Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

Post by lwd »

The building in relation to them was something I hadn't seen sumarized so clearly before.
http://www.strategypage.com/cic/docs/cic293b.asp
The position of France in particular was very interesting.
Navy Laid Down Tonnage
France 200 ships 508,330 tons
Italy 147 298,971
Japan 188 483,262
U. S. 74 330,890
U.K. 168 520,845
As usual the formating will be better at the linked site.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Interesting article on the Washintong and London treaties

Post by RF »

After getting past the score card for the French wars, well yes.

The point that stands out is that the US had to cut back with its budget cuts, but the cheating by the Japanese had already begun.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Interesting article on the Washintong and London treaties

Post by Mostlyharmless »

RF wrote:The point that stands out is that the US had to cut back with its budget cuts, but the cheating by the Japanese had already begun.
The cheating is not as clear cut as described. For example, Furutaka was declared as 7100 tons standard as built, which is the figure given by Jentaschura. The Wikipedia article gives 7,950 tons, possibly from Whitley who noted that she was completed overweight. She was modernised twice (was the 7,950 figure after 1931-2?) and the second modernisation raised the standard displacement to 8700 tons (Jentaschura) or 9150 tons ( Wikipedia/ Whitley) but that was long after the treaties had expired.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Interesting article on the Washintong and London treaties

Post by Bgile »

Mostlyharmless wrote:
RF wrote:The point that stands out is that the US had to cut back with its budget cuts, but the cheating by the Japanese had already begun.
The cheating is not as clear cut as described. For example, Furutaka was declared as 7100 tons standard as built, which is the figure given by Jentaschura. The Wikipedia article gives 7,950 tons, possibly from Whitley who noted that she was completed overweight. She was modernised twice (was the 7,950 figure after 1931-2?) and the second modernisation raised the standard displacement to 8700 tons (Jentaschura) or 9150 tons ( Wikipedia/ Whitley) but that was long after the treaties had expired.
Yamato was ordered at about the same time as KGV. That wasn't cheating?
Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

Post by Mostlyharmless »

The Washington Treaty expired after 31st December 1936. Yamato was ordered in March 1937 and laid down in November 1937.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

Post by RF »

But even after that expiration the US didn't go for the superbattleships that the Japanese did and the Germans planned for.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

Post by yellowtail3 »

Eh, no need; the treaty battleships were, for the most part, sufficient.
Shift Colors... underway.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

Post by Bgile »

RF wrote:But even after that expiration the US didn't go for the superbattleships that the Japanese did and the Germans planned for.
Weren't the signatories still operating under an escalation clause which allowed 16" guns and 45,000 tons? I think the Iowa class was designed under that limitation. The following Montana class was designed without restriction.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Interesting article on the Washington and London treaties

Post by RF »

There was an ascalator clause but what the Japanese were building and Hitler wanted went way beyond that.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply