A minor change to Washington treaties--a thought

[NHBL]

This isn't a timeline; I have far too much on my plate--but I had an idea for a slight revision of the Washington treaty.
Suppose someone thought, "Hey--we don't build something for 10 years, we'll loose a lot of the expertise," so the "Battleship Holiday" was reduced to 4 years, and allowed one new ship to be laid down every 2 years. That allows a gradual replacement of older ships without upcoming block obsolescence, allows yards to keep in production, and also allows nations currently having problems fnancially to aspire to replace older ships sooner. The predreadnoughts that Italy and France had, needed to be replaced, as did the abundance of 12" gun ships in the USN.

This still saves money, keeps the fleets at a manageable size, and leads to some interesting possible plotlines.

Any thoughts? And if anyone wants to make a timeline out of this, feel free.

 

[Admiral Spaun]

The predreadnoughts that Italy and France had, needed to be replace

That was taken care of by the 70,000 tons allocated to them in OTL. They just didn't do anything with it because money.

 

[jsb]

It would be a good idea especially for GB, I would just 1/2 the speed of the OTL build scheduled but start immediately and allow pre built hulls if people want to to save money?
ITTL
Section II: Replacement and scrapping of capital ships (NOTE AGES WRONG AS I HAVE NOT RECALCULATED THEM)
GB

1922	A			21	1
1923	B			21	1
1924	C			21	1
1925	D	A	King George V (13), Ajax (12),	19	2
1926	E	B	Centurion (13), Thunderer (14)	17	3
1927	F	C	Iron Duke (20), Marlborough (20)	15	4
1928	G	D	Emperor of India (20), Benbow (20)	13	5
1929	H	E	Tiger (21), Resolution (21)	11	6
1930	I	F	Royal Oak (22)Ramillies (24)	9	7
1931	J	G	Revenge (21), Royal Sovereign (20)	7	8
1932	K	H	Queen Elizabeth (20), Malaya (20)	5	9
1933	L	I	Barham (20)	4	10
1934	M	J	Warspite (20)	3	11
1935	N	K	Valiant (23)	2	12
1936	O	L	Renown (24)	1	13
1937	P	M	Repulse (23)	0	14
1938	Q	O	Hood (21)	0	15
1939		P	A (17),	0	15
1940		Q	B (17)	0	15
1941			,	0	15
1942				0	15

All the other nations schedules could like wise be stretched and this makes LNT holiday less likly as well. This make it likely QEs/Rs dont serve in WWII but I think R&R and Hood + N&R are kept as traning ships/ in the process of being scraped until rearmament post 1 Jan 37 saves them.

History and Technology - Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

 

[CV(N)-6]

Assuming these are 35k ton, 16" ships in terms of limits, we could get some interesting 'Treaty Battleships' and it would be interesting to see them evolve-we might also come close to the optimal design on the tonnage, whereas most navies only got 1-2 classes to experiment with, but here they could have several more.

 

[jsb]

whereas most navies only got 1-2 classes to experiment with

Not sure about most navys got 1 or 2 classes really only RN and USN got 2 classes and even then USN are not not under the weight limits due to being built post 37?

Assuming these are 35k ton, 16" ships in terms of limits, we could get some interesting 'Treaty Battleships' and it would be interesting to see them evolve-we might also come close to the optimal design on the tonnage,

That's the issue, 35k is hard as the USN can add the Washington BB47 to BB 45/48, that's A, B , C takes them to 1925, but then its much larger hulls so they need to go new builds? (as SD/Lex are 41/42....kt
IJN has say Mutisu for its 22 ship (I know its already built) and then they dont have anything else under 40-41 Amagi/Tosa/kii......

RN might be nice and offer to raise the limit to 42kt as thats Hoods anyway.......... totally not so USN/IJN have to use the old hulls and it gets cut down G3s with new weight saving.....

Then its a matter of how much each nation actually follows the rules weight wise?

 

[CV(N)-6]

Not sure about most navys got 1 or 2 classes really only RN and USN got 2 classes and even then USN are not not under the weight limits due to being built post 37?

US: North Carolina, SoDaks(increased but still basically a WNT BB)
UK: KGV, NelRods
France: Richelieu, Gascoigne
Italy: Veneto's broke the treaty but were essentially an increased treaty BB
Germany: See Italy
Yes, imperfect examples, but a good number of countries built 35-40,000 ton BB's heavily influenced by the treaties.