Naval arms race 1918-1923

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author

Comment

E F Draaijers

Naval arms race 1918-1923

Lead

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 250

( 5-Jul-2008 19:46:19)

What if the Washington Treaty had not been aproved by the signing powers? What if the projected vessels were actually build, according to plan? What would World War 2 have looked like? In this case, economical restrictions are considered non existing. (altough reality was different.)

In this case it would mean:
- UK keeps its WW1 fleet more or less intact and can construct the projected 4 G-3 and four N-3 class ships, as well as HMS Nelson and Rodney.
- USA keeps WW1 fleet more or less intact and can construct the projected 6 Lexingtons and 6 South Dakota's plus the USS Washington
- Japan keeps its WW1 fleet more or less intact and can construct the projected 2 Kaga's 4 Amagi's, 4 Kii's and 4 No-13's.
- France keeps the Dantons and can construct the 6 Normandie, 4 Lille and 4 battlescruisers projected.
- Italy keeps all its surviving Dreadnoughts and can construct the four Francesco Caracciolo class superdreadnoughts. It also keeps the captured Austrian Tegetthoff.
- Minor naval powers build accordingly what was planned innitially.

With many more battleships around, WW2 might have looked different at sea, as the need to develop airpower at sea became less important for most, if not all powers. (besides the five ships actually converted into carriers naturely.) With very large old gun vessels as the main strangth in the fleets, war at sea might have looked different from reality.
- Main focus in this topic is: What would Germany do to overcome these extreme differences, after canceling Versailles, after the rise to power of the NSDAP?
- What could Japan have done to be succesfull in WW2 with these changes? (2 large carriers less at Pearl Harbour?)
- What would the impact have been of a Dutch East Indies battlefleet present in the Java Sea?
- How would the armsrace locally (Mediterenean Sea) have evolved?

StevoJH

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 250

( 6-Jul-2008 17:08:59)

The Nelsons would not have been built and the KGV's would have had 16" guns, probably in triple turrets. (Actually they'd never have been built because any battleships would have been follow ons from the N3/G3's).

Oh, and i doubt the RN would have kept hold of any of its old coal burners, unless they were held in reserve similar to Iron Duke etc.

Last Edited By: StevoJH 6-Jul-2008 17:11:07. Edited 1 times.

NoOneFamous

[-]

Posts: 1336

( 6-Jul-2008 23:52:18)

WHere would they have gotten the money to build these wonderful ships?

Getz

[-]

Posts: 408

( 7-Jul-2008 14:49:36)

Well, The Japanese would certainly run out of money before the 8-8 program was completed, irrespective of the Kanto quake. It is highly unlikely that Congress would have funded the completion of the USN's 1916 program although I wouldn't like to guess exactly how many ships would have hit the water. Meanwhile, while the funds for all four G3's had been gathered, I very much doubt the N3's would have been constructed if the US and Japanese didn't complete their own programs.

Simon Harley

[-]

Posts: 6

( 7-Jul-2008 22:48:35)

Finding money is always easy - paying it back is the difficult part. The RN had already placed the orders for the G3s at the time of Washington if my memory of Campbell's WARSHIP articles is right, so they would have been a reality - whether the N3s would have been ordered is a different matter. "One" of the reasons the Washington Conference was called was because the Republican administration wanted to opt out of the massive building programme Wilson and his admirals had commenced. Had Hughes not pulled the ratios out of his hat and the conference led to nothing, it's hardly likely that the American public would stand the burden of twelve monster ships and I don't think the majority of the Republican Party would have either. Whether Japan could have sustained her eight-eight programme without feeling the need to expand prematurely into China or submit to a revolt of some sort. Those are my largely unsourced views anyway... With regards to your hypothetical situation I daresay WWII wouldn't have occurred if so many navies had dreadnoughts literally lying around the place. It would be like the Cold War with "Big Guns" or am I just exaggerating? Another hypothetical to add in is that immediately after the war the RN regains control of the RNAS and not the "Fleet Air Arm", thus retaining what lead it had at the end of the conflict, possibly to expand on it. All good fun! Simon

binder001.forumonwar

more newer ships, less older ones

[-]

Registered Member

Posts: 4

( 9-Jul-2008 21:55:45)

Given that the great naval race runs to completion and given that the spending wouldn't likely prevent the Great Depression you would still see naval cutbacks due to budgets and less by treaty. Carriers were a coming thing, even before the end of WW1. They were then and probably would be seen in the "alternate reality" as scouting and support vessels for the battle fleet. Without the extra hulls the large carriers might be slower in coming. If the Depression still hit hard then many ships would have been laid up for economic reasons, obviously the older ones first. So if we allow a political theme similar to our reality then there would have been pacifist movements who vowed never to let another world war happen as well as isolationists and fiscal conservatives. End result MIGHT be that WW2 still happens, but the initial ships available are the South Dakotas, Lexingtons, Colorados, New Mexicos, etc, but the historical Texas, Arkansas, Nevada, etc would have been razor blade fodder. Same for the Warspite and some of the R-classes - the newer ships would have taken their places. If the larger fleets were built, then what of the cruisers and escorts? The US had lots of 4-pipers laying around from WW1. I don't know about the other navies. If the larger battlefleets were built earlier would there have been the number of fairly modern, or at least adequate, "Treaty cruisers" that the US, Britain and Japan used so frequently in WW2?

The original post asked about the German response after the NSDAP take over. They were still way behind the curve whether their enemies had 1916-vintage BBs or 1925 ones. Personally I don't see a lot of change there. Raeder would still be lobbying for the 1944-plan battlefleet, "Fat Herman" would want total control of anything with wings, so the submarine would be the weapon of choice to get anything done.

As far as WW2 combat goes, I guess I don't see a lot of difference brought on by some aging BBs being present in larger numbers unless they totally hindered further development of CVs. If the CV still matured as a scouting vessel and adjunct to the battlefleet then some smart aviator would eventually get enough of them together to affect the outcome of a fleet action. If not Pearl Harbor then the attrition of the US battleline as it approached the Phillipines, or we would have newreels of the Amagi rolling over after an air attack by US carrier aircraft.

Just MHO
Gary

NewGolconda

[-]

Posts: 3478

(10-Jul-2008 01:03:13)

Commonwealth Moderator

Costs

Construction costs of battleships are only a portion of the total costs of building a large navy. A large portion, in times of a naval building race but still only a portion.

In 1939, the RN assessed the annualised ownership costs of various naval vessels. 35Kton battleships came in at just over 700,000 pounds a year, or which just over 300,000 was the construction cost divided by the anticipated years in service.

RN budgets through the nineteen twenties were roughly 60 million pounds per annum. The addition of the G3's and the N3's through the 1920's adds something like an additional 80 million pounds of construction expenditure (65m if you leave out the Nelsons) into a decade where naval expenditure was already something like 500 million pounds puts the question more into context - ie could the British government afford to increase naval expenditure in the 1920's by 15%? Or by 7%, and making sacrifices in other areas of naval expenditure?

Now if you want to talk expensive, lets discuss 6 new 22,000 tons carriers, with 100 aircraft air groups, and a couple of spare air groups on shore, as well as the necessary training and support infrastructure.

Navies are expensive, and there is a limit on possible naval expenditure at any one time. In the case of the US and UK in the early 1920's, that limit was political will.

RN costs supplied by Chatfield, via David Chessum.

Capital Ship 310,000 34,500 307,500 54,800 706,800 (NELSON Class) (100%)

Cruiser, Large 187,000 23,000 93,600 20,000 323,600 (45.7%)

Cruiser, Small 130,000 23,000 57,500 14,900 225,400 (31.8%)

Aircraft Carrier 255,000 414,000 202,500 22,500, 894,000, (36 A/C) (126.5%)

Aircraft Carrier 160,000 172,500 162,500 19,500, 514,500, (15 A/C) (72.7%)

Destroyer Flotilla 332,000 - 181,800 14,500, 528,300, (J. Class-8 Vessels) (75%)

Submarine (1000 tons) 39,800 - 25,700 (e) 65,500, (9.25%)

NOTES
(a) Maintenance covers the pay, victualling and miscellaneous
expenses of the personnel, naval stores, fuel and armament stores
consumed, and the cost of annual docking and repair.
(b) The figure for aircraft covers cost of replacing equipment
(assumed life-5 years) plus annual cost of maintenance of
personnel and material chargeable to Vote 4. It has been assumed
that Capital Ships would carry 3 aircraft and Cruisers 2 aircraft.
(c) This figure represents the capital cost of building the ship
divided by its 'life'. The lives assumed are:-
Capital Ships 26 years
Carriers 20 years
Cruisers 23 1/2 years
Destroyers 22 years
Submarines 14 years
(d) Large repairs take place about the ninth year of the ship's
life. In the case of a Capital Ship, a second large repair takes
place about the eighteenth year. The figure taken for this column
represents the aggregate cost of large repair(s) divided by the
vessel's life as scheduled under (c). The actual cost of large
repair is, for the most part, conjectural as little or no
experience has been gained of these vessels.
(e) Submarines are not subjected to 'Large Repairs'. The average
annual cost of all repairs and of periodic renewal of batteries is
reflected in column (a).

GENERAL
The 'Maintenance Costs' make no allowance for the non-effective
liability of the personnel borne, which does not mature until
years later. But if, as should be the case, it may be assumed that
the reduction of any particular vessel enables a consequent
reduction to be made in Vote A, there would be an eventual saving
to the non-effective votes.

Last Edited By: NewGolconda 10-Jul-2008 01:18:34. Edited 1 times.

ickysdad

Also on costs...

[-]

Posts: 3188

(10-Jul-2008 08:39:26)

NewGolconda,
I know I seen it somewhere that when that one U-boat sank the Aboukir, Cressy & Hogue in 1914 the RN was paying for that for almost the rest of the 20th. century because 1200 men died in those sinkings and they had dependents that had to be taken care of. I guess sometimes we forget just how expensive armed forces are and you can a alot of little things into thier costs.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Naval arms race 1918-1923

Naval arms race 1918-1923

Quick Reply