Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
The Washington and later London treaties severely limited the size of British battleships built between the wars. The result being that instead of the Bismark facing 4 N3 battle ships and 4 G3 battle cruisers armed with 16" guns, Bismark was chased by a mixture of old ww1 battle cruisers and battleships; the second rate KGVs; and the extremely slow Nelsons.
So would Britain have been better off without the Treaties?Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
The problem for Britain pre Washington treaty was that she reallly couldnt afford another arms race.Ok you would have the N3 and G3 capital ships,but without question the USA would have responded as would possibly Japan with similar or improved designs.And whilst the UK had proved it could outbuild Germany,it couldnt outbuild the USA and in any case there wasnt the money.
An issue for the RN post- Washington was the lack of capital ships available following the cull,whilst the US had 2 oceans/seas to cover and the Japanese 1,the RN had 4!.In the past the RN had a pool of capital ships which could be dispatched as needed.Following the "Rolls,Rolls,Ford" agreement she now only had 15 parity with the US Navy.Now obviously some of the scrapped ships were old knackers,but others may have been more useful HMS Tiger and the other "Splendid Cats for example.They were fast,large and would have been better units than the slow,unsatisfactory "R"class.When Jellicoe summised the empires needs in 1919 he stated that there should be abase at Singapore,BUT there it should also have a significant fleet stationed there.Post Washington that simply wasnt an option.
On the Bismark,it must be remembered that she was considerably larger than she should have been and was not quite as invincible as is sometimes suggested.Her legend of invincibilty is as much as a result of her brief action with HMS Hood as to her actual ability to take fire.
Hood was an old ship and a battlecruiser,Prince of Wales was a brand new ship with workman on board,whose main armnament was smaller than Bismark.
And yet...POW still managed to deliver a substantial blow to Bismark,a blow that in some ways was the beginning of the slow death.Bismark (as with several German warships) had a weak stern,yes it was perhaps a lucky torpedo which hit the stern,but the Bismark could steer on propellors alone whilst on exersices in the Baltic let alone in the North Atlantic with a damaged rear end!As for HMS Rodney,well despite being in a "bit of a state" she still pummmelled Bismark as did the KGV.
Churchill once said that :
"We are fighting this war with the ships of the last"
And he was ,in the case of the battleships probably right.Fortunatly Germanys surface fleet was small(and even smaller after Norway) and the Itallians didnt like a stand up fight with an equal opponent.In both these cases we had enough "in the locker" to deal with them,importantly niether had an aircraft carrier.
Japan was the one enemy were the RN was found wanting.The RN simply did not have the capacity to fight in the Atlantics,Artic,Med and home waters and the Indian/Pacific.To me that was a result of the Washington Treaty.But as Dr Eric Grove commented
"Its been often said that Washington didnt prevent Pearl Harbour....
But maybe it prevented the Anglo American war of 1927"
horses for courses
VfLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 3
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
"Bismark could steer on propellors alone whilst on exersices in the Baltic let alone in the North Atlantic with a damaged rear end"
sorry should have said couldnt not could!
VfLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 4
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
As per VF
I dont see that their is a way the british can afford the fleet building that would have been required. Let alone manning and basing them after construction.
There also is the question of aircraft carriers. many of these were constructed on the hulls of ships rendered surplus by the Washington treaty but too far along in construction to be cancelled. If the US and Britain keep building them as designed, world war two gets fought without the carrier power that made the pacific war winable.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 5
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
Years ago I read a book that argued that the Nelson and Rodney were not that much inferior to the Bismark, if in practical terms at all! Because of the treaty a great deal of innovative thinking went into them, fuelled by a good hard look at what had happened to battleships in the first world war. Not all countries went into such self examination of design concepts as the RN went into with the Nelson, Rodney, and the KGVs.
All the guns together - making for as short an armoured belt as possible ie; using the tonnage to best effect.
"Queen Annes Mansions" - yes this type of bridge could be hit easier, but it was more stable and more comfortable than something up a pole!
Water Armour - not counted as tonnage but still gives some protection.
