lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 21, 2020 19:57:59 GMT
I think you might be right. Also do you know what French ore Italian ships where canceled due the Washington Naval Treaty, i know about the American,British and Japanese ships that where cancelled, but not the French ore Italians if they had any ships being build ore planned to be build. I'll have to consult my sources for the French and Italian programs, but as I recall, France's 1913 program was suspended by the war. Those plans include the Normandie battleships (12 x 13.4in/34cm) and I think the Lyon battleships (16 x 13.4in/34cm). The latter were cancelled by the war but the Normandies were still on the stocks when the treaty was signed. IIRC, it had been decided they would be too expensive to complete such an old design at the end of World War I (1918? 1919?), but they were not formally cancelled until the 1922 program. Recall too that the French Parliament balked at spending money on capital ships several times in the 1920s until finally approving funds for Dunquerque. Italy had the four Francesco Caracciolo class battleships, a 1913 design laid down in 1914, on the stocks from the war, but none were completed. IIRC, only Caracciolo was launched, and was eventually sold for merchant service but wound up being scrapped. There were some plans to convert her to a carrier in the 20s. I do not think Caracciolos nor Normandies were mentioned by the Washington Treaty in 'ships to be disposed of' nor 'ships to be retained', so I don't think the treaty can be blamed for the demise of either class. My thoughts, So only the United States, United Kingdom and Japan had any ship either being build, converted into a carrier ore planned when the treaty went into effect. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 22, 2020 0:41:08 GMT
So only the United States, United Kingdom and Japan had any ship either being build, converted into a carrier ore planned when the treaty went into effect. That is the way it looks.
I checked the text of the treaty, and in 'ships to be disposed of' France and Italy have none noted.
For the USN For the RN For the IJN Bearne was of course converted to a carrier by France, but I think she fell under the experimental part of the treat.
Text over at NavWeaps
Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 22, 2020 9:09:12 GMT
So only the United States, United Kingdom and Japan had any ship either being build, converted into a carrier ore planned when the treaty went into effect. That is the way it looks.
I checked the text of the treaty, and in 'ships to be disposed of' France and Italy have none noted.
For the USN For the RN For the IJN Bearne was of course converted to a carrier by France, but I think she fell under the experimental part of the treat.
Text over at NavWeaps
Regards, Thanks for the information 1bigrich. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 22, 2020 13:18:12 GMT
So only the United States, United Kingdom and Japan had any ship either being build, converted into a carrier ore planned when the treaty went into effect. That is the way it looks.
I checked the text of the treaty, and in 'ships to be disposed of' France and Italy have none noted.
For the USN For the RN For the IJN Bearne was of course converted to a carrier by France, but I think she fell under the experimental part of the treat.
Text over at NavWeaps
Regards,
Had to think for a minute what the numbers related to then realised their the number of years they had been in service. The [0] for those ships being under construction being the main give away  . Thanks for the list.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 22, 2020 13:25:35 GMT
That is the way it looks.
I checked the text of the treaty, and in 'ships to be disposed of' France and Italy have none noted.
For the USN For the RN For the IJN Bearne was of course converted to a carrier by France, but I think she fell under the experimental part of the treat.
Text over at NavWeaps
Regards, Had to think for a minute what the numbers related to then realised their the number of years they had been in service. The [0] for those ships being under construction being the main give away . Thanks for the list. Steve
Seeing that Colorado-class battleship USS Washington (BB-47) construction work ceased on the 75.9%-completed superdreadnought and being the only one of Colorado-class not to enter into service, is there not a battleship that could be scrapped instead so she could enter into service. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 22, 2020 16:19:19 GMT
Had to think for a minute what the numbers related to then realised their the number of years they had been in service. The [0] for those ships being under construction being the main give away . Thanks for the list. Steve
Seeing that Colorado-class battleship USS Washington (BB-47) construction work ceased on the 75.9%-completed superdreadnought and being the only one of Colorado-class not to enter into service, is there not a battleship that could be scrapped instead so she could enter into service.
I think the thing is its a 32kton ship, i.e. would affect the US tonnage total and more importantly has 9x16" guns. If it was completed the USN would have 4 such ships rather than 'just' 3 whereas the RN and IJN only have 2 allowed. You would probably need to allow them both to have another 16" gunned BB and while that wouldn't be a great problem with the UK, as their being built from new Japanese other ships are markedly above the 35kton limit. They would have to scrap an existing ship under construction, which admittedly they will have to do anyway, and then build a totally new ship.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 22, 2020 19:39:34 GMT
Seeing that Colorado-class battleship USS Washington (BB-47) construction work ceased on the 75.9%-completed superdreadnought and being the only one of Colorado-class not to enter into service, is there not a battleship that could be scrapped instead so she could enter into service. I think the thing is its a 32kton ship, i.e. would affect the US tonnage total and more importantly has 9x16" guns. If it was completed the USN would have 4 such ships rather than 'just' 3 whereas the RN and IJN only have 2 allowed. You would probably need to allow them both to have another 16" gunned BB and while that wouldn't be a great problem with the UK, as their being built from new Japanese other ships are markedly above the 35kton limit. They would have to scrap an existing ship under construction, which admittedly they will have to do anyway, and then build a totally new ship.
Washington BB-47 was expended as a target, undergoing a number of tests On the first day alone she took two torpedoes, near missed by three one-ton bombs, 400 lbs of TNT set off on board and 14in shells dropped on her from 4,000 feet.
She was sunk as a target for New York and Texas.
Steve is correct she would have given the US too many 16in ships.
In the initial negotiation, the lists of 'ships to be retained' saw the USN with Maryland, the RN with Hood and the IJN with Nagato. While Hood was not a 16in gunned ship, she was well over the qualitative limit of 35,000 tons standard, and was the Royal Navy's premier capital ship.
As I've mentioned, the problem was Mutsu. Japan had paid for her via public subscription, and the IJN wasn't about to throw away the good-will with the public such an effort generates, let alone scrap a nearly completed capital ship. So the IJN kept her, and the USN got to build 'two more West Virginias" (as the treaty called them) and the RN got the option to build two new 35,000 ton ships. In an offline conversation, Irishopinion from the BC board told me that the RN really wanted F3 as the 35,000 ton option, but when the treaty was signed they felt bound to build 16in armed ships, so design O3 became Nelson and Rodney.
So the 5-5-3 ratio was carried to premier capital ships via 3-3-2, the RN having, Hood, Nelson and Rodney, the USN having Colorado, West Virginia and Maryland and the IJN having Nagato and Mutsu.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 22, 2020 19:44:52 GMT
Washington BB-47 was expended as a target, undergoing a number of tests On the first day alone she took two torpedoes, near missed by three one-ton bombs, 400 lbs of TNT set off on board and 14in shells dropped on her from 4,000 feet. She was sunk as a target for New York and Texas. Steve is correct she would have given the US too many 16in ships.
So instead she give the United States navy some useful information on how to sink a battleship. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 22, 2020 20:24:51 GMT
So instead she give the United States navy some useful information on how to sink a battleship.
And how to protect one.
The Big 5 (Tennesses and Colorados) were considered to have good torpedo protection in the interwar period, because of their turbo-electric drive enabling better sub-division and their side protection system. I think the Washington tests probably confirmed its effectiveness.
As an aside, I would note Fuchida's Kate level bombers were carrying converted 14in battleship shells when they bombed Battleship Row at Pearl Harbor (they caused the explosion of Arizona) and at Midway, Enterprise had converted 14in battleship shells in her magazines, though the Dauntless' range was severely limited carrying them.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 22, 2020 20:30:27 GMT
So instead she give the United States navy some useful information on how to sink a battleship. And how to protect one.
The Big 5 (Tennesses and Colorados) were considered to have good torpedo protection in the interwar period, because of their turbo-electric drive enabling better sub-division and their side protection system. I think the Washington tests probably confirmed its effectiveness.
As an aside, I would note Fuchida's Kate level bombers were carrying converted 14in battleship shells when they bombed Battleship Row at Pearl Harbor (they caused the explosion of Arizona) and at Midway, Enterprise had converted 14in battleship shells in her magazines, though the Dauntless' range was severely limited carrying them. Regards, But Arizona would most likely have different armor than Washington ore did both have the same armor protection, because if there was no Washington Naval Treaty and the Japanese did a Pearl Harbor strike as they did in OTL, and it was the Washington that was the one replacing the Arizona and hit as she was, would Washington have the same fate as Arizona. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Feb 23, 2020 1:51:00 GMT
In the non treaty TL naval air power probably would not have been developed to the level it was in OTL. Neither the US or Japan would have converted large battle cruiser hulls into large carriers. Carriers would have remained small 20,000 tons or so and naval aircraft development would have also been slower. The attack on Pearl Harbor may not have been possible. If tried it would have been less devastating figure the number of aircraft available for the strike would have been cut in half and they would have been less effective. An attack on the Philippians similar to what happened in OTL would have been how Japan would have started the war along with attacks on Wake and Guam. These attacks would have been able to be completed before the US battle line would have been able to interfere. Japanese submarines positioned outside of Pearl Harbor would have taken a toll on the battle line. Additional attacks would have happened as the US fleet sailed across the Pacific. If the US did not send the battle line out and given that there would be no "Day that will live in infamy." FDR may not have had the public support for an all out war assuming that Hitler does not declare war on the US. (Probably not a good assumption.) If the battle fleet is sent it would be hard pressed to beat the Japanese especially if the Japanese could maneuver for a night battle. Also Damaged US ships would be a long way from home so also may be lost. If no negotiated peace happens than 3 to 4 years later when US industry has built a new battle line. That force the Japanese would be unable to stop. Since airpower has not been proven decisive yet much of this construction would have been battle ships. Given US industrial war time production levels. These ships very well could be 80,000 to 100,000 tons and armed with 18" or possibly 20" guns. Japan had designed a 20" gun for the ships to follow the Yamato class. Japanese wartime production would not have been able to keep up. Figure that the overall tonnage that each side builds would remain the same but the types of ships built would be different.
Mark
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 23, 2020 12:05:01 GMT
In the non treaty TL naval air power probably would not have been developed to the level it was in OTL. Neither the US or Japan would have converted large battle cruiser hulls into large carriers. Carriers would have remained small 20,000 tons or so and naval aircraft development would have also been slower. The attack on Pearl Harbor may not have been possible. If tried it would have been less devastating figure the number of aircraft available for the strike would have been cut in half and they would have been less effective. An attack on the Philippians similar to what happened in OTL would have been how Japan would have started the war along with attacks on Wake and Guam. These attacks would have been able to be completed before the US battle line would have been able to interfere. Japanese submarines positioned outside of Pearl Harbor would have taken a toll on the battle line. Additional attacks would have happened as the US fleet sailed across the Pacific. If the US did not send the battle line out and given that there would be no "Day that will live in infamy." FDR may not have had the public support for an all out war assuming that Hitler does not declare war on the US. (Probably not a good assumption.) If the battle fleet is sent it would be hard pressed to beat the Japanese especially if the Japanese could maneuver for a night battle. Also Damaged US ships would be a long way from home so also may be lost. If no negotiated peace happens than 3 to 4 years later when US industry has built a new battle line. That force the Japanese would be unable to stop. Since airpower has not been proven decisive yet much of this construction would have been battle ships. Given US industrial war time production levels. These ships very well could be 80,000 to 100,000 tons and armed with 18" or possibly 20" guns. Japan had designed a 20" gun for the ships to follow the Yamato class. Japanese wartime production would not have been able to keep up. Figure that the overall tonnage that each side builds would remain the same but the types of ships built would be different. Mark
It might happen like that. However have seen it repeatedly mentioned on the naval boards that there were already arguments in the US for some of the Lexington class to be converted to CVs before the treaty because they realised how vulnerable the design was and possibly also the potential importance of carrier a/c. In a none treaty environment and with money very tight this might not happen because the more conservative elements would push for any ships completed to be done as gun ships but it could go either way depending on the circumstances. If the US does this Japan and Britain may follow suit although probably more likely Britain as Japan would have much greater fiscal limitations.
Agree that regardless carrier development is going to be retarded compared to OTL, especially probably in Japan and the US. Not so much in Britain as the creation of the RAF retarded it anyway and Britain had a number of hulls already completed or planned, which could reduce the gap compared to OTL by the late 30's.
Agreed that without such an attack on Pearl there won't be the same drive for war to the end against Japan and without what seems to be a crushing defeat Hitler may not declare war on the US. Although he might still as other drivers were there. The increasing USN involvement in the Battle in the Atlantic, aid to Britain and the Soviets and Donitz was calling for such a war to unleash his U boats against shipping in the currently respected US protected zone. However its not certain what will happen, even if there is an Hitler and war in Europe as OTL.
Whether ships being produced in such a TL were as huge I don't know as it would depend on how things develop. However not sure how effective such huge ships would be in reality as they could be too cumbersome and expensive while air, sub and other counters would still develop and probably fairly rapidly once such ships were announced as smaller powers, at least, would seek counters to them.
