As much as we meme on the ridiculous designs, the Washington naval treaty did way more to help the signatories than harm.
I mean thats generally why people sign treaties, yeah
>>65362741Not really in the way it was intended, Washington naval was to stunt battleships from getting larger and larger and reduce the overall scale of grand fleet naval warfare. The treaty itself had a backup clause for if someone ignored it, then everyone can, because it was to deliberately stunt a navy.What it actually did was made the treaty battleships go obsolete faster (or at least made the admiralty admit it) than if they were unrestricted, and made the navies that still agreed to the treaty adopt the carrier as their primary ship faster. Look at Germany and Japan who ignored the treaty, and were stuck all in on battleships/conventional navies, while America and Britain could afford to drop battleships in favour of carriers, often repurposing treaty ships as carriers because how useless the treaty version was.
>>65362771>Look at Germany and Japan who ignored the treaty, and were stuck all in on battleshipsHoly fucking retard. Japan was absolutely a carrier navy.
>>65362343Yes, but it cucked us out of a generation of super-battleships screaming around the oceans firing off 450-500mm guns at each other.Carriers would rise to dominance by 1940's anyway (more payload, less risk, less money) but still.
>>65362771Germany was never a member of the naval treaties as they did not have a navy.
>>65362797It's entirely possible we could have seen a world that went straight from super-gun battleships to guised missile battleships without ever having carriers emerge at all as anything more than an escort vessel.
>>65362343Tbf, some treaty battleship class can be accidentally superior to post treaty ones, as the case with North Carolina torpedo system actually performed much better compare to Iowa(and SoDak). SoDak/Iowa TDS actually failed against a 600lb warhead, unlike NorCal taking a fricking Long Lance from I-19 in its face and survive> In 1939 the Iowa’s under-water protection scheme was finally tested on full scale models in the Philadelphia Navy Yard. The results of the trials were very disappointing. It was discovered that the heavy Class B armor used in the torpedo bulkhead could not bend enough to accept the gas pressures generated by large underwater contact explosions. The system failed due to armor plate cracks and structural failures where the bulkheads joined into the ship’s triple bottom. These defects allowed flooding to take place behind the main torpedo bulkhead, and the system had to modified.> 600 lbs TNT charge testing against partitioned Iowa class BBs underwater defense resulted in failure of the bulkhead system.(((zuckerberg))).com/NavyGeneralBoard/posts/pfbid02FPBv4W7UzomA9ktzxicYoVF8abGshpXA7dYgtiC9KDtiBaxtFzNaaPeJBt8ys4u2l?comment_id=1287404949810564Montana design eventually reversed and improved on NorCal TDS.Pic rel.
>>65362811Britain effectively added Germany to the Treaty System right before it all collapsed, at more or less the same tonnage that France and Italy had.Not that Hitler gave a fuck about the treaty.
>>65362343>>65362741You are both stupid.
>>65362792Their navy planning centered around Decisive Battle doctrine. That’s why Long Lance was ahead of every other nation torpedo, and it’s not even a close second.>meanwhile US submariners stucked with the dogshit mk14/15 with over 50% failure rate until 1944.
>>65362792They had carriers but still viewed them as support ships and Battleships as the main ships in the fleet.
>>65367874Decisive battle was centered around battleships and it wasn't a unique concept to Japan. The long lance torpedo was not only method the Japanese planned to attrit the American battle line before the decisive battleship engagement. Beyond that the mark 14 was also an ambitious project that turned out poorly.
>>65362771>made the treaty battleships go obsolete fasterexplain how
>>65362771We're talking about the Washington Naval Treaty, not the London naval treaties, anon.>>65363247>Not that Hitler gave a fuck about the treaty.He did, and stuck to its terms until April '39, when he withdrew from it in response to Britain guaranteeing Poland.In truth, Hitler never gave a fuck about the navy and just let the navy bigheads do their thing. Hence agreeing with Plan Z when it was put on his desk, and agreeing with dropping Plan Z a few months later, when the war started.
>>65362343>The Nelson-class ships received several nicknames: Nelsol and Rodnol after the Royal Fleet Auxiliary oil tankers with a prominent amidships superstructure and names ending in "ol", The Queen's Mansions after a resemblance between her superstructure and the Queen Anne's Mansions block of flats, the pair of boots, the ugly sisters and the Cherry Tree class as they were cut down by the Washington Naval Treaty. Kek.
>>65362741This.
>>65362343I know the Nazis created the pocket battleship to get around the restricts placed on Germany after WW1. But didn't they lie about the tonnage anyway since the finished ships still violated the treaty?
>>65368656Who's gonna weigh warships anyway? Just make up a number it's not like anyone can ever verify.
