nor could the calibre or number of guns be increased, except for the installation of anti-aircraft guns of less than 4”.

In addition to their Treaty Tonnage, all parties would be allowed to retain one additional capital ship for training purposes, subject to having at least half the main turrets removed and half of the machinery either removed or permanently disabled (e.g. by removing steam lines and filling boiler drums with concrete). A further vessel could be retained in a totally disarmed state as a target ship.

The struggle to reach agreement over capital ships had dominated the discussions, but the treaty also sought to limit all other types of vessels. Once the British had agreed to treat the oddity HMS Courageous as a battleship, it paved the way for a return to more traditional cruiser types. However, there would be endless disagreement here too.
 

Deleted member 94680

As you say the 15" Mk.1 was certainly a risk, although it was based on well-proven technology; wire-winding and the breech mechanism being among those.

It was still built in prototype though. According to Friedman in Naval Weapons of World War One:
On 2 February 1911 DNO asked the Ordnance Board to consider alternative 14.5in/45 and 15in/42 guns; on 27 December instructions were given to proceed with experimental 15in guns. The cover name '14 inch experimental' seems to have been used, as it appears frequently in the DNO files as early as January 1913, in the form of discussions of what type of shells to provide for it. Alternative RGF, EOC and Vickers designs were described in the 1913 report of the Ordnance Board. In a distant departure from previous practice, prototypes were built by both EOC and Vickers. Elswick built both experimental guns. EOC's design was chosen. It combined B tube and jacket in a single forging, and had Elswick's three-motion short-arm breech mechanism. Unfortunately the forging failed, but a second gun, with separate B tube and with a Vickers breech mechanism, had been ordered slightly later, and it became the prototype.
 
Treaty Excerpt 3
Excerpt from the Washington Naval Limitation Treaty, signed December 7th, 1921

Chapter II, Part 3

Construction of Capital Ships

Contracting Powers shall be entitled to build new tonnage at an annual rate not exceeding, for the United States 36,000 tons; for Great Britain 36,000 tons; for France 12,000 tons; for Italy 12,000 tons; for the Netherlands 12,000 tons; for Japan 24,000 tons. The vessels named in Article V shall be deemed as complete and exempted from these rates.

Tonnage shall become available for construction on January 1st of each year and may be combined with any unused entitlement from preceding years.

Tonnage shall be deemed used once a vessel is completed, or on the January 1st following the third anniversary of the vessel being laid down.

Each of the Contracting Powers shall communicate promptly to each of the other Contracting Powers the following information:

-The date of laying the keels.
-The standard displacement in tons of each new ship to be laid down, and the principal dimensions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean draft at standard displacement.
-The date of completion of each new ship and its standard displacement in tons, and the principal dimensions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or below waterline, mean draft at standard displacement, at time of completion.

In case of loss or accidental destruction of capital ships, the tonnage shall immediately become available for new construction, subject to the other provisions of the present Treaty.

Capital ships may be reconstructed for the purpose of improving means of defense against air and submarine attack, subject to the following limitations:

-No alterations in vertical or side armor shall be permitted.
-No increase in the calibre or number of guns shall be permitted, except for the addition of anti-air guns of a calibre not exceeding 4”.
-The total increase of displacement effected by such reconstruction may not exceed 3,000 tons for each ship.

Disposal of Capital Ships

Contacting Powers may, at any time, dispose of vessels by scrapping, or conversion to training vessels, or for target use. Said vessels shall cease to count towards total capital ship tonnage once scrapping or conversion is commenced.

Each Power may retain one capital ship for training purposes, which shall not count towards total capital ship tonnage, subject to the following limitations:
-A minimum of half the main and secondary armaments shall be permanently removed.
-A minimum of half the boilers shall be removed or permanently disabled.
-Anti-air guns of a calibre not exceeding 4” may be added, subject to the removal of an equivalent number guns from the vessel, not including those removed to effect a halving of the main and secondary armaments.
-No other reconstruction shall be permitted for any purpose other than the provision of accommodation and training facilities.

Each Power may retain one capital ship for target purposes, which shall not count towards total capital ship tonnage, subject to the following limitations:
-All armament and gunnery control equipment shall be permanently removed.
-A minimum of half the boilers shall be removed or permanently disabled.
-No reconstruction shall be permitted for any purpose other than a conversion to radio control, or to change the arrangement of armour for experimental purposes.

Each of the Contracting Powers shall communicate promptly to each of the other Contracting Powers the following information:
-The names of the capital ships to be disposed of and the method of disposal.
-The date on which decommissioning occurs.
-The date on which scrapping or conversion is commenced.
 
How do you mean?

I understand that the 'concussive report' of the 18" firing was incredibly 'unpleasant' relative to earlier large calibre guns

And Gib is a large rock with a large village on 2 sides various forts and a big harbour all crammed into a relatively small area

Spur battery - where I suspect said guns would be placed (OTL a 9.2") is about 500 yards from the town.
 

Deleted member 94680

I understand that the 'concussive report' of the 18" firing was incredibly 'unpleasant' relative to earlier large calibre guns

And Gib is a large rock with a large village on 2 sides various forts and a big harbour all crammed into a relatively small area

Spur battery - where I suspect said guns would be placed (OTL a 9.2") is about 500 yards from the town.

Ah, I get you.

Yeah, that might be problematic, haha. Do we have any OTL examples of 18" shore batteries and reports of concussive effects of their firing?

If it's not suitable for 18", that frees up heavy guns (14", 13.5" or 12", something like that) from other forts that could be replaced by 18" I suppose. How about Singapore, for instance?
 
I understand that the 'concussive report' of the 18" firing was incredibly 'unpleasant' relative to earlier large calibre guns

And Gib is a large rock with a large village on 2 sides various forts and a big harbour all crammed into a relatively small area

Spur battery - where I suspect said guns would be placed (OTL a 9.2") is about 500 yards from the town.

Just like Naverone………...
 
Also going back a few pages, panzerschiffs won't be a thing because they are an exploit built around there being only 7 battle cruisers in the OTL. There area a lot more fast capital ships in this timeline.

thing is, "fast battleship" isn´t determine yet, I mean speed wise, what is fast?, because if we consider the last few treaty post, the light battleship had been, according to sts-200, created as a separate second kind of capital ship, which retroactively makes virtually every battlecruiser ( excepting the I´s, again the Cats, the Germans and similars) a fast battleship of sorts, poorly design that is.

5 June 1916 Off Scapa Flow, Orkney Islands

Reginald Tyrwhitt, Rear Admiral as of a month ago, was young for his rank. His handling of light forces in the Channel and his ideas that had resulted in the victory at First Heligoland had seen him rise to Admiral's rank. It was probably his very unorthodox ideas that had seen him placed in command of unorthodox ships.

“Shoot!”, came the command.

The Glorious rocked as her eight 9.2 inch guns roared, throwing a total of 1.52 tonnes of metal at the target. The large cruiser heeled sharply into her turn, astern her three sisters fired and then turned. Coming back to her original course the guns trained again, elevating up a degree and then fired and the whole process was repeated.

“Damn strange way to fight.”

“Quite Captain but its effective. We know that whilst we’re fast and well armed, we’re little better protected than a Town Class cruiser so engaging at long range with constant course alterations will hopefully keep us from being hit.”

Those orders had come down from above and at Admiral Hood’s urgings and Tyrwhitt wholly supported them. Although the Courageous Class ships were roomy and very popular with their crews among Jellico’s staff there was concerns over their thin protection, sacrificed in the name of speed. Of course any refitting to increase the protection was out of the question and of course they were Fisher’s children and he viciously defended them against anyone who spoke ill off the class.

So how best to preserve the large, fast, well armed but thinly protected large light cruisers, which Hood had suggested calling heavy cruisers? Some had suggested that the Mark XIII gun be produced and the elevation of the Glatton Class monitors be mirrored, combined with their ‘super-charges’ allowing them to reach out to extreme ranges, about the same range as the 15 inch weapons aboard the R and Queen’s.

