Naval treaty musings

[The Rock Doctor]

Is that...

Is that a naval arms race I smell?

[Desertfox]

Maybe time for a Washington Naval Treaty?

[The Rock Doctor]

Maybe time for a Washington Naval Treaty?

I mean, okay, but I need a bit of time to build Washington first.

[snip]

Is that...

Is that a naval arms race I smell?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Is that...

Is that a naval arms race I smell?

Erm, not on Parthia's part.
I have several designs for capital ships made, but yet to be posted. There's a 10 gunner in that, and some faster ships, and then one big ship.

But those are because Parthia sees a need to continue building, not as a race, but because there's a very large and capable navy next door.
The Byzantine fleet, and it's concentration due to the Treaty of Malta, has encouraged Parthia to both keep a powerful fleet "Home", and to continue building.


The Tiamat class is quite redoubtable and forms the core. We feel the Enki and Gilgamesh are sufficiently solid.  The Byzantines are better in large cruisers and torpedoboats.  The wars that have happened have highlighted a greater need for light forces than appreciated, which has led the Parthians to build cruisers and destroyers.  Now it's time to lie down some more battlewagons - though I will likely build slowly at first, then dump tonnage on towards the end. Because of the Byzantines, Parthia can not afford a building holiday like some to boost our colonies faster.   But we can't really boost production like the OTL Brits and Germans and "Race", we're at peak.

Or the classic 21 kts
=> 29 kts cost 8000t !!!

Which is a matter the Parthians have noted.   Very unclear as to what the strategic advantage is and more importantly- is that advantage more important that what one could build for that tonnage. 

[snip]

Maybe time for a Washington Naval Treaty?

I mean, if you want to embark on that extensive of a cat herding exercise, be my guest.

[TacCovert4]

Maybe time for a Washington Naval Treaty?

I mean, if you want to embark on that extensive of a cat herding exercise, be my guest.

Considering that battleships are rapidly rising from the sublime to the ridiculous....it might need to be looked at.  But it is cat-herding to the utmost degree.  I would say that nothing so 'extensive' as the WNT would be needed, maybe just an agreement for the largest ships?  If one could be reached at all, some nations might want to flex their ability to build large numbers of massive capital ships.

[Desertfox]

Considering that battleships are rapidly rising from the sublime to the ridiculous....it might need to be looked at.  But it is cat-herding to the utmost degree.  I would say that nothing so 'extensive' as the WNT would be needed, maybe just an agreement for the largest ships?  If one could be reached at all, some nations might want to flex their ability to build large numbers of massive capital ships.

I'm thinking more of a tonnage cap. You can either build a few giant ships or many small ships. Capping ship sizes wont do anything for total numbers, while tonnage caps will do so.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I think we'll be forced into interesting choices.
But I think the "sticking point" will be the 50-60,000 ton ships.

Which will tie up more assets in a single vessel than I think most of us want...and could be strategically unwise.

[Jefgte]

A source of information:

Parthe has 16 BB & BC from 11400t to 29000t for a total of 337,746t
Byzantium will have* 18 BB and BC from 15650t to 28500t for a total of 339,140t.
Japan will have* 16 BB & BC from 10595t to 18000t for a total of 208,400t.
Roman will have* 13 BB & BC from 11000t to 28000t for a total of 276,250t
Zwiazek will have* 17 BB & BC from 10595t to 26989t for a total of 312,690t
Iberia will have* 20 BB & BC from 9802t to 22474t for a total of 340,210t
Azteca will have* 7 BB & BC from 9100t to 26410t for a total of 139,384t

To be adjust...

will have* mean in shipyards

[TacCovert4]

Sad Aztec noises

[The Rock Doctor]

I don't think I've designed anything larger than 35,000 t, and that one was a notional 1920 lay-down.

[Jefgte]

In order not to restrain inventive minds, a limitation in war fleet tonnage corresponding to 20 years of construction...
28 BP x 40 = 1120BP or 1120,000t max

and / or
35000t for BB & BC

and / or
20 BB & BC max (254mm guns min)

[Kaiser Kirk]

A source of information:

I was aware that I did not have an idea of the size of the updated Iberian fleet.
Apparently they have the largest assortment of battlewagons !

Though I note for every power listed there is a * indicating building, except Parthia...as all of Parthias are fully operational.

The question I'd say is more dreadnaught tonnage, as many powers would look better, while Parthia would look worse.
We have 6 large Pre-dreads, at ~88,000t.  Plus none of these new-fangled BCs yet.

As for largest designed warship, I had one that an various designs got as large as 42,000 LD in 1914, but that's now most likely ~39000 in 1916.

It's that next round of battleships to one up those I view as likely really hard to afford in useful numbers.

[TacCovert4]

I would say that rather than a complicated series of arrangements,  a simple cap on maximum tonnage for ships with guns in excess of 260mm, at 27000t, would be appropriate.   For a period of 6 years then subject to review.