Interwar USN built to or near treaty limits

[lancer21]

This is a spinoff from this topic which brought up some fascinating facts and figures for the major interwar navies

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-would-have-happened-if-the-washington-naval-treaty-and-the-london-naval-treaty-were-completely-incapacitated-in-1934.40597/page-2#post-593376

I wanted to explore a wider period re the USN. One of the common themes is the very anemic post WNT US naval construction in the 1920s and early 1930s. Here is a very interesting article putting more light on the subject:

The Naval Race?

Since the adoption of new r

www.usni.org

So what if they build more interwar? I am thinking of at least more even handed replies to the IN 1923 and 1927 shipbuilding programs. For instance in reply to the 1923 IJN plan the 1924 USN program might add in adition to the CAs and gunboats the 12 DDs and 6 subs left over from the 1916 appropriations, and perhaps a handful of auxiliaries too. I have read in Friedman's that USN wanted some destroyer leaders at this time, so perhaps the DDs could be updated version of the 1919 2100 tons DD leader design. Also shipyards that went under at this time such as Bath and Cramp could be saved from bankrupcy if they receive contracts for a handful of CAs or DDs.

Also the CAs could be laid down earlier say 1925 to 1927, matching well the IJN CA construction.

In reply to the IJN 1927 program, perhaps the OTL cruiser bill of 1929 can be brought forward to 1928, and also include some DDs of new design (such as say a dozen or more of pre-Farraguts or updated leaders), subs, a few auxiliaries etc. The LNT will upset the plans of course, perhaps they won't be able to build the OTL Porter DDs if they have large leaders already built. It possibly may affect the post LNT DD building numbers, not sure, if they build or planned 24-30 or so DDs before the LNT in this scenario.

Next, in reply to the 1931 Maru 1 keikaku IJN program, the so called USN NIRA program can be brought up to 1932. I know it's depression and stuff, it may or may not be feasible to bring it up a year forward. Ideally the Brooklyns should be brought forward too, since more CAs were built earlier.

So my reasoning is if they are significantly closer to treaty limits at it's expiry in 1937 then the shipyards would not be quite so crowded (and perhaps in better shape) to allow earlier building of the BBs, as well as the ships of the Second Vinson act of 1938. As a comparison the british were having no less than 5 BBs laid down in 1937, plus the 4 Illustrious also in 1937, plus they were building loads of cruisers as well. In comparison the US managed a measly 1 BB in 1937, 1 in 1938, 3 BB and one CV in 1939 etc. and not a single CV in 1940, just 3 BBs.

If for instance they laid down 2 BB each in 1937, 1938, and 1939, and the two Vinson carriers in 1939, then their situation in early 1942 would be quite a lot better with 4 modern BBs not 2 and one extra CV. Possibly a few more modern cruisers such as Atlantas or Clevelands and some more modern DDs and subs? Oh and of course more naval planes for the extra CVs, and in general. Plus perhaps a few more CVEs?

This then gets to something i'm very curious about, namely how close was the USN in underage tonnage for cruisers, DDs, subs etc in 1941 compared to what they were supposed to have according to the expanded navy of the 1938 Vinson act (not counting the Two-Ocean Navy provisions or even the month earlier 11% increase, as they wouldn't have made a difference for late 1941 i believe). Presumably all the Clemsons were overage at this time, and most of the Omahas.

 

[lancer21]

Here is a breakdown of USN ships in late 1941. Apparently they are wrong about the Atlantas though, they must mean 6 building, 2 nearly ready. So not sure if the DD and subs figures are 100% accurate.

US Navy in late 1941 > WW2 Weapons

US Navy in late 1941 > The US Navy was in many ways unprepared for war when the Japanese brought America into WW2 with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Too

www.ww2-weapons.com

 

[lancer21]

According to the 1938 second Vinson act, the USN was supposed to reach the following tonnage of underage ships:
660,000 tons of BBs
175,000 tons of CVs
412,524 tons of CA/CLs
228,000 tons of DDs
81,956 tons of subs

In what year was the increase supposed to be achieved? I must have seen the year somewhere, but i can't recall now if was it 1944 or earlier or later?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Have you read the actual acts? They can be downloaded from the internet. That's where the text of the First Vinson Act that I put in the other thread came from.

 

[lancer21]

I did just found it actually in the wikipedia article, i skimmed through it but haven't seen anything about the timeframe unless i missed it. However Conway's says it was supposed to be spread over 10 years (3 BB, 2 CV, 9 CL, 23 DDs, 9 subs)

For reference:

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This may be of interest to you.

Better Optimize the USN for WWII

Much like my RN thread on the same topic this thread will cover how to better prepare the USN for WWII in this case a long ass lasting head of the Bureau of Construction and Repair. Or in this case a more early Buships due to hmmm....trying to save money via consolitation during the depression...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[lancer21]

Thanks, will have another look through it, must be some interesting info there. Though for this ATL i wasn't contemplating an interwar increase in size over treaty limits, or altering the treaties, or bigger ships etc.

Reading through the other topic i didn't realize until now the differences in overage ships ages for ships build before and after 1919. So as i understand then not all Omahas were underage. Also for BBs the limit was increased to 26 years, when was this at 1st LNT or 2nd LNT? I'll do some more reading.

PS: looks like it was during the second LNT where the battleship age was increased to 26 years,

 

[BlackBat242]

This is a spinoff from this topic which brought up some fascinating facts and figures for the major interwar navies

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-would-have-happened-if-the-washington-naval-treaty-and-the-london-naval-treaty-were-completely-incapacitated-in-1934.40597/page-2#post-593376

I wanted to explore a wider period re the USN. One of the common themes is the very anemic post WNT US naval construction in the 1920s and early 1930s. Here is a very interesting article putting more light on the subject:

The Naval Race?

Since the adoption of new r

www.usni.org

So what if they build more interwar? I am thinking of at least more even handed replies to the IN 1923 and 1927 shipbuilding programs. For instance in reply to the 1923 IJN plan the 1924 USN program might add in adition to the CAs and gunboats the 12 DDs and 6 subs left over from the 1916 appropriations, and perhaps a handful of auxiliaries too. I have read in Friedman's that USN wanted some destroyer leaders at this time, so perhaps the DDs could be updated version of the 1919 2100 tons DD leader design. Also shipyards that went under at this time such as Bath and Cramp could be saved from bankrupcy if they receive contracts for a handful of CAs or DDs.

Also the CAs could be laid down earlier say 1925 to 1927, matching well the IJN CA construction.

In reply to the IJN 1927 program, perhaps the OTL cruiser bill of 1929 can be brought forward to 1928, and also include some DDs of new design (such as say a dozen or more of pre-Farraguts or updated leaders), subs, a few auxiliaries etc. The LNT will upset the plans of course, perhaps they won't be able to build the OTL Porter DDs if they have large leaders already built. It possibly may affect the post LNT DD building numbers, not sure, if they build or planned 24-30 or so DDs before the LNT in this scenario.

The problem with this is that, until the late 1920s, the US had a surplus of new destroyers above & beyond that required for fleet use... meaning it would likely be impossible to get Congress to authorize new builds before the number of DDs considered "obsolete" got to where replacement could be justified to a budget-conscious Congress.

The US had a considerable number of DDs mothballed, and was rotating them in & out of the fleet to keep wear down, but they could not build more until Congress, not the USN, felt they were needed.

 

[EwenS]

Here is a breakdown of USN ships in late 1941. Apparently they are wrong about the Atlantas though, they must mean 6 building, 2 nearly ready. So not sure if the DD and subs figures are 100% accurate.

US Navy in late 1941 > WW2 Weapons

US Navy in late 1941 > The US Navy was in many ways unprepared for war when the Japanese brought America into WW2 with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Too

www.ww2-weapons.com

The use of the term “under construction” is a bit misleading. “Authorised” or at best “ordered” is a fairer description.

For example, of the 11 Essex class noted as “under construction”, all had been ordered but only 5 were physically laid down in 1941 and 2 of those were in the week before PH.

15 Battleships “under construction” includes 5 Montanas, that there was no intention to start building until the new dry docks in which they were to be built were completed starting in 1942.

Only 4 of the Baltimores were laid down in 1941. The others had to wait until 1943.

Etc etc

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The USA built Heavy Cruisers to the limits allowed by the 1st LNT. See below.

Standard Displacements are according to "US Warships of World War 2" by Paul H. Silverstone.
Building dates are according to Conway's 1922-46.
​

NOTES

• The 1st LNT allowed the USA to have 180,000 tons of Heavy Cruisers and the USA was limited to a maximum of 18 ships of this type by Article 16, Pararaph 3 of the Treaty, viz.​
  • "The maximum number of cruisers of sub-category (a) shall be as follows: for the United States, eighteen; for the British Commonwealth of Nations, fifteen; for Japan, twelve."​
• As can be seen 15 of the 18 were completed by 31.12.35, the 16th was completed in 1936, the 17th in 1937 and the 18th in 1939. This was in accordance with Article 16 of the Treaty, viz.​
  • "The United States contemplates the completion by 1935 of fifteen cruisers of sub-category (a) of an aggregate "tonnage of 150,000 tons (152,400 metric tons)."​
  • "For each of the three remaining cruisers of sub-category (a) which it is entitled to construct the United States may elect to substitute 15,166 tons (15,409 metric tons) of cruisers of sub-category (b)."​
  • "In case the United States shall construct one or more of such three remaining cruisers of sub-category (a)," ​
    • "the sixteenth unit will not be laid down before 1933 and will not be completed before 1936;" ​
    • "the seventeenth will not be laid down before 1934 and will not be completed before 1937;" ​
    • "the eighteenth will not be laid down before 1935 and will not be completed before 1938."​

Therefore, the United States did built Heavy Cruisers to Treaty Limits and furthermore it built them within the time period prescribed by said Treaty.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

They didn't do as well with Light Cruisers.

Standard Displacements are according to "US Warships of World War 2" by Paul H. Silverstone.
Building dates are according to Conway's 1922-46.​

NOTES

• According to Conway's 1922-46 all the older Light and Protected Cruisers were scrapped by 1933.
• Therefore, the USA only ad 70,500 tons of Light Cruisers at 31.12.36 when it could have had 143,500 tons.
• However, it was a different story 3 years later because the 19 Light Cruisers in existence at that date displaced 15,000 tons more than the 1st LNT allowed.
• Although, if the Treaty had still been in force.
  • The 18 Heavy Cruisers displaced 8,800 tons less than the Treaty's allowance, that could be transferred to the Light Cruiser category, which reduced the difference to 6,200 tons.
  • Plus Omaha and Milwaukee became over-age in 1939 (they were laid down before 01.01.20 and therefore became overage 16 years after their date of completion) so one of them could have been scrapped, which meant the USA would have been 850 tons within the 1st LNT's tonnage quota for Cruisers.
• The other Light Cruisers of the Omaha class were laid down after 31.12.19 and therefore became over-age 20 years after their date of completion. Which meant that Richmond didn't become over-age until 1943 in spite of being completed 2 weeks after Milwaukee. If she had been laid down 7 weeks earlier, she would have become over-age in 1939.

 

[lancer21]

This is a spinoff from this topic which brought up some fascinating facts and figures for the major interwar navies

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-would-have-happened-if-the-washington-naval-treaty-and-the-london-naval-treaty-were-completely-incapacitated-in-1934.40597/page-2#post-593376

I wanted to explore a wider period re the USN. One of the common themes is the very anemic post WNT US naval construction in the 1920s and early 1930s. Here is a very interesting article putting more light on the subject:

The Naval Race?

Since the adoption of new r

www.usni.org

So what if they build more interwar? I am thinking of at least more even handed replies to the IN 1923 and 1927 shipbuilding programs. For instance in reply to the 1923 IJN plan the 1924 USN program might add in adition to the CAs and gunboats the 12 DDs and 6 subs left over from the 1916 appropriations, and perhaps a handful of auxiliaries too. I have read in Friedman's that USN wanted some destroyer leaders at this time, so perhaps the DDs could be updated version of the 1919 2100 tons DD leader design. Also shipyards that went under at this time such as Bath and Cramp could be saved from bankrupcy if they receive contracts for a handful of CAs or DDs.

Also the CAs could be laid down earlier say 1925 to 1927, matching well the IJN CA construction.

In reply to the IJN 1927 program, perhaps the OTL cruiser bill of 1929 can be brought forward to 1928, and also include some DDs of new design (such as say a dozen or more of pre-Farraguts or updated leaders), subs, a few auxiliaries etc. The LNT will upset the plans of course, perhaps they won't be able to build the OTL Porter DDs if they have large leaders already built. It possibly may affect the post LNT DD building numbers, not sure, if they build or planned 24-30 or so DDs before the LNT in this scenario.

The problem with this is that, until the late 1920s, the US had a surplus of new destroyers above & beyond that required for fleet use... meaning it would likely be impossible to get Congress to authorize new builds before the number of DDs considered "obsolete" got to where replacement could be justified to a budget-conscious Congress.

The US had a considerable number of DDs mothballed, and was rotating them in & out of the fleet to keep wear down, but they could not build more until Congress, not the USN, felt they were needed.

That is of course true about the DDs, however as per Friedman the USN did wanted some destroyer leaders to lead these, hence that 2100 ton leader project of 1919, of which they asked for 5 in FY21 (eventually they will build 13 leaders Porter/Somers type, in the 1930s, number limited by LNT). In my TTL in which more is build in the 1920s those 12 DDs left from the 1919 appropriation could be build as that 2100 ton leader or an improved variant of.

According to the USNI article the four pipers were beggining to become overage as of 1930, so replacements for them can be started in 1928 to be finished in 1930, have i got that right?

 

[lancer21]

Here is a breakdown of USN ships in late 1941. Apparently they are wrong about the Atlantas though, they must mean 6 building, 2 nearly ready. So not sure if the DD and subs figures are 100% accurate.

US Navy in late 1941 > WW2 Weapons

US Navy in late 1941 > The US Navy was in many ways unprepared for war when the Japanese brought America into WW2 with their attack on Pearl Harbor. Too

www.ww2-weapons.com

The use of the term “under construction” is a bit misleading. “Authorised” or at best “ordered” is a fairer description.

For example, of the 11 Essex class noted as “under construction”, all had been ordered but only 5 were physically laid down in 1941 and 2 of those were in the week before PH.

15 Battleships “under construction” includes 5 Montanas, that there was no intention to start building until the new dry docks in which they were to be built were completed starting in 1942.

Only 4 of the Baltimores were laid down in 1941. The others had to wait until 1943.

Etc etc

Thanks for the very useful clarification.

 

[lancer21]

They didn't do as well with Light Cruisers.

View attachment 698455
Standard Displacements are according to "US Warships of World War 2" by Paul H. Silverstone.
Building dates are according to Conway's 1922-46.​

NOTES

• According to Conway's 1922-46 all the older Light and Protected Cruisers were scrapped by 1933.
• Therefore, the USA only ad 70,500 tons of Light Cruisers at 31.12.36 when it could have had 143,500 tons.
• However, it was a different story 3 years later because the 19 Light Cruisers in existence at that date displaced 15,000 tons more than the 1st LNT allowed.
• Although, if the Treaty had still been in force.
  • The 18 Heavy Cruisers displaced 8,800 tons less than the Treaty's allowance, that could be transferred to the Light Cruiser category, which reduced the difference to 6,200 tons.
  • Plus Omaha and Milwaukee became over-age in 1939 (they were laid down before 01.01.20 and therefore became overage 16 years after their date of completion) so one of them could have been scrapped, which meant the USA would have been 850 tons within the 1st LNT's tonnage quota for Cruisers.
• The other Light Cruisers of the Omaha class were laid down after 31.12.19 and therefore became over-age 20 years after their date of completion. Which meant that Richmond didn't become over-age until 1943 in spite of being completed 2 weeks after Milwaukee. If she had been laid down 7 weeks earlier, she would have become over-age in 1939.

According to the USNI article above the 2nd LNT escalator clause allowed the USN quote cruisers 20,270; destroyers 40,550; submarines 15,598.

This presumably because the brirish were over the treaty limits as you shown in the other topic. And the japanese although they built CAs and CLs to allowance they retained the overage CLs that should have been otherwise scrapped or converted to training ships.

So the americans were entitled to 163,770 tons of CLs in total, and they were slightly below that in 1939. If we add the Second Vinson Act increase they were supposed to have 232,254 tons of CLs plus the 8,800 tons left from the CAs, but in fact not one single cruiser was comissioned between late 1939 and early 1942. So in theory they could have brought the Atlantas forward a year or two so they would have say 4 of them already in service by late 1941. And/or perhaps a reduced Brooklyn to stay under the 8000 ton limit (the Clevelands or just repeat Brooklyns are too big to be brough forward before the war started in Sept. 1939)

As to the Brooklyns, indeed the first 7 could have been in commisioned already in 1936, which could have been done if they were started earlier, say 1932-33, which could have been done of the CA program was started earlier say 1924-1925 and telescoped by a few years (say have 12 of them ready by or just after the LNT say 1928 to 1931 and the rest in the early 1930s say 1933-34, without spreading them like OTL for which the LNT needs to be altered a bit)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is a spinoff from this topic which brought up some fascinating facts and figures for the major interwar navies

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-would-have-happened-if-the-washington-naval-treaty-and-the-london-naval-treaty-were-completely-incapacitated-in-1934.40597/page-2#post-593376

I wanted to explore a wider period re the USN. One of the common themes is the very anemic post WNT US naval construction in the 1920s and early 1930s. Here is a very interesting article putting more light on the subject:

The Naval Race?

Since the adoption of new r

www.usni.org

So what if they build more interwar? I am thinking of at least more even handed replies to the IN 1923 and 1927 shipbuilding programs. For instance in reply to the 1923 IJN plan the 1924 USN program might add in adition to the CAs and gunboats the 12 DDs and 6 subs left over from the 1916 appropriations, and perhaps a handful of auxiliaries too. I have read in Friedman's that USN wanted some destroyer leaders at this time, so perhaps the DDs could be updated version of the 1919 2100 tons DD leader design. Also shipyards that went under at this time such as Bath and Cramp could be saved from bankrupcy if they receive contracts for a handful of CAs or DDs.

Also the CAs could be laid down earlier say 1925 to 1927, matching well the IJN CA construction.

In reply to the IJN 1927 program, perhaps the OTL cruiser bill of 1929 can be brought forward to 1928, and also include some DDs of new design (such as say a dozen or more of pre-Farraguts or updated leaders), subs, a few auxiliaries etc. The LNT will upset the plans of course, perhaps they won't be able to build the OTL Porter DDs if they have large leaders already built. It possibly may affect the post LNT DD building numbers, not sure, if they build or planned 24-30 or so DDs before the LNT in this scenario.

The problem with this is that, until the late 1920s, the US had a surplus of new destroyers above & beyond that required for fleet use... meaning it would likely be impossible to get Congress to authorize new builds before the number of DDs considered "obsolete" got to where replacement could be justified to a budget-conscious Congress.

The US had a considerable number of DDs mothballed, and was rotating them in & out of the fleet to keep wear down, but they could not build more until Congress, not the USN, felt they were needed.

That is of course true about the DDs, however as per Friedman the USN did wanted some destroyer leaders to lead these, hence that 2100 ton leader project of 1919, of which they asked for 5 in FY21 (eventually they will build 13 leaders Porter/Somers type, in the 1930s, number limited by LNT). In my TTL in which more is build in the 1920s those 12 DDs left from the 1919 appropriation could be build as that 2100 ton leader or an improved variant of.

According to the USNI article the four pipers were beginning to become overage as of 1930, so replacements for them can be started in 1928 to be finished in 1930, have I got that right?

According to my figures.

• The USN & USCG had 309 Destroyers of 342,142 tons at the end of 1929.
  • This was considerably more than the 150,000 tons allowed by the 1st LNT.
• The 309 Destroyers consisted of:
  • 46 of the "Pre-Flush-Deck" types.
    • And.
  • 263 of the "Flush-Deck" type. (10 out of 273 were wrecked or lost in collisions in the 1920s.)
• All but one of the 46 "Pre-Flush-Deck" Destroyers were scrapped 1934-36.
  • The survivor was DD-66 Allen which served in World War II and was sold for scrapping in 1946.
• All 273 "Flush-Deck" Destroyers were laid down before 01.01.21.
  • Therefore, under the terms of the 1st LNT they became over-age 12 years after their date of completion.
  • And as they were all completed between October 1917 and August 1922 they became over-age 1929-34.
• Of the 263 "Flush-Deck" Destroyers left at the end of 1929.
  • 53 were scrapped in the second half of 1930.
  • 5 were scrapped in November 1931.
  • 27 were scrapped 1935-36, which made a total of 86 scrapped before the 1st LNT expired.
  • DD-135 Smith Thompson was lost in a collision on 14.04.36.
  • 7 were scrapped in January 1937.
  • 2 were scrapped in 1938.
  • Which is a Grand Total of 95 scrapped or lost 1930-39.
• Of the 168 "Flush-Deck" Destroyers left at 03.09.39.
  • 50 were transferred to Britain in 1940.
  • DD-245 Reuben James was sunk on 30.10.41.
  • 46 were serving in Subsidiary Duties on 07.12.41. (Page 100 of "US Warships of World War 2" by Paul H. Silverstone.)
  • 71 remained in service as Destroyers on 07.12.41. (Page 100 of "US Warships of World War 2" by Paul H. Silverstone.)

The first new destroyers were the 8 Farragut class in the FY 1932 Building Programme. They were laid down 1932-34 and completed 1934-35.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

According to the USNI article above the 2nd LNT escalator clause allowed the USN quote cruisers 20,270; destroyers 40,550; submarines 15,598.

The 2nd LNT didn't have tonnage quotas for those vessels. In fact it didn't have tonnage quotas for any type of naval vessel, Therefore, from 1st January 1937 the USA could have had as many Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines as it wanted, provided the individual ships met the Treaty's requirements regarding their tonnage and armament.

Are you confusing the Second London Naval Treaty with one of the Vinson Acts?

This presumably because the British were over the treaty limits as you shown in the other topic. And the Japanese although they built CAs and CLs to allowance they retained the overage CLs that should have been otherwise scrapped or converted to training ships.
So the Americans were entitled to 163,770 tons of CLs in total, and they were slightly below that in 1939. If we add the Second Vinson Act increase they were supposed to have 232,254 tons of CLs plus the 8,800 tons left from the CAs, but in fact not one single cruiser was commissioned between late 1939 and early 1942. So in theory they could have brought the Atlantas forward a year or two so they would have say 4 of them already in service by late 1941. And or perhaps a reduced Brooklyn to stay under the 8,000 ton limit (the Clevelands or just repeat Brooklyns are too big to be brought forward before the war started in Sept. 1939).

I repeat, from 1st January 1937 International Law entitled the USA to as many Cruisers as it wanted.

As to the Brooklyns, indeed the first 7 could have been in commissioned already in 1936, which could have been done if they were started earlier, say 1932-33, which could have been done of the CA program was started earlier say 1924-1925 and telescoped by a few years (say have 12 of them ready by or just after the LNT say 1928 to 1931 and the rest in the early 1930s say 1933-34, without spreading them like OTL for which the LNT needs to be altered a bit)

This is the only part that I understand and with which I agree. That is (as pointed out by @BlackBat242 in Post 8) if the budget-conscious Congress can be persuaded to spend the money.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

According to the USNI article above the 2nd LNT escalator clause allowed the USN quote cruisers 20,270; destroyers 40,550; submarines 15,598.

The 2nd LNT didn't have tonnage quotas for those vessels. In fact it didn't have tonnage quotas for any type of naval vessel, Therefore, from 1st January 1937 the USA could have had as many Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines as it wanted, provided the individual ships met the Treaty's requirements regarding their tonnage and armament.

Are you confusing the Second London Naval Treaty with one of the Vinson Acts?

Reading the article again I think 2nd LNT is a typo for 1st LNT and you are referring to this section of the article.

The London Treaty contained an “escalator clause” which any signatory could invoke, whereby he could build beyond the treaty limits after notifying the other signatories of his decision to do so. This clause having been invoked by other signatories than the United States, we became entitled to the following additional tonnage: cruisers 20,270; destroyers 40,550; submarines 15,598. This additional tonnage was, by the wording of the Act, authorized by the Vinson-Trammell Act.

And the author of the USNI article was referring to this article of the 1st LNT.

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.

Does anyone know when and how the increases were announced?

​

The above was compiled by me from the copies of the Naval Acts that I downloaded from the Library of Congress website, but I was unable to find the Act that authorised the increase in the "Date Unknown" column.

I noticed the discrepancy when I put the increases in the Act of 17.05.38 into the spreadsheet and the "New Total" was less than the new totals in the text of the Act. This is the relevant section of the Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in addition to the tonnages of the United States Navy as agreed upon and established by the treaties signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, and at London, April 22, 1930, and as authorized by the Act of March 27, 1934 (48 Stat, 503), as amended by the Act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1926), the authorized composition of the United States Navy in underage vessels is hereby increased by the following tonnages :

(a) Capital ships, one hundred and five thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of six hundred and thirty thousand tons : Provided, That vessels of tonnages in excess of thirty-five thousand tons each may be laid down if the President determines with respect to the tonnage of capital ships being built by other nations that the interests of national defense so require, in which event the authorized composition of the United States Navy of capital ships is hereby increased by one hundred and thirty-five thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of six hundred and sixty thousand tons;​

​

(b) Aircraft carriers, forty thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of one hundred and seventy-five thousand tons;​

​

(c) Cruisers, sixty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty-four tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of four hundred and twelve thousand, five hundred and twenty-four tons;​

​

(d) Destroyers, thirty-eight thousand tons, making a total authorized underage tonnage of two hundred and twenty-eight thousand tons;​

​

(e) Submarines, thirteen thousand six hundred and fifty-eight tons making a total authorized underage tonnage of eighty-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six tons.​

I have a copy of the Act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1926) referred to above and I can see nothing in it about increasing the tonnages of Cruisers, Destroyers and Submarines beyond those set by the by the 1st London Naval Treaty.

 

[lancer21]

I guess that extra tonnage became automatically authorized, the USNI article says quote This additional tonnage was, by the wording of the Act, authorized by the Vinson-Trammell Act. (of 1934)

I wonder who exactly are the other powers who invoked the escalator clause thus triggering the US (automatic) response. Must have happened between 1936 and 1938.

PS: Btw i too never realized the discrepancy between the "treaty navy" and the "1938 Vinson navy" tonnages until i read that USNI article few days back and found out about those 75,868 "automatic" tons.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I guess that extra tonnage became automatically authorized, the USNI article says quote This additional tonnage was, by the wording of the Act, authorized by the Vinson-Trammell Act. (of 1934).

That does not answer the questions that I asked, which were, "Does anyone know when and how the increases were announced?"

The Treaty required the Party making the change to ...

... 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.

Therefore, there must be a "paper trail" diplomatic correspondence.

For example, the "paper trail" of diplomatic correspondence that led to the escalator clause in the 2nd LNT allowing Capital Ships to be armed with 16in guns being invoked and to the amendment that increased the maximum tonnage of Capital Ships from 35,000 tons to 45,000 tons on 30.06.38 was 27 pages long. I know because I downloaded it from the Library of Congress website.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I guess that extra tonnage became automatically authorized, the USNI article says quote This additional tonnage was, by the wording of the Act, authorized by the Vinson-Trammell Act. (of 1934).

Another thing to consider is that the Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934 and the later acts that increased the authorised size of the USN specifically refer to the tonnage of under-age vessels. E.g. the word "underage" appears no fewer than seven times in the section of the 1938 Act that I quoted in Post 17. Therefore (subject to sufficient funding) the USN could have had as many over-age vessels as it wanted (if they still had some military value) over and above the permitted tonnage of under-age ships.

I wonder who exactly are the other powers who invoked the escalator clause thus triggering the US (automatic) response. Must have happened between 1936 and 1938.

It has to be the British Commonwealth and Japan. The "escalator clause" in the 1st LNT (i.e. Article 21) only applies to vessels in Part III of the Treaty and that part of the Treaty is about Cruisers, Destroyers & Submarines. The British Commonwealth (i.e. the UK, Dominions & India) and Japan were the only other countries that were party to that section of the Treaty. Therefore, it has to be one or both of them.

We do know that the British Commonwealth kept more Cruisers and Destroyers than were allowed by the 1st LNT. I thought it was because the 1st LNT's tonnage quotas became a "dead letter" on 25th March 1936 when the 2nd LNT (which abolished said quotas) was signed.

However, I think Friedman said in one of his books that the British kept them by invoking Article 21 of the 1st LNT. However, I don't remember if he said when Article 21 was invoked and I don't remember which book he said it in other it would have been in his book about British Cruisers (Volume 2), British Destroyers & Frigates or his book about British Submarines.

The British Commonwealth had 388,470 tons of Cruisers at the end of 1936 instead of the 339,000 tons allowed by the 1st LNT, an increase of nearly 50,000 tons. If the USA wanted to increase its Cruiser tonnage to match the British it would have increased its total by 50,000 tons too, instead of by 20,270 tons.

Similarly, the British Commonwealth had 204,064 tons of Destroyers at the end of 1936 instead of the 150,000 tons allowed by the 1st LNT. Therefore, the Americans would have increased their total by at least 50,000 tons, not 40,000 tons, if they wanted to retain parity in Destroyer tonnage with the British Commonwealth.

I've not "done the arithmetic" on the difference between the British Commonwealth's Submarine tonnage at 31.12.36 and the 52,700 tons allowed by the 1st LNT, but an increase of 15,598 tons looks too high to me in this case.

Therefore, you may be right when you wrote that the increases were a reaction to Japan giving notice that it would be leaving the Treaty System and the increases were to cover Japan keeping vessels that it no longer had to scrap to keep within the 1st LNT's limits. However, I haven't "done the arithmetic" to see if there is a correlation between the increases and the displacements of the ships kept by Japan.

PS: BTW I too never realized the discrepancy between the "treaty navy" and the "1938 Vinson navy" tonnages until I read that USNI article few days back and found out about those 75,868 "automatic" tons.

For what it's worth it's nice to know that it wasn't just me.

 

[lancer21]

I guess that extra tonnage became automatically authorized, the USNI article says quote This additional tonnage was, by the wording of the Act, authorized by the Vinson-Trammell Act. (of 1934).

Another thing to consider is that the Vinson-Trammell Act of 1934 and the later acts that increased the authorised size of the USN specifically refer to the tonnage of under-age vessels. E.g. the word "underage" appears no fewer than seven times in the section of the 1938 Act that I quoted in Post 17. Therefore (subject to sufficient funding) the USN could have had as many over-age vessels as it wanted (if they still had some military value) over and above the permitted tonnage of under-age ships.

I wonder who exactly are the other powers who invoked the escalator clause thus triggering the US (automatic) response. Must have happened between 1936 and 1938.

It has to be the British Commonwealth and Japan. The "escalator clause" in the 1st LNT (i.e. Article 21) only applies to vessels in Part III of the Treaty and that part of the Treaty is about Cruisers, Destroyers & Submarines. The British Commonwealth (i.e. the UK, Dominions & India) and Japan were the only other countries that were party to that section of the Treaty. Therefore, it has to be one or both of them.

We do know that the British Commonwealth kept more Cruisers and Destroyers than were allowed by the 1st LNT. I thought it was because the 1st LNT's tonnage quotas became a "dead letter" on 25th March 1936 when the 2nd LNT (which abolished said quotas) was signed.

However, I think Friedman said in one of his books that the British kept them by invoking Article 21 of the 1st LNT. However, I don't remember if he said when Article 21 was invoked and I don't remember which book he said it in other it would have been in his book about British Cruisers (Volume 2), British Destroyers & Frigates or his book about British Submarines.

The British Commonwealth had 388,470 tons of Cruisers at the end of 1936 instead of the 339,000 tons allowed by the 1st LNT, an increase of nearly 50,000 tons. If the USA wanted to increase its Cruiser tonnage to match the British it would have increased its total by 50,000 tons too, instead of by 20,270 tons.

Similarly, the British Commonwealth had 204,064 tons of Destroyers at the end of 1936 instead of the 150,000 tons allowed by the 1st LNT. Therefore, the Americans would have increased their total by at least 50,000 tons, not 40,000 tons, if they wanted to retain parity in Destroyer tonnage with the British Commonwealth.

I've not "done the arithmetic" on the difference between the British Commonwealth's Submarine tonnage at 31.12.36 and the 52,700 tons allowed by the 1st LNT, but an increase of 15,598 tons looks too high to me in this case.

Therefore, you may be right when you wrote that the increases were a reaction to Japan giving notice that it would be leaving the Treaty System and the increases were to cover Japan keeping vessels that it no longer had to scrap to keep within the 1st LNT's limits. However, I haven't "done the arithmetic" to see if there is a correlation between the increases and the displacements of the ships kept by Japan.

PS: BTW I too never realized the discrepancy between the "treaty navy" and the "1938 Vinson navy" tonnages until I read that USNI article few days back and found out about those 75,868 "automatic" tons.

For what it's worth it's nice to know that it wasn't just me.

Well that's one for us to keep scratching our heads about for a while. The americans must have used some kind of benchmark calculation to arrive at those quite specific figures. Skimming through Friedman's US cruisers book last night i did found reference in the pages refering to the 2nd LNT to the british wanting to keep more cruisers (CLs, the only type allowed by LNT) than the treaty allowed and wanting to have the americans agree to that, but need to read it again to see the exact wording and timing.

Perhaps those american tonnage figures were taking into account only those british ships kept over the treaty that were underage? Also there is the ratio between british and US CLs of about 1,35 so those 20,000 tons of US CL could be a reply to about 27,000 tons of (underage?) british CLs over the LNT limits? No idea if that's the case, just an exploratory musing.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well that's one for us to keep scratching our heads about for a while. The americans must have used some kind of benchmark calculation to arrive at those quite specific figures. Skimming through Friedman's US cruisers book last night i did found reference in the pages referring to the 2nd LNT to the British wanting to keep more cruisers (CLs, the only type allowed by LNT) than the treaty allowed and wanting to have the Americans agree to that, but need to read it again to see the exact wording and timing.

That's likely to be during the abortive Geneva Disarmament Conference of 1927 or the First London Conference that produced the 1st LNT.

The British had wanted 70 Cruisers since the early 1920s. This was a problem for the Americans because they wanted parity with Britain in all types of warship. They needed the same number of Fleet Cruisers as the British because the WNT allowed them to have the same number of 35,000 ton Capital Ships (i.e. 15 each). However, they needed fewer Trade Protection Cruisers on account of having a smaller Merchant Navy and shorter trade routes.

The 1st LNT tonnage quota for the British Commonwealth was only large enough for 50 Cruisers (15 CA & 35 CL). That's because the British Government made the British Admiralty accept a smaller quota. If the Admiralty had got its way the Cruiser Quota would have been around 500,000 tons (instead of 339,000 tons) to allow a force of 70 Cruisers consisting of 15 CA & 55 CL. That's also why the Treaty only allowed the British Commonwealth to build 91,000 tons of new Cruisers between 1930 & 1936. The politicians felt that building more would not be within the spirit of the Treaty.

A paragraph from the 1st LNT that I quoted here or on the other thread also allowed the USA another 45,500 tons of Light Cruisers if they only built 150,000 tons of Heavy Cruisers out of the 180,000 tons that they were allowed under the Treaty. The net increase of 15,500 tons would have increased the total Cruiser tonnage from 323,500 to 339,000 tons, i.e. the same as the British Commonwealth's total Cruiser quota.

Perhaps those American tonnage figures were taking into account only those British ships kept over the treaty that were underage? Also there is the ratio between British and US CLs of about 1,35 so those 20,000 tons of US CL could be a reply to about 27,000 tons of (underage?) british CLs over the LNT limits? No idea if that's the case, just an exploratory musing.

Fair enough. However, I think not and I've already explained why I think not.

 

[EwenS]

Friedman's "British Cruisers Two World Wars and After"
In the wake of the Abyssininian Crisis 1935/36 the RN began to plan to upgrade the fleet's AA armament. Part of that was to rearm the old C class cruisers and a number of V&W class destroyers and older sloops as convoy AA escorts. Friedman notes that:-

"In December 1936 the British government assured the Japanese and US governments, the other signitories of the 1930 London Treaty, that five of the 'C' class cruisers it was retaining would be converted into anti-aircraft ships, and that they would be scrapped by 1941. As of March 1937 plans called for taking four cruisers in hand during 1938 for completion by that December. The programme applied to six 'C' class cruisers and eight 'D' class cruisers, in addition to the two earlier conversions. Selected merchant ships would receive the set of weapons and fire controls as the converted 'C' class cruiser."

The retention of 5 C class cruisers, clearly with the agreement of the other parties, accounts for about 21,000 standard tons depending on what 5 ships were intended to be included. Maybe their rearming as AA ships with 4xtwin 4" was enough to remove them from being considered a threat by other parties.

There is also the question of the status of the Hawkins class as of Dec 1936 given that Britain could only retain 15 cruisers with guns larger than 6.1".

Raven & Roberts "British Cruisers of World War Two"

"Under the terms of the 1930 London naval Treaty, the Hawkins Class were due to be demilitarized by December 1936, as being additional to the number of cruisers armed with guns above 6.1in calibre allowed to the British Empire."


Article XVI (2) of the 1930 Treaty stated that they should be "disposed of gradually during the period eding on 31 December 1936", and Article XX (a) allowed Frobisher & Effingham, which were not then overage, to be disposed of by 31 December 1936.

So in 1932 Frobisher had become a cadet training ship with only 5x7.5" and 2x4". Then in 1936 Frobisher had her armament reduced to 1x4.7" and the 2xsubmerged TT "in compliance with the 1930 London Treaty" and continued her training ship role. Plans to refit her as in Effingham came to nothing and she was taken in hand to be rearmed in Sept 1939 after the outbreak of WW2. That process lasted until Dec 1941.

1937/38 saw Hawkins, Vindictive and Effingham demilitarized having all their 7.5" guns and above water TT removed.

Vindictive was converted to a cadet training ship after losing her inboard shafts and turbines and half her boilers which limited her speed to 24 knots. Her armament was then 2x4.7". She recommissioned in her new role in Sept 1937. Plans in 1939 to refit her along the lines of Effingham came to nothing and instead she became a repair ship in 1940.

Effingham, in reserve from 1935, was refitted 1937/39 as a light cruiser with 9x6" guns, 4x twin 4" and 3xquad 0.5". She also lost 2 of her boilers and had the funnels retrunked.

Finally Hawkins was also in reserve from 1935 and was due to be refitted as Effingham. But with the arrival of WW2 she was simply refitted and rearmed and put back into service in December 1940.

It is not clear to me by what means Britain was allowed to keep the Hawkins class in "demilitarised" form after 1936 but it happened. The removal of their main armament suggests at least an attempt to comply with the 1930 Treaty. They account for 39,440 standard tons of total cruiser tonnage.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Friedman's "British Cruisers Two World Wars and After"​

In the wake of the Abyssinian Crisis 1935/36 the RN began to plan to upgrade the fleet's AA armament. Part of that was to rearm the old C class cruisers and a number of V&W class destroyers and older sloops as convoy AA escorts. Friedman notes that:-

"In December 1936 the British government assured the Japanese and US governments, the other signatories of the 1930 London Treaty, that five of the 'C' class cruisers it was retaining would be converted into anti-aircraft ships, and that they would be scrapped by 1941. As of March 1937 plans called for taking four cruisers in hand during 1938 for completion by that December. The programme applied to six 'C' class cruisers and eight 'D' class cruisers, in addition to the two earlier conversions. Selected merchant ships would receive the set of weapons and fire controls as the converted 'C' class cruiser."

The retention of 5 C class cruisers, clearly with the agreement of the other parties, accounts for about 21,000 standard tons depending on what 5 ships were intended to be included. Maybe their rearming as AA ships with 4xtwin 4" was enough to remove them from being considered a threat by other parties.

There is also the question of the status of the Hawkins class as of Dec 1936 given that Britain could only retain 15 cruisers with guns larger than 6.1".

Are you sure that's December 1936? I think it should be December 1935.

It if was the former I don't see the point of making such an announcement as the tonnage quotas of the 1st LNT were about to be abolished (i.e. on 01.01.37) when the 2nd LNT replaced the 1st LNT and the tonnage quotas had been a "dead letter" since March 1936 when the 2nd LNT was signed.

Raven & Roberts "British Cruisers of World War Two"​

"Under the terms of the 1930 London naval Treaty, the Hawkins Class were due to be demilitarized by December 1936, as being additional to the number of cruisers armed with guns above 6.1in calibre allowed to the British Empire."

Article XVI (2) of the 1930 Treaty stated that they should be "disposed of gradually during the period ending on 31 December 1936", and Article XX (a) allowed Frobisher & Effingham, which were not then overage, to be disposed of by 31 December 1936.

So in 1932 Frobisher had become a cadet training ship with only 5x7.5" and 2x4". Then in 1936 Frobisher had her armament reduced to 1x4.7" and the 2xsubmerged TT "in compliance with the 1930 London Treaty" and continued her training ship role. Plans to refit her as in Effingham came to nothing and she was taken in hand to be rearmed in Sept 1939 after the outbreak of WW2. That process lasted until Dec 1941.

1937/38 saw Hawkins, Vindictive and Effingham demilitarized having all their 7.5" guns and above water TT removed.

Vindictive was converted to a cadet training ship after losing her inboard shafts and turbines and half her boilers which limited her speed to 24 knots. Her armament was then 2x4.7". She re-commissioned in her new role in Sept 1937. Plans in 1939 to refit her along the lines of Effingham came to nothing and instead she became a repair ship in 1940.

Effingham, in reserve from 1935, was refitted 1937/39 as a light cruiser with 9x6" guns, 4x twin 4" and 3xquad 0.5". She also lost 2 of her boilers and had the funnels re-trunked.

Finally Hawkins was also in reserve from 1935 and was due to be refitted as Effingham. But with the arrival of WW2 she was simply refitted and rearmed and put back into service in December 1940.

I also think Raven & Roberts were wrong and the word scrapped should be substituted for demilitarized.

For what its worth.







​

Both projected Cruiser Forces at 31/12/36 included 14 Ships of 62,860 tons that were overage on 31/12/36 but couldn't be replaced by that date due to the 91,000 tons rule. The 7 extra ships at 31/12/36 were also ships that were overage at that date or in the case of Effingham & Frobisher underage ships that the 1st LNT said could be scrapped by 31/12/36.

The exact wording of the relevant parts of the First London Naval Treaty were.

Article 16​

1. The completed tonnage in the cruiser, destroyer and submarine categories which is not to be exceeded on 31 December 1936 is given in the following table:

​

2. Vessels which cause the total tonnage in any category to exceed the figures given in the foregoing table shall be disposed of gradually during the period ending on 31 December 1936.

Article 20​

Notwithstanding the rules for replacement contained in Annex I to Part II:

(a) The "Frobisher" and "Effingham" (United Kingdom) may be disposed of during the year 1936. Apart from the cruisers under construction on 1 April 1930, the total replacement tonnage of cruisers to be completed, in the case of the British Commonwealth of Nations, prior to 31 December 1936, shall not exceed 91,000 tons (92,456 metric tons).

The four surviving Hawkins class cruisers were all laid down before 01.01.20 and therefore under the terms of the 1st LNT became overage 16 years after their date of completion, which meant they became overage on:

31/12/34 Vindictive​

19/07/35 Hawkins​

31/10/40 Frobisher​

09/07/41 Effingham​

It is not clear to me by what means Britain was allowed to keep the Hawkins class in "demilitarised" form after 1936 but it happened. The removal of their main armament suggests at least an attempt to comply with the 1930 Treaty. They account for 39,440 standard tons of total cruiser tonnage.

The tonnage quotas ceased to be at midnight on 31.12.36 so the British Commonwealth of Nations could have as many tons of Cruisers as their Governments were prepared to pay for (demilitarised or militarised) from 01.01.37 onwards.

 

[lancer21]

Something that might be relevant to the discussion, someone at AH.com reposted these very interesting shipbuilding diagrams. They may possibly not be 100% accurate, but they give a good idea.

An alternate history of Japanese carrier development.

So, before I get to posting anything about alternative IJN carrier development, I need to check my facts on what actually was done, for right now, with one exception, here is an image I created to help get needed info in one place. As near as I could extract from the mess that is Wiki, this is...

www.alternatehistory.com

US diagrams show the deleterious effects of being so late with finishing their CA and CL allowance, even if LNT is still the same they should have had on the slips only 1 CA and 2 CLs after 1936. So in this TTL it seems to be possible to bring forward to 1937-38 at least 2 of the BBs as i was exploring the other day. Also with some jiggling around, wonder if space for CV-9 can be found too roughly alongside CV-8.
Btw thanks again NOMISYRRUC and EwenS for the info and the fantastic tables you bring forward, there is so much info digesting to do!

 

[lancer21]

Just found (or found again) this outstanding source re US shipards/shipbuilding, there's a mountain of data to go through. From the few lists i checked so far the almost complete lack of shipbuilding in the 1920s is evident.

U.S. Shipbuilding History, Canadian Shipbuilding History, Tim Colton