• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

What if No Treaty of Washington - 1922

airman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
59
Website
zeef.com
Assuming the scenario of no Treaty of Washington in 1922 , i suppose that importance of battleship are still high until World War Two . In this scenario i suppose importance of aircraft carriers rise by the beginning of WW2. What do you think about this scenario ?
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
621
Reaction score
290
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I wouldn't say that Washington Treaty was actually responsible for the rise of carriers. Britain, USA and Japan already started to employ them. It was mainly the maturation of aircraft technology, that made carrier-centered warfare viable; only when carrier aircraft became capable enough, carriers became the new capital ships.

The main effect of Washington Treaty in that matter was that it helped carriers to grew in size - by allowing to use incomplete battleships and battlecruisers hulls. Without it, carriers would probably remain reltively small until mid-1930s.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
1,257
Big. battleships. and. battlecruisers. porn. Alas, at the cost of brankrupting many world powers, so not quite a good idea...

I want a 120 000 tons battleship with 12*20-inch guns in four tripple turrets.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,328
Reaction score
976
World War 2 is not my area of interest but apart from the gunnery duel between Bismark and King George V and Hood there were no clashes between the behemoth ships. They seemed to die by torpedo or bombs. Not sure that any changes in their type or number would have made much difference to that.
There were attempts to limit or ban submarines but noone wanted to do the same with aircraft.
 

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
436
Reaction score
377
World War 2 is not my area of interest but apart from the gunnery duel between Bismark and King George V and Hood there were no clashes between the behemoth ships. They seemed to die by torpedo or bombs. Not sure that any changes in their type or number would have made much difference to that.
There were attempts to limit or ban submarines but noone wanted to do the same with aircraft.
Scharnhorst & Duke of York?

Plus several US battleships against Japanese - tho that's another of my many areas of lack of expertise.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
1,257
Battleships clashes in WWII were rare indeed...
As well noted
- Denmark straits and the whole Bismarck saga
- Guadalcanal: USS Washington and Sodak vs Japanese (Kongo ?)
- And Scharnhorst vs Duke of York in late 43.

- Does Operation Torch count ? In Casablanca Jean Bart fired and was fired by US ships (USS Massachusetts, goddam name impossible to write, way too many sssssssss for my taste) , but it was really one sided fight.

- Cape Matapan was battleships vs heavy cruisers... it ended very badly for the italian ships. They were turned into smoldering razor blades, their turrets shooting high like mexican beans.

- At Leyte Gulf the heroic sacrifice of the Taffy 3 tins cans precluded a (memorable) Yamato vs US battleline.

It is a shame we never got a big brawl, Jutland-style, in the Mediterranean - between RN battlewagons and Roma-class battleships. Would have been pretty... explosive.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
621
Reaction score
290
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
As well noted
Battle of Calabria, Battle of Cape Spartivento - both time battleships get involved on both sides. Also, there were series of actions when Italian battleships engaged British cruisers.

P.S. Generally the Italian battleships were the most active capital ships of the whole Axis; in 1940-1942 (in 1943 they do not operate much due to lack of fuel), they participated in more operations and engaged enemy more, than German or Japanese battleships during all World War 2.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
621
Reaction score
290
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
- between RN battlewagons and Roma-class battleships. Would have been pretty... explosive.
Well, if not for over-cautiousness of Regia Marina command (which insisted that Italian ships must engage only in very favourable conditions), there were at least two situations when Royal Navy might found itself beaten...
 

1Big Rich

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
24
Reaction score
34
Website
www.tapatalk.com
Assuming the scenario of no Treaty of Washington in 1922 , i suppose that importance of battleship are still high until World War Two . In this scenario i suppose importance of aircraft carriers rise by the beginning of WW2. What do you think about this scenario ?
The USN wanted large carriers before the treaty intervened. In October 1918, the Bureau of Construction & Repair provided a sketch design for a carrier of 24,000 tons and 825ft long capable of 35 knots on 140,000 shp. In 1919, BuC&R proposed a carrier of 34,500 tons and 35 knots (based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down). Next was a design of about 29,180 tons. See Friedman's US Carriers: An Illustrated Design History, p. 35.

If the USN is building large carriers in a treaty-less environment, some of the other powers might well follow suit.

In my opinion the treaty accomplished four things.
- It stopped the naval arms race
- it ended the construction of mostly obsolete ships that all powers would have found difficulty in affording
- it turned several suspect hulls into useful ships by allowing conversions to carriers
- it stopped the development of battleships (for 15 years with First London) while ALL other types of warships continued to progress.

Battleships clashes in WWII were rare indeed...
Actually, there were more capital ship-on-capital ship clashes than carrier-on-carrier battles.

1 - Renown against Scharnhorst and Gneisenau off Vestfjord
2 - Hood, Valiant, Resolution against Dunquerque, Strasbourg, Bretagne, and Provence at Mers-el-Kebir
3 - Warspite against Giulio Cesare and Conte di Cavour at Clabria/Punto Stilo
4 - Barham and Resolution against Richelieu at Dakar
5 - Renown and Ramilles against Vittorio Veneto and Giulio Cesare at Spartivento/Capte Teluda
6 - Bismarck against Hood and Prince of Wales at Denmark Strait
7 - Rodney and King George V against Bismarck in the destruction of the later (same link as above)
8 - Washington against Kirishima at Second Guadalcanal
9 - Duke of York against Scharnhorst at North Cape
10 - West Virginia, Tennessee, California, Maryland, Mississippi and Pennsylvania against Yamashiro and Fuso at Suragao Strait

Carrier vs carrier clashes only occurred at Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, Philippine Sea and Cape Engano.

Regards all,

--Edited for typo/autocorrect
 
Last edited:

1Big Rich

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
24
Reaction score
34
Website
www.tapatalk.com
Well, if not for over-cautiousness of Regia Marina command (which insisted that Italian ships must engage only in very favourable conditions), there were at least two situations when Royal Navy might found itself beaten...
I don't see the Regia Marina as overly cautious like the Germans. After all, the Raid on Taranto was the night of 11-12 November, and the RM was in action at Cape Teluda/Spartivento two weeks later. They were hardly cowed by the RN or the damage the FAA inflicted

The RM was handicapped by poor recon and an overly complex scouting system. If I recall correctly, in the case of the latter Regia Aeronautica aircraft could not communicate directly with Regia Marina ships at sea. They had to contact their base, which contacted Super Aero in Rome, who contacted Super Marina in Rome, who contacted the ships' base, who contacted the ships at sea.

Operation Hats is a good example of a powerful Italian task force deployed with a good chance of defeating any of the opposing RN forces, but failed because of poor RA recon:

Operation Hats, 29 August-6September, 1940
British operation to reinforce Mediterranean Fleet.

Force F


BB Valiant

CV Illustrious

CLAA Coventry
CLAA Calcutta

Reinforcement squadron, proceeding from Gibraltar to Alexandria

Force H, covering Force F

BC Renown

CV Ark Royal

CL Sheffield

12 DD

On 31 August, 9 Swordfish attack Port Elma on Sardinia, and Force H turns away.

South of Sicily, Force F is met by the Mediterranean Fleet

BB Warspite

BB Malaya

CV Eagle

3rd Cruiser Squadron (CL Glocester, CA Kent, CL Liverpool)

7th Cruiser Squadron ( CLs Orion and Sydney)

13 DD

The Med. Fleet is also providing cover for a convoy to Malta consisting of:
3 Transports
4 DD

Italian Fleet attempts to intercept with

BB Vittorio Veneto

BB Littorio

13 CA+CL

39 DD

As an aside, Illustrious was flying the flag of Rear Admiral Lumely Lyster, former CO of Glorious, the Mediterranean Fleet carrier, who helped develop a plan to a plan to attack the Italian Fleet at its base at Taranto, after the Abyssinian Crisis. One Dudley Pound was C-in-C Med at the time...

Regards,
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
136
Big. battleships. and. battlecruisers. porn. Alas, at the cost of brankrupting many world powers, so not quite a good idea...

I want a 120 000 tons battleship with 12*20-inch guns in four tripple turrets.
and don't forget the ever gigantic cruisers... unless the OP is saying there is still a London treaty but no Washington one... which would be VERY bad for cruiser captains
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
621
Reaction score
290
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
The RM was handicapped by poor recon and an overly complex scouting system. If I recall correctly, in the case of the latter Regia Aeronautica aircraft could not communicate directly with Regia Marina ships at sea. They had to contact their base, which contacted Super Aero in Rome, who contacted Super Marina in Rome, who contacted the ships' base, who contacted the ships at sea.
Yep, exactly.
 

bobtdwarf

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
99
Reaction score
136
World War 2 is not my area of interest but apart from the gunnery duel between Bismark and King George V and Hood there were no clashes between the behemoth ships. They seemed to die by torpedo or bombs. Not sure that any changes in their type or number would have made much difference to that.
There were attempts to limit or ban submarines but noone wanted to do the same with aircraft.
How it influences things is based on the observation that initially aircraft were kind of crap... so the major powers go with the proven model of gigantic masses of moving steel with GIGANTIC guns. Aircraft will get better, but those behemoths are so expensive that there is not going to be much money left.. or for that matter steel.. for building a large number of carriers.

