stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2020 11:25:23 GMT
Well that's a blast from the past, the old Changing Times site, albeit its been inactive for nearly a decade. Probably read the two before and the former definitely rings a bell.
The latter isn't very realistic because the bulk of the German ships were already pretty much obsolete, at least as far as the RN was concerned after implementing the lessons from Jutland. I would suspect the two 15" BBs of the Baden class might be kept, although that means maintaining foreign ships with different needs for spares, ammo etc. Can't see any of the German older BBs or BCs being kept, although some might be passed to France and possibly Italy. Best use of the Baden's however might be how one was used OTL, for testing effects of weapons and assorted defencive systems. Also this mentions the German colonies in the Pacific being shared between Japan and the US but seems to ignore that those south of the equator ended up in chiefly Australian hands, with New Zealand and Britain taking over a few. I suspect that Australia would be as upset at handing over any to the US as Japan would be.
In terms of a failure of the WNT possibly the simplest approach might be some blow up at the treaty itself. Possibly it somehow leaks that the US has broken the Japanese codes and is listening to their communications between the delegates and diplomats in Washington and Tokyo. It might be enough, given Japanese concerns about the terms the US were seeking to force onto it and national pride could prompt Japan to walk out of the Conference. Or alternatively it leaks that the US Congress look increasingly unlikely to complete more than the 1st 4 ships any time in the next few years. I could expand on what's been said before as to how things might go from there.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2020 11:33:23 GMT
Seems Australia lost a pride (HMAS Australia - flagship of the Australian fleet, pride of the nation and the first and only capital ship of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) who i could see upgraded in the 1930s if there was no Washington Naval Treaty: A Loss More Symbolic Than Material?It also mentions a What if she was not scuttled off Sydney Heads on April 12th 1924 as part of the British quota Australia: Battlecruisers were designed with high speed, long range and heavy guns primarily to hunt down and destroy commerce raiding armoured cruisers and to interdict enemy commerce. Accompanied by a cruiser escort, a battlecruiser was capable of deterring a weaker enemy raiding force, destroying commerce raiding cruisers preying on imperial shipping, and overpowering enemy cruisers escorting convoys, and it required a disproportionate response to counter. In the vastness of the Pacific, prior to the advent of large aircraft carriers and long range high performance aircraft, a battlecruiser and escorts were relatively safe from air attack. As such, the battlecruiser provided considerable strategic reach for a navy with extensive sea lines to control. Between the wars Australia and the light cruisers could have provided a force suitable to deter any military threats against Australian interests in the Pacific, particularly the mandated territories, from Japan or the USA. It would also have provided an overt threat to Japan’s mandated territories and America’s external territories should economic or military pressure have been brought to bear on the Australian Government.
Australia would have required modernisation, involving at the minimum: new turbines and boilers to increase her speed and reduce weight, improved fire control systems, increased armour protection, main armament modification, increased secondary and anti-aircraft armament, and other minor work. In the mid 1920s this would have cost around the same as the construction of a new 8-inch gun County class heavy cruiser, but provided a more powerful capability. With only minor improvements to her armament, Australia could have delivered up to 45% greater weight of fire than a County class cruiser. Even as late as 1942, a modernised Australia would have had no less than 19% greater weight of fire than the best armed Japanese heavy cruisers and up to 69% greater weight of fire than a Japanese light cruiser. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2020 11:43:02 GMT
Seems Australia lost a pride (HMAS Australia - flagship of the Australian fleet, pride of the nation and the first and only capital ship of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) who i could see upgraded in the 1930s if there was no Washington Naval Treaty: A Loss More Symbolic Than Material?It also mentions a What if she was not scuttled off Sydney Heads on April 12th 1924 as part of the British quota Australia: Battlecruisers were designed with high speed, long range and heavy guns primarily to hunt down and destroy commerce raiding armoured cruisers and to interdict enemy commerce. Accompanied by a cruiser escort, a battlecruiser was capable of deterring a weaker enemy raiding force, destroying commerce raiding cruisers preying on imperial shipping, and overpowering enemy cruisers escorting convoys, and it required a disproportionate response to counter. In the vastness of the Pacific, prior to the advent of large aircraft carriers and long range high performance aircraft, a battlecruiser and escorts were relatively safe from air attack. As such, the battlecruiser provided considerable strategic reach for a navy with extensive sea lines to control. Between the wars Australia and the light cruisers could have provided a force suitable to deter any military threats against Australian interests in the Pacific, particularly the mandated territories, from Japan or the USA. It would also have provided an overt threat to Japan’s mandated territories and America’s external territories should economic or military pressure have been brought to bear on the Australian Government.
Australia would have required modernisation, involving at the minimum: new turbines and boilers to increase her speed and reduce weight, improved fire control systems, increased armour protection, main armament modification, increased secondary and anti-aircraft armament, and other minor work. In the mid 1920s this would have cost around the same as the construction of a new 8-inch gun County class heavy cruiser, but provided a more powerful capability. With only minor improvements to her armament, Australia could have delivered up to 45% greater weight of fire than a County class cruiser. Even as late as 1942, a modernised Australia would have had no less than 19% greater weight of fire than the best armed Japanese heavy cruisers and up to 69% greater weight of fire than a Japanese light cruiser.
That's basically the modifications that I mentioned previously. Think they were actually being suggested immediately post war. Ideally not only would this be done but the idea presented quickly enough to encourage the RN to convert the other 3 surviving I class ships. [Technically the formal name for them were Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers and it was more the press that called them Battle Cruisers, although the navy adopted the terminology during WWI but they were never intended for the role and would have been pretty good at hunting raiders as the reference mentions. Also it would avoid Australia making a major investment in improving its dock facilities as they were the largest class of ships that Australia could support at that time.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2020 12:28:20 GMT
Seems Australia lost a pride (HMAS Australia - flagship of the Australian fleet, pride of the nation and the first and only capital ship of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) who i could see upgraded in the 1930s if there was no Washington Naval Treaty: A Loss More Symbolic Than Material?It also mentions a What if she was not scuttled off Sydney Heads on April 12th 1924 as part of the British quota Australia: Battlecruisers were designed with high speed, long range and heavy guns primarily to hunt down and destroy commerce raiding armoured cruisers and to interdict enemy commerce. Accompanied by a cruiser escort, a battlecruiser was capable of deterring a weaker enemy raiding force, destroying commerce raiding cruisers preying on imperial shipping, and overpowering enemy cruisers escorting convoys, and it required a disproportionate response to counter. In the vastness of the Pacific, prior to the advent of large aircraft carriers and long range high performance aircraft, a battlecruiser and escorts were relatively safe from air attack. As such, the battlecruiser provided considerable strategic reach for a navy with extensive sea lines to control. Between the wars Australia and the light cruisers could have provided a force suitable to deter any military threats against Australian interests in the Pacific, particularly the mandated territories, from Japan or the USA. It would also have provided an overt threat to Japan’s mandated territories and America’s external territories should economic or military pressure have been brought to bear on the Australian Government.
Australia would have required modernisation, involving at the minimum: new turbines and boilers to increase her speed and reduce weight, improved fire control systems, increased armour protection, main armament modification, increased secondary and anti-aircraft armament, and other minor work. In the mid 1920s this would have cost around the same as the construction of a new 8-inch gun County class heavy cruiser, but provided a more powerful capability. With only minor improvements to her armament, Australia could have delivered up to 45% greater weight of fire than a County class cruiser. Even as late as 1942, a modernised Australia would have had no less than 19% greater weight of fire than the best armed Japanese heavy cruisers and up to 69% greater weight of fire than a Japanese light cruiser. That's basically the modifications that I mentioned previously. Think they were actually being suggested immediately post war. Ideally not only would this be done but the idea presented quickly enough to encourage the RN to convert the other 3 surviving I class ships. [Technically the formal name for them were Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers and it was more the press that called them Battle Cruisers, although the navy adopted the terminology during WWI but they were never intended for the role and would have been pretty good at hunting raiders as the reference mentions. Also it would avoid Australia making a major investment in improving its dock facilities as they were the largest class of ships that Australia could support at that time.
Even if HMAS Australia remained in service, i asume it still be outclassed by the Japanese with what they already have and what would be build if there is no Washington Naval Treaty. But if World War II still would go on i assume a Australian Fleet could look like this: Indefatigable-class battlecruiser: HMAS Australia (flagship of the Australian fleet). County-class heavy cruiser: HMAS Hobart (OTL HMAS Australia) and HMAS Canberra. Town class light cruisers: HMAS Adelaide. Leander-class light cruisers: HMAS Sydney and HMAS Perth. Seaplane tender: HMAS Albatross (not traded in to Royal Navy as part payment for HMAS Hobart OTL). Grimsby-class sloop: HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Swan, HMAS Warrego and HMAS Yarra. Admiralty type flotilla leader: HMAS Stuart. V and W-class destroyer: HMAS Vampire, HMAS Vendetta, HMAS Voyager and HMAS Waterhen |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 14, 2020 12:58:57 GMT
That's basically the modifications that I mentioned previously. Think they were actually being suggested immediately post war. Ideally not only would this be done but the idea presented quickly enough to encourage the RN to convert the other 3 surviving I class ships. [Technically the formal name for them were Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers and it was more the press that called them Battle Cruisers, although the navy adopted the terminology during WWI but they were never intended for the role and would have been pretty good at hunting raiders as the reference mentions. Also it would avoid Australia making a major investment in improving its dock facilities as they were the largest class of ships that Australia could support at that time.
Even if HMAS Australia remained in service, i asume it still be outclassed by the Japanese with what they already have and what would be build if there is no Washington Naval Treaty. But if World War II still would go on i assume a Australian Fleet could look like this: Indefatigable-class battlecruiser: HMAS Australia (flagship of the Australian fleet). County-class heavy cruiser: HMAS Hobart (OTL HMAS Australia) and HMAS Canberra. Town class light cruisers: HMAS Adelaide. Leander-class light cruisers: HMAS Sydney and HMAS Perth. Seaplane tender: HMAS Albatross (not traded in to Royal Navy as part payment for HMAS Hobart OTL). Grimsby-class sloop: HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Swan, HMAS Warrego and HMAS Yarra. Admiralty type flotilla leader: HMAS Stuart. V and W-class destroyer: HMAS Vampire, HMAS Vendetta, HMAS Voyager and HMAS Waterhen
Definitely way outclassed by the Japanese capital ships and also likely to be vulnerable to both air attack or concerted action by a group of cruisers and destroyers, similar to the Graf Spee at River Plate. However it would make it risky for the Japanese to have raiders smaller than a capital ship or for operations only escorted by heavy cruisers and the like.
Of course if no treaty then the world's going to be a lot different and the Anglo-Japanese alliance will last at least a few more years. Even if Japan still goes extremely nationalistic and you get something like WWII a hell of a lot of things will change. You might even have HMAS Australia being in the process of being replaced by a new, markedly larger and more modern capital ship and a stronger British naval and military presence either in Australia or further north in Malaya. Or possibly things go considerably different in Europe and no WWII there, either because Hitler and someone like him never rises to power or their quickly removed, say after allied intervention to prevent the re-militarisation of the Rhineland.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 14, 2020 13:01:42 GMT
Even if HMAS Australia remained in service, i asume it still be outclassed by the Japanese with what they already have and what would be build if there is no Washington Naval Treaty. But if World War II still would go on i assume a Australian Fleet could look like this: Indefatigable-class battlecruiser: HMAS Australia (flagship of the Australian fleet). County-class heavy cruiser: HMAS Hobart (OTL HMAS Australia) and HMAS Canberra. Town class light cruisers: HMAS Adelaide. Leander-class light cruisers: HMAS Sydney and HMAS Perth. Seaplane tender: HMAS Albatross (not traded in to Royal Navy as part payment for HMAS Hobart OTL). Grimsby-class sloop: HMAS Parramatta, HMAS Swan, HMAS Warrego and HMAS Yarra. Admiralty type flotilla leader: HMAS Stuart. V and W-class destroyer: HMAS Vampire, HMAS Vendetta, HMAS Voyager and HMAS Waterhen Definitely way outclassed by the Japanese capital ships and also likely to be vulnerable to both air attack or concerted action by a group of cruisers and destroyers, similar to the Graf Spee at River Plate. However it would make it risky for the Japanese to have raiders smaller than a capital ship or for operations only escorted by heavy cruisers and the like. Of course if no treaty then the world's going to be a lot different and the Anglo-Japanese alliance will last at least a few more years. Even if Japan still goes extremely nationalistic and you get something like WWII a hell of a lot of things will change. You might even have HMAS Australia being in the process of being replaced by a new, markedly larger and more modern capital ship and a stronger British naval and military presence either in Australia or further north in Malaya. Or possibly things go considerably different in Europe and no WWII there, either because Hitler and someone like him never rises to power or their quickly removed, say after allied intervention to prevent the re-militarisation of the Rhineland.
