Colorado-class in Washington Naval Treaty

[Kantai Kessen]

The Colorado-class battleships were the last Standard-type ships the USN would ever build:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship

Originally four ships were planned: Colorado, Maryland, Washington and West Virginia. However, with the development of the Washington Naval Treaty (WNT), Washington had to be cancelled. The question I ask is: is there any way the USN could have negotiated that would have allowed them to complete Washington and finish the Standard run? And if they did manage to do this, what concessions would have to be given to the UK, Japan and the other countries of the treaty?

 

[johnboy]

The Colorado-class battleships were the last Standard-type ships the USN would ever build:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship

Originally four ships were planned: Colorado, Maryland, Washington and West Virginia. However, with the development of the Washington Naval Treaty (WNT), Washington had to be cancelled. The question I ask is: is there any way the USN could have negotiated that would have allowed them to complete Washington and finish the Standard run? And if they did manage to do this, what concessions would have to be given to the UK, Japan and the other countries of the treaty?

Easy. New tonnage limit 555,000 or 560,000. Royal Navy keeps Tiger or builds a third nelrod.

 

[jsb]

Easy. New tonnage limit 555,000 or 560,000. Royal Navy keeps Tiger or builds a third nelrod.

Not easy it hits that the ration of Post Jutland ships was also semi separate....

You have.
Hood
the 4 Colorado
Nagato & Mustu
how you make that into a good agreed ratio is hard...

Keeping Tiger would not keep the RN happy... and IJN would not be happy without a ship that would break the % ratios.

I mean yes USN could keep her as fundamentally USN had to sign to agree to WNT to make it work so simply saying they wanted her would drive limits up, but how would be hard.....and might break it like GNT?

 

[johnboy]

Not easy it hits that the ration of Post Jutland ships was also semi separate....

You have.
Hood
the 4 Colorado
Nagato & Mustu
how you make that into a good agreed ratio is hard...

Keeping Tiger would not keep the RN happy... and IJN would not be happy without a ship that would break the % ratios.

I mean yes USN could keep her as fundamentally USN had to sign to agree to WNT to make it work so simply saying they wanted her would drive limits up, but how would be hard.....and might break it like GNT?

Or Japan Tosa, UK third Nelrod and tiger. US Washington plus North Dakota. Or of course the treaty could redefine the tonnage limits to 600,000,600,000,360,000. That would keep Washington plus probably a battle cruiser as well.

 

[jsb]

Or Japan Tosa, UK third Nelrod and tiger. US Washington plus North Dakota. Or of course the treaty could redefine the tonnage limits to 600,000,600,000,360,000. That would keep Washington plus probably a battle cruiser as well.

Dosn't really work.... you need to keep the ratio as well and in whole ships preferably....!

ie the ratio can't just add 1 to each nation and especially of post Jutland ships and stay similar?

You go from OTL 3 colorado v Hood, N&R v N& M to ATL 4 Col v Hood, N&R& (a third Nelrod, b Tiger), N&M, Tosa (or not)

Note you ration is different case from USN to IJN in PJ ships are 66% to 75%....... also the RN gets a massive difference with or without Tiger the 3 new Nelrods are really deep down much stronger than anybody else.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Or Japan Tosa, UK third Nelrod and tiger. US Washington plus North Dakota. Or of course the treaty could redefine the tonnage limits to 600,000,600,000,360,000. That would keep Washington plus probably a battle cruiser as well.

The US Navy isn’t going to let Japan keep Tosa, which is seen, rightly or wrongly, as more powerful than any of their own ships.

 

[tonycat77]

More white elephants that are too expensive to actually use in war, less of the actual ships (destroyers, aircraft carriers, cruisers, oilers, cargo ships) that actually did most of the heavy lifting, for all sides.

 

[jsb]

More white elephants that are too expensive to actually use in war, less of the actual ships (destroyers, aircraft carriers, cruisers, oilers, cargo ships) that actually did most of the heavy lifting, for all sides.

None of the rest are limited by WNT anyway...? Also, BBs had the one advantage that they stayed in service for ages, longer than a lot of other ships, I'm not sure that the Coloradoes are really white elephants, especially as the 4th was actually already paid for and almost complete when scraped due to WNT....?

USN kept 12" and 14" ships in OTL having a new 16" most paid for would allow them to cut say two 12" and actually save money maybe, and be more combat effective....?

Also, with any hindsight, of WWII not bankrupting IJN after Kanto quake with an arms race in early 20s was stupid when USN had already paid for a lot of the SDs and Lexs....? A Japan that accepted 50% after a GNT in 1925 would be far less likely to think they could win WWII?

 

[GTStinger]

Maybe more possible to get Washington converted into a very slow carrier. Ditch Langley and Washington becomes the experimental carrier.

One wild idea I’ve toyed with is making Washington into an airship tender instead of Pakota. Yes, there are tons of issues with the demilitarization sections of various treaties and definition of auxiliary vessels.
You would have to remove tons of armor and possibly a boiler but a larger, faster ship than Pakota would seem to have advantages.

What crew requirements would a standard class have with no offensive weapons?

 

[johnboy]

The US Navy isn’t going to let Japan keep Tosa, which is seen, rightly or wrongly, as more powerful than any of their own ships.

In exchange for constellation and Washington they might.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

The US Navy isn’t going to let Japan keep Tosa, which is seen, rightly or wrongly, as more powerful than any of their own ships.

Perhaps they could ask the IJN to use the resources for Tosa and Kaga (especially the guns and armour plating) to build a third Nagato?

 

[Kantai Kessen]

None of the rest are limited by WNT anyway...? Also, BBs had the one advantage that they stayed in service for ages, longer than a lot of other ships, I'm not sure that the Coloradoes are really white elephants, especially as the 4th was actually already paid for and almost complete when scraped due to WNT....?

USN kept 12" and 14" ships in OTL having a new 16" most paid for would allow them to cut say two 12" and actually save money maybe, and be more combat effective....?

Also, with any hindsight, of WWII not bankrupting IJN after Kanto quake with an arms race in early 20s was stupid when USN had already paid for a lot of the SDs and Lexs....? A Japan that accepted 50% after a GNT in 1925 would be far less likely to think they could win WWII?

Washington was 76% complete by scrapping, so she was well on the way there.

 

[jsb]

Perhaps they could ask the IJN to use the resources for Tosa and Kaga (especially the guns and armour plating) to build a third Nagato?

Any new ship would be a clean sheet and much better...... no way could they make sure it was really the same.

 

[jsb]

Maybe more possible to get Colorado converted into a very slow carrier.

Not sure why they would want her, or why others would allow it, but here is a nice pic I made.....?

Note, she would have been actually be mostly legal under OTL WNT I think as long as she was under 27k tons USN was limited to 2 over conversions, but RN did more than 2 under 27k conversion so..... and I think you could do it under 27k looking at Lex numbers, slow but large, early and cheap.....

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Any new ship would be a clean sheet and much better...... no way could they make sure it was really the same.

In such a case then, it seems the IJN either gets to build Tosa or get nothing. Given the USN are pushing hard for all their Colorados, I can't really see them being happy with the latter, in which case they argue for Washington to not be built, in which case we are back to square 1.

Assuming we still go for a 3:1.8:1 ratio in terms of the tonnage as was done IRL, if the IJN wants 3 powerful capital ships (Nagato, Mutsu, Tosa), the USN and RN should each expect to get 5. For the USN this probably means the four Colorados and perhaps a modified South Dakota with the 16"/45 instead of the 16"50; for the RN, this probably means an extra pair of Nelsons to add onto Nelson, Rodney and Hood. Would this be a decent assumption?

 

[CV12Hornet]

In exchange for constellation and Washington they might.

The Brits aren’t going to go for that, given both the state of their finances and the speed, size, and firepower of Constellation.

Perhaps they could ask the IJN to use the resources for Tosa and Kaga (especially the guns and armour plating) to build a third Nagato?

The Japanese already had to expend every scrap of political capital they had just to keep Mutsu. It’s also probably not viable on a technical level due to how much material was already put into both ships.

Fundamentally, the reason this doesn’t work is that the US was happier with one Colorado than four. The initial plan was for everyone to keep just a single post-Jutland ship: Nagato, Maryland, and Hood. But the Japanese raised such a stink about Mutsu that they were allowed to keep her in exchange for Nelson, Rodney, West Virginia, and Colorado.

 

[Kantai Kessen]

Not sure why they would want her, or why others would allow it, but here is a nice pic I made.....?

Note, she would have been actually be mostly legal under OTL WNT I think as long as she was under 27k tons USN was limited to 2 over conversions, but RN did more than 2 under 27k conversion so..... and I think you could do it under 27k looking at Lex numbers, slow but large, early and cheap.....

This is extremely interesting. Do you have any numbers on her, e.g. dimensions, speed, complement, air group, armament, range?

 

[jsb]

This is extremely interesting. Do you have any numbers on her, e.g. dimensions, speed, complement, air group, armament, range?

It's a classic shipbucket cut and past in the highest tradition of cut and paste, so not really.....

My thinking Hull is unchanged, maybe slightly faster as 27k, so slight higher in water with same power, flight deck is slightly longer forward for as much length as can reasonably added but still short by full CV standards.

Guns 8x 5x25 AA for self defence only as she will be slow and with the main fleet BBs and fleet train all the time anyway.

Air group would be not that small (hangar isnt that small as she is a wide BB) but would have issues with large deck strikes due to slow speed and short length, so more for keeping up CAP and BB spotters than for large strikes like Lex & Sara?

She would be another large US CV more like RN Eagle and might lead to change of rules of later treaties as she would eat up 27k of US CV tonnage?

United States, 135,000 tons - 33,000 x2 (hum....) - 27,000 is only 42,000t for the last ships, so USN might want to say two 21,000t CVs in early 30s? CV 5/6? So she ends up with this CV4 Colorado instead of Ranger OTL?

 

[Kantai Kessen]

It's a classic shipbucket cut and past in the highest tradition of cut and paste, so not really.....

My thinking Hull is unchanged, maybe slightly faster as 27k, so slight higher in water with same power, flight deck is slightly longer forward for as much length as can reasonably added but still short by full CV standards.

Guns 8x 5x25 AA for self defence only as she will be slow and with the main fleet BBs and fleet train all the time anyway.

Air group would be not that small (hangar isnt that small as she is a wide BB) but would have issues with large deck strikes due to slow speed and short length, so more for keeping up CAP and BB spotters than for large strikes like Lex & Sara?

She would be another large US CV more like RN Eagle and might lead to change of rules of later treaties as she would eat up 27k of US CV tonnage?

United States, 135,000 tons - 33,000 x2 (hum....) - 27,000 is only 42,000t for the last ships, so USN might want to say two 21,000t CVs in early 30s? CV 5/6? So she ends up with this CV4 Colorado instead of Ranger OTL?

Another problem I see here is that if the USN gets an extra carrier conversion, the RN and the IJN will want in too. How might that be affected?

 

[Kantai Kessen]

The Brits aren’t going to go for that, given both the state of their finances and the speed, size, and firepower of Constellation.


The Japanese already had to expend every scrap of political capital they had just to keep Mutsu. It’s also probably not viable on a technical level due to how much material was already put into both ships.

Fundamentally, the reason this doesn’t work is that the US was happier with one Colorado than four. The initial plan was for everyone to keep just a single post-Jutland ship: Nagato, Maryland, and Hood. But the Japanese raised such a stink about Mutsu that they were allowed to keep her in exchange for Nelson, Rodney, West Virginia, and Colorado.

I see... is there no way to alter events then so that Mutsu is completed and in the water before the Treaty is signed?