|
Post by aeson on Sept 16, 2020 22:53:22 GMT -6
Here is a quote from Chapter ten, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery by Paul Kennedy.. The question that I ask and have asked before is: with no Washington Naval Treaty, was there a WW1 because it WW1 that caused the economic decline of the British economics. The Washington Conference really took place at a "crossroads in naval affairs". The RN was still at its peak, but due to post war financial stringency tightened and the French were at a low ebb. However the US, Japan and Italy were developing bigger and better ships. This could alter the world naval power picture. So, it comes down to whether the Admiralty would have continued to asked for designs, knowing the economic situation would have prevented any new designs. My guess that navies don't just pack up design teams and go home. So what is the answer? Are we assuming WW1 occurred or not. It we are, are we assuming an economic downturn for the British? Help please The idea seems to be that the historical naval construction programs terminated by the WNT were actually completed, which says to me that the historical Naval Act of 1916 got through Congress. I personally don't think that the historical Naval Act of 1916 would have made it through Congress without the influence of the First World War; a (much) less ambitious version of it - probably something that more or less continued the construction pattern of the preceding decade - would probably have been passed instead. Thus, I would say that it would be appropriate to assume that the First World War occurred, with the consequences that that implies for the world's - and especially the European - economies.
Beyond that, though, I would also suggest that it is plausible that Britain would be unable to sustain a naval arms race with the United States even in the absence of the First World War and the consequent economic troubles, assuming that the US Congress was willing to foot the bill for and especially if the Dominions and other colonies of the British Empire proved reluctant to share the costs of such an arms race. The Anglo-German naval race of the previous decade had already strained British finances, and Germany had only about one and half times the population of the United Kingdom with a slightly-lower GDP per capita* and a need for a large and powerful army that was not mirrored in Britain. The USA, by contrast, generally had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom* as well as roughly twice the population in the first few decades of the 20th Century... and the Royal Navy cannot shield Canada from the United States in the same manner as it can shield the British Isles from Germany, so even if Mexico were to suddenly become a significant military threat to the US an expansion of the US Army could not go unanswered by Britain in the way that an expansion of the German Army could. How this would affect British naval construction I am not sure, though the G3 and N3 designs suggest that at least the initial push would be towards perhaps a Yamato-like 'superbattleship,' hoping to counter greater numbers of modern American capital ships with superior individual quality, though I would also note that the Royal Navy has at times also attempted to have follow-on designs reproduce much of a predecessor's capabilities at a lower cost so scaled-back G3 and N3 derivatives would also seem plausible - especially if it is assumed that the battle fleets will be split between the Atlantic and the Pacific rather than concentrated in the Atlantic for a war with the US.
* GDP per capita taken from here.
|
|
|
Post by vidboi on Sept 17, 2020 6:28:46 GMT -6
Here is a quote from Chapter ten, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery by Paul Kennedy.. The question that I ask and have asked before is: with no Washington Naval Treaty, was there a WW1 because it WW1 that caused the economic decline of the British economics. The Washington Conference really took place at a "crossroads in naval affairs". The RN was still at its peak, but due to post war financial stringency tightened and the French were at a low ebb. However the US, Japan and Italy were developing bigger and better ships. This could alter the world naval power picture. So, it comes down to whether the Admiralty would have continued to asked for designs, knowing the economic situation would have prevented any new designs. My guess that navies don't just pack up design teams and go home. So what is the answer? Are we assuming WW1 occurred or not. It we are, are we assuming an economic downturn for the British? Help please The idea seems to be that the historical naval construction programs terminated by the WNT were actually completed, which says to me that the historical Naval Act of 1916 got through Congress. I personally don't think that the historical Naval Act of 1916 would have made it through Congress without the influence of the First World War; a (much) less ambitious version of it - probably something that more or less continued the construction pattern of the preceding decade - would probably have been passed instead. Thus, I would say that it would be appropriate to assume that the First World War occurred, with the consequences that that implies for the world's - and especially the European - economies. Beyond that, though, I would also suggest that it is plausible that Britain would be unable to sustain a naval arms race with the United States even in the absence of the First World War and the consequent economic troubles, assuming that the US Congress was willing to foot the bill for and especially if the Dominions and other colonies of the British Empire proved reluctant to share the costs of such an arms race. The Anglo-German naval race of the previous decade had already strained British finances, and Germany had only about one and half times the population of the United Kingdom with a slightly-lower GDP per capita* and a need for a large and powerful army that was not mirrored in Britain. The USA, by contrast, generally had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom* as well as roughly twice the population in the first few decades of the 20th Century... and the Royal Navy cannot shield Canada from the United States in the same manner as it can shield the British Isles from Germany, so even if Mexico were to suddenly become a significant military threat to the US an expansion of the US Army could not go unanswered by Britain in the way that an expansion of the German Army could. How this would affect British naval construction I am not sure, though the G3 and N3 designs suggest that at least the initial push would be towards perhaps a Yamato-like 'superbattleship,' hoping to counter greater numbers of modern American capital ships with superior individual quality, though I would also note that the Royal Navy has at times also attempted to have follow-on designs reproduce much of a predecessor's capabilities at a lower cost so scaled-back G3 and N3 derivatives would also seem plausible - especially if it is assumed that the battle fleets will be split between the Atlantic and the Pacific rather than concentrated in the Atlantic for a war with the US.
* GDP per capita taken from here. For the purposes of this thread I had ignored economic concerns, but you're absolutely correct in that they're a major consideration that we need to take into account when considered what may historically have been planned. In terms of historical development, I can't see a case in which no attempt at naval limitations occurs post-WW1, as it's in the interests of all the major navies involved. Perhaps the question should be phrased as "What if the Washington Conference failed to reach an agreement on naval limitations?"
Here's an interesting passage from "British battleships of World War Two : the development and technical history of the Royal Navy's battleships and battlecruisers from 1911 to 1946" regarding the funding for the G3 and N3 classes:
The admiralty, as we can see, still held substantial sway with the treasury despite the desire to reduce costs. Whether they could pull off such an audacious move again is another question... Note as well that the committee on Imperial defence had concluded in early 1921 that the capital ship was obsolete in the future of the Royal Navy, but this report was rejected due to pressure from the admiralty.
The economic issue raises interesting questions for the fate of the Royal Navy. While there was strong public pressure to reduce defence spending, avoidance of conflicts for atleast ten years, and a cessation of the instruction for the RN to be explicitly the largest navy in the world (the RN strength was aimed to be 60% greater than Japan, with no mention of the USA), the UK economy relied on protectionist export policies that were enforced by the RN. British industry could not compete with that in the US. The UK therefore used the royal navy to control trade (i.e. 'trade with us or else you'll trade with no-one'). The USA on the other hand wanted free trade, and challenging the Royal Navy for control of maritime trade was one of the main driving forces behind the large increase in the battle fleet. The UK is therefore caught in a sort of catch-22; it cannot afford to compete in a naval arms race with the US, but equally if it does not the UK economy is doomed to the sort of decline it faced post-WW2. Note also that both the USA and Japan were facing economic problems as well, with the US economic contracting by 17% due to the 1920-21 depression, and the Japanese 8-8 fleet required something ridiculous like a third of the entire national budget. I suppose none of the three nations could continue building ships at the same rate. Overall it was most sustainable for the USA, even if congress was loathe to spend more on subsequent battleship classes.
Regarding the quantity vs quality approach, the quantity approach taken by the RN with regards to Germany had left it with a battle fleet that was mostly obsolete in comparison with the more modern US and Japanese navies. I suppose the change to building "super" battleships was to level the playing field somewhat. Like Japan vs the USA in WW2, I doubt that the approach would have been at all sustainable.
A cheaper N3 follow-on - similar to how the R-class followed the QEs - may have been the way forward, but I wonder how the cost saving would have been achieved? Unlike the R-class, a reduction in speed and reversion to coal firing is not possible. Perhaps a reduction in main gun calibre?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 7:32:44 GMT -6
Here is a quote from Chapter ten, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery by Paul Kennedy.. The question that I ask and have asked before is: with no Washington Naval Treaty, was there a WW1 because it WW1 that caused the economic decline of the British economics. The Washington Conference really took place at a "crossroads in naval affairs". The RN was still at its peak, but due to post war financial stringency tightened and the French were at a low ebb. However the US, Japan and Italy were developing bigger and better ships. This could alter the world naval power picture. So, it comes down to whether the Admiralty would have continued to asked for designs, knowing the economic situation would have prevented any new designs. My guess that navies don't just pack up design teams and go home. So what is the answer? Are we assuming WW1 occurred or not. It we are, are we assuming an economic downturn for the British? Help please The idea seems to be that the historical naval construction programs terminated by the WNT were actually completed, which says to me that the historical Naval Act of 1916 got through Congress. I personally don't think that the historical Naval Act of 1916 would have made it through Congress without the influence of the First World War; a (much) less ambitious version of it - probably something that more or less continued the construction pattern of the preceding decade - would probably have been passed instead. Thus, I would say that it would be appropriate to assume that the First World War occurred, with the consequences that that implies for the world's - and especially the European - economies.
Beyond that, though, I would also suggest that it is plausible that Britain would be unable to sustain a naval arms race with the United States even in the absence of the First World War and the consequent economic troubles, assuming that the US Congress was willing to foot the bill for and especially if the Dominions and other colonies of the British Empire proved reluctant to share the costs of such an arms race. The Anglo-German naval race of the previous decade had already strained British finances, and Germany had only about one and half times the population of the United Kingdom with a slightly-lower GDP per capita* and a need for a large and powerful army that was not mirrored in Britain. The USA, by contrast, generally had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom* as well as roughly twice the population in the first few decades of the 20th Century... and the Royal Navy cannot shield Canada from the United States in the same manner as it can shield the British Isles from Germany, so even if Mexico were to suddenly become a significant military threat to the US an expansion of the US Army could not go unanswered by Britain in the way that an expansion of the German Army could. How this would affect British naval construction I am not sure, though the G3 and N3 designs suggest that at least the initial push would be towards perhaps a Yamato-like 'superbattleship,' hoping to counter greater numbers of modern American capital ships with superior individual quality, though I would also note that the Royal Navy has at times also attempted to have follow-on designs reproduce much of a predecessor's capabilities at a lower cost so scaled-back G3 and N3 derivatives would also seem plausible - especially if it is assumed that the battle fleets will be split between the Atlantic and the Pacific rather than concentrated in the Atlantic for a war with the US.
* GDP per capita taken from here. I completely agree. Because of globalization which had started at the end of 19th century, economics had changed around the world. Japan did not have natural resources and hence, began looking westward toward Korea, China and south. Italy was rising in population and economic power in the Med. There was certainly more, even in the Caribbean with many South American countries wanting independence and having resources. This would have greatly affected British trade and her navy. We can add that the British people were looking toward more social justice for the lower and middle classes, which would affect the budgets of the fleet. All this might have taken place without WW1. Here is an interesting quote: Source: encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/organization_of_war_economies/2014-10-08With the outbreak of war in 19 global economic development and integration were interrupted and set back, and regional patterns were severely distorted by combat, migrations, and the redrawing of borders. The global economy became fragmented and its national units began their drift towards self-reliance and autarky. The European nations, the primary belligerents in the conflict, underwent massive transformations involving extensive state regulation, the substitution of market mechanisms by an administration of state officials, and growth of the technocracy. These changes anticipated the emergence of the state-directed economies of the communist and fascist types, as well as plenty of new democracies, in the interwar period. When the war ended in 1918, the institutional design of the most European economies was drastically different in comparison to what had existed before the war. If we look at this quote and assume WW1 did not occur, then this economic development and integration or Globalization would have continued. Where would it have led us is the question. Possibly a communist takeover in Russia earlier, maybe a fascist regime in Italy and possibly a Nazi regime in Germany. Who knows? Would the US become less of an isolationist nation?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 9:48:51 GMT -6
To simply this, IMHO, since I am not well versed in economics both macro and micro, I would say that both macroeconomics and social programs would impact the British Royal Navy in its continued quest to stay number one. The Naval Arms Race could continue, with the addition of the US and Japan possibly Italy. I also wonder if the Austro-Hungarian Empire would dissolve and Russia become communistic. So, I think the RN would continue to design, and try to build more advanced battleships and battle cruisers but without any lesson's from a World War. Another issue to consider, is that wars can unleash economic production in any country. The US was in a recession prior to WW1 and a depression before WW2. Both wars resolved those issues and the US economy. This was not true of the European nations. I can't go any farther in this "path not taken".
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 17, 2020 10:13:18 GMT -6
One of the issues with assuming that the First World War does not occur is that the First World War significantly affected naval construction programs in the 1914-1922 period - especially for the powers most directly involved. Almost certainly the final three ships of the R class and the last two ships of the Bayern class would have been completed as planned in the absence of the war; probably at least two and perhaps four - or even all seven (since, without the Battle of Jutland spurring the adoption of heavier guns, it is uncertain that the last three would be reordered as the more heavily armed Ersatz Yorck class) - of the planned Mackensens would have as well, along with some number of British 15" battlecruisers which most likely would have looked something like a pre-Jutland Admiral or perhaps a Renown; the Courageous class, or something like it, almost certainly would not exist. Possibly, the Anglo-German naval race would have revived in the late-'10s, especially if Germany went ahead with a seven-ship program of 14" battlecruisers in 1914-1916; even without a revival of the Anglo-German naval race, though, it is very unlikely that there would have been the historical ~5-year gap in British battleship construction between the completion of the R class in 1916-1917 and the Washington Naval Conference in 1921-22 or that Hood would have been the only battlecruiser of real value Britain completed in the same period. Thus, by the early '20s, the 'battleship gap' that historically existed (or at least looked to be coming into existence) between the British Royal and US Navies would not have existed, or at least would have looked very different - which begs the question of whether the historical G3 and N3 designs would have been on the table, because without the First World War there would not have been sixteen American 16" capital ships due to come into service in the early- to mid-'20s while Britain essentially had no new ships on the slipways and had for its most modern ships 'merely' 15" capital ships mostly dating to the mid-'10s.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 10:45:50 GMT -6
I don't think it would be a matter of the quality of the ships. It would be the quantity. The British after the Boer War were losing world dominance. They were losing the numbers battle in South America and the Caribbean. They were outnumbered in the area of Hong Kong and Singapore . They were ahead in the Mediterranean but only a little bit and they were probably ahead in the North Sea. In the Atlantic, the growing US Navy was taking control. The British needed more destroyers and cruisers along with battlecruisers to manage all those areas. The battleships had to be built in numbers, which meant the cost per battleship had to be kept at a reasonable rate. Another issue is the lack of shipbuilding areas. Many of the Royal Navy shipbuilding Yards on the Thames were out of date and too small for the bigger ships being designed. The main shipbuilding was moving to the Clyde in Scotland and Belfast at Harland and Wolf. All this plays into the building of more and larger battleships. But how do you do this and still keep the costs down? Less armor, smaller guns etc. This is what I believe is what needs to be considered and solved if I am Great Britain. In this vain, of reducing battleship costs, I have used the Camperdownj model and rebuilt it. The cost different per month is 4.867 for the Camperdownj and 3.923 for the Barfleu. It may not be the strongest battleship but it is cheaper and I might be able to build more of these ships. The British government might allow more of these ships.
|
|
|
Post by vidboi on Sept 17, 2020 11:25:16 GMT -6
You're absolutely correct in that getting the most cost efficiency for the ships being built should have been the main priority for the RN in the 1920s. But looking at the design process of the G3/N3s, it seems that the admiralty were completely opposed to any sort of compromise in the name of cost saving. Even the thinner aft bulkhead in the original G3 design was pointed out as (to paraphrase) "the sort of dangerous thinking that caused the loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland". I wonder at what point would reality hit home?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 11:35:09 GMT -6
You're absolutely correct in that getting the most cost efficiency for the ships being built should have been the main priority for the RN in the 1920s. But looking at the design process of the G3/N3s, it seems that the admiralty were completely opposed to any sort of compromise in the name of cost saving. Even the thinner aft bulkhead in the original G3 design was pointed out as (to paraphrase) "the sort of dangerous thinking that caused the loss of the battlecruisers at Jutland". I wonder at what point would reality hit home? Well, they probably would have gotten maybe two of each but that might be the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 12:08:00 GMT -6
Second attempt to reduce cost - HMS Empress of India - Amazing to me, I used two triple turrets with 15 inch guns and one two gun turret superfiring up front for 8 x 15 inch guns. Cost for the ship per month was lower.
|
|
|
Post by vidboi on Sept 17, 2020 13:08:56 GMT -6
Second attempt to reduce cost - HMS Empress of India - Amazing to me, I used two triple turrets with 15 inch guns and one two gun turret superfiring up front for 8 x 15 inch guns. Cost for the ship per month was lower. Secondary guns can be unexpectedly expensive. If you reduce the number of 6" guns to 12 and reduce the armour to 2" 'i expect you'd be able to increase the B turret to a triple at no overall increase in cost
|
|
|
Post by vidboi on Sept 17, 2020 13:10:19 GMT -6
Here's a 30 kt battlecruiser designed along the same lines as the Nelson class but with 15" main guns. Speed is expensive
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 17, 2020 13:36:28 GMT -6
To simply this, IMHO, since I am not well versed in economics both macro and micro, I would say that both macroeconomics and social programs would impact the British Royal Navy in its continued quest to stay number one. The Naval Arms Race could continue, with the addition of the US and Japan possibly Italy. I also wonder if the Austro-Hungarian Empire would dissolve and Russia become communistic. So, I think the RN would continue to design, and try to build more advanced battleships and battle cruisers but without any lesson's from a World War. Another issue to consider, is that wars can unleash economic production in any country. The US was in a recession prior to WW1 and a depression before WW2. Both wars resolved those issues and the US economy. This was not true of the European nations. I can't go any farther in this "path not taken". I think Russia would not go communist as it was Germany during WW1 to finance Russian revolution and without Germany aid (they need to put Russia out of war) it would probably never happened.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 13:51:25 GMT -6
To simply this, IMHO, since I am not well versed in economics both macro and micro, I would say that both macroeconomics and social programs would impact the British Royal Navy in its continued quest to stay number one. The Naval Arms Race could continue, with the addition of the US and Japan possibly Italy. I also wonder if the Austro-Hungarian Empire would dissolve and Russia become communistic. So, I think the RN would continue to design, and try to build more advanced battleships and battle cruisers but without any lesson's from a World War. Another issue to consider, is that wars can unleash economic production in any country. The US was in a recession prior to WW1 and a depression before WW2. Both wars resolved those issues and the US economy. This was not true of the European nations. I can't go any farther in this "path not taken". I think Russia would not go communist as it was Germany during WW1 to finance Russian revolution and without Germany aid (they need to put Russia out of war) it would probably never happened. Well, possibly but just another path not taken. Remember that the Czar stopped the Russo-Japanese war because of internal unrest in his nation. So revolution might have been accelerated by no war.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 14:21:54 GMT -6
Here's a 30 kt battlecruiser designed along the same lines as the Nelson class but with 15" main guns. Speed is expensive
I took the liberty of redesigning your ship. I hope you like it. It is cheaper, has the same armament except for 4 inch tertiary guns, and has the same 30 knots of speed. There are some other armor changes.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 17, 2020 14:34:45 GMT -6
Another design based on the Port Wenn, another attempt to reduce cost. She is 27000 tons, costs 3576 per month. Tertiary guns are 3 inch, but only 10 x 6 inch. I like the design and the cost.
|
|