I stumbled on this forum post regarding minutes of discussions for what became the Washington Treaty. An interesting point that was raised was that in return for the scrapping of the Ajax, Centurion, King George V, Erin and Tiger, then a pair of what were then termed "Super-Hoods" in excess of 43,000 tons could be built. Alternatively (the option which was chosen by Balfour) only 4 of the earlier Battleships could be scrapped and a pair of new design 35,000 ton Battleships could be built.
Had the first option been taken, and assuming that the Washington Treaty limit for new build Battleships (aside from the concessions ton Britain for the G3s) remains at 35,000 tons*, what sort of influence would the G3s have upon entering service in the late 1920s. Britain would have pair of ships which would be equal to any new-build Treaty Battleship which could be built when the Battleship Building Holiday ends on the 12th November 1931 (assuming no London Naval Treaty), and yet is considerably faster than them**.
Will something like the 1930 London Naval Treaty be negotiated, and if not, which, if any, nations will build 35,000 ton slow Battleships?
Will they instead use their Battleship tonnage to build large cruiser-killers capable of exceeding the speed of the 32-knot G3s (much like the French Croiseur de Bataille de 37 000t drawn up in 1927)?
How will this effect the design of Treaty Cruisers***?
Will they lobby for the Treaty restrictions to be lifted earlier, withdraw from the Treaty (requiring 2 years notice), or wait until it expires on the 31st December 1936?
It should be noted the the Lexington class were to exceed the Treaty limits for carriers when they were completed, both America and Japan were able to complete or convert a small amount of their pre-Treaty construction, whilst as explained above, Britain was allowed to complete 2 new ship, the Nelsons, incorporating the experience of the First World War, so I don't think this scenario is entirely out side the grounds of reality.
OTL the completion of the Nelsons led to the rejection by the Americans of a British proposal for a 25,000 ton 12in gun limit at Geneva in 1927. How would the construction of two slightly more powerful and faster ships affect 1920s and 30s attempts at arms control?
*the above link includes discussion haggling over tonnage, ranging from 43,200 tons, 38,000 tons and the 35,000 ton displacement which was later selected as the Washington Treaty limit.
**proposals for new-build Battleships within Britain, the US and Japan in the run up to the end of the Building Holiday in the late 1920s were all limited to around 21-23 knots for American Designs, 23-25 knots for British designs and 23-26 knots for the Japanese designs.
***The first generation of 10,000ton Treaty Cruisers were poorly-balanced, essentially unprotected ships built to outrun the pre-Treaty Battlecruisers, with later generations only gaining more protection as a combination of improved machinery and lowered requirements for speed enabled the tonnage to be used otherwise. With the G3s and potential construction of cruiser-killers, would Treaty Cruisers get heavier protection, or would the improvements in machinery that led to improved protection OTL instead be used to eke out even more speed?
Had the first option been taken, and assuming that the Washington Treaty limit for new build Battleships (aside from the concessions ton Britain for the G3s) remains at 35,000 tons*, what sort of influence would the G3s have upon entering service in the late 1920s. Britain would have pair of ships which would be equal to any new-build Treaty Battleship which could be built when the Battleship Building Holiday ends on the 12th November 1931 (assuming no London Naval Treaty), and yet is considerably faster than them**.
Will something like the 1930 London Naval Treaty be negotiated, and if not, which, if any, nations will build 35,000 ton slow Battleships?
Will they instead use their Battleship tonnage to build large cruiser-killers capable of exceeding the speed of the 32-knot G3s (much like the French Croiseur de Bataille de 37 000t drawn up in 1927)?
How will this effect the design of Treaty Cruisers***?
Will they lobby for the Treaty restrictions to be lifted earlier, withdraw from the Treaty (requiring 2 years notice), or wait until it expires on the 31st December 1936?
It should be noted the the Lexington class were to exceed the Treaty limits for carriers when they were completed, both America and Japan were able to complete or convert a small amount of their pre-Treaty construction, whilst as explained above, Britain was allowed to complete 2 new ship, the Nelsons, incorporating the experience of the First World War, so I don't think this scenario is entirely out side the grounds of reality.
OTL the completion of the Nelsons led to the rejection by the Americans of a British proposal for a 25,000 ton 12in gun limit at Geneva in 1927. How would the construction of two slightly more powerful and faster ships affect 1920s and 30s attempts at arms control?
*the above link includes discussion haggling over tonnage, ranging from 43,200 tons, 38,000 tons and the 35,000 ton displacement which was later selected as the Washington Treaty limit.
**proposals for new-build Battleships within Britain, the US and Japan in the run up to the end of the Building Holiday in the late 1920s were all limited to around 21-23 knots for American Designs, 23-25 knots for British designs and 23-26 knots for the Japanese designs.
***The first generation of 10,000ton Treaty Cruisers were poorly-balanced, essentially unprotected ships built to outrun the pre-Treaty Battlecruisers, with later generations only gaining more protection as a combination of improved machinery and lowered requirements for speed enabled the tonnage to be used otherwise. With the G3s and potential construction of cruiser-killers, would Treaty Cruisers get heavier protection, or would the improvements in machinery that led to improved protection OTL instead be used to eke out even more speed?
Last edited: