Remember the Rainbow: An Alternate Royal Canadian Navy TL

It could not of been a sudden thing but a result of Britain utilizing Canadian Navy to supplement its own ships in the Caribbean during WW1. At end of war a decision is made due to high British debt accumulated during war that the Caribbean colonies be jointly administered and protected by the Canadians. There would of been opposition especially by politicians from Quebec but slowly over the next decade greater interaction and even greater movement of people between Canada and British Caribbean occurs. British still looked at everyone outside the British Isles as colonials. If a Canadian presence provides a direct benefit to both the Canadians (Pride and trade) and investment and markets for the Caribbean islands it could of worked. Racial issues would of existed but I believe that all the colonies were under the control of British Europeans at the time and Africans and East Indians

While I am discussing the political side I am interested in Naval and military side. Even trying to give Canada a reason to keep its Air Craft Carriers after WWII.

That sounds a more reasonable, I’ll look into it. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it I’ll just say I’m looking to improve the RCN quite a deal in the interwar period.
 
if British Empire where in 1932 as part of the Britain granting greater powers to the dominions Canada would assume administration of the British Carribean colonies including Bermuda. This would thrust the Canadian Navy in new spotlight and new roles.
I would also raise that LNT might be a bit different if Canada was like Australia/NZ funding its own cruisers?
 
I would also raise that LNT might be a bit different if Canada was like Australia/NZ funding its own cruisers?

Maybe not having the Dominion navies count toward Britain's total tonnage.

It's a very slippery slope potentially adjusting LNT tonnage figures. If Britain gains increased tonnage, so does everybody else. That could potentially mean different designs or more ships than OTL, which opens up a massive butterfly of a mess for an AU TL. I highly doubt the Dominion navies would be allowed exemption and their own tonnage just because they are effectively British puppets in the eyes of the world naval communities. If the precedence is set, what's stopping the US/other nations from asking for it's own territories/colonies to have their own tonnage as well? Potentially a very big can of worms.
 
It's a very slippery slope potentially adjusting LNT tonnage figures. If Britain gains increased tonnage, so does everybody else. That could potentially mean different designs or more ships than OTL, which opens up a massive butterfly of a mess for an AU TL. I highly doubt the Dominion navies would be allowed exemption and their own tonnage just because they are effectively British puppets in the eyes of the world naval communities. If the precedence is set, what's stopping the US/other nations from asking for it's own territories/colonies to have their own tonnage as well? Potentially a very big can of worms.
Agreed but if RCN has built or bought at least as many cruisers as RAN them at a minimum LNT would need to give RN a couple more CAs and more likely that GB would insist on its desire for more CLs as well knowing that at least 6-10 will be paid for by the dominions? This then increases everybody's totals unless
some special rule is applied?

ie ITTL,
CAs 4 (counties), RAN x2 RCN x2
CLs 8x (excluding old WWI) Leander x3 RAN, Leander x3 RCN, Leander NZ x2
Note that RCN buying more might increase others as well, a HMS Singapore etc?
 
This leaves aside what the suitable forces would be for Canada in the 1920s....
It would not likely be the cruiser-heavy force that Aus and NZ would want.
What would it be?
 
This leaves aside what the suitable forces would be for Canada in the 1920s....
It would not likely be the cruiser-heavy force that Aus and NZ would want.
What would it be?
This hits the problem that Canada is perfectly safe behind GB/US and cant realistically build a force to fight them?

Options go for long range trade protection (that can also suport the RN or USN) would in 20s be county class CAs say one for each coast?

My other thoughts would be something sufficiently small to pass up to the Great lakes (not sure of the lock sizes in 20s/30s) could an early Castle-class corvette do it? So they could have an entire flotilla based in 8 Canadian cities for local militia style force?
 
This hits the problem that Canada is perfectly safe behind GB/US and cant realistically build a force to fight them?

Options go for long range trade protection (that can also suport the RN or USN) would in 20s be county class CAs say one for each coast?

My other thoughts would be something sufficiently small to pass up to the Great lakes (not sure of the lock sizes in 20s/30s) could an early Castle-class corvette do it? So they could have an entire flotilla based in 8 Canadian cities for local militia style force?
The treaty that ended the War of 1812 effectively bans warships on the Great Lakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
 
The treaty that ended the War of 1812 effectively bans warships on the Great Lakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush–Bagot_Treaty
Would post WWI it not be easy to accept OTL post WWII "in 1946, Canada similarly proposed to interpret the agreement as permitting using ships for training purposes if each country notified the other." especially as USN could match RCN with its own training depot ships near US cities and anyway Canada isn't realistically going to attack US outside of budget proposals....?

Simply disarming them to something like a single 4" guns (and a couple of DCs) would match provisions for not counting ships agreed already in WNT/LNT?
 
They could still build warships on the Lakes - but were limited to one per lake, armed with a single 6-pounder. Lock sizes were a bit too small to allow even Bangors to be built in WWII, IIRC. They built a few but had to take them out via US canals because the Seaway was not big enough at the time.

I suspect that the cruiser thing would in fact have been most of Canada's interwar needs: to make Atlantic-ranged participation in any Empire requirements. Then local patrol and coastal coverage: maybe accept Empire responsibilities for patrolling Nfld/Labrador and Canada's near north.
 
Would post WWI it not be easy to accept OTL post WWII "in 1946, Canada similarly proposed to interpret the agreement as permitting using ships for training purposes if each country notified the other." especially as USN could match RCN with its own training depot ships near US cities and anyway Canada isn't realistically going to attack US outside of budget proposals....?

Simply disarming them to something like a single 4" guns would match provisions for not counting ships agreed already in WNT/LNT

Both countries like the treaty, as a backstop. They are free to negotiate temporary exemptions.
 
This hits the problem that Canada is perfectly safe behind GB/US and cant realistically build a force to fight them?

Options go for long range trade protection (that can also suport the RN or USN) would in 20s be county class CAs say one for each coast?

My other thoughts would be something sufficiently small to pass up to the Great lakes (not sure of the lock sizes in 20s/30s) could an early Castle-class corvette do it? So they could have an entire flotilla based in 8 Canadian cities for local militia style force?

This is effectively the view of most Canadians at the time of this timeline. Why should we invest in a navy if Britain is going to protect us?

I do have a slight feeling that such a view might run into some opposition during a certain war that is coming up. As for post WWI, stay tuned, I'll be getting to it eventually so I don't want to spoil anything.
 
I do have a slight feeling that such a view might run into some opposition during a certain war that is coming up. As for post WWI, stay tuned, I'll be getting to it eventually so I don't want to spoil anything.
Most fun for the treaties would be something like RCN buying with cash two of the surviving DACs (Inflexible and Indomitable) in 1920 as protection from a repeat of a cruiser bombardment of Vancouver....?

Come WNT Canada will simply tell GB it can buy them back (post Canadian refit cost) if it wants them scraped or....... GB goes back to US and insists they are clearly only ACs and therefore exempted, not sure it would work? (RAN does the same)
 
Most fun for the treaties would be something like RCN buying with cash two of the surviving DACs (Inflexible and Indomitable) in 1920 as protection from a repeat of a cruiser bombardment of Vancouver....?

Come WNT Canada will simply tell GB it can buy them back (post Canadian refit cost) if it wants them scraped or....... GB goes back to US and insists they are clearly only ACs and therefore exempted, not sure it would work? (RAN does the same)

If the Canadians would operate capital ships, I somehow doubt they would turn to purchase two of the largest death traps remaining in the Royal Navy that by post war, are unable to effectively chase cruisers. If we see Canada with a capital ship or ships at all, it would likely be a much more modern ship or something else entirely. I'd think you would have to do an awful lot of arguing to retain a questionably effective pair of ships alongside HMAS Australia.
 
If the Canadians would operate capital ships, I somehow doubt they would turn to purchase two of the largest death traps remaining in the Royal Navy that by post war, are unable to effectively chase cruisers. If we see Canada with a capital ship or ships at all, it would likely be a much more modern ship or something else entirely. I'd think you would have to do an awful lot of arguing to retain a questionably effective pair of ships alongside HMAS Australia.
They might be death traps agaisnt 1st rate opposition but they would easily kill any cruiser with minimal refitting and would be available very cheap in 1919 as RN was thinking of scraping them..... for coastal defence agaisnt anything apart from USN they would be fine.
 
They might be death traps agaisnt 1st rate opposition but they would easily kill any cruiser with minimal refitting and would be available very cheap in 1919 as RN was thinking of scraping them..... for coastal defence agaisnt anything apart from USN they would be fine.

Kill any cruiser if they could catch them, sure however by the end of WWI and entering the interwar period, cruiser speeds are increasing drastically. Both ships would also need to be reconditioned to repair the wear and stress of over 10 years of service, through wartime conditions as well. If you successfully navigate the political minefields to even have them kept, you are essentially left with two very big and crew intensive 1st generation battlecruisers that only have a firepower advantage over potential foes.

Screenshot_1606.png


Invincible's armor scheme is extremely poor even considering the parts of the ship that are protected. I also somehow doubt GB could argue that successfully given we're talking about the ship and nation that coined the term "battlecruiser".
 
Kill any cruiser if they could catch them, sure however by the end of WWI and entering the interwar period, cruiser speeds are increasing drastically. Both ships would also need to be reconditioned to repair the wear and stress of over 10 years of service, through wartime conditions as well. If you successfully navigate the political minefields to even have them kept, you are essentially left with two very big and crew intensive 1st generation battlecruisers that only have a firepower advantage over potential foes.
...Invincible's armor scheme is extremely poor even considering the parts of the ship that are protected. I also somehow doubt GB could argue that successfully given we're talking about the ship and nation that coined the term "battlecruiser".
I doubt any treaty era cruiser would want to fight even a slightly modernized I class, 6x 12" (post war) shells will hurt a lot with any good director and 6"belt/1.5" deck isn't bad by CA standards.....

The coal would be replaced with an oil TDS along with the new boilers......
 
Top