Location of the armoured deck.
There are as you say a lot of myths about the Bismark, when essenstially she was a re-hash of the Baden, with bells and whistles.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 6
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 18th October 2007
I think It also should be remembered that "Washington" was possibly the first great arms non proliferation treaty.The war had just witnessed slaughter on an unparalled scale,its understandable that there was a wish not to have a repeat performance.If arms limitation could achieve this then so be it.
As Bttdp points out,if the battleship had been renewed its unlikely that the aircraft carrier would have been developed in the way that it eventually did.Im a big fan of battleships,I admire there technical complexity,their raw power and beauty,but their time as "queen of the seas" was coming to an end.Even if we had the NΒ£'s and G3's would they have made any difference when sent east?
On the London treaty and the KGV's its important to remember that it was a British decision to go with the 14inch gun rather than the allowed 16inch.(Why did the british never continued with the 15inch gun, a proven and highly successful weapon)I beleieve that the original design had 3 x 4 14 inch guns,but it was believed that top weight would be unacceptable and that more armour could be applied if one qaud turret was ommitted.Its been suggested that the British didnt have the time to await for the 16inch guns as she could see the war clouds on the horizon.
In some ways maybe the KGV represent Britains power as a whole.In 1906 the RN built in less than a year the largest,fastest,most armoured ship in the world.And just to show off built another8 in quick succession.Roll on to 1936-42
it takes a long time to build adequate,if unspectacular vessels which have less firepower than their newest rivals.
VFLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 7
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 19th October 2007
The Anglo-American war of 1927?
I've heared that one before. Every time I do I cant help wondering what it would have been about? Something fairly petty probably. In the 1860's we nearly had a shooting war with the Americans over a straying pig.
May be we should have a thread of great wars we never had? Extra points for the most ridiculous but genuine cause.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 8
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Capital ships weren't the sole problem with the treaties as far as the RN was concerned. The limitation in total tonnage of cruisers was at least as important. In order to keep the number of cruisers that the RN felt they needed for world wide deployment, that lead to the retention of the "C" and "D" class, whereas IIRC the Admiralty wanted to dispose of all cruisers from classes earlier than the "E"s, even the "Improved Birminghams" which lead to the 8" gun limit, as their shielded 7.5" guns were too cumbersome for fleet actions. The RN would, in the event, probably have been better served by ignoring the 8" gunned treaty cruiser type and building more 6" types along the lines of the Phaeton and Leander classes.
Given that Eagle and Furious could, under the terms of the treaty, have been replaced in tonnage terms before the outbreak of war, as Vindictive and (theoretically if not in practice) Argus were, at least 2 more "Ark Royal" or "I" class carriers could have been in service in time for the war.
Finally, the "Splendid Cats". Deathtraps against even a panzerschiff.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 9
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Urnungal
"Finally, the "Splendid Cats". Deathtraps against even a panzerschiff."
No more so than Repulse or Renown,in fact the Lion class were better armoured than them.I believe (going on memory) that Lion had a armoured belt of 9 inches to a Renowns 6 inches,both ships had poor deck armour,but to be honest most ships pre Jutland (including the German ones) had poor deck armouring,the problem was that nobody expected fight at the ranges they did in WW1 where plunging fire was the norm rather than an exception.
My championing of them,was along the lines of this.
They would have been reasonably fast warships even by late 1930's.They could have also been re-boilered and converted to oil to maintain a good speed.
They were large vessels with a good degree of stability which would have allowed modernistaion,with increased AA guns better secondry defense,heck they may have even been able to up gun them to 14- 15 inch guns.it may have been possible to increase deck armour.
Compare them to the "R" class battleships,ok they have 15inch guns.But they were slow and had a poor degree of reserve stability.This last point is important because it made it next to impossible to modernise them.In the event their war service was pretty unremarkable.They were just too slow for fleet action and were probably most effective when lumbering along with convoys as a deterrent.
In WW2,where lets be honest there were not that many fleet actions (and the ones we did have involved the Itallians)was the battlecruiser such a liability.Renown was fast enough for carrier work,powerful enough to deal with a panzerschiff and more than a match against anything smaller.Their limitation was that they were not battleships and shouldnt have been used as such.Hood should never been asked to fight Bismark.
She was the classic example of a great boxer with a glass jaw.She had a hell of a blow,she was quick but she couldnt take a punch.
Of course a lot of this is hindsight,but Ive never been a fan of the Revenge class!They should have kept HMS Tiger instead!
On the cruisers:
There was a big debate on wether it was better to smother an enemy ship with a large number of smaller calibre shells(6 inch) or go for the less frequent but harder hitting shell (8 inch)
Eventually the Rn went for the former with the "Town" and "Fiji" class but it took 20 years to do it!
The Leanders and Phaetons were fine ships but I dont think they would have lasted long against some of the Japanese or Italian class( though I would have fancied them against a Nurmburg class cruiser)
VFLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 10
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Bttdp
Trade apparently.
What the exact cause would have been who knows,but I assume it went on the premise that if the UK and USA had a naval arms race they eventually would lock horns,probably over some resource like oil in South Ameica or similar.
VfLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Other posters have commented on the ship building side. The benefit of the treaties was that they did save an awful lot of money.
Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 12
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Renown and Repulse were so ill-armoured that Jellicoe took one look, and, horrified, sent them back to the dockyards for their armour to be enhanced. They, and the "Cats", might have been worth razing to the upper deck, and having a superstructure hangar added. Can you really see any of them fighting even a Duilio or a Kongo with the least prospect of success? Renown did engage the Salmon & Gluckstein in the Norwegian campaign with some success, but if they had turned on her rather than running away, I suspect there would have been one more display of battlecruiser pyrotechnics.
The "Tiddley Quids" should have become organ donors. Bearing in mind the proportion of the time & cost involved in the main armament, their guns could have been remounted in higher elevation mountings like the 30 deg MkII in Hood or slightly smaller versions of the Cherry Trees to allow 4 new, fast, cheaper, quickly completed battleships to enter service as they hit their 20-year "treaty" lifetimes in 1936/7. Certainly more bangs per buck than modifying the even older QEs.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Against a "Dulio" or Conte de Carvour,yes against Kongo mmm jury is out on that one.But it is worth noting that the Kongo was in effect an improved "Lion"(so improved that the RN changed the design for HMS Tiger,hence the similarity in lay out).What the IJN Kongo did show,was that an effective modernisation could be undertaken.It would be interesting to know if the Lions could have recieved 15 inch guns or at the least had her own guns re-bored to a full 14inches from 13.5.Following washington the RN didnt exactly have a shortage of 13.5 inch guns!In that case I think it wouldnt have been an unfair fight.
Failing that,using the "Revenge"class mounting in the KGV's would have made them far more imposing(reconditioned turrets and mountings a'la Vanguard).And would probably cost a lot less than designing,testing and manufacturing quad mounted 14 inch guns
Of course on battlecruisers its worth noting Im working from hindsight
Its also worth noting that in the cases of the 3 ships at Jutland,the reduction in flash precautions by the crews themselves was as much(if not more to blame) than the lighter armouring of the British Ships.Both Lion and Tiger took at least 18 hits a piece (ok Lion was fortunate that a mortily wounded Major Harvey had the precence of mind to flood the magazine).In all three ships lost it was summerised that cordite flash was responsible for the detenation of the magazine.The removal of flash tight scuttles and doors,the overstocking of cordite to increase the rate of fire was responsible for the loss of the 3 ships and approx 3000 men.
It was pointed out that none of the German ships blew up at Jutland...This is very true,the german ships were undoubtably better built and armoured than the british ones.However its worth remembering that they had had an extrordinary piece of luck the year before in 1915,at the battle of Dogger Bank.