They were already planning ships in the 45,000 ton or larger range in the 20's
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
621
Reaction score
290
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
How it influences things is based on the observation that initially aircraft were kind of crap... so the major powers go with the proven model of gigantic masses of moving steel with GIGANTIC guns. Aircraft will get better, but those behemoths are so expensive that there is not going to be much money left.. or for that matter steel.. for building a large number of carriers.
Well, it would probably not be THAT radical. Everyone acknowledged the usefulness of aircraft carriers in early 1920s; also, the economical conditions of nearly everyone (except USA) did not allow to push into new battleships and battlecruisers continuously.
 

airman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
59
Website
zeef.com
on my italian blog storialternativa.it i imagined an alternate class of ship : Armored Landing Trasport or reconverted battleship to Landing Trasport simply removing main cannons .
 

Attachments

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
130
Reaction score
50
Converting a battleship to any sort of amphibious ship is a complete non-starter. They draw too much water for beaching like an LST and their hull shape is wrong anyway. Their hull shape also prevents converting them into a LPD/LSD. I suppose you could make them into an armored combat-loaded troop ship with landing craft but it would be completely uneconomical to do so.
 

SSgtC

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
135
Reaction score
136
Well the biggest change, obviously, is that new battleships are designed and built. 18" guns may or may not become common (the British didn't seem exactly in love with their 18" gun and the US felt that their 18" design was little better than the 16"/50 but with a massive weight penalty). The other knock on will be in carrier, cruiser and destroyer development. In OTL, the funds that would have been used to develop more battleships ended up going to other programs. I'm not saying that those classes wouldn't be developed, just that it wouldn't surprise me if they developed slower. Carriers in particular. While everyone recognized the potential of the carrier, that's all it was. Potential. And frankly, aircraft in 1922 were wholly unable to threaten a battleship. So resources that in OTL helped to speed up the development of torpedo and dive bombers would not go there, but into the "Queen of Battle."
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
678
Reaction score
376
And frankly, aircraft in 1922 were wholly unable to threaten a battleship.
The Sopwith Cuckoo was already established as a torpedo bomber in 1918, and the RN planned a mass attack on the High Seas Fleet in the Jade Estuary when it had sufficient carriers available.

 

SSgtC

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
135
Reaction score
136
And frankly, aircraft in 1922 were wholly unable to threaten a battleship.
The Sopwith Cuckoo was already established as a torpedo bomber in 1918, and the RN planned a mass attack on the High Seas Fleet in the Jade Estuary when it had sufficient carriers available.

Judging by the performance of the aircraft and the likely torpedo they would have used, I stand by my statement that aircraft of the time we're wholly unable to threaten a battleship. The British Mk VII and VIII torpedoes only had a 320 pound TNT warhead. Even WWI torpedo defenses should be able to withstand that.
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
464
Reaction score
41
And frankly, aircraft in 1922 were wholly unable to threaten a battleship.
The Sopwith Cuckoo was already established as a torpedo bomber in 1918, and the RN planned a mass attack on the High Seas Fleet in the Jade Estuary when it had sufficient carriers available.

Judging by the performance of the aircraft and the likely torpedo they would have used, I stand by my statement that aircraft of the time we're wholly unable to threaten a battleship. The British Mk VII and VIII torpedoes only had a 320 pound TNT warhead. Even WWI torpedo defenses should be able to withstand that.
I would think that with slower aircraft development, festooning the ships with AA and DP guns as in our timeline would keep aircraft secondary a little while longer. See how well a Blackburn Blackburn would do going up against 1939 level AA. Hell, see what a TBD would do against 1941 AA.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
678
Reaction score
376
Judging by the performance of the aircraft and the likely torpedo they would have used, I stand by my statement that aircraft of the time we're wholly unable to threaten a battleship. The British Mk VII and VIII torpedoes only had a 320 pound TNT warhead. Even WWI torpedo defenses should be able to withstand that.
The Cuckoo flew, was well liked, was in service for five years and successfully launched torpedoes on multiple occasions. Its ability to attack moored battleships is clear.

330lbs of wet guncotton (roughly equivalent to 360lbs of TNT) was sufficient to sink HMS Audacious.

The 18" Mk VIII (not to be confused with the 21" Mk VIII of WWII) was the standard armament of several classes of submarine, and the Admiralty was confident enough it could sink a German battleship* that it ordered E14 into the Dardanelles to sink the Goeben. E23 actually did torpedo the Westfalen (Nassau class), and while she survived she took on 800 tons of water, which is clear evidence the potential to sink a battleship existed, especially with multiple hits. In fact Speer put the Westfalen in the lead during the night of Jutland specifically because she had a better TDS than most of the High Seas Fleet.

* Technically Goeben was a battlecruiser, but her TDS was equivalent to that of the Nassau class and better than that of all the German pre-Dreadnaughts (a significant percentage of the High Seas Fleet).
 

lordroel

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
25
Assuming the scenario of no Treaty of Washington in 1922 , i suppose that importance of battleship are still high until World War Two . In this scenario i suppose importance of aircraft carriers rise by the beginning of WW2. What do you think about this scenario ?
No Treaty of Washington means some countries will go broke on keeping up building new battleships.
 
Top