Swapping out a battleship turret is a bit more involved, especially considering that the turret is only part of the weapon system, there is also the ammunition handling and storage areas below deck that would have to be refitted. There was only ever one ship class designed with this in mind (Scharnhorst) and the swap was never carried out. Building a turret for 16"/50 and only fitting 16"/45s is a bit more practical as the actual gun sub assemblies are designed to be replaced occasionally due to wear and tear from firing. Would probably still take a while, not something you particularly want to be doing to your heavy fleet units in the midst of a conflict. Taking them out of action for a month or two and thus depleting your fleet strength vs having a marginally less effective gun. seems like a poor choice to make.
Uh I can think of at least two other classes that were explicitly designed for that, one of which was actually converted in full. The Mogami class cruisers were built with 5 triple 155mm guns but were converted to twin 203mm guns as designed after Japan left the Naval Treaty system. And the Yamato class were designed with triple 46cm guns but were meant to eventually swap out to twin 51cm guns, though I can't find the source for that I've read that in multiple places

Admittedly this proves the point, the Mogami's took a two year reconstruction to go from triple 155mm to twin 203mm's, though part of that was fixing the Top Heaviness of the class and QC issues with the welding
 
Uh I can think of at least two other classes that were explicitly designed for that, one of which was actually converted in full. The Mogami class cruisers were built with 5 triple 155mm guns but were converted to twin 203mm guns as designed after Japan left the Naval Treaty system. And the Yamato class were designed with triple 46cm guns but were meant to eventually swap out to twin 51cm guns, though I can't find the source for that I've read that in multiple places

Admittedly this proves the point, the Mogami's took a two year reconstruction to go from triple 155mm to twin 203mm's, though part of that was fixing the Top Heaviness of the class and QC issues with the welding

Sorry I should have specified battleship main battery designed to do that. Obviously for smaller ships it is more feasible, though in the case of the Mogami still a very involved process.
I've never actually heard of the Yamatos being designed for larger guns, if you remember a source for it I'd be interested to read it.
 
Sorry I should have specified battleship main battery designed to do that. Obviously for smaller ships it is more feasible, though in the case of the Mogami still a very involved process.
I've never actually heard of the Yamatos being designed for larger guns, if you remember a source for it I'd be interested to read it.
I don't recall an exact source, was a few well researched forum essays somewhere else. Basically Japan expected that the US would learn that the Yamato's had 18" guns around 1944 and start building 18" ships themselves, thus in '45-46 they would start refitting the Yamatos with the 51cm guns (whose turret roller path was actually smaller than the 46cm triple), with the idea that by the time the US upgunned to 20" themselves around 1950 Japan would already have 11 51cm armed battleships, the 5 refitted Yamatos, the 2 A-150's and the 4 Post A-150 designs (which got nuts, but not as nuts as the H-44 or even the H-43, or even some of the Yamato precursor designs*) that would be the "Peace Goddesses" that would give them peace through intimidation. Given how obscure a lot of the documentation related to the Yamatos are, due to the end of war destruction of documentation, I think this was only found out relatively recently with some recently located documents. It would probably take a lot of digging to find that again so I don't think i can help you, sorry

*12 51cm guns, 30 knots, armor equivalent to a Yamato...on 55,000 tons, yeah blatantly impossible
 
Last edited:
Very pertinent questions for the future.
1) Yes, tonnage carries over for the lifetime of the treaty,
It is only 'used' when the ship is complete (or 3 years after it's laid down - to stop nations building a battleship and leaving it allegedly incomplete).
So for instance Japan could quite legally lay down a 72,000 ton ship in 1922, on the basis that it won't complete until 1924+, when they have 3 years' worth of 24,000 tons.
For now though, everyone's looking at 36,000-tonners (give or take a bit!).

2)That isn't defined in the Treaty. That's a glaring omission you might think, but here late '21 no-one really considers the 23000-ton ship to be more than a historical anomaly. Imagine trying to cut Hood or Colorado down to 23,000 tons!
The most relevant articles refer only to 'tonnage', which is defined with respect to an overall limit at 'standard displacement' (which has been de-rated in the case of a ship under 23000t).
It's therefore quite practical to argue it either way, and realistically therefore it's up to someone to set the precedent.
Neither Britain or the USA are likely to want to undermine the strength of the Treaty themselves, but neither are they likely to make a fuss about a couple of 'light battleships'.