>>65368656The Deustchland class adhered to restrictions placed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. The US, UK, and France objected. It was creative ship design within constraints. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were, if I remember correctly, presented with empty weight figures. And were originally billed as slightly enlarged Deutschlands, so no clear escalation. Then their final designs were more imposing and Britain and France reacted with their own designs. Bismarck and Tirpitz were built after Germany stopped pretending to care about limits.
It is unfortunate that the Bismarck-class lacked noteworthy armament or armor relative to their displacement. They did not even possess the cruising range suitable for conducting commerce-raiding operations on the high seas.
>>65362875>SoDak/Iowa TDS actually failed against a 600lb warhead, unlike NorCal taking a fricking Long Lance from I-19 in its face and surviveAcktually The long lance was the Type 93 torpedo and was only on surface ships. The subs used the smaller Type 95 torpedo. It didn't have the range of a long lance and had a smaller warhead for the early versions and a large warhead for the later versions. Pretty sure the one that hit the North Carolina was the smaller warhead.
>>65362343No, it didn’t. An actual naval arms race would have been completely won by the USA, at a level that would have forced Western Europe and Japan to give up any pretence of parity with the USA. Washington caused uk/france to believe their obsolete empires had any vitality left to them, and Japan/italy to falsely believe that they were able to dictate and influence world politics. An actual naval arms race in the 1920’s would see the USA have an Atlantic navy 3x Britain; and 2x japan in the pacific without even breaking a fiscal sweat. The other four powers would have gone bankrupt attempting any sort of parity.
>>65368916Why did the USA cuck itself by signing the treaty then?
>>65368925Because the Americans of the day didn't want an arms race and didn't care. Isolationism was the norm. They wanted the old world to fuck off, to invest as little money in dealing with foreign bullshit as possible, and a navy capable of defending the handful of colonial possessions they still had while forcing the old world to stay fucked off.
>>65368916The UK had higher GDP and industrial output than the USA before WWII. The US delayed entry into both world wars to profit from them, particularly at the expense of Britain in WWII. A full blown arms race in the 1920s would favor Britain by a large margin, since it would force the US to do its spending in strategic parity with Britain instead of Britain doing it under wartime conditions with wartime exigencies, and it may very well have prevented WWII altogether, which would mean the Empire and other colonial holdings existing well into the second half of the 20th century, the US acquiring nukes well after the UK (since they wouldn't get continental physics refugees and wouldn't enjoy the budget advantage, etc).
>>65369238>The US delayed entry into both world wars to profit from them, particularly at the expense of BritainYeah how dare the US not immediately rush to solve Britain's problems
>>65369238>The UK had higher GDP and industrial output than the USA before WWIINo
>>65369238>The UK had higher GDP and industrial output than the USA before WWII.Yeah, if you consider 1810 as "before WWII." But after WWI, the US was far stronger economically and industrially than the UK. And by the time WW2 started it was even starker - the UK abandoned the gold standard and was pulling out of the depression faster than the US, but was still a couple years lagging behind the US in recovery.Plus the idea that an interbellum arms race wouldn't have favored the US is kinda retarded on its face, given that this was the "arsenal of democracy" era where the US was shitting out enough war materiel to arm the UK and the Soviets, and still building its own military. And that's how the US got so powerful, was having several great powers literally indebted to its military-industrial base via lend-lease. This was an arrangement so beneficial and stable for everyone that it led to the Pax Americana we had until recently.
>>65369376>But after WWI, the US was far stronger economically and industrially than the UK.>after WWIYou meant in 1900. But snobby europoors refused to receive the memo.
>>65369238That chart isn't comparing the GDP of the UK to the US, but the relative changes of the GDP during the great depression.
>>65362771This HAS to be bait>>65367874>Long Lance was ahead of every other nation torpedoDon't look up hit ratesLong Lance was longer-ranged than every other naval torpedo, because every other nation had looked at the expected accuracy of firing torpedoes at that range and said "yeah nah"Not to mention the hydrogen peroxide problem>>65369376>the idea that an interbellum arms race wouldn't have favored the US is kinda retarded on its faceBroken window fallacyInvestment in weapons always takes away from investment in civilian industry>bbbbbut we developed XYZ from military techAnd it would have been faster and cheaper to develop them only as civilian use technologies>that's how the US got so powerful, was having several great powers literally indebted to its military-industrial base via lend-leaseNoRather, every other empire was busy with a fighting withdrawal back to Europe while cutting off large swathes of the imperial resource base while rebuilding the homelandIf you Americans have a hard time imagining that, imagine that after ACW Boogaloo, Washington State, New York and Texas go independent and promptly break into civil war between their respective independent American govts and Arab-friendly govts, and you have to help the splitters fight off the enemy, while withdrawing to California, while rebuilding your devastated infrastructure
>>65369819>Washington StateDoesn't exist>New York13 original colonies would be the closest analogy to Europe.>TexasIt just got beat down in the civil war.>CaliforniaIts not modern California at this point. >ArabNo need Native Americans were there were a constant series of conflicts.