This had been denied as the guns were expensive and slow to make and whilst 36 were apparently on order there had been no progress on this. As it was the range of the Mark XII's were already a few hundred yards more than the 12 inch guns of the older dreadnoughts. Instead it had been decided to try and adopt light cruiser tactics as well as the liberal use of ‘salvo chasing’ where you would turn your ship towards the splash of a hostile shell, gambling they would not be aiming at the same point as a miss with the next shot. This in turn threw gunnery right out the window so now the 3rd Cruiser Squadron was practicing in the calm waters of the gunner range with firing and then altering course before firing again. It was hard work on the gunners and the first few days of practice saw shots going everywhere but near the targets but they were getting better at it, salvos were more tightly grouped and the Imperious had scored a direct hit yesterday, smashing one target to bits with a bulls-eye.

Another decision that had gotten the gunnery officers grumbling was the war-load for the big cruisers. Apparently some bright spark had got it in his head that the 9.2inch would be of little use at long range with solid AP shells against heavily armoured targets, so HE shells would be more useful in causing fires and mayhem as well as being effective against a cruiser sized target or smaller.

So out went the vast majority of the AP shells and in went the HE ones with ¾ of the magazines filled with HE rounds and the remainder being AP. Of course Tyrwhitt knew the other decision for this. It was a message ‘Do not engage large well armoured vessels’ and with a small AP load-out they really could not and would have to smother any target with HE rounds instead. It was only at extreme range with plunging fire against weaker deck armour or at very close ranges his 9.2's could punch through an enemy heavy ship's armour.

“Alter course to 043 and then engage, let Guns know we’ve got another hour before we get shooed off the range!”
“Aye Sir, I’m sure he can see the 4th and 6th Divisions waiting their turn from where he is.”
“Straddle!”
“Good show Guns, more of that please!”

Scapa would rumble to the thunder of guns for the rest of the day, the older Dreadnoughts of the 6th Division along with the ‘turret farm’ Trafalgar being the last ship to leave the range before their crews carried out the laborious tasks of reloading, cleaning and painting.

Across the North Sea the ships of the High Sea’s fleet were taking on stores and supplies, many noted that the shells being loaded were not practice rounds but AP and HE shells. Scuttlebutt among the fleet said there was a big operation coming and most were glad, sitting in harbour and only going out to shoot at targets or whiling the hours away painting and cleaning the ships or barracks was in a word: boring. With the army fighting and dying in France the men of the Navy wanted to do something and at long last it seemed that something was indeed happening.

reading the Errant shell thread, found this interesting passage.

Even at 40,000 tons, they were aware that Britain and Japan would build fleets of fast battleships, which would place the USN’s existing 21-knot squadrons at a severe disadvantage. American designers were confident that at 36,000 tons, it was impractical to build a balanced battleship with both 16” guns and a speed of more than 23-24 knots.

This, quite clever on their part, this makes the 15" and the 13.5" for the british and the 14" for the japanese, the only viable guns avilaible to put in numbers (10-12) on following designs, which in itself is not a bad thing, cause that enhanced individual fighting capacity for each ship and actually gives the british a window for having a edge in number of guns and vessels, and the Japanese too actually. So a clever move now, don´t make the US battleline obsolete but yes out number in the future, poison apple...

To try to avoid any future abuse of the tonnage rules, limits would also be imposed on the modifications that would be allowed to ships while in service. These would be subject to a limit of an additional 3,000 tons of displacement each, with such additions not counted towards tonnage totals. No increases in vertical armour were permitted, nor could the calibre or number of guns be increased, except for the installation of anti-aircraft guns of less than 4”.

so this means that Furious current belt thickness can be reduce in a refit and make it more complete???...
as far as the limit allow it of course.
 
on the other hand if bulit, what would be an adequate thicknes for a brand-new light battleship/armored cruiser againts a 12"? and what calibre such thickness would suppose for the ship?
 
Odd idea of mine is for Britain to have a new series of light battleships/armored cruisers fulfilling the heavy cruiser role of otl, for which characteristics should be: guns not in excess of 12", armour adequate at least against medium calibres, an flank speed in excess of 30 knts. This way have a nominally fixed size for a heavy scouting unit type that, been smaller than contemporary capital ships, should be, I guess, "cheaper" and so as numerous as otl heavy cruisers, been distributed in the more important scenarios in wartime for fleet duty and assign to colonial duties in peace time. In short, the fisherite dream of a world-reach heavy patrol unit for the Empire. They could even be group with the carriers in pairs.

But all of this is hypothetical and actually wont do it even to the discussion table at the Admiralty, because of the cost and the like.

PD: now I will try to keep my thoughts shut, to avoid the temptation of creating super-duper-killers from the air. :biggrin:
 
Ah, I get you.

Yeah, that might be problematic, haha. Do we have any OTL examples of 18" shore batteries and reports of concussive effects of their firing?
No, unfortunately they were never used as such.
Only in single mounts on monitors, and then usually at extremely high elevation, vis:

Wolfe.jpg


You can just about see the ripples of the shock pattern on the water.

If it's not suitable for 18", that frees up heavy guns (14", 13.5" or 12", something like that) from other forts that could be replaced by 18" I suppose. How about Singapore, for instance?
With the notable and inglorious exception of Singapore, by and large the British regarded coastal artillery as secondary.
As @Cryhavoc101 says, the standard guns were a mixture of (often old-model) 9.2", 7.5" and 6". The real defence was at sea - the fleet itself.
 
I do like the 'yearly tonnage,' so countries can build balanced designs, though it's at the cost of some tonnage. If the 'light battleship' was in the 26000 ton range, I could see a mid-40000 tonner built, then a 26000 tonner, then another 40000 tonner, and so one
 
thing is, "fast battleship" isn´t determine yet, I mean speed wise, what is fast?,...
You only find out when the enemy catch you !

reading the Errant shell thread, found this interesting passage.

This, quite clever on their part, this makes the 15" and the 13.5" for the british and the 14" for the japanese, the only viable guns avilaible to put in numbers (10-12) on following designs, which in itself is not a bad thing, cause that enhanced individual fighting capacity for each ship and actually gives the british a window for having a edge in number of guns and vessels, and the Japanese too actually. So a clever move now, don´t make the US battleline obsolete but yes out number in the future, poison apple...

so this means that Furious current belt thickness can be reduce in a refit and make it more complete???...
as far as the limit allow it of course.
'No alterations in vertical or side armor shall be permitted '
 
on the other hand if bulit, what would be an adequate thicknes for a brand-new light battleship/armored cruiser againts a 12"? and what calibre such thickness would suppose for the ship?
Against a powerful 12" gun (such as the German or American 12"/50s of the period), you can get away with as little as 9" inclined armour, if you're happy to fight at 'modern' ranges of over 15,000yards.
That rises to about 12" if you want to use vertical armour and close to 12,000 yards.
 
Odd idea of mine is for Britain to have a new series of light battleships/armored cruisers fulfilling the heavy cruiser role of otl, for which characteristics should be: guns not in excess of 12", armour adequate at least against medium calibres, an flank speed in excess of 30 knts. This way have a nominally fixed size for a heavy scouting unit type that, been smaller than contemporary capital ships, should be, I guess, "cheaper" and so as numerous as otl heavy cruisers, been distributed in the more important scenarios in wartime for fleet duty and assign to colonial duties in peace time. In short, the fisherite dream of a world-reach heavy patrol unit for the Empire. They could even be group with the carriers in pairs.

But all of this is hypothetical and actually wont do it even to the discussion table at the Admiralty, because of the cost and the like.

PD: now I will try to keep my thoughts shut, to avoid the temptation of creating super-duper-killers from the air. :biggrin:
'Light Battleships' have a future ... in various forms :)
 
I do like the 'yearly tonnage,' so countries can build balanced designs, though it's at the cost of some tonnage. If the 'light battleship' was in the 26000 ton range, I could see a mid-40000 tonner built, then a 26000 tonner, then another 40000 tonner, and so one
It certainly offers all sorts of possibilities, once the spell of the 36,000-tonner is broken.
 
It certainly offers all sorts of possibilities, once the spell of the 36,000-tonner is broken.

Here are some questions.

1, If a country decided not to build a ship one year then the next built a 44000 ton Battleship say, I would assume the unused 28000 tons would carry over correct. Their is no limit on how many years worth of tonnage you carry over. So if you wanted to build a 75000 ton ship you would have to wait two years before laying it down but you could wait those two years to get the tonnage.

2, How does the 23000 ton limit sit with the new construction budget. Does the 23000 tons only count as 14000 tons being constructed as well as ship at the end of construction. Could a country (Say Britain) build 2 23000 ton ships counted as only 28000 tons total and then put the excess into a much larger ship the following year.
 
Top