What would have happened if the Washington Naval Treaty and the London Naval Treaty were completely incapacitated in 1934?

[Username666]

When I was looking at the blueprint of the warships before the era of Washington Naval Treaty, I suddenly thought of this.

"What if other Countries, such as United Kingdom, France, and the United States, who confirmed Japan's withdrawal from the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty, also withdrew from the treaty at the same time?"

So I'm asking a question, what do you think happened?

 

[EwenS]

Rather than posing a “what if” maybe go back and ask yourself why didn’t they. Then look at the historical background. Bottom line, everyone else had a vested interest in keeping the Treaty system going. For Japan, they were never ever going to get what they wanted from the system. They realised that and decided to go their own way.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Money would still be a limiting factor. Whatever the policy they went for.

 

[Dilandu]

The money were limited... the production of armor plates, heavy guns, turrets, and even battleship-sized hulls was limited also. And there was another factor: while everyone realized, that 35.000 tons limit is too small, and did not actually allow to build optimal battleship, there weren't exactly much interest in oversized monsters.

 

[muttly]

If all the countries withdrew and a arms race started many countries would have gone
bankrupt. One trying to out do the other would put undue strain on the economy and
politics of all involved.

 

[Foo Fighter]

All things being equal, the growth of naval aviation was still set to upset the Batleship lobby by force majeur. Very expensive and extremely capable in their own right but dive bombers, torpedo bombers, hotdog. stands. Sorry but two out of three is not bad.......

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

When I was looking at the blueprint of the warships before the era of Washington Naval Treaty, I suddenly thought of this.

"What if other Countries, such as United Kingdom, France, and the United States, who confirmed Japan's withdrawal from the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty, also withdrew from the treaty at the same time?"

So I'm asking a question, what do you think happened?

Please clarify. Is this Japan's "Our Timeline" withdrawal from the Treaty System or are you suggesting that they do it earlier?

Ignore the above. I hadn't read the thread's title properly.

It doesn't change much because what you wrote is more or less what happened anyway. There may be no Second London Naval Treaty and if there is one it probably brings forward the qualitative limits of the previous Treaties, e.g. 27,000 tons for aircraft carriers and 10,000 tons for cruisers instead of reducing them to 23,000 tons and 8,000 tons respectively.

 

[Nik]

Cue other contestants' massive dock-building programs...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If all the countries withdrew and a arms race started many countries would have gone bankrupt. One trying to out do the other would put undue strain on the economy and politics of all involved.

All of the countries did effectively withdraw in the "Real World" because they invoked some of the "get out" and "escalation" clauses in the WNT and 1st LNT before 31st December 1936.

For example:

• The British Commonwealth's tonnages of cruisers and destroyers were in excess of the 1st LNT quotas at the end of 1936. This was because they didn't scrap ships that had to be scrapped to stay within the quotas. It was justified by invoking one of the "get out" clauses in the 1st LNT.
• France laid down 123,000 tons of Capital Ships before the end of 1936 when the 1st LNT only allowed them to lay down 70,000 tons. @Archibald may be able to confirm or deny this, but my understanding is that the French Government said "We're building Richelieu and Jean Bart regardless of what the Treaties say, because the Germans building "The Twins" and the Italians building Littorio & Vittorio Vento threatens our national security."

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

From the Wikipedia article on the First London Naval Treaty.

On December 29, 1934, the Japanese government gave formal notice that it intended to terminate the treaty. Its provisions remained in force formally until the end of 1936 and were not renewed.

From the Wikipedia article on the Second London Naval Treaty.

Japan, a signatory of the First London Naval Treaty and already at war on the Asian mainland, withdrew from the conference on 15 January. Italy also declined to sign the treaty, largely as a result of the controversy over its invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia); Italy was under sanctions from the League of Nations.

In the case of Britain half-scale naval rearmament began with the 1935-36 Building Programme (the 01.04.35 - 31.03.36 financial year) and full-scale naval rearmament began the financial year after.

I think the British wouldn't order any more ships in those building programmes. However, they might lay some down sooner and there may be some qualitative improvements. For example.

• The Battleships King George V & Prince of Wales which were built under the 1936-37 Building Programme might be laid down before the end of 1936 instead of on 01.01.37 i.e. the day after the 1st LNT expired. However, if the Treaty System had broken down completely at the end of 1934 they might have a larger hull and be armed with nine 16in guns, nine 15in guns or twelve 14in guns.
• The next trio of Battleships (Duke of York, Anson & Howe) which were built under the 1937-38 Building Programme were to have been laid down in 1938 but was brought forward to the middle of 1937. That won't change.
• The Aircraft Carriers Illustrious & Victorious had to be laid down in 1937 rather than 1936 due to a clause in the 2nd LNT that said that (I think it was a year) had to elapse between the announcement that a ship would be built and its laying down. If the Treaty System breaks down completely both ships may be laid down in 1936 and completed by the end of 1939.
• If the result was a less stringent 2nd LNT the Illustrious class might be built to a 27,000 ton design because said Treaty may not reduce the size limit from 27,000 tons to 23,000 tons. If the Treaty System broke down completely it would be possible to build ships that combined the armour of the Illustrious class with the aircraft capacity of the Ark Royal. Therefore, the ships of this "version of history" Illustrious class may effectively be Audacious class ships.
• More Cruisers may be laid down in 1936. The 1935-36 Programme was for 3 ships and the 1936-37 Programme was for 7 ships, but 5 out of 10 were laid down before the end of 1936 and the rest were laid down in 1937 because the British were obeying the relevant rules of both London Treaties. If the Treaty System broke down completely the 5 Cruisers in the 1936-37 Programme laid down in 1937 in the "Real World" may be laid down in 1937 in this "version of history".
• The 5 ships from the 1936-37 Programme laid down in 1937 were of the Dido class. I suspect that they would be built to a different design in this "version of history" because I suspect that the design and the twin 5.25in gun turrets weren't ready. They'd be built as additional ships of the Arethusa, Amphion or even the Edinburgh class.
• I also think that more Edinburgh class would be built instead of the Colony and Swiftsure classes. If there is still a 2nd LNT I think it will maintain the existing Cruiser size limit of 10,000 tons instead of reducing it to 8,000 tons. I think the largest British Cruisers will be the Edinburgh class even if the Treaty System breaks down completely. However, if I'm wrong and they do build bigger ships we may equivalents to the American Baltimore and Cleveland classes being built with twelve 4.5in guns in six twin turrets instead of the twelve 5in guns in six twin turrets that the American ships had.

For What It's Worth This Is The "Real World" British Building Programme
for the Financial Years commencing 01.04.22 and ending 31.03.40.

​

Notes.

• Financial years start on 1st April and end on 31st March of the next year. Therefore, 1922-23 stared on 1st April 1922 and ended on 31st March 1923 and so on.
• Escort Vessels include Hunt class Escort Destroyers, Sloops, Minesweeping Sloops and the first 56 Flower class corvettes.
• This may not include some Submarines, Destroyers and Escort Vessels that were built for the Navies of the Commonwealth and India.
• The original 1938-39 Programme was for 7 Submarines, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Battleships, 7 Cruisers and 16 Destroyers, but was "Rationed" as above.
• The original 1939-40 Programme was for 7 Submarines, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Battleships, 7 Cruisers and 16 Destroyers, but was "Rationed" to 4 Submarines, one Aircraft Carrier, 2 Battleships, 4 Cruisers and 16 Destroyers. However, the 4 Submarines and 2 of the 4 Cruisers had not been ordered before September 1939.
• 1939-40 does not include ships built under the War Emergency Programme, i.e. the War Mobilisation Programme.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

When I was looking at the blueprint of the warships before the era of Washington Naval Treaty, I suddenly thought of this.

"What if other Countries, such as United Kingdom, France, and the United States, who confirmed Japan's withdrawal from the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty, also withdrew from the treaty at the same time?"

So I'm asking a question, what do you think happened?

The United States Navy has the problem that it's size was limited to the size allowed by the WNT & 1st LNT under American Law, i.e. the Vinson-Trammel Act of 27th March 1934. That's for example why Wasp could not displace more than 15,000 tons because the Act limited the USN to the 135,000 tons allowed by the WNT & 1st LNT and there wasn't enough "replacement tonnage" to build anything larger.

The next expansion was under the Act of 17th May 1938. This Act allowed Hornet and Essex to be built because it increased the size of the Carrier Force from 135,000 tons to 175,000 tons. As far as I know it was a reaction to the Panay Incident and the Japanese 3rd Fleet Replenishment Programme of 1937. So I think the American's won't build more ships between 1934 and 1937 unless the Japanese bring their 1937 expansion programme forward.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

When I was looking at the blueprint of the warships before the era of Washington Naval Treaty, I suddenly thought of this.

"What if other Countries, such as United Kingdom, France, and the United States, who confirmed Japan's withdrawal from the Washington Naval Disarmament Treaty, also withdrew from the treaty at the same time?"

So I'm asking a question, what do you think happened?

Going back to France.

• I've already explained how France broke the Treaties anyway when they laid down Richelieu and Jean Bart in 1935-36.
• They were allowed to have 60,000 tons of Aircraft Carriers, but only built the 22,146 ton Béarn while the tonnage quota was in force. The two Aircraft Carriers ordered after the tonnage quotas expired displaced 18,000 tons each when the 2nd LNT allowed them to displace up to 23,000 tons.
• The size of the Submarine, Cruiser and Destroyer forces wasn't limited by Treaty because the French Government refused to accept limitations upon them at the First London Naval Conference and was exempt from the parts of the First London Naval Treaty that limited the quantity and quality of Submarines, Cruisers and Destroyers.
• Plus the French Government was more concerned about Germany and Italy's naval expansion than Japan's.

Therefore, I think what the French Government did in this "version of history" would be exactly what the did in the "Real World".

 

[Username666]

From the Wikipedia article on the First London Naval Treaty.

On December 29, 1934, the Japanese government gave formal notice that it intended to terminate the treaty. Its provisions remained in force formally until the end of 1936 and were not renewed.

From the Wikipedia article on the Second London Naval Treaty.

Japan, a signatory of the First London Naval Treaty and already at war on the Asian mainland, withdrew from the conference on 15 January. Italy also declined to sign the treaty, largely as a result of the controversy over its invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia); Italy was under sanctions from the League of Nations.

In the case of Britain half-scale naval rearmament began with the 1935-36 Building Programme (the 01.04.35 - 31.03.36 financial year) and full-scale naval rearmament began the financial year after.

I think the British wouldn't order any more ships in those building programmes. However, they might lay some down sooner and there may be some qualitative improvements. For example.

• The Battleships King George V & Prince of Wales which were built under the 1936-37 Building Programme might be laid down before the end of 1936 instead of on 01.01.37 i.e. the day after the 1st LNT expired. However, if the Treaty System had broken down completely at the end of 1934 they might have a larger hull and be armed with nine 16in guns, nine 15in guns or twelve 14in guns.
• The next trio of Battleships (Duke of York, Anson & Howe) which were built under the 1937-38 Building Programme were to have been laid down in 1938 but was brought forward to the middle of 1937. That won't change.
• The Aircraft Carriers Illustrious & Victorious had to be laid down in 1937 rather than 1936 due to a clause in the 2nd LNT that said that (I think it was a year) had to elapse between the announcement that a ship would be built and its laying down. If the Treaty System breaks down completely both ships may be laid down in 1936 and completed by the end of 1939.
• If the result was a less stringent 2nd LNT the Illustrious class might be built to a 27,000 ton design because said Treaty may not reduce the size limit from 27,000 tons to 23,000 tons. If the Treaty System broke down completely it would be possible to build ships that combined the armour of the Illustrious class with the aircraft capacity of the Ark Royal. Therefore, the ships of this "version of history" Illustrious class may effectively be Audacious class ships.
• More Cruisers may be laid down in 1936. The 1935-36 Programme was for 3 ships and the 1936-37 Programme was for 7 ships, but 5 out of 10 were laid down before the end of 1936 and the rest were laid down in 1937 because the British were obeying the relevant rules of both London Treaties. If the Treaty System broke down completely the 5 Cruisers in the 1936-37 Programme laid down in 1937 in the "Real World" may be laid down in 1937 in this "version of history".
• The 5 ships from the 1936-37 Programme laid down in 1937 were of the Dido class. I suspect that they would be built to a different design in this "version of history" because I suspect that the design and the twin 5.25in gun turrets weren't ready. They'd be built as additional ships of the Arethusa, Amphion or even the Edinburgh class.
• I also think that more Edinburgh class would be built instead of the Colony and Swiftsure classes. If there is still a 2nd LNT I think it will maintain the existing Cruiser size limit of 10,000 tons instead of reducing it to 8,000 tons. I think the largest British Cruisers will be the Edinburgh class even if the Treaty System breaks down completely. However, if I'm wrong and they do build bigger ships we may equivalents to the American Baltimore and Cleveland classes being built with twelve 4.5in guns in six twin turrets instead of the twelve 5in guns in six twin turrets that the American ships had.

For What It's Worth This Is The "Real World" British Building Programme
for the Financial Years commencing 01.04.22 and ending 31.03.40.

View attachment 697925​

Notes.

• Financial years start on 1st April and end on 31st March of the next year. Therefore, 1922-23 stared on 1st April 1922 and ended on 31st March 1923 and so on.
• Escort Vessels include Hunt class Escort Destroyers, Sloops, Minesweeping Sloops and the first 56 Flower class corvettes.
• This may not include some Submarines, Destroyers and Escort Vessels that were built for the Navies of the Commonwealth and India.
• The original 1938-39 Programme was for 7 Submarines, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Battleships, 7 Cruisers and 16 Destroyers, but was "Rationed" as above.
• The original 1939-40 Programme was for 7 Submarines, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Battleships, 7 Cruisers and 16 Destroyers, but was "Rationed" to 4 Submarines, one Aircraft Carrier, 2 Battleships, 4 Cruisers and 16 Destroyers. However, the 4 Submarines and 2 of the 4 Cruisers had not been ordered before September 1939.
• 1939-40 does not include ships built under the War Emergency Programme, i.e. the War Mobilisation Programme.

Thank you very much for providing the information!

By the way, according to the information you posted, the construction of aircraft carriers in the UK is slower than that of Battleships. Is it because of the armours?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Thank you very much for providing the information!

By the way, according to the information you posted, the construction of aircraft carriers in the UK is slower than that of Battleships.

By slower construction, do you mean the length of time they took to build or the number of ships ordered?

Is it because of the armours?

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

 

[Username666]

By slower construction, do you mean the length of time they took to build or the number of ships ordered?

Oh, I should have been more specific, but I didn't. I'm so sorry.

As soon as I saw the data you posted on this site, I felt that the UK was quite passive in building aircraft carriers. Because according to the information that uploaded, the amount of aircraft carrier orders was less than the battleships.

 

[Username666]

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

 

[pathology_doc]

I think the British wouldn't order any more ships in those building programmes. However, they might lay some down sooner and there may be some qualitative improvements. For example.

My gut feeling is that with an earlier breakdown of the treaty and a removal on restrictions of gun calibres, you might get at least Lion and Temeraire started early enough to actually be finished in time for the war. Whether they replace or supplement the KGVs is uncertain (although Anson and Howe might get cancelled to allow the first two Lions to finish), but it potentially puts a very different spin on who ends up fighting the Bismarck (and it might mean that the Hood gets to miss that battle and survives to go in for the long refit/rebuild she so badly needed).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

Ordering fewer aircraft carriers than battleships doesn't mean they were passive about building aircraft carriers. Also be aware that 7 out of 7 aircraft carriers ordered 1934-39 were built and only 5 out of 9 battleships ordered 1936-39 were built.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

If the British were passive about aircraft carriers (which they weren't) they were the least passive country in the world about aircraft carriers, because they ordered more aircraft carriers in the period 1936-39 than anyone else.

• 6 UK (Illustrious & Victorious in the 1936-37 Building Programme, Formidable & Indomitable in 1937-38, Implacable in 1938-39 & Indefatigable in 1939-40). Plus the aircraft depot ship Unicorn was part of the 1938-39 Building Programme.
• 3 Japan (Shokaku, Zuikaku in the 1937 Programme & Tahio in the 1939 Programme).
• 2 USA (Wasp in FY35 & Hornet in FY39).
  • Essex wasn't authorised until FY40 or FY41 (depending upon the source).
  • Yorktown & Enterprise were authorised in FY33 which makes them contemporaries of Ark Royal (1934-35 Building Programme) and Soryu & Hiryu (Japanese Second Fleet Replenishment Programme of 1934).
  • Ranger was authorised in FY30 and Ryujo was built under Japan's 1927 Building Programme.
• 2 Germany (Graff Zeppelin & Aircraft Carrier B, both ordered in 1935).
• 2 France (Joffre and Painlevé, both ordered in 1938).

If Unicorn is included that's 7 UK vs. 9 Rest of the World which is nearly One-to-One.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

Ordering fewer aircraft carriers than battleships doesn't mean they were passive about building aircraft carriers. Also be aware that 7 out of 7 aircraft carriers ordered 1934-39 were built and only 5 out of 9 battleships ordered 1936-39 were built.

The British 1938-39 and 1939-40 Building Programmes were to have included 2 aircraft carriers each, but were reduced to one each. See the notes under the table in Post 10. However, it and the other cuts to those building programmes weren't because of insufficient armour making capacity. That problem was well on the way to being solved by the time the deleted ships would have been built.

If the second aircraft carriers in the 1938-39 and 1939-40 programmes had been ordered and built it would have increased the total ordered 1936-39 from 7 to 9 and the UK would have ordered as many aircraft carriers as the rest of the world over that period.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

By slower construction, do you mean the length of time they took to build or the number of ships ordered?

Oh, I should have been more specific, but I didn't. I'm so sorry.

As soon as I saw the data you posted on this site, I felt that the UK was quite passive in building aircraft carriers. Because according to the information that uploaded, the amount of aircraft carrier orders was less than the battleships.

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

It's all rather complicated.

It was a combination of the size & age of the existing Aircraft Carrier & Capital Ship forces and the number Aircraft Carriers & Capital Ships that the Admiralty thought was needed first for the One Power Standard Fleet (to fight a war against Japan) and then the Two Power Standard Fleet (to fight a war against Germany and Japan).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think the British wouldn't order any more ships in those building programmes. However, they might lay some down sooner and there may be some qualitative improvements. For example.

My gut feeling is that with an earlier breakdown of the treaty and a removal on restrictions of gun calibres, you might get at least Lion and Temeraire started early enough to actually be finished in time for the war. Whether they replace or supplement the KGVs is uncertain (although Anson and Howe might get cancelled to allow the first two Lions to finish), but it potentially puts a very different spin on who ends up fighting the Bismarck (and it might mean that the Hood gets to miss that battle and survives to go in for the long refit/rebuild she so badly needed).

If that happens it won't work like that.

My gut feeling is that the KGVs will have a larger displacement with twelve 14in, nine 15in or nine 16" with the same (or better) scale of protection as the KGVs as built. The nine 16in gun ship will effectively be the Lion class built 2 years earlier.

Anson & Howe will not be cancelled. The Admiralty wanted as many new capital ships as could be built as soon as possible to expand the force from 15 to 20 ships (to counter Japan's projected increase from 10 to 12 Capital Ships) and to replace World War One built ships as soon as possible. In the "Real World" the laying down of Duke of York, Anson & Howe was brought forward from 1938 to 1937. In the "Real World" that's part of the reason why they were built as repeats of King George V instead of to a new design armed with 16in guns - the Admiralty though it couldn't afford to wait while a new design was prepared.

The "Real World" building rate was about the best the British naval armaments industry could do. A complete breakdown of the Treaty System at the end of 1934 rather than the partial break down of the "Real World" at the end of 1934 doesn't provide any extra time to change that.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

The following was originally in Post 10.

From the Wikipedia article on the First London Naval Treaty.

On December 29, 1934, the Japanese government gave formal notice that it intended to terminate the treaty. Its provisions remained in force formally until the end of 1936 and were not renewed.

From the Wikipedia article on the Second London Naval Treaty.

Japan, a signatory of the First London Naval Treaty and already at war on the Asian mainland, withdrew from the conference on 15 January. Italy also declined to sign the treaty, largely as a result of the controversy over its invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia); Italy was under sanctions from the League of Nations.

In the case of Britain half-scale naval rearmament began with the 1935-36 Building Programme (the 01.04.35 - 31.03.36 financial year) and full-scale naval rearmament began the financial year after. That is the UK started its naval rearmament four months after Japan gave notice that it would be leaving the Treaty System at the end of 1936.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

For changes on the scale that @Username666 thought would happen to happen requires Japan to announce it's withdrawal from the Treaty System before the end of 1934 and with immediate effect instead of (officially) abiding by its provisions until the 1st LNT expired at the end of 1936. I wrote officially, because they were lying through their teeth about the displacements of the ships that they were building and had been for several years prior to that.

For what it's worth I think a better "Point of Departure" is that the First London Naval Conference breaks down completely because (in common with the French and Italian delegations) the Japanese delegation refuses to limitations being imposed on the quantity and quality of their submarines, cruisers and destroyers in this "version of history", which in turn leads to no First London Treaty at all, so no extension of the Battleship Building Holiday and possibly an early end to the qualitative and quantitative limits on Aircraft Carriers and Capital Ships. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a massive increase in new construction by the major naval powers between 1930 and 1935-ish.

 

[pathology_doc]

My gut feeling is that the KGVs will have a larger displacement with twelve 14in, nine 15in or nine 16" with the same (or better) scale of protection as the KGVs as built. The nine 16in gun ship will effectively be the Lion class built 2 years earlier.

Anson & Howe will not be cancelled.

It almost adds up to the same thing, but you make a good point.

 

[Username666]

If the British were passive about aircraft carriers (which they weren't) they were the least passive country in the world about aircraft carriers, because they ordered more aircraft carriers in the period 1936-39 than anyone else.

• 6 UK (Illustrious & Victorious in the 1936-37 Building Programme, Formidable & Indomitable in 1937-38, Implacable in 1938-39 & Indefatigable in 1939-40). Plus the aircraft depot ship Unicorn was part of the 1938-39 Building Programme.
• 3 Japan (Shokaku, Zuikaku in the 1937 Programme & Tahio in the 1939 Programme).
• 2 USA (Wasp in FY35 & Hornet in FY39).
  • Essex wasn't authorised until FY40 or FY41 (depending upon the source).
  • Yorktown & Enterprise were authorised in FY33 which makes them contemporaries of Ark Royal (1934-35 Building Programme) and Soryu & Hiryu (Japanese Second Fleet Replenishment Programme of 1934).
  • Ranger was authorised in FY30 and Ryujo was built under Japan's 1927 Building Programme.
• 2 Germany (Graff Zeppelin & Aircraft Carrier B, both ordered in 1935).
• 2 France (Joffre and Painlevé, both ordered in 1938).

If Unicorn is included that's 7 UK vs. 9 Rest of the World which is nearly One-to-One.

Well, contrary to what I thought, the most active carrier-building country at the time was UK. Anyway, thank you very much for your advice!

 

[Username666]

I think the British wouldn't order any more ships in those building programmes. However, they might lay some down sooner and there may be some qualitative improvements. For example.

My gut feeling is that with an earlier breakdown of the treaty and a removal on restrictions of gun calibres, you might get at least Lion and Temeraire started early enough to actually be finished in time for the war. Whether they replace or supplement the KGVs is uncertain (although Anson and Howe might get cancelled to allow the first two Lions to finish), but it potentially puts a very different spin on who ends up fighting the Bismarck (and it might mean that the Hood gets to miss that battle and survives to go in for the long refit/rebuild she so badly needed).

If that happens it won't work like that.

My gut feeling is that the KGVs will have a larger displacement with twelve 14in, nine 15in or nine 16" with the same (or better) scale of protection as the KGVs as built. The nine 16in gun ship will effectively be the Lion class built 2 years earlier.

Anson & Howe will not be cancelled. The Admiralty wanted as many new capital ships as could be built as soon as possible to expand the force from 15 to 20 ships (to counter Japan's projected increase from 10 to 12 Capital Ships) and to replace World War One built ships as soon as possible. In the "Real World" the laying down of Duke of York, Anson & Howe was brought forward from 1938 to 1937. In the "Real World" that's part of the reason why they were built as repeats of King George V instead of to a new design armed with 16in guns - the Admiralty though it couldn't afford to wait while a new design was prepared.

The "Real World" building rate was about the best the British naval armaments industry could do. A complete breakdown of the Treaty System at the end of 1934 rather than the partial break down of the "Real World" at the end of 1934 doesn't provide any extra time to change that.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

The following was originally in Post 10.

From the Wikipedia article on the First London Naval Treaty.

On December 29, 1934, the Japanese government gave formal notice that it intended to terminate the treaty. Its provisions remained in force formally until the end of 1936 and were not renewed.

From the Wikipedia article on the Second London Naval Treaty.

Japan, a signatory of the First London Naval Treaty and already at war on the Asian mainland, withdrew from the conference on 15 January. Italy also declined to sign the treaty, largely as a result of the controversy over its invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia); Italy was under sanctions from the League of Nations.

In the case of Britain half-scale naval rearmament began with the 1935-36 Building Programme (the 01.04.35 - 31.03.36 financial year) and full-scale naval rearmament began the financial year after. That is the UK started its naval rearmament four months after Japan gave notice that it would be leaving the Treaty System at the end of 1936.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

For changes on the scale that @Username666 thought would happen to happen requires Japan to announce it's withdrawal from the Treaty System before the end of 1934 and with immediate effect instead of (officially) abiding by its provisions until the 1st LNT expired at the end of 1936. I wrote officially, because they were lying through their teeth about the displacements of the ships that they were building and had been for several years prior to that.

For what it's worth I think a better "Point of Departure" is that the First London Naval Conference breaks down completely because (in common with the French and Italian delegations) the Japanese delegation refuses to limitations being imposed on the quantity and quality of their submarines, cruisers and destroyers in this "version of history", which in turn leads to no First London Treaty at all, so no extension of the Battleship Building Holiday and possibly an early end to the qualitative and quantitative limits on Aircraft Carriers and Capital Ships. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a massive increase in new construction by the major naval powers between 1930 and 1935-ish.

Well, after reading your article and thinking again, I don't think there would have been a large-scale shipbuilding plan even if the 1st LNT was canceled due to the economic situation of each country at the time.

*By the way, the translator is not working today.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

*By the way, the translator is not working today.

If it helps I use Google Translate.

 

[Username666]

*By the way, the translator is not working today.

If it helps I use Google Translate.

It's a little better since I used a Papago and changed it to a Google translator.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

By slower construction, do you mean the length of time they took to build or the number of ships ordered?

Oh, I should have been more specific, but I didn't. I'm so sorry.

As soon as I saw the data you posted on this site, I felt that the UK was quite passive in building aircraft carriers. Because according to the information that uploaded, the amount of aircraft carrier orders was less than the battleships.

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

It's all rather complicated.

It was a combination of the size & age of the existing Aircraft Carrier & Capital Ship forces and the number Aircraft Carriers & Capital Ships that the Admiralty thought was needed first for the One Power Standard Fleet (to fight a war against Japan) and then the Two Power Standard Fleet (to fight a war against Germany and Japan).

When Ark Royal was ordered (under the 1934-35 Building Programme) the Admiralty wanted 360 aircraft for the Fleet and they could be accommodated in five 22,000 ton ships of the Ark Royal type. At that time the British Commonwealth was still subject to the tonnage quotas of the WNT and 1st LNT which allowed 135,000 tons of Aircraft Carriers. Therefore, there was enough tonnage for sixth Ark Royal type ship to cover refits.

At the time the Admiralty wanted to tighten the qualitative limits of ships in what became the 2nd LNT because it (mistakenly in my opinion) thought that smaller ships would be cheaper and therefore easier to buy in the numbers it wanted. In the case of Aircraft Carriers they wanted the maximum displacement reduced from 27,000 tons to 22,000 tons and succeeded in having it reduced to 23,000 tons. I thought that Friedman (my source) also wrote that it wanted the tonnage quotas reduced too which included reducing the British Aircraft Carrier quota to 110,000 tons (for five 22,000 ton ships) and the quotas for the other signatories reduced proportionately. However, I couldn't anything about reducing the tonnage quotas when I skimmed through the relevant chapter.

However, by the Autumn of 1935 things had changed. The World Situation had deteriorated; the National Debt had been rescheduled, (which reduced the cost of servicing it by about £100 million a year) and the British Government (and British public opinion) was in favour of using the money saved on increased defence spending; and it looked as if the next Treaty would abolish the tonnage quotas. Therefore, the number of aircraft the Fleet required could be spread amongst a larger number of ships. Furthermore, it would be possible to build the Trade Protection ships that the Admiralty had wanted since the 1920s, but the tonnage quota wasn't big enough for them (and the Fleet Carriers) even if the Government had been prepared to spend the money.

Therefore, late in 1935, the existing requirement for 5 Aircraft Carriers was replaced by a requirement for 14 ships as follows:

• 8 to work with the Main Fleets (i.e. the Home and Mediterranean Fleets) carrying a total of 300 aircraft.
  • The introduction of multi-purpose aircraft like the Swordfish reduced the number of aircraft the Fleet required from 360 to 300.
  • The 8 ships were to be Ark Royal (rated at 48 aircraft instead of 72) and 7 ships of the Illustrious type (36 aircraft each).
• 5 to work with the Cruisers on the Trade Routes.
  • That is one for each of the 4 Cruiser Squadrons outside the Main Fleets and a fifth ship to cover refits.
  • Their job was to help the Cruiser Squadrons find and sink enemy Surface Raiders.
  • The 5 ships were Courageous, Glorious and 3 ships of the Illustrious type.
• 1 for Deck Landing Training, which would probably have been Furious as she carried fewer aircraft than her half-sisters and in the "Real World" she was the Deck Landing Training Carrier at the outbreak of World War II.

Furthermore:

• The 14 Aircraft Carriers were to be ten 23,000 ton Armoured Carriers (i.e. what became the Illustrious class), Ark Royal, Courageous, Furious and Glorious.
• Argus, Eagle and Hermes were to be scrapped or converted into auxiliaries.
• The ten 23,000 ton Armoured Carriers were to be built at the rate of 2 per year in the 5 Building Programmes from 1936-37 to 1940-41.
• Each ship would take 3 years to build.
• Therefore, the new target of 14 ships would be reached by the middle of the 1940s.

Also:

• The 10 Aircraft Carriers to be ordered 1936-37 to 1940-41 were initially to have been a mix of:
  • 23,000 ton Fleet Carriers carrying 36 aircraft, i.e. what became the Illustrious class, and;
  • 14,500 ton Trade Protection Carriers carrying 15 aircraft.
• However, the cost estimates were about £4 million for the Fleet Carrier and about £3 million for the Trade Protection ship. (An early example of the "steel is cheap and air is free" phenomenon perhaps.)
• Plus, the Admiralty didn't like the design of Trade Protection Carrier, but it did like the 23,000 ton Fleet Carrier's design.
• So, it was decided to only build the Illustrious class, because they were satisfactory ships and it would only increase the total cost by a few million Pounds.
  • As a result the 1936-37 Building Programme was amended from one Fleet Carrier and one Trade Protection Carrier to 2 Fleet Carriers.
  • The upgraded ship was Victorious and I think building her as a Fleet Carrier instead of Trade Protection Carrier was the right thing to do.
• Therefore, the Illustrious class were effectively Multi-Role Carriers, because they were intended to work with Ark Royal in the Main Fleets and with Courageous, Furious & Glorious on the Trade Routes.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

By slower construction, do you mean the length of time they took to build or the number of ships ordered?

Oh, I should have been more specific, but I didn't. I'm so sorry.

As soon as I saw the data you posted on this site, I felt that the UK was quite passive in building aircraft carriers. Because according to the information that uploaded, the amount of aircraft carrier orders was less than the battleships.

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

It's all rather complicated.

It was a combination of the size & age of the existing Aircraft Carrier & Capital Ship forces and the number Aircraft Carriers & Capital Ships that the Admiralty thought was needed first for the One Power Standard Fleet (to fight a war against Japan) and then the Two Power Standard Fleet (to fight a war against Germany and Japan).

These are the Admiralty's "Wish Lists" circa 1934-36.

​

The "D.R.C. Standard" was the naval strength required to fight a war against Japan only and the "Two-Power Standard" was the naval strength required to fight a war against Germany as well as Japan. There were 8 or 9 destroyers in a flotilla, so it was 72-81 Destroyers in 1934, 128-134 Destroyers under the "D.R.C. Standard" and 176-198 Destroyers under the "Two-Power Standard".

The Admiralty had wanted 70 Cruisers (of which 10 could be over-age) since the early 1920s. However, the Cruiser tonnage quota in the 1 LNT was only enough for 50 cruisers and the Treaty also restricted the tonnage of new ships that could be completed by the end of 1936 to 91,000 tons. That was used to built the 5 Leander class, 3 Amphion class, 3 of the Arethusa class and the first 2 Southampton class. The Admiralty wanted 15 Flotillas of Destroyers in the early 1920s and by the late 1920s had increased to 16 Flotillas. However, the Destroyer tonnage quota in the 1LNT was only enough for 12 Flotillas.

However, the quotas prescribed by the 1st LNT did not have to be met until 31st December 1936 and the Treaty had some "get out" and "escalator" clauses. The British Government invoked some of them before the Treaty expired. Therefore, on 31.12.36 the Navies of the British Commonwealth had 56 cruisers of 388,470 tons instead of 50 of 339,000 tons and 169 Destroyers (18 Flotillas worth) of 204,064 tons instead of 108 (12 Flotillas) of 150,000 tons that they would have had it the letter of the Treaty had been adhered to. This was done by keeping old ships that would have otherwise been scrapped 1935-36 to remain within the Treaty's tonnage quotas.

This was a result of the "Real World's" partial-breakdown of the Treaty System which was participated by the worsening World Situation as well as Japan giving notice that it would leave the Treaty System at the end of 1936. I very much doubt that a full-breakdown would make any difference, if only because there were no more Old Cruisers and Destroyers to keep, because they had already been scrapped, and even if they hadn't, they weren't worth keeping. However, I have already explained that there may be no 2nd LNT or at least a less restrictive one if there was a full-breakdown of the Treaty System. That probably results in more Edinburgh class being built instead of the Colony and Swiftsure classes. It may also lead to more Amphion or Arethusa class Cruisers being built instead of some or all of the Dido class.

 

[lancer21]

NOMISSYRUC your insight into these naval matters is absolutely fascinating like usual. I can't say i'm that well versed into RN matters, but from what you say above should it be understood that the british were building pretty much near or to full shipyard capacity in OTL and they couldn't increase the numbers of ships in an ATL even if they wanted to (like the two carriers deferred from the last two prewar programs)? Is this the reason why the 1938-39 and 1939-40 programs were trimmed, lack of yard capacity? (though in the case of the latter program, the start of the war might have played a part.)

Now about the americans, you say that you don't think they will build over the OTL, but i was contemplating what if they bring their expansion programs forward, say the Second Vinson Act (20% expansion) to 1936 or 1937 and the Third Vinson Act (11% expansion) to 1938 or 1939? Would THEY have the yard capacity to build the respective ships that much earlier? I have noticed that for some reason some of their OTL ships spent an inordinately long time on the slips, like Wasp (stayed longer on slip that the larger previous Yorktown class) or some Brooklyns, so if these particular ships are accelerated they could release slip space earlier for new construction as part of these ATL expansion programs.
I didn't think it's realistic to bring forward the Two Ocean Navy Act as well as that was in reaction to the fall of France in 1940.

As to the japanese, i don't know if they can build anything over OTL in reaction to this ATL US expansion program, except order two proper carriers instead of the Junyos (either repeat Hiryu or Shokaku depending of the slips capacity, certainly one Shokaku possible instead of Hiyo as it was build in the same slip as Zuikaku, and perhaps a repeat Hiryu instead of Junyo). They could possibly bring forward their CVL shadow conversion program (such as the Zuihos, Taiyos etc.) to try to "stay" with the americans, which in a way it's a good thing as they won't waste time/money in finishing these ships twice.

 

[Hood]

UK yards were certainly at capacity - the splurge of Fiji and Dido class cruisers especially was filling up a lot of capacity in 1940-41.
Some brief musings on cruisers. Certainly Second London resulted in the Fijis with the 8,000 ton light cruiser limit and they were too small for what was crammed aboard them - which led to the Ceylon and Swiftsure/Minotaur classes during the war being steadily upgraded in beam and cut down in armament in order to make them more effective ships. I suspect that more Belfasts would have proved too expensive to build en-masse but another pair to help counter the Mogamis would have been likely in this scenario I would think. Indeed wartime efforts to revive the design foundered in favour of trying to make the Fiji more workable. A second batch of Gloucesters would have been likely perhaps but the numbers would have been fewer I would think simply because some Fiji slips would not have been able to handle the larger hull. I guess it might ease Dido hull congestion but gun delays hardly improve matters in that regard.

Its hard to see much real impact of a 1936 departure beyond one or two features around the overall picture. Pre-1936 offers more scope but again Britain could only do so much given the Depression effects - and even starting WW1-era cruiser and destroyer refits sooner doesn't really buy us anything additional given single 4in and basic HACS1 and shortage of pompoms etc. give much less utility and those ships would need to be refitted again to be worthy of AA duties in wartime.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't understand that. Please clarify.

According to the Mr.ArmouredCarrier's site(https://www.armouredcarriers.com/hms-indomitable-lessons-learned#), Illustrious-class armours were from the Czechoslovakia, not from UK. Therefore, I thought that the reason why the UK was passive in ordering aircraft carriers was because of the armours.

This is a link to Chapter 2 of the transcript of the British Official History "British War Production" on Hyperwar.

HyperWar: British War Production [Chapter II]

Please read Pages 47 to 52 because it explains the causes and effects of the "armour shortage" of the late 1930s and what was done about it better than I can in addition to discussing the other industrial impediments to Britain's naval rearmament better than I can.

Though I would add that although 12,500 tons of armour was ordered from Czechoslovakia in 1938 only 10,000 tons of it had been delivered by the time war broke out. Plus I don't know whether the Czech armour that was delivered was installed on any of the Armoured Carriers. For all I know it could have been installed on the King George V class battleships, the cruisers that were under construction at the time or AFVs being built for the British Army.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

NOMISSYRUC your insight into these naval matters is absolutely fascinating like usual. I can't say i'm that well versed into RN matters, but from what you say above should it be understood that the british were building pretty much near or to full shipyard capacity in OTL and they couldn't increase the numbers of ships in an ATL even if they wanted to (like the two carriers deferred from the last two prewar programs)? Is this the reason why the 1938-39 and 1939-40 programs were trimmed, lack of yard capacity? (though in the case of the latter program, the start of the war might have played a part.)

As I understand it the cuts to the Building Programmes for 1938-39 and 1939-40 were not driven by a lack of industrial capacity because (again) as I understand it Britain's naval shipbuilding capacity in the late 1930s was greater than it had been in the middle of the 1930s narrowing the "demand-supply" gap considerably.

Instead it was because the Rearmament Programme had overheated the British economy by creating demand-pull inflation and a balance of payments deficit.

It was also financial. His Majesty's much (and often unfairly) maligned Treasury couldn't raise enough money to pay for everything that the "Top Brass" wanted. Going from memory the Third Report of the Defence Requirements Committee (upon which the Rearmament Programme was based) recommended spending £1,650 million over the five financial years commencing on 01.04.37 and ending on 31.03.42, but the Treasury said the most they could raise was £1,500 million.

The Treasury's argument was that a strong economy and sound government finances were the "Fourth Arm of Defence" and I think they had a point. We know that war would break out in 1939, but they didn't and were (reasonably in my opinion) expecting a war in the early or middle of the 1940s. Related to that HM Government and Treasury wanted to rearm without disrupting the Civilian Economy and Exports, which (again) with the benefit of hindsight was an extremely short-sighted policy, but was a reasonable policy at the time.

Here's the link to the transcript of "British War Production" on Hyperwar again.

HyperWar: British War Production [Chapter II]

Please read the section "The Renovation of the Navy" between Pages 23 and 27 which confirms some of the above and elaborates upon it.

Finally, the 2 Aircraft Carriers that were built under the 1938-39 and 1939-40 programmes were Implacable and Indefatigable, which were laid down in 1939 and completed in 1944. Therefore, it's likely that the 2 Aircraft Carriers that were deleted from these programmes (if they had been built) would have been laid down in 1939 and completed in 1944 too.

Now about the Americans, you say that you don't think they will build over the OTL, but I was contemplating what if they bring their expansion programs forward, say the Second Vinson Act (20% expansion) to 1936 or 1937 and the Third Vinson Act (11% expansion) to 1938 or 1939? Would THEY have the yard capacity to build the respective ships that much earlier? I have noticed that for some reason some of their OTL ships spent an inordinately long time on the slips, like Wasp (stayed longer on slip that the larger previous Yorktown class) or some Brooklyns, so if these particular ships are accelerated they could release slip space earlier for new construction as part of these ATL expansion programs.
I didn't think it's realistic to bring forward the Two Ocean Navy Act as well as that was in reaction to the fall of France in 1940.

No they wouldn't bring the the Second and Third Vinson Acts forward. However, American did have the industrial capacity to do so if the politicians had wanted to and if there had been enough public support.

As to the Japanese, I don't know if they can build anything over OTL in reaction to this ATL US expansion program, except order two proper carriers instead of the Junyos (either repeat Hiryu or Shokaku depending of the slips capacity, certainly one Shokaku possible instead of Hiyo as it was build in the same slip as Zuikaku, and perhaps a repeat Hiryu instead of Junyo). They could possibly bring forward their CVL shadow conversion program (such as the Zuihos, Taiyos etc.) to try to "stay" with the Americans, which in a way it's a good thing as they won't waste time/money in finishing these ships twice.

I am under the impression that there is a large discrepancy between what people think happened and what did happen.

As I understand it @Username666 thinks Japan left the Treaty System in December 1934. Japan didn't. What Japan actually did in December 1934 was give notice it would leave the Treaty System when the First London Naval Treaty expired, that is on 31st December 1936. Furthermore, the ships Japan ordered to the end of 1936 were to bring the IJN up to the strength permitted by the WNT and 1st LNT. Japan didn't expand its navy beyond that strength until the Third Fleet Replenishment Programme of 1937 which was after it had left the Treaty System.

I think the Americans and British won't build more unless the Japanese build more (although they might build better if there's a less restrictive 2nd LNT or no 2nd LNT at all) and because of what I know about what did happen and how I have interpreted the Opening Post the Japanese won't build more.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

UK yards were certainly at capacity - the splurge of Fiji and Dido class cruisers especially was filling up a lot of capacity in 1940-41.
Some brief musings on cruisers. Certainly Second London resulted in the Fijis with the 8,000 ton light cruiser limit and they were too small for what was crammed aboard them - which led to the Ceylon and Swiftsure/Minotaur classes during the war being steadily upgraded in beam and cut down in armament in order to make them more effective ships. I suspect that more Belfasts would have proved too expensive to build en-masse but another pair to help counter the Mogamis would have been likely in this scenario I would think. Indeed wartime efforts to revive the design foundered in favour of trying to make the Fiji more workable. A second batch of Gloucesters would have been likely perhaps but the numbers would have been fewer I would think simply because some Fiji slips would not have been able to handle the larger hull. I guess it might ease Dido hull congestion but gun delays hardly improve matters in that regard.

Its hard to see much real impact of a 1936 departure beyond one or two features around the overall picture. Pre-1936 offers more scope but again Britain could only do so much given the Depression effects - and even starting WW1-era cruiser and destroyer refits sooner doesn't really buy us anything additional given single 4in and basic HACS1 and shortage of pompoms etc. give much less utility and those ships would need to be refitted again to be worthy of AA duties in wartime.

For what it's worth I think a one-to-one substitution of Edinburgh class cruisers for the Colony class and its successors would have been easy.

• They were designed to have nearly the same armament (including fire control equipment) as the Edinburgh class so apart from two twin 4in mountings no change there in the cost and required production capacity.
• The Edinburghs and Colonies had 4 Admiralty 4-drum boilers feeding Parsons SR geared turbines that drove 4 shafts, but the Edinburgh class had boilers and turbines that were about 10% more powerful, that is 80,000shp v 72,500shp.
• And there's the 20% larger hull.
  • 10,260 tons standard for the Edinburgh class and 8,525 tons standard for the Fiji class (according to "Cruisers of the Royal and Commonwealth Navies" by Douglas Morris) a difference of 1,735 tons.
  • Does that mean that the hull of a Fiji class required 20% less structural steel than an Edinburgh and 20% fewer man hours were required to fabricate the hull?
  • That's not a rhetorical question, I simply don't know.

I'm a believer in the theory that "steel is cheap and air is free" and that building the Colony class and its successors instead of building more Edinburgh class ships was a false economy. I think it didn't save any money and didn't save enough labour, materials and production facilities to be worthwhile.

 

[Username666]

This is a link to Chapter 2 of the transcript of the British Official History "British War Production" on Hyperwar.
HyperWar: British War Production [Chapter II] Please read Pages 47 to 52 because it explains the causes and effects of the "armour shortage" of the late 1930s and what was done about it better than I can in addition to discussing the other industrial impediments to Britain's naval rearmament better than I can.

I will read it after finishing the test. Anyway, thank you very much for your valuable information!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As to the Japanese, I don't know if they can build anything over OTL in reaction to this ATL US expansion program, except order two proper carriers instead of the Junyos (either repeat Hiryu or Shokaku depending of the slips capacity, certainly one Shokaku possible instead of Hiyo as it was build in the same slip as Zuikaku, and perhaps a repeat Hiryu instead of Junyo). They could possibly bring forward their CVL shadow conversion program (such as the Zuihos, Taiyos etc.) to try to "stay" with the Americans, which in a way it's a good thing as they won't waste time/money in finishing these ships twice.

As I've done the British naval programmes from 1922 to 1939, these are the Japanese naval programmes of the 1930s.

​

Notes

• The 1931 and 1934 Programmes brought the IJN to the strength permitted by the WNT & 1st LNT.
• The 1937 and 1939 Programmes expanded the IJN beyond the strength permitted by the WNT & 1st LNT.
• Of the Aircraft Carriers:
  • Sōryū & Hiryū were in the 1934 Programme.
  • Shōkaku & Zuikaku were in the 1937 Programme.
  • Taihō was in the 1939 Programme.
• Of the Submarine Tenders
  • Ryūhō (ex-Taigei) was in the 1931 Programme.
  • Shōhō (ex-Tsurugisaki) & Zuihō were in the 1934 Programme.
  • Zuihō was completed as an Aircraft Carrier.
• Of the Seaplane Tenders.
  • Chitose, Chiyoda & Mizuho were in the 1934 Programme.
  • Nissin was in the 1937 Programme.
  • Mizuho & Nissin were sunk before they could be converted into Aircraft Carriers.
• Of the Battleships.
  • Yamato & Musashi were in the 1937 Programme.
  • Shinano & No. 111 were in the 1939 Programme.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As to the Japanese, I don't know if they can build anything over OTL in reaction to this ATL US expansion program, except order two proper carriers instead of the Junyos (either repeat Hiryu or Shokaku depending of the slips capacity, certainly one Shokaku possible instead of Hiyo as it was build in the same slip as Zuikaku, and perhaps a repeat Hiryu instead of Junyo). They could possibly bring forward their CVL shadow conversion program (such as the Zuihos, Taiyos etc.) to try to "stay" with the Americans, which in a way it's a good thing as they won't waste time/money in finishing these ships twice.

You have reversed the cause and effect. The American expansion of the late 1930s was a reaction to the Japanese expansion (e.g. the Hornet & Essex were built in reply to Shōkaku & Zuikaku) and the deteriorating World Situation. It would be the same in this "version of history" that is the Americans would only build more ships 1934-39 if the Japanese built more.

If Japan had built a pair of proper carriers instead of Hiyō & Jun'yō they'd have been repeats of Shōkaku, but if they had the Americans would have replied by building a fourth Yorktown and a 25th Essex to counter them. Therefore, for all their faults, it was better for Japan that they were converted liners rather than bespoke aircraft carriers.

That being written, according to FM30-58 "Basic Field Manual - Military Intelligence - Identification of Japanese Naval Vessels - December 29, 1941" the Americans thought the Japanese had.

• 4 Pocket Battleships displacing 12-15,000 tons and armed with six 12" guns that didn't exist.
• 4 Shōkaku class aircraft carriers.
  • The third ship was named Takasago and the name of the fourth ship wasn't known.
  • I don't know, but it's possible that Takasago was Taihō ordered in 1939.
  • I don't know, but it's possible that the fourth ship was Unryū which was part of the Rapid Naval Armaments Supplement Programme of 1941.
• 3 Hiryū class aircraft carriers, the third ship was named Koryu.

Therefore, as the USN thought the IJN had more aircraft carriers than it actually had, Japan might have been able to build Hiyō & Jun'yō as Shōkaku class aircraft carriers without provoking America into building more aircraft carriers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In earlier posts I wrote that the 1st LNT included a number of "escalator" and "get out" clauses that the British used to keep more Cruisers and Destroyers than were allowed. I've looked at my copy of the Treaty to make sure what I've written was correct and the closest that I can find is this one.

Article 21​

If, during the term of the present Treaty, the requirements of the national security of any High Contracting Party in respect of vessels of war limited by Part III of the present Treaty are in the opinion of that Party materially affected by new construction of any Power other than those who have joined in Part III of this Treaty, that High Contracting Party will notify the other Parties to Part III as to the increase required to be made in its own tonnages within one or more of the categories of such vessels of war, specifying particularly the proposed increases and the reasons therefor, and shall be entitled to make such increase. Thereupon the other Parties to Part III of this Treaty shall be entitled to make a proportionate increase in the category or categories specified; and the said other Parties shall promptly advise with each other through diplomatic channels as to the situation thus presented.

A Higher Contracting Party is one of the signatories of the Treaty, i.e. France, Italy, Japan, the British Commonwealth and United States.

I thought it also said that a Higher Contracting Party had to give two years notice that it was leaving the Treaty completely, but I if it does, I couldn't find it.

 

[BlackBat242]

That 2 year notice was in the 1921 WNT:

CHAPTER III.-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Article XXIII
The present Treaty shall remain in force until December 31st, 1936, and in case none of the Contracting Powers shall have given notice two years before that date of its intention to terminate the treaty, it shall continue in force until the expiration of two years from the date on which notice of termination shall be given by one of the Contracting Powers, whereupon the Treaty shall terminate as regards all the Contracting Powers. Such notice shall be communicated in writing to the Government of the United States, which shall immediately transmit a certified copy of the notification to the other Powers and inform them of the date on which it was received. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall take effect on that date. In the event of notice of termination being given by the Government of the United States, such notice shall be given to the diplomatic representatives at Washington of the other Contracting Powers, and the notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall take effect on the date of the communication made to the said diplomatic representatives.

Within one year of the date on which a notice of termination by any Power has taken effect, all the Contracting Powers shall meet in conference.

The 1930 LNT specifically expired at the same date as the WNT - 31 Dec. 1936.

So if the 1936 LNT had not been agreed on, both the 1922 WNT and 1930 LNT would have expired for everyone on 31 Dec. 1936, thanks to the formal withdrawal of the Japanese.


http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pre-war/1922/nav_lim.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1930/12.html

 

[Hood]

For what it's worth I think a one-to-one substitution of Edinburgh class cruisers for the Colony class and its successors would have been easy.

Looking through Friedman again, offers some hints at what might have been had Second London not been agreed at all.
I do feel that 10,000tons would be retained as the ideal limit for light cruisers, 8,000 tons was too tight as the Fiji's proved and no design would have less than triple turrets.
The K34 alternative to building more Fijis drawn up in 1939 was effectively a 9-gun Fiji but with 4 pom-pom mounts. It was rejected in the face of foreign competition building up to, and suspected beyond, 10,000 tons. Nobody was building cruisers less than 10,000 tons if they didn't need to.

In 1938 proposals for 20,000 ton (700 x 70ft) heavy cruisers with 3x4 9.2in turrets were raised, although the Admiralty didn't seem keen. This was reduced to 3x3 8in guns but displacement was still 20,000tons, DNC even looked at 3x2 12in guns on that tonnage. By June 1939 this had been trimmed back to 10,000 tons, 32kt on an 80,000hp Fiji plant with 4x2 or 3x3 8in guns. The result was a Belfast/Fiji hybrid, 580 x 69ft 3in, 10,576 tons. Everyone seemed fairly happy with this until Churchill arrived on the scene and wanted 15,000-ton 9.2in armed ships. Things spiralled back to 21,000tons even with 8in guns.
In December 1939 the notional Repeat Belfast was drawn into the heavy cruiser circle with 3x3 8in at 10,000ton or 15,000 tons. They would lay down in June 1941 to complete in 1944.

In August 1940 DNC proposed a new 10,400 tonner with 3x3 6in, 4x2 4in, 4x4 pom-poms, Fiji armour but with a 2in deck and 80,000hp Fiji plant. In effect the three suspended Fijis were recast into this by losing 'X' turret.
Further tinkering with the new design led to using Belfast machinery and Belfast side armour which brought tonnage to 11,450 tons (3x3 6in) or 12,890 tons (4x3 6in).
The 8in designs to similar standard were 11,945 tons (3x3 8in) or 12,500 tons (4x2 8in).
Then designs moved on - X with 3x3 6in, Y 4x3 6in, Belfast protection 14,650 tons, Z 4x3 6in, 4in belt & 2in deck, 30.5kt, 13,500 tons. This seemed to replace the 8in heavy cruiser. But work carried on into 1941 and went back to 8in and higher tonnage.

In October 1941 DNC drew up a roomier Southampton - 9,100 tons, although it was thought 12,000 tons might be needed with all the necessary wartime additions. Instead the new 8,650 ton Fiji version was chosen and became the Tigers.

The 1939 plan was 100 cruisers: 20 heavy, 40 medium, 40 small. At that time the RN had 15 heavy, 36 medium (inc. 13 building) and 35 small (inc. 10 building) for 86 - but the 4 Hawkins and 21 C/Ds would have to be subtracted as they retired.
Annual production capacity in 1940 allowed for 10 cruisers - 4 with 6in guns and 6 with 5.25in guns. The Proposed 1940 Supplementary Programme would have added 4 8in cruisers.
But in 1940 none were ordered, in 1941 no more Didos were wanted to the plan was recast to 7 ships - 4 with 8in and 3 with 6in (the Swiftsures). Later that year 3 of the 8in were swapped for 3 more Swiftsures.

My reading of all this is that in 1938-40, allowing for the Didos, it seems likely there is capacity to lay down at least 8 6in cruisers of 9,000-11,000 tons. Untangling Fiji from the real design history is hard as it had such an impact on all the designs. Another pair of Belfasts seems certain but its likely the Belfast/Southampton machinery/armour mix would have caused the same confusion as Belfast/Fiji in terms of options and we might end up with a mix of both types and its possible the repeat Southamptons might lose a 6in turret for more 4in or an extra HADT.
Its equally possible four Improved Belfasts may have actually become 8in cruisers - especially if the Mogami rearmament becomes apparent sooner. That may leave us with 4 8in, 4 6in plus Didos. The quartet of 6in ships therefore might be Southamptons with Belfast armour thicknesses and coming out around 9,500-10,000 tons.