Seydlitz,Hippers flagship suffered a hit on the after turret,which caught fire the flash went down through the turret,causing the surviving men to panic and attempt to access the ajoining turret.The cordite flash followed them,incinersting both the crews of turret "Caesar" and "Dora" only the initative of a surviving officer,in flooding the after magazines saved the ship from oblivion( much the same as "Lion" at Jutland).Now,Seydlitz was especially lucky as if it hadnt been for a RN cock up of monumental proportions in the form of atrocious signalling errors she would never have got away.She did make it back to port and the germans were able to effects of cordite flash and the importance of keeping the turrets flash tight.Indeed access between turrets was restricted and doors between turrets padlocked.
This of course was a lesson not learned by British until after Jutland.That and the fact that there AP shells were not armoured piercing at all in a lot of cases.But thats a different story
VfLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 14
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 19th October 2007
To return to the original question:
If the Naval Limitation Treaties had NOT been concluded, who would have been in a position to replace the aging vessels as time wore on? Not Germany - the hiatus occasioned by Versailles meant they would have been hard pressed to go up the scale to a full-dress battleship earlier than they did. They needed the experience of the panzerschiffe and "battlecruiser" types on the way. Not Britain - they were skint, as were the French. The Italians probably wouldn't have seen the need as their principal opponent, Austria/Hungary, was gone, leaving the French as their only likely adversary in the Med. Japan knew all along they couldn't outbuild the US numerically, that's why they went for the qualitative leap of the Yamato class.
I ask, therefore, if the US had been allowed to do so, could a fleet renewal programme have staved off the economic toils of the Great Depression. If so, could it be that, whoever won, the big loser was not Britain, but the USA?Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 15
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 19th October 2007
Thats an interesting point Urnungal.Tirpitz belived that the construction of a naval fleet would help the German economy,by avoiding the cycle of "boom and bust"by keeping the factories and shipyards in work.
On refection to the initial question its worth noting that until the 1935 Anglo German naval pact Germany's premier units were 3 glorified armoured cruisers and a selection of antiquated predreadnoughts.In view of this "Washington" treaty still left the RN with enough to easily deal with Germany up to the point of the pact.
Maybe the effect of Washington was the loss of industrial capacity,but to be honest the cost of WW1 both in finacial and terms of men lost caused the decay in the arms industry,which was felt when the British did try to rebuild.The Industrial muscle had withered and the strength simply wasnt there
The Japanese really had no choice but to accept "washington" and the "Rolls,Rolls,Ford" agreement,at one point they were spending 40% (yes 40%)of the GDP on the Navy,which was becoming unsustanable.Following their walkout at the 1936 London Treaty and their headlong rush to war,they (as you point out0went for quality over quantity.
VfLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 16
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
I can only add a couple of comments to this discussion but again from a survivor who served on the "Rodney" . As a seaman on the bridge he clearly remembered the officers describing it as a most clumsy vessel to manouver.
The various treaties were really a bit of a farce. Whatever decision was made, only Britain had any intention of keeping them.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 17
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
To VF:Excellent posts - I too feel that 'what a waste' re. the demise of HMS Tiger. The RN looked with envy at what the IJN had done with the modernisation of the Kongo.
If the other 'cats' couldn't survive - I wonder could they have been rebuilt as carriers? Would they have been as good as the Glorious (ex light-cruiser hull) or as bad as the Eagle (ex battleship hull)?
Re: the KGV's while they were being planned - Churchill (before he had an position of power) wrote advocating they be equiped with 9 x 16" guns (US style). He was almost satisfied with the proposed 12 x 14", but obviously disappointed with 10 x 14".
In theory it was the US that 'lost' as a result of the Treaty, in that the RN had the knowledge of WW1 battle-damage and could apply it. The US continued to build ships already laid done - prior to such analysis.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 18
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
Converting the "Cats" - should have been feasible with no treaty limits. Might have been possible even to convert some of the battleships along escort carrier lines, giving carriers capable of defending convoys.
I'd agree that basing the KGVs armament on updated 16" with a lot of the weaknesses of those in the Cherry Trees would have been more sensible than going for the 14" - particularly quads, as the more barrels in a mounting, the more complex, and thus the more prone to damage, either accidental or action.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 19
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 2nd December 2007
Correction - should have said WITHOUT a lot of the weaknesses etc etc .....
Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 20
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Terakunene (Assoc.Mem. Royal Inst. Naval Architects.).
The "splendid Cat" battle cruisers were designed before the pressure of war had shown up their serious defects and to cure these would have cost more than a new ship and the purse was empty. I have also have heard that their engines were completely worn out by the hard steaming of wartime
By the time of the later various naval conferences, several shipbuilding, heavy gun and armour suppliers had gone out of business. There was only a limited industrial base left
Although the later purse strings were opened wider there were few places left that could actually build large warships. With the Great Depression few UK places had even trained any apprenrices.
Now that the "Bismark" wreck has been found the 14" gun seems to have been a highly effective weapon.
The Japanese government have made their naval records freely available and there is no evidence of the Japanese copying the "Tiger" designs. It seems that thinking along similar lines led to similar conclusions.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 21
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Tiger had her armament layout changed from the other Cats as a result of the Kongo design, rather than the other way around, as I read the evidence.
Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 22
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Monday, 10th December 2007
VirtualF
After WW1 Germany was looted of industrial equipment by Britain and France. I don't suppose it bothered the Germans over much as it must have been badly worn out by then and due for replacement anyway.
The difference being that the German government would make available large sums for the renewal. The British wouldn't and it was a case of making do with modern but worn out German equipment.
Even so, it would take the Nazis time to replace with new but there is no doubt that eventually German steel etc would have become a world leader again and a very serioa challenger to the delapidated British industry.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 23
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 10th December 2007
Hello Terakunene
To be fair,I think the last thing the British economy of the time needed was another arms race.Possibly that was the reason why successive British Governments paid into regeneration.Thats not trying to excuse their actions,just a thought.
The big difference between the two countries (UK and Germany)was their agenda.The UK had retained its empire (and increased it post WW1) and was trying to hold onto what it had got.Germany under Hitler were after more than just a rebuilding job,feeling very harshly treated by the Treaty of Versailles had more "aggressive ambitions.
And aggressors tend to be better prepared.
Regards VfLink to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 24
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 11th December 2007
German Empire included .....
Samoa
"That ridiculous island"
Kaiser Wilhelm II.
Weren't the Germans lucky to lose their empire at the end of WW1. Most of it taken over by Britain but only Malaya and Borneo ever made a profit. The rest, including India, were expensive liabilities.
Notice how Hitler never made any claims to get any of the former overseas German empire back?Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 25
Posted by merlin (U10448262) on Wednesday, 12th December 2007
To terakuneme: interesting what you had to say about the 'cats'.
Of the Lion class - Queen Mary was sunk at Jutland 1916, Lion was scrapped 1922-24 & Princess Royal was scrapped 1923-26.
Such a disposal policy is consistent with your comments.
However contrast that with what happened to HMS Tiger (which displaced another 5,000 tons over the earlier ships - but still the same speed), it wasn't scrapped until 1931-32.
No, the Japanese didn't copy the Tiger - it was the other way round.
To quote Warships of World War 1 by H. M. Le Fleming
"The fourth ship of the group, H.M.S. Tiger, was projected as a sister ship, but the design was modified on the lines of the British-built Japanese battle-cruiser Kongo. A magnificent ship she was the heaviest in the fleet when delivered and the first to develop over 100,000 h.p. in spite of being hit 21 timesw at Jutland she was repaired in a month."
The Japanese did a major modernisation refit on the ship, which was then able to serve as a fast carrier escort in the Pacific.Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
-
Message 26
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 12th December 2007
The other 3 Kongos (Hiei, Kirishima and Haruna) also survived to serve in WWII. Indeed, Hiei, which was supposed to have been "demilitarised" along the lines of Iron Duke and Centurion, was rearmed, rearmoured, and returned to service, though I'm not certain if she ever had the full modernisation the other sisters got. QM was also heavier than PR and Lion - along with Tiger she carried the heavier version of 13.5" gun. She was also the fastest on her trials of the three "original" Cats.
Link to this forum: Were the only beneficaries of the Washington and London Treaties the Germans
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.