>>65362343It certainly did help Germany rearm way beyond the Versailles treaty’s limitations.>muh Versailles was unfairIt was not.
>>65370141>doesn'tmeant didn't
>>65368925The strategic calculus in Washington was that the United States could defeat the UK or Japan individually, but not an alliance of both. Therefore it was best to establish themselves as the peer of Britain, actually they would have an edge with Britain's colonial obligations, and the senior to Japan, while avoiding the possibility of a naval arms race that could back them into a two front war.
>>65369084Isolationism. They wanted the benefits of open free trade with the entire world, hitherto paid for by the British through their navy, which after ww1 had no possible way to continue funding their world police shenanigans. American interests had no appetite for any sort of global politics after the naivety of Wilson’s peace came shattering down after a year or two. the opportunity to be the only actual global power on earth by spending 1% of its gdp on a navy was too much. The twenties and thirties were full of absolutely retarded decisions by the Americans, and they paid for it by a Cold War and a Second World War that never would have happened if it didn’t take them thirty years to stumble into the drivers seat.
>>65369238Stupidest fucking post of the day. The American economy surpassed the UK in the 1880’s, or 1890’s if your a teaaboo and count third world shithole colonies as part of your own gdp. Britain in 1919 could not afford to service its own debt without leniency and forgiveness from the Americans: they owed them approximately 200% of their GDP. If the Americans wanted, they could have weaponized that debt to make the British agree to whatever postwar naval framework they wanted.
>>65370188It was not a strategic calculus, it was an economic calculus. Treaty was the cheapest option. The American chiefs of staff had just seen what happens when militaries of comparative value fight each other: it takes four years and kills four empires. It was a political, not a strategic, decision.
>>65370141>after ACW Boogaloo
>>65370267They had also seen what happens when you try to fight a two front war.
a lot of historians don't seem to realise that if you have to sign a treaty promising not to attack each other, and not to build up weapons to attack each other, you are already on pretty bad terms with each otherand furthermore, that the subtext of the treaty is: "if we don't sign, we are going to be attacking each other, it's just a matter of when">>65370188the Americans knew they were never going to go to war with Britain. using the British fleet as the benchmark was mainly a pretext to achieve what they had already determined; that they wanted a 10:6 advantage over Japanthere are multiple calculations by all signatories that converge on this ratio, but one of the most amusing to me is that US Navy wargaming predicted that the fleet would lose 10% of its effectiveness due to wear-and-tear, and combat attrition, for every 1,000 miles from base that the fleet had to sail to engage an enemy. they also wanted to engage the enemy at parity.Hawaii is 4,000 miles from Japando the mathnote that this is essentially a one-power standard. as I said, a US-British war was not a real consideration on either side of the Atlantic.
>>65370318It was definitely a possibility the Americans had to account for prior to Britain cancelling the Japanese alliance. They were not ideologically aligned until after ww2: if not for their abandonment during the retreat into isolation, American wilsonian ideals were an existential threat to the British empire. The British still grasped onto their moribund empire and pretended they were a superpower for forty more years. The Red Peril forced them to align on the broad strokes, but if the whites won the civil war it very well could have been a Cold War.
>>65362792And yet the IJN Yamato and IJN Musashi.
>>65370345>It was definitely a possibility the Americans had to account for prior to Britain cancelling the Japanese allianceAmerica wasn't going to go on an anti-colonial war in the same decade it began occupying Philippines
>>65370480>building half a dozen carriers is not proof that the IJN was a carrier navy>building two battleships is proof that the IJN was a battleship navyIdiot
>>65369819>hydrogen peroxideThere was no Ingolin powered torpedo during ww2, only submarine. Long lance was a compressed oxygen torpedo.
>>65368227>the six carriers of the Kido Butai were the support ships for the two battleships which were to be the main striking power of the Japanese attack on Pearl HarborRetard
>>65370275Also after reconstruction.
>>65362771in 1941 japan had more and way better carriers than the bongs and the only reason they stopped making more was because they were getting buttfucked. even their conversions were better than the bongoloid ones.
>>65371560>the only reason they stopped making more was because they were getting buttfuckedJapan was completing carriers even in late 44, and construction was still ongoing with some of the Unryus even in mid 45
>>65368811Acktually the long lance generally refers to oxygen torpedoes, which makes the 61cm Type 93 and 53cm Type 95 both long lances, while the 61 cm Type 90 on older destroyers is not.
>>65371594Japan got cut off so thoroughly that they were able to build ships and aircraft...there just wasn't fuel for them.
>>65371414>Also after reconstruction.the Dutch, British and the French all lost large parts of their empires in the late 40s, in some cases mere months after V-J Dayyou think reconstruction in e.g. the Metropole was done by then?>>65371560>in 1941 japan had more and way better carriers than the bongsbecause the bongs had taken 2 years' of war losses, and had also started off further behind as part of the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty