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 23, 2020 16:30:14 GMT
But Arizona would most likely have different armor than Washington ore did both have the same armor protection, because if there was no Washington Naval Treaty and the Japanese did a Pearl Harbor strike as they did in OTL, and it was the Washington that was the one replacing the Arizona and hit as she was, would Washington have the same fate as Arizona. Arizona had 3in decks, IIRC, while the Colorados, representing the evolution of the standards, had 3.5in decks. I don't know if that would have been enough to keep the converted 14in shell out; I don't recall offhand what altitude Fuchida's Kates were at when they bombed Battleship Row. In the non treaty TL naval air power probably would not have been developed to the level it was in OTL. Neither the US or Japan would have converted large battle cruiser hulls into large carriers. Carriers would have remained small 20,000 tons or so and naval aircraft development would have also been slower. Actually, the USN was looking at large carriers before the treaty intervened. In October 1918, the Bureau of Construction & Repair provided a sketch design for a carrier of 24,000 tons and 825ft long capable of 35 knots on 140,000 shp. In 1919, BuC&R proposed a carrier of 34,500 tons and 35 knots (based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down). Next was a design of about 29,180 tons. See Friedman's US Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, p. 35. I think you have a point on Pearl Harbor being more difficult if not impossible. If you look at the IJNs aircraft of the 20s and 30s, they are mostly very short-ranged. It was only in the late 30 and 1940 with the zero that IJN aircraft really had the range for something like a Pearl Harbor raid. But even with the historic aircraft, how effective would they be against 45,000 to 50,000 ton battleships with 6in decks over the magazines? It might happen like that. However have seen it repeatedly mentioned on the naval boards that there were already arguments in the US for some of the Lexington class to be converted to CVs before the treaty because they realised how vulnerable the design was and possibly also the potential importance of carrier a/c. Hi Steve, I haven't heard that; what's your source? The Lexingtons were looked at as important, finally solving the USN's scouting problem. While the numerous armored cruisers and predreadnoughts could fill some traditional cruiser roles, they could not scout for the dreanought battlefleet. As an aside, if you are familiar with the piece Irishopinion/John posted here www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/battle-cruisers-fast-battleships-t8622.htmlLexington would fit into the '1st Rate, Light, Fast' category, much like Renown and Repulse did for the RN. Aircraft development would be a limiting factor as well. It is remarkable how fast aircraft developed, especially in the 1930s, then even faster once the war started. When Martin B-10 was introduced, it was so fast it could not be intercepted by fighters, and all potential fighter escorts were too slow. In just few short years, it was HOPELESSLY obsolete... I think the RAF control of the Fleet Air Arm hampered numerous factors for the RN, including appreciation of aircraft as a threat. I credit that with being the reason the 5.25in DP was slow firing; it was expected to be used against medium and heavy bombers at altitude, not dive bombers and fast moving torpedo bombers, where a higher rate of fire would have been more effective (and indeed was in the 4in and 4.5in!) My thoughts gents... Regards, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Feb 24, 2020 12:03:58 GMT
It might happen like that. However have seen it repeatedly mentioned on the naval boards that there were already arguments in the US for some of the Lexington class to be converted to CVs before the treaty because they realised how vulnerable the design was and possibly also the potential importance of carrier a/c. Hi Steve, I haven't heard that; what's your source? The Lexingtons were looked at as important, finally solving the USN's scouting problem. While the numerous armored cruisers and predreadnoughts could fill some traditional cruiser roles, they could not scout for the dreanought battlefleet. As an aside, if you are familiar with the piece Irishopinion/John posted here www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/battle-cruisers-fast-battleships-t8622.htmlLexington would fit into the '1st Rate, Light, Fast' category, much like Renown and Repulse did for the RN. Aircraft development would be a limiting factor as well. It is remarkable how fast aircraft developed, especially in the 1930s, then even faster once the war started. When Martin B-10 was introduced, it was so fast it could not be intercepted by fighters, and all potential fighter escorts were too slow. In just few short years, it was HOPELESSLY obsolete... I think the RAF control of the Fleet Air Arm hampered numerous factors for the RN, including appreciation of aircraft as a threat. I credit that with being the reason the 5.25in DP was slow firing; it was expected to be used against medium and heavy bombers at altitude, not dive bombers and fast moving torpedo bombers, where a higher rate of fire would have been more effective (and indeed was in the 4in and 4.5in!) My thoughts gents... Regards,
I recall it being mentioned a number of times, either on the BB board and/or the BC one, i.e. the BB v BB board or Bob Henneman's old site. There was a desire for some fast and large carriers and also some concern about the suitability of the Lexington's because of their thin armour. Possibly also a factor might be with the programme on drip feed from Congress some in the USN might have thought they would never get all six funded and possibly asking for a couple as CV converts might get some use out of the hulls. Possibly its a misreading of what you mentioned to Markp, i.e.
(based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down)
It could be one of those things where there's been a misunderstanding and the result gets passed around or even that I've misunderstood when someone's mentioned what you said above.
I would agree that I can't see a carrier strike against Pearl in such a TL, at least not in Dec 41 unless there's a dramatic acceleration of carriers and their a/c to make up for the fact their some way behind. Although if a/c are somewhat more backwards might this delay the development of radar as they seem less of a threat. As you say things developed very rapidly in the late 30's and then further during the conflict itself.
One of the big problems as I understand it was that all the FAA people were automatically transferred to the new RAF. Which meant that the RN lose virtually all their expertise in terms of carrier a/c as well as local import as to what made a good carrier and their key advocates for naval air. At least other than as a scout and aid for longer ranged gunnery. I remember in one of my old books an a/c the RN introduced - checking it was built just before WWII but never put into production - which had an 8 hour endurance but a top speed of only 46 knots, designed as a long ranged fleet scout/shadower but would have been hopeless vulnerable to any air defence the enemy fleet had including a lot of AA fire. Also since those people were now in the RAF their career development depended on fitting in and aligning with the standard RAF doctrines, which would make naval air a somewhat unpopular backwater with little opportunity for advancement.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 24, 2020 12:09:39 GMT
Hi Steve, I haven't heard that; what's your source? The Lexingtons were looked at as important, finally solving the USN's scouting problem. While the numerous armored cruisers and predreadnoughts could fill some traditional cruiser roles, they could not scout for the dreanought battlefleet. As an aside, if you are familiar with the piece Irishopinion/John posted here www.tapatalk.com/groups/alltheworldsbattlecruisers/battle-cruisers-fast-battleships-t8622.htmlLexington would fit into the '1st Rate, Light, Fast' category, much like Renown and Repulse did for the RN. Aircraft development would be a limiting factor as well. It is remarkable how fast aircraft developed, especially in the 1930s, then even faster once the war started. When Martin B-10 was introduced, it was so fast it could not be intercepted by fighters, and all potential fighter escorts were too slow. In just few short years, it was HOPELESSLY obsolete... I think the RAF control of the Fleet Air Arm hampered numerous factors for the RN, including appreciation of aircraft as a threat. I credit that with being the reason the 5.25in DP was slow firing; it was expected to be used against medium and heavy bombers at altitude, not dive bombers and fast moving torpedo bombers, where a higher rate of fire would have been more effective (and indeed was in the 4in and 4.5in!) My thoughts gents... Regards, I recall it being mentioned a number of times, either on the BB board and/or the BC one, i.e. the BB v BB board or Bob Henneman's old site. There was a desire for some fast and large carriers and also some concern about the suitability of the Lexington's because of their thin armour. Possibly also a factor might be with the programme on drip feed from Congress some in the USN might have thought they would never get all six funded and possibly asking for a couple as CV converts might get some use out of the hulls. Possibly its a misreading of what you mentioned to Markp, i.e. (based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down)
It could be one of those things where there's been a misunderstanding and the result gets passed around or even that I've misunderstood when someone's mentioned what you said above.
I would agree that I can't see a carrier strike against Pearl in such a TL, at least not in Dec 41 unless there's a dramatic acceleration of carriers and their a/c to make up for the fact their some way behind. Although if a/c are somewhat more backwards might this delay the development of radar as they seem less of a threat. As you say things developed very rapidly in the late 30's and then further during the conflict itself.
One of the big problems as I understand it was that all the FAA people were automatically transferred to the new RAF. Which meant that the RN lose virtually all their expertise in terms of carrier a/c as well as local import as to what made a good carrier and their key advocates for naval air. At least other than as a scout and aid for longer ranged gunnery. I remember in one of my old books an a/c the RN introduced - checking it was built just before WWII but never put into production - which had an 8 hour endurance but a top speed of only 46 knots, designed as a long ranged fleet scout/shadower but would have been hopeless vulnerable to any air defence the enemy fleet had including a lot of AA fire. Also since those people were now in the RAF their career development depended on fitting in and aligning with the standard RAF doctrines, which would make naval air a somewhat unpopular backwater with little opportunity for advancement.
Steve
Now i thinking how a G3 would look like as a carrier. |
|
. Thanks for the list.