What battlecruiser in the 1930s could the British build which Australia could replace HMAS Australia with. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 15, 2020 12:04:02 GMT
Definitely way outclassed by the Japanese capital ships and also likely to be vulnerable to both air attack or concerted action by a group of cruisers and destroyers, similar to the Graf Spee at River Plate. However it would make it risky for the Japanese to have raiders smaller than a capital ship or for operations only escorted by heavy cruisers and the like. Of course if no treaty then the world's going to be a lot different and the Anglo-Japanese alliance will last at least a few more years. Even if Japan still goes extremely nationalistic and you get something like WWII a hell of a lot of things will change. You might even have HMAS Australia being in the process of being replaced by a new, markedly larger and more modern capital ship and a stronger British naval and military presence either in Australia or further north in Malaya. Or possibly things go considerably different in Europe and no WWII there, either because Hitler and someone like him never rises to power or their quickly removed, say after allied intervention to prevent the re-militarisation of the Rhineland.
What battlecruiser in the 1930s could the British build which Australia could replace HMAS Australia with.
I doubt they would go for something as large as a G3, which is technically a fast BB anyway. It might depend on how much Australia is willing to and can afford, especially in terms of upgrading its facilities to support such a ship.
Alternatively, while Singapore does seem to the the best location geographically for the major RN fleet base in the case of a war with Japan other locations were considered including at least one in Australia. Sydney IIRC although it is a bloody long way from Malaya and the important trade route through there, let alone China - important for trade purposes - and any actual fighting against Japan. However if it or some other Australian location was chosen then Australia, while it would probably be expected to make some contribution and also contribute to the costs of maintaining the base, could get a bit of a free ride there in terms of the necessary facilities which would leave more money for an actual new large warship.
A lot would also depend on what the state of relations is, with Japan and the rest of the world as potential threats elsewhere are a factor in how much the RN could commit. If Japan is still technically allied to Britain and isn't ravaging its way through China then even a larger than OTL IJN would be seen as less of a threat, especially if it has no major base south of Taiwan.
Would be guessing depending on the circumstances but probably say something like a smaller Vanguard, say 8x15" guns of a new design, 28-30kts, well protected and somewhere between 30-40ktons displacement. Or possibly if air power is starting to show signs of development they might go for a carrier force accompanied by escorts or land based air in Northern Australia, New Guinea and the like.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 15, 2020 14:13:22 GMT
What battlecruiser in the 1930s could the British build which Australia could replace HMAS Australia with. I doubt they would go for something as large as a G3, which is technically a fast BB anyway. It might depend on how much Australia is willing to and can afford, especially in terms of upgrading its facilities to support such a ship.
Alternatively, while Singapore does seem to the the best location geographically for the major RN fleet base in the case of a war with Japan other locations were considered including at least one in Australia. Sydney IIRC although it is a bloody long way from Malaya and the important trade route through there, let alone China - important for trade purposes - and any actual fighting against Japan. However if it or some other Australian location was chosen then Australia, while it would probably be expected to make some contribution and also contribute to the costs of maintaining the base, could get a bit of a free ride there in terms of the necessary facilities which would leave more money for an actual new large warship. A lot would also depend on what the state of relations is, with Japan and the rest of the world as potential threats elsewhere are a factor in how much the RN could commit. If Japan is still technically allied to Britain and isn't ravaging its way through China then even a larger than OTL IJN would be seen as less of a threat, especially if it has no major base south of Taiwan. Would be guessing depending on the circumstances but probably say something like a smaller Vanguard, say 8x15" guns of a new design, 28-30kts, well protected and somewhere between 30-40ktons displacement. Or possibly if air power is starting to show signs of development they might go for a carrier force accompanied by escorts or land based air in Northern Australia, New Guinea and the like.
So how much would Australia need to pay to get a G3, a G3 would be more modern than HMAS Australia, an Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, also i assume that upgrading HMAS Australia would also cost something. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 15, 2020 15:50:24 GMT
I doubt they would go for something as large as a G3, which is technically a fast BB anyway. It might depend on how much Australia is willing to and can afford, especially in terms of upgrading its facilities to support such a ship.
Alternatively, while Singapore does seem to the the best location geographically for the major RN fleet base in the case of a war with Japan other locations were considered including at least one in Australia. Sydney IIRC although it is a bloody long way from Malaya and the important trade route through there, let alone China - important for trade purposes - and any actual fighting against Japan. However if it or some other Australian location was chosen then Australia, while it would probably be expected to make some contribution and also contribute to the costs of maintaining the base, could get a bit of a free ride there in terms of the necessary facilities which would leave more money for an actual new large warship. A lot would also depend on what the state of relations is, with Japan and the rest of the world as potential threats elsewhere are a factor in how much the RN could commit. If Japan is still technically allied to Britain and isn't ravaging its way through China then even a larger than OTL IJN would be seen as less of a threat, especially if it has no major base south of Taiwan. Would be guessing depending on the circumstances but probably say something like a smaller Vanguard, say 8x15" guns of a new design, 28-30kts, well protected and somewhere between 30-40ktons displacement. Or possibly if air power is starting to show signs of development they might go for a carrier force accompanied by escorts or land based air in Northern Australia, New Guinea and the like.
So how much would Australia need to pay to get a G3, a G3 would be more modern than HMAS Australia, an Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, also i assume that upgrading HMAS Australia would also cost something.
Well the sort of I class upgrade I was reading about would be a little less than one of the new 82 country class cruisers than were produced OTL. Can't find a quick reference to their price but OTL Australia bought two of them so the upgrade would be quite possible.
In terms of a newer and much larger ship it would depend on the circumstances. Including the economy in Australia and the international tensions. One of the guys on the BB V BB site, who is Australian said that the Australian government did approach the UK government on constructing several more ships which Australia would pay for, which may have included some sort of BB but the British government possibly concerned about the overload the shipyards were already suffering from or possibly too complacent about appeasement working didn't following up the approach. I think if they felt threatened enough Australia would find the money, although it might be politically controversial. Apart from the ship itself it would strengthen ties to Britain and hence the political incentive even further for Britain to come to Australia's aid if it was attacked.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 15, 2020 15:55:12 GMT
So how much would Australia need to pay to get a G3, a G3 would be more modern than HMAS Australia, an Indefatigable-class battlecruiser, also i assume that upgrading HMAS Australia would also cost something. Well the sort of I class upgrade I was reading about would be a little less than one of the new 82 country class cruisers than were produced OTL. Can't find a quick reference to their price but OTL Australia bought two of them so the upgrade would be quite possible. In terms of a newer and much larger ship it would depend on the circumstances. Including the economy in Australia and the international tensions. One of the guys on the BB V BB site, who is Australian said that the Australian government did approach the UK government on constructing several more ships which Australia would pay for, which may have included some sort of BB but the British government possibly concerned about the overload the shipyards were already suffering from or possibly too complacent about appeasement working didn't following up the approach. I think if they felt threatened enough Australia would find the money, although it might be politically controversial. Apart from the ship itself it would strengthen ties to Britain and hence the political incentive even further for Britain to come to Australia's aid if it was attacked.
A battleship in service with the RAN would definitely give a signal to Japan that Australia was ready to protect itself even without the RN helping them. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 16, 2020 12:08:17 GMT
Well the sort of I class upgrade I was reading about would be a little less than one of the new 82 country class cruisers than were produced OTL. Can't find a quick reference to their price but OTL Australia bought two of them so the upgrade would be quite possible. In terms of a newer and much larger ship it would depend on the circumstances. Including the economy in Australia and the international tensions. One of the guys on the BB V BB site, who is Australian said that the Australian government did approach the UK government on constructing several more ships which Australia would pay for, which may have included some sort of BB but the British government possibly concerned about the overload the shipyards were already suffering from or possibly too complacent about appeasement working didn't following up the approach. I think if they felt threatened enough Australia would find the money, although it might be politically controversial. Apart from the ship itself it would strengthen ties to Britain and hence the political incentive even further for Britain to come to Australia's aid if it was attacked.
A battleship in service with the RAN would definitely give a signal to Japan that Australia was ready to protect itself even without the RN helping them.
Well it would last long against a powerful IJN force but it would force the Japanese to commit such a force to operations around Australia.
Alternatively they might be better off, depending on how things develop and their aims, to build a fair number of subs, minelayers and land based a/c. But that might be using too much hindsight and wouldn't have the same political and diplomatic impact.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 16, 2020 12:12:03 GMT
A battleship in service with the RAN would definitely give a signal to Japan that Australia was ready to protect itself even without the RN helping them. Well it would last long against a powerful IJN force but it would force the Japanese to commit such a force to operations around Australia.
Alternatively they might be better off, depending on how things develop and their aims, to build a fair number of subs, minelayers and land based a/c. But that might be using too much hindsight and wouldn't have the same political and diplomatic impact.
But then again, so would Japan have a stronger navy then OTL if there is no Washington Naval Treaty. Doubt New Zeeland would field ore need a battlecruiser, it most likely will be to personal consuming for them i guess. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 16, 2020 12:34:55 GMT
Well it would last long against a powerful IJN force but it would force the Japanese to commit such a force to operations around Australia.
Alternatively they might be better off, depending on how things develop and their aims, to build a fair number of subs, minelayers and land based a/c. But that might be using too much hindsight and wouldn't have the same political and diplomatic impact.
But then again, so would Japan have a stronger navy then OTL if there is no Washington Naval Treaty. Doubt New Zeeland would field ore need a battlecruiser, it most likely will be to personal consuming for them i guess.
Japan is likely to have a larger fleet than OTL since its going to produce more of its 8:8 programme, at least until the economy folds. However even if they still go heavily militaristic which is a definite possibility but not certain, how much new ships they build before a possibly new naval race in the late 30's I wouldn't know. Their unlikely to have the same CV strength and experience. However definitely Australia can't really oppose Japan at sea.
New Zealand OTL purchased a I class 'battlecruiser' before WWI as did Australia but presented it to the RN as it would be too costly for the country to man and operate it themselves. Unlikely to change greatly in the short term. I have considered the idea in such a run up to war without the treaties you might get the two combined to purchase a larger warship, call it Southern Cross say, which would be operated either by Australia or Britain.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,368
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 16, 2020 12:46:19 GMT
But then again, so would Japan have a stronger navy then OTL if there is no Washington Naval Treaty. Doubt New Zeeland would field ore need a battlecruiser, it most likely will be to personal consuming for them i guess. Japan is likely to have a larger fleet than OTL since its going to produce more of its 8:8 programme, at least until the economy folds. However even if they still go heavily militaristic which is a definite possibility but not certain, how much new ships they build before a possibly new naval race in the late 30's I wouldn't know. Their unlikely to have the same CV strength and experience. However definitely Australia can't really oppose Japan at sea. That is the problem with Japan, will they stop when they know they can not compete with the United States ore will they go on despite not able to fund it. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,976
Likes: 5,840
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 16, 2020 15:15:23 GMT
There were extensive discussions regarding Australia ordering a battleship in the 1930s.
Going for something Vanguardesque as Steve suggests would be one quick option. The best option would be one of the repeat G3s likely ordered in the early-mid 1930s. It would be called Australia for the RAN or New Zealand for the RNZN; the level of change involved in the latter prospect is significant.
Japan's plans were that tightly stretched in @ that any significant changes to British rearmament and deployment could put a major spanner in their works.
In general, without a WNT, Japan is in a world of hurt; the USN is bound in chains of gold with quite obsolete capital ships; and the RN has at least 4 G3s as the best capital ships in the world rather than 2 Nelsons. Slower work on the N3s would replace the Revenge class by the end of the 1920s and then we enter into the territory of conjecture.
|
|