Now I would disagree with your points in response to point 2. I can see a reason for the British (or at least some people in the Admiralty) to both be considering 23000 ton "Battlecruisers" for want of a better term.

Firstly I doubt it would take at least a few people in the Admiralty to work out that building a 23000 ton ship with 12 inch guns will limit the ship building capacity of Germany. This at first may seem trivial but Britain has just finished a long and costly war with Germany, made longer and costlier ( in the eyes of some in the admiralty no doubt) due to the High Seas Fleet. Limiting Germany will be attractive on its own. It also has other potential benefits. If the Germans can only build 12 inch armed ships then that is less pressure on the French to counter them, this also has a knock on effect with the Italians who wont have to counter large French ships. Yes these last two points may only be of minor concern at the time but they will become more prominent over time.

Secondly a 23000 ton ship armed with 12 inch guns and capable of 32 knots say is a pretty good way to deal with cruisers armed with 8 inch guns . This is both a useful way to gain scouting superiority over an enemy fleet (much like the original concept of the Battlecruiser) and to protect the mass of 6 inch gun armed cruisers the Royal navy wants (needs) to make. They can also serve a very useful role of commerce raiding much like SMS Scharnhorst did. The Admiralty was very aware of the amount of resources Maximilian Von Spee took up. They represent a ship able to deal with anything sent to catch them short of a Battleship (which they can run away from) whilst being able to perform a viable fleet role.

Thirdly their is only one signatory of the treaty they inconvenience and that is Japan unduly. America, Britain is not planning or expecting to fight America. Their response is neither here nor their. France and Italy, They in some ways benefit from it as their competition is either limited or has less incentive to build masses of large Battleships. As for Japan, yes they are put out by it. The thing is that Japan was seen as a potential enemy fairly quickly post WW1, any attempt by Japan to match the ships Britain builds weakens their main battlefleet, the ships will be particularly useful against Japanese trade in the pacific. All in all that isn't a reason not to build any ships like this.

Besides its not as if Britain itself has to build and pay for the tonnage of the ships, Australia is sitting their with 28000 tons of capital ship waiting to be replaced. (Even though I personally think it would be much more fun for Australia to build a 28000 ton carrier eventually whilst Britain provides the fast escort battleship's and Battlecruiser's.)

Even the Math works out, Britain could build 16 43000 ton ships and 4 23000 ton ships or 16 42000 ton ships and 6 23000 in their tonnage quite easily. If all the Battleships are relatively fast say 28.5 knots you have the makings of a very potent Battle line that are either matched by numerous less capable ships or fewer ships that are as capable.
 
A nice counterfactual detail for any future TLs. In London or somewhere else I wonder? Birmingham? Manchester? Chester even? Or would they just rename one of the Squares in London and erect a column there?
I hadn't really thought about it, I just liked the mental image of a statue of him with a jaunty cap and smug grin staring down from on high.

Now that I do; it's likely to be after the 2nd WW before they get around to building it (it wouldn't be before his death in '36), so I'd guess in a square that needed a little rebuilding, and which could therefore be renamed.
Leicester is another possibility (he lived nearby for much of his life), but I would have thought London more likely.
 
One point would be building a larger ship, within treaty limits like say a Tillman type, you could design a bigger turret that right now takes triple 16/45 but would because of the turrets size be able to be upgraded to a larger gun. This way you could go up to a 16/50 say or even start with quad 14” guns but swap out the whole turret and sub one with 2 to 3 larger guns.
They do this in real life with tanks where you start with a certain size turret but because you build its ring and supporting mechanism , you are able to up gun relatively easily.
By the letter of the Treaty, they're not allowed to do that;
'No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry, or be constructed to carry, a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches...'

Even so, that 'constructed' phrase is a tricky one to enforce - as noted above by Ato and RamscoopRaider, what if the roller paths just happen to be the same size, quite by chance and as a pure coincidence...
That said, they can't legally carry anything more until the treaty lapses, and designing oversize barbettes/turrets etc. burns up limited tonnage in the meantime.
 
By the letter of the Treaty, they're not allowed to do that;
'No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry, or be constructed to carry, a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches...'

Even so, that 'constructed' phrase is a tricky one to enforce - as noted above by Ato and RamscoopRaider, what if the roller paths just happen to be the same size, quite by chance and as a pure coincidence...
That said, they can't legally carry anything more until the treaty lapses, and designing oversize barbettes/turrets etc. burns up limited tonnage in the meantime.
Nobody says they have to do the smart thing. Dumber things than that have been done.
 
Now I would disagree with your points in response to point 2. I can see a reason for the British (or at least some people in the Admiralty) to both be considering 23000 ton "Battlecruisers" for want of a better term.

Firstly I doubt it would take at least a few people in the Admiralty to work out that building a 23000 ton ship with 12 inch guns will limit the ship building capacity of Germany. This at first may seem trivial but Britain has just finished a long and costly war with Germany, made longer and costlier ( in the eyes of some in the admiralty no doubt) due to the High Seas Fleet. Limiting Germany will be attractive on its own. It also has other potential benefits. If the Germans can only build 12 inch armed ships then that is less pressure on the French to counter them, this also has a knock on effect with the Italians who wont have to counter large French ships. Yes these last two points may only be of minor concern at the time but they will become more prominent over time.
Yes I can see that reasoning, although with the recent fixation on 'large ships' it might only be a very few people - perhaps not enough to persuade many other.
It also depends on the RN being willing to use valuable battleship tonnage and building quotas on what amounts to a small and vulnerable ship.
There's also a consideration that the Germans might argue that a new category has been created: 'light battleship'. Therefore German 'light battleships' might be limited to 12", but German 'proper battleships' are limited to whatever the RN has there (either 13.5" or maybe even 15" by 1928).


Secondly a 23000 ton ship armed with 12 inch guns and capable of 32 knots say is a pretty good way to deal with cruisers armed with 8 inch guns . This is both a useful way to gain scouting superiority over an enemy fleet (much like the original concept of the Battlecruiser) and to protect the mass of 6 inch gun armed cruisers the Royal navy wants (needs) to make. They can also serve a very useful role of commerce raiding much like SMS Scharnhorst did. The Admiralty was very aware of the amount of resources Maximilian Von Spee took up. They represent a ship able to deal with anything sent to catch them short of a Battleship (which they can run away from) whilst being able to perform a viable fleet role.
Agreed ... sort of ... but give it a few years :biggrin:

Thirdly their is only one signatory of the treaty they inconvenience and that is Japan unduly. America, Britain is not planning or expecting to fight America. Their response is neither here nor their. France and Italy, They in some ways benefit from it as their competition is either limited or has less incentive to build masses of large Battleships. As for Japan, yes they are put out by it. The thing is that Japan was seen as a potential enemy fairly quickly post WW1, any attempt by Japan to match the ships Britain builds weakens their main battlefleet, the ships will be particularly useful against Japanese trade in the pacific. All in all that isn't a reason not to build any ships like this.
Can't agree there - if looked at from the perspective of the men in the negotiating room in 1921.
They've just allowed Japan to complete four 40000-ton, 16" battlecruisers and battleships, plus the two 16" battleships that are already complete; that is what needs countering in the near term.

Besides its not as if Britain itself has to build and pay for the tonnage of the ships, Australia is sitting their with 28000 tons of capital ship waiting to be replaced. (Even though I personally think it would be much more fun for Australia to build a 28000 ton carrier eventually whilst Britain provides the fast escort battleship's and Battlecruiser's.)

Even the Math works out, Britain could build 16 43000 ton ships and 4 23000 ton ships or 16 42000 ton ships and 6 23000 in their tonnage quite easily. If all the Battleships are relatively fast say 28.5 knots you have the makings of a very potent Battle line that are either matched by numerous less capable ships or fewer ships that are as capable.

It would be fun to give Australia a carrier ... and who knows, maybe it will be possible.

Yes, they could build that, but it would take 20 years to achieve that at 36,000tons/year. Doesn't mean they can't start of course.
 
By the letter of the Treaty, they're not allowed to do that;
'No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry, or be constructed to carry, a gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches...'

Even so, that 'constructed' phrase is a tricky one to enforce - as noted above by Ato and RamscoopRaider, what if the roller paths just happen to be the same size, quite by chance and as a pure coincidence...
That said, they can't legally carry anything more until the treaty lapses, and designing oversize barbettes/turrets etc. burns up limited tonnage in the meantime.
Nobody says they have to do the smart thing. Dumber things than that have been done.

Thinking about this, there is one battleship design that probably would not have any problems being upgunned. The Tillman II and initial IV designs. Anything that starts with sextuple 16"/50 (16"/45 ITTL) turrets could be IMHO up-gunned to twin or triple 18" without that much of a problem.
 
Thinking about this, there is one battleship design that probably would not have any problems being upgunned. The Tillman II and initial IV designs. Anything that starts with sextuple 16"/50 (16"/45 ITTL) turrets could be IMHO up-gunned to twin or triple 18" without that much of a problem.
Heck you'd probably be able to swap to a quad 18" mount
 
Hi guys, could someone springsharp a range of prospective designs using 8", 9.2", 10" and 12" (as mains), based around the hull's of TTL's Renowns and the follies?. Is just mere curiosity, and I don't have the means to do it myself.

PD: of course, the designs should include the costs of the several aspects, ie. building, crew, maintenance, etc.
 
What is a Cruiser?
What is a Cruiser?

The Royal Navy seemed to have set a new standard for cruisers with the four ships of the ‘Hawkins’ class, equipped with 7.5" guns on a displacement of slightly under 10,000 tons. With the old armoured cruisers now utterly obsolete, these were the best long-range ships available for taking on the colonial trade protection duties that the RN needed to maintain. The wartime ‘C-class’ and the four ‘D-class’ ships that had been completed were marginal in this role due to their short range, while there were also only four of the larger and faster ‘E-class’ built or under construction.
Both Japan and the USA were already building cruisers with six 8" guns, both on 7-8,000 tons. With 10,000-ton British ships with 7.5" guns in service and other 8" gunned cruisers on the way, a 10,000-ton, 8" gun limit seemed to be the minimum.

The British, however, wanted large numbers of cruisers rather than large cruisers, and offered to re-arm the Hawkins class with 6" guns, while reducing weight in armour and secondaries. This would allow a treaty limit of 6" guns and 9,000-ton ships. This time, the French and Italians agreed, but neither the Japanese nor Americans would accept the 6” gun, while both wanted a higher tonnage limit so that cruisers could act as powerful scouts and operate in the vastness of the Pacific. The American delegation countered with the suggestion of 12,500 tons and 8" guns (and were secretly willing to compromise on a lower tonnage), which would allow them to build a new ‘light battle scout’, partly to take the place of the lost ‘Lexingtons’.

Once again, there seemed little prospect of an agreement on individual ship sizes, so a ratio on overall numbers was proposed instead. A ratio of 80:60:40, with 20 for the three smaller powers was proposed, with a limit of 8" guns on all new construction. This too was rejected, as the USA again wanted parity with the UK, Japan again wanted 60% of the British total, while France also wanted more ships to assist her in protecting her own colonies.

Nevertheless, both the British and Americans recognised that in the absence of an agreement on cruisers, the entire treaty concept would fall apart, as even if limits on capital ships were agreed, nations could avoid them by building ‘large cruisers’ instead.
Negotiations focussed on what could be agreed; a limit of 8” guns, and a mechanism to prevent the Powers from engaging in an outright building war with each other. The USA and Japan still had a strong preference for large cruisers, and so a limitation on total tonnage was the only practical option.

Admiral Jellicoe’s 1918-19 survey of Imperial defence requirements weighed heavily with the British negotiators. He had suggested the Empire needed a minimum of 70 cruisers, and preferably 100, of which at least 80% should be modern types.
However, at the time of the negotiations the RN only had 49 modern cruisers either in service or building (with five more planned under the 1921 Programme). An interim plan to use a half-dozen old battleships as ‘armoured vessels’ on foreign stations would be brought to an abrupt end by the Treaty, although in practice that had little effect, as only the New Zealand and Neptune were active in 1921.
A further seven cruisers were operational in Dominion navies, and there were a few oddities in reserve, including a pair of old ‘Minotaur’ class armoured cruisers and four ‘Bristols’ that were due for scrapping. Including all these, current RN cruiser tonnage was 285,000 tons (or 340,000 tons including the planned ships and the Dominions). Allowing for the fact that most future cruisers would be larger than the 4,000-5,000-ton ships that dominated the current fleet, a figure of 400,000 tons seemed to be an irreducible minimum.

There were, however, other factors in play. American politicians wanted to be seen to deliver ‘arms limitation’ and allowing Britain to increase her existing cruiser tonnage did not fit in with that goal. It was also clear to all major powers that aircraft, either shipborne or land-based, could take over some of the traditional duties of smaller cruisers. Larger and faster modern ships should also be able to patrol wider areas, and deal with a wider range of situations than pre-war designs. Taking those factors into account, Jellicoe’s recommendation for 70 cruisers was undoubtedly higher than was now essential.

There was a suggestion that ‘light cruisers’ should be allowed, following the ‘light battleship’ principle by de-rating their tonnage. Such an agreement would clearly be in Britain’s interests, but here the Americans stood firm. Unlike a ‘light battleship’, a ‘light cruiser’ was immediately seen as a practical vessel; it could scout, it could raid, or it could act as a destroyer leader. There was therefore little merit in viewing it as a lesser warship and assigning it a tonnage reduction to compensate.
American designers saw 8” cruisers of around 10-11,000 tons as the future, and the US Navy’s total modern cruiser force consisted of just 16 ships, totalling just 116,000 tons. There was therefore plenty of room for expansion in any deal involving equality with the UK, while any ‘light cruiser’ exemption would also be of benefit to Japan.

Once again, the two leading naval powers were able to agree trade-offs that acknowledged Britain’s position and America’s political requirements. Cruisers would be limited to 8” guns and a displacement of 12,000 tons Standard, and everyone further agreed to restrict their designs to 10,000 tons, and to notify the other nations if they ever laid down a ship that exceeded this figure.
Overall cruiser tonnage limits would be:
Britain and the USA: 350,000 tons.
Japan: 235,000 tons.
Italy, France and The Netherlands: 120,000 tons.

The was a modest acknowledgement of Britain’s global requirement in that the Royal Australian Navy was recognised as a separate entity, subject to the Treaty but not a principal signatory, with an overall cruiser tonnage limit of 20,000 tons. All existing cruisers would be counted under the Treaty limits, but there would be no restrictions on the rate of new construction.

Destroyers were much simpler, and here the British took the lead. The latest British ‘Shakespeare’ class leaders seemed to be the pattern for the ocean-going destroyer of the future. Both the USA and Japan readily agreed, as earlier 1,000-ton vessels had proved incapable of operating in severe conditions. Destroyers would therefore be limited to 1,600 tons (standard). To meet a French requirement, destroyer guns would be limited to a maximum of 130mm calibre (5.12”), making this the only metric measurement explicitly listed in the entire treaty.

Submarine warfare was frequently condemned in light of the wartime German policy of ‘sink on sight’. However, attempts to ban submarines had failed in 1918 and 1919, and at Washington there was little enthusiasm for trying again. Instead, all parties agreed to restrict future construction to vessels of less than 1,500 tons submerged displacement, with guns of no more than 4” calibre. Further, no submarines would be laid down for five years, pending the results of an ‘international study into the safety, legality and effectiveness of submersible vessels’. Needless to say, the study was not pursued with any great vigour.
However, very few submarines were being built in 1921, and it was a relief to most of the contracting powers that they could avoid spending money on them for the next few years, while they worked out how best they should be built, armed and propelled.
 
Treaty Excerpt 4
ARTICLE XI

A cruiser shall be defined as any vessel of war with a standard displacement not exceeding 12,000 tons, nor carrying a gun exceeding 8 inches calibre. Any vessel exceeding either or both of these limits shall be deemed a capital ship or aircraft carrier, subject to the other Articles of the present Treaty.
The total cruiser tonnage of each of the Contracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States 350,000 tons; for Great Britain 350,000 tons; for France 120,000 tons; for Italy 120,000 tons; for the Netherlands 120,000 tons; for Japan 235,000 tons.

Any Contracting Power laying down a cruiser of more than 10,000 tons standard displacement 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.

ARTICLE XII
No vessel of war exceeding 1,600 tons standard displacement, or mounting a gun exceeding 130 millimeters (5.1 inches) other than a cruiser, capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.
 
1,600 tons seems a bit small for a destroyer, there will be no Fubuki's, Tribal's, Navigatori's, Somer's, or Contre-Torpilleurs... otherwise, the rest of the limits look good. I'm really enjoying this timeline, and plan to follow it to it's end.
 

Deleted member 94680

1,600 tons seems a bit small for a destroyer, there will be no Fubuki's, Tribal's, Navigatori's, Somer's, or Contre-Torpilleurs...

The Amazon and the Ambuscade were both well under the 1600 mark and served as the basis for all following RN destroyers. The Tribals were pretty much wartime designs (or rather built in response to fascist power’s designs intended for wartime use) so there’s time for the Treaty to lapse and then to come about.
 
What is a Cruiser?

The Royal Navy seemed to have set a new standard for cruisers with the four ships of the ‘Hawkins’ class, equipped with 7.5" guns on a displacement of slightly under 10,000 tons. With the old armoured cruisers now utterly obsolete, these were the best long-range ships available for taking on the colonial trade protection duties that the RN needed to maintain. The wartime ‘C-class’ and the four ‘D-class’ ships that had been completed were marginal in this role due to their short range, while there were also only four of the larger and faster ‘E-class’ built or under construction.
Both Japan and the USA were already building cruisers with six 8" guns, both on 7-8,000 tons. With 10,000-ton British ships with 7.5" guns in service and other 8" gunned cruisers on the way, a 10,000-ton, 8" gun limit seemed to be the minimum.

The British, however, wanted large numbers of cruisers rather than large cruisers, and offered to re-arm the Hawkins class with 6" guns, while reducing weight in armour and secondaries. This would allow a treaty limit of 6" guns and 9,000-ton ships. This time, the French and Italians agreed, but neither the Japanese nor Americans would accept the 6” gun, while both wanted a higher tonnage limit so that cruisers could act as powerful scouts and operate in the vastness of the Pacific. The American delegation countered with the suggestion of 12,500 tons and 8" guns (and were secretly willing to compromise on a lower tonnage), which would allow them to build a new ‘light battle scout’, partly to take the place of the lost ‘Lexingtons’.

Once again, there seemed little prospect of an agreement on individual ship sizes, so a ratio on overall numbers was proposed instead. A ratio of 80:60:40, with 20 for the three smaller powers was proposed, with a limit of 8" guns on all new construction. This too was rejected, as the USA again wanted parity with the UK, Japan again wanted 60% of the British total, while France also wanted more ships to assist her in protecting her own colonies.

Nevertheless, both the British and Americans recognised that in the absence of an agreement on cruisers, the entire treaty concept would fall apart, as even if limits on capital ships were agreed, nations could avoid them by building ‘large cruisers’ instead.
Negotiations focussed on what could be agreed; a limit of 8” guns, and a mechanism to prevent the Powers from engaging in an outright building war with each other. The USA and Japan still had a strong preference for large cruisers, and so a limitation on total tonnage was the only practical option.

Admiral Jellicoe’s 1918-19 survey of Imperial defence requirements weighed heavily with the British negotiators. He had suggested the Empire needed a minimum of 70 cruisers, and preferably 100, of which at least 80% should be modern types.
However, at the time of the negotiations the RN only had 49 modern cruisers either in service or building (with five more planned under the 1921 Programme). An interim plan to use a half-dozen old battleships as ‘armoured vessels’ on foreign stations would be brought to an abrupt end by the Treaty, although in practice that had little effect, as only the New Zealand and Neptune were active in 1921.
A further seven cruisers were operational in Dominion navies, and there were a few oddities in reserve, including a pair of old ‘Minotaur’ class armoured cruisers and four ‘Bristols’ that were due for scrapping. Including all these, current RN cruiser tonnage was 285,000 tons (or 340,000 tons including the planned ships and the Dominions). Allowing for the fact that most future cruisers would be larger than the 4,000-5,000-ton ships that dominated the current fleet, a figure of 400,000 tons seemed to be an irreducible minimum.

There were, however, other factors in play. American politicians wanted to be seen to deliver ‘arms limitation’ and allowing Britain to increase her existing cruiser tonnage did not fit in with that goal. It was also clear to all major powers that aircraft, either shipborne or land-based, could take over some of the traditional duties of smaller cruisers. Larger and faster modern ships should also be able to patrol wider areas, and deal with a wider range of situations than pre-war designs. Taking those factors into account, Jellicoe’s recommendation for 70 cruisers was undoubtedly higher than was now essential.

There was a suggestion that ‘light cruisers’ should be allowed, following the ‘light battleship’ principle by de-rating their tonnage. Such an agreement would clearly be in Britain’s interests, but here the Americans stood firm. Unlike a ‘light battleship’, a ‘light cruiser’ was immediately seen as a practical vessel; it could scout, it could raid, or it could act as a destroyer leader. There was therefore little merit in viewing it as a lesser warship and assigning it a tonnage reduction to compensate.
American designers saw 8” cruisers of around 10-11,000 tons as the future, and the US Navy’s total modern cruiser force consisted of just 16 ships, totalling just 116,000 tons. There was therefore plenty of room for expansion in any deal involving equality with the UK, while any ‘light cruiser’ exemption would also be of benefit to Japan.

Once again, the two leading naval powers were able to agree trade-offs that acknowledged Britain’s position and America’s political requirements. Cruisers would be limited to 8” guns and a displacement of 12,000 tons Standard, and everyone further agreed to restrict their designs to 10,000 tons, and to notify the other nations if they ever laid down a ship that exceeded this figure.
Overall cruiser tonnage limits would be:
Britain and the USA: 350,000 tons.
Japan: 235,000 tons.
Italy, France and The Netherlands: 120,000 tons.

The was a modest acknowledgement of Britain’s global requirement in that the Royal Australian Navy was recognised as a separate entity, subject to the Treaty but not a principal signatory, with an overall cruiser tonnage limit of 20,000 tons. All existing cruisers would be counted under the Treaty limits, but there would be no restrictions on the rate of new construction.

Why France is willing to accept parity with the Netherlands, nevermind Italy on an extremely limited cruiser tonnage? In OTL they refused to sign London over limitations being placed on their cruiser tonnage. Same way neither France nor Italy would be accepting the 1600t limit on destroyers, the Italians were already building the Leone class and France wanted 1750t ships and had already the former German S113 leading to the Chakal class. Then... France and Italy will accept a submarine holiday? Wasn't France wanting a large number of submarines in the first place to compensate for the fewer battleships?
 
Seriously, the Netherlands are totally upped by the treaty. Having parity with France and Italy ? Just because Germany dumped 4 battleships at them ?
They don't have the manpower to man even a third of that. And the other participants let them with the risk of Germany "buying" back this lovely fleet.

Why France is willing to accept parity with the Netherlands, nevermind Italy on an extremely limited cruiser tonnage? In OTL they refused to sign London over limitations being placed on their cruiser tonnage. Same way neither France nor Italy would be accepting the 1600t limit on destroyers, the Italians were already building the Leone class and France wanted 1750t ships and had already the former German S113 leading to the Chakal class. Then... France and Italy will accept a submarine holiday? Wasn't France wanting a large number of submarines in the first place to compensate for the fewer battleships?
Exactly. France can grudgingly accept some sort of parity with Italy (as OTL), but with the Netherlands, never.
 
Saw some of the above posts, and glanced at the 1st LNT limits, as well as OTL construction, and this really puts a cap on it.
LNT vs ATL WNT Cruiser Tonnage:

US
LNT: 323,500 total
WNT: 350,000 total

UK
LNT: 339,000 total
WNT: 350,000 total

Japan
LNT: 208,850 total
WNT: 235,000 total

France
OTL: 143,250 total
WNT: 120,000 total

Italy
OTL: 157,250 total
WNT: 120,000 total

Netherlands
OTL: 27,500 total
WNT: 120,000 total

The French and Italians are going to lose 20 and 40 thousand tons of cruisers, respectively, while the UK gets about 2 more CL's than OTL LNT allowed, and the US gets 2 more CA's than the LNT allowed. The British can accept some reduction in numbers, but not LNT reductions, while the French and Italian cruiser fleets actually shrink despite the countries being significantly wealthier TTL. Look at what the Dutch built OTL, barely 1/5 of their ATL allotment, and they will be lucky to have 1-2 cruisers in service TTL so they can man the BB's.
 
Last edited:
Top