Best Possible London Naval Treaty For RN (1930)

CultBoy

I'm been playing with a new ATL in lockdown and been pondering what would a as 'close to ideal as we can negotiate' London Naval Treaty look like for the Royal Navy.

I've seen several different opinions already after searching the forum, but usual tied into something else or considering it with a earlier POD.

So I thought I'd throw it open to the forum.
 
Hood

Hood

CultBoy said:
I'm been playing with a new ATL in lockdown and been pondering what would a as 'close to ideal as we can negotiate' London Naval Treaty look like for the Royal Navy.

I've seen several different opinions already after searching the forum, but usual tied into something else or considering it with a earlier POD.

So I thought I'd throw it open to the forum.
Click to expand...
Cut the building holiday, continue the 35k limit and 15" limit rather than 14, GB was pretty dumb pushing smaller guns when they had a brilliant 15 inch gun.
Use it as a chance to scrap the older experimental carriers and replace them.

Really best case scenario for the RN is to reaffirm what had been agreed at Washington, not just for the RN but actually Britain in its entirety, you might be able to save (at least part of) the shipbuilding industry.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Simply confirm the stipulations of the Washington treaty with a few minor tweaks to account for new technology and practical experience. If they can allow replacement ships to be laid down 20 years after the originals were laid down rather than when they commissioned it would help save the warship industry.
 

Riain

Banned
The British were pretty good at getting the treaty they wanted, unfortunately they wanted the wrong thing.

Given Japan and USA had 16" and 14" gunned ships they won't agree to 15" simply because the British wanted it, nor would the British reuse their 1912 pattern 15" gun if they did, they'd develop a new 'built up' gun.

What the British need to do is build up to the treaty limits and not make bad choices within them.
 
alfredtuomi

alfredtuomi

looks like the cultboy didn t talk about gun size so ya it is undefined which one.
But i stick with my choice of not renewing washington/london treaty

oops....should have read the title and absorbed what it said......London Naval Treaty(1930)
 
Last edited:

naraic

You have to define what you want. Also remember that the desires of the Royal Navy may not be what the Treasury or the government will accept.

Many people seem to want core elements of the Treaty scrapped and the Royal Navy free to build. This may not be ideal if the Treasury does not loosen the purse strings. I'm going to make 3 suggestions that I think are somewhat feasible and can be won in the negotiating table.

1)Anyway a potential antI cheating article may be an interesting addition that the Royal Navy might appreciate. The Italians and the Japanese was cheating (re cruiser weight) and the Royal Navy might appreciate it being found out. Or perhaps Italy and Japan would be kept more honest. Perhaps we can include some sort of punishment.

New Article

The High Contracting powers agree to the creation of an inspectorate under the office of the league of nations who will ceratify the factual information provided by the High Contracting Powers under the auspices of this treaty.

2)Basically under this I want Britain to be able to keep a specific ship (HMS Tiger) in service for a few years as cover for ships under refit. Whether this may evolve into the ship being retained in service to ww2 (probably not) or flogged to the bone to reduce wear on other ships (more likely) is not certain. Even if this results in HMS Tiger kept for an extra 2 years before scrapping it will mean less wear and tear on other battlecruisers (such as Hood) and may mean that Hood's machinery are in as lot better condition for ww2. If Japan use a similar clause well the only ship they are decommissioning under this treaty they later remilitarised so no real loss for the Royal Navy.

Article 2.1.c
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States and Japan may retain for a period not exceeding 3 years from the date of signing of this treaty may retain a single capital ship which is listed for disposal under article 2 of this treaty as temporary cover for a retained ship or ships which are undergoing a large refit. The ship under refit must be under a refit due to which it would be unable to return to service in short order.

3)I'm sure there's some British vessels in special categories that can be put onto appendix 3 special vessels. For example France and Italy kept seaplane carriers here and usa kept destroyer and submarine tenders.

4) For Japan not to get parity in sub marine tonnage with USA and Britain.
 

Peg Leg Pom

The best treaty for Britain would completely ban the submarine and order them all scraped within the year, but there's no way any of the other powers would agree to it. (Though Japan really should)
 

Spencersj345.346

Hmmm getting another 40,000 or so tons worth of cruisers wouldn't hurt as would the RN getting the DD tonnage to have 20 Flotillas that it wanted. Maybe some more carrier tonnage as well
 

Vabasion

Somehow convince other powers that Canada, Australia, India and others really are countries of their own and not just extension of Britain and British navy shouldn’t be limited by navies of dominions, or insert an allowance for dominions to have a certain allowed tonnage that won’t count against Britain.
 

Peg Leg Pom

Sadly the biggest problem for the RN in the early 30's isn't the treaties, it's HM Treasury and a pacifistic UK population. Whatever the treaty says the RN isn't going to get extra funding.
 

Spencersj345.346

Peg Leg Pom said:
Sadly the biggest problem for the RN in the early 30's isn't the treaties, it's HM Treasury and a pacifistic UK population. Whatever the treaty says the RN isn't going to get extra funding.
Click to expand...
Hmmm maybe have our old "friend" Mussolini make a terrible mistake while he was drunk and declare war on the UK in say 1931?
 

Dorknought

The big problem was that the navy told the negotiators’this is our minimum in destroyers if you secure a ban on subs’ and they accepted the number without the sub ban!
 

Namayan

Vabasion said:
Somehow convince other powers that Canada, Australia, India and others really are countries of their own and not just extension of Britain and British navy shouldn’t be limited by navies of dominions, or insert an allowance for dominions to have a certain allowed tonnage that won’t count against Britain.
Click to expand...
Do you think the US will agree to this?
 

CultBoy

alfredtuomi said:
looks like the cultboy didn t talk about gun size so ya it is undefined which one.
But i stick with my choice of not renewing washington/london treaty

oops....should have read the title and absorbed what it said......London Naval Treaty(1930)
Click to expand...

Don't worry I've done similar a few times.
 

Atrophied

The first london treaty wasnt horrible . The 2nd one was rather pointless.

And as people have said the navy was accomdating treasury and this is also just after the great depression so there wasnt much will there for massive expansions.

Maybe have keynes economic theorys become more popular earlier and the british do them post ww1 or as reaction to the depression . As part of that the shipyards are thrown work and thats why the british would be interested in a better first london treaty ?
 

naraic

Namayan said:
Do you think the US will agree to this?
Click to expand...
It depends.

Are we talking Britain tieing allowances with the usa and the dominions getting a top up to make the empire allowances much higher.

Or are we talking Britain with a lower allowance than the usa so the usa politicians can brag about being the number one. However the dominion navies add to being slightly bigger than the usa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top