Earlier Colorado/slow Iowa and Different Washington naval treaty

Any educated guess the earliest possible commission of a ship with 16in naval gun like the Colorado or Nagato regardless of what nation? Can the builders and designers also have a foresight of making the armor of capable withstanding 16in naval guns?

Would this be possible commissioned before Battle of Jutland? If not what date is the earliest possible for 16in gun? 16 in gun + anti 16in gun armor like Iowa without the need of the Speed of Iowa?

Re: Washington naval treaty, would the British and USA allow any of the great power nation to have more aircraft carrier tonnage but less total tonnage than them?

Just an Example :

Britiain or USA 525/135
Great Power A 70/270
Great Power B 140/135

If anyone of you would have the insight of the British and the USA back then, much appreciated.
 
Well,
Any educated guess the earliest possible commission of a ship with 16in naval gun like the Colorado or Nagato regardless of what nation?
16" ships,
Nagato Laid down 28 August 1917
Maryland LD 24 April 1917
You could maybe get earlier as,
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
The final installment of "Standard Battleships" was the Colorado (BB-45) class which were armed with the new 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 1. This weapon promised twice the muzzle energy of the 12"/50 (30.5 cm) and a 50% improvement over the 14"/45 (35.6 cm). This larger gun was designed in August 1913 and the prototype, known simply as the "Type Gun (45 Cal.)" in an apparent effort to conceal its true size, was proof fired less than a year later in July 1914. Some minor changes were found to be necessary, and the gun was re-proved in May 1916. The results of these tests were considered to be quite successful and production was approved in January 1917.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]from Navweps

So if the USN was willing to order them off the drawing boards like the RN 15" gun then you could have them earlier. (as long as they still work, not sue how much they changed between 1914 and 1916 ?)
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The design of this (15") weapon was largely based upon the 13.5"/45 (34.3 cm) Mark V and it was rushed into production, bypassing the normal - and lengthy - prototype stage. This shortened design cycle was approved by the Director of Naval Ordnance, Rear Admiral Archibald Moore, who staked his "professional existence" on its success. The reason for this rushed procedure was to allow what became the Queen Elizabeth class battleships to be armed with larger guns than would have otherwise been possible.[/FONT]
As to the, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Re: Washington naval treaty, would the British and USA allow any of the great power nation to have more aircraft carrier tonnage but less total tonnage than them?[/FONT]
I cant see a reason for it,
- Nobody had sufficient existing CVs to need the extra tonnage (all early CVs are way to small)
- Everybody rated Battleships as the most important ships over CVs(+others)
- All the treaty's (WNT/LNT/2LNT/AGNT) gave roughly similar limits for each lower category (CV/CA/...) sometimes they changed from 60% to 70% but not from 13.33% to 200% as Power A case.

If anyone of you would have the insight of the British and the USA back then, much appreciated.
They wanted to save as much money as they could and cut as far as they thought was safe v who they regarded as likely opponents.
 
I cant see a reason for it,
- Nobody had sufficient existing CVs to need the extra tonnage (all early CVs are way to small)
- Everybody rated Battleships as the most important ships over CVs(+others)
- All the treaty's (WNT/LNT/2LNT/AGNT) gave roughly similar limits for each lower category (CV/CA/...) sometimes they changed from 60% to 70% but not from 13.33% to 200% as Power A case.

Would it be possible to rate the CVs as important as submarines back then?

Would the French or any other nation have to foresight to predict the importance of CVs as part of the Jeune École doctrine back then?

Thanks again.
 
Would it be possible to rate the CVs as important as submarines back then?

Would the French or any other nation have to foresight to predict the importance of CVs as part of the Jeune École doctrine back then?
.

The technology and tactics weren't there in the early 20s to make that possible or practical.

Like, if the Sopwith Cuckoo had seen combat in WWI it might've given some merit to the idea that carriers were useful for something other than reconnoissance, but well, the Tondern raid didn't really leave much of an impression in policymakers heads.

Also, Carriers don't work as a part of a Jeune Ecole sort of fleet. They need protection, and ideally work best as part of a battle group, which means you're now dealing with a proper fleet going around, instead of a bunch of lone wolf commerce raiders.
 
18" early...

Heck with 16" guns--the British deployed a decent 18" gun in 1917. http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_18-40_mk1.htm

In other circumstances, they could have built a battleship suitable for mounting the gun--perhaps in three two gun turrets. (Six guns instead of 4 made a huge difference in actually getting hits...)

So, by 1920 or thereabouts (The British could build ships FAST when pressed) there could be a heavy superdreadnought with 6 20" guns--a huge ship indeed, but one that no one could ignore.
 
Top