Without the Washington Naval Conference

What would have happened if the Washington Naval Conference was never signed?

Assuming WWII still happened, what would the effects be? I think that it would take longer for countries to adapt to making carriers the navy's main striking arm due to spending so much on the biggest and baddest battleships.

Other urls found in this thread:

ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Japan&UK probably go bankrupt while trying to maintain fleets capable of standing against USN.

Would the United States build more battleships or gamble on naval aviation do you think?

Not him, but the U.S. is wealthy enough and has large enough shipbuilding capacity that there's a very good chance that they'll be willing to experiment and try both at once to see which works better.

Damn... If that was the case how did the Nips think they had a chance?

The Japanese never intended to beat the U.S. in a material total war. Their entire game plan hinged upon the war taking too long, and being too bloody and expensive for a democratic nation to be interested in seeing it through to the end.

They were essentially trying to pull what North Vietnam pulled off in the following decades.

Victory disease, no real experience fighting against country that had native shipbuilding industry capable of with standing loses bound to occur in a protracted naval war, and belief that Americans would just give up if they sunk enough of their ships.

Pearl Harbor was their undoing
You just don't attack a country at it's home soil without a declaration of war, humiliating it like that and expect to get away with it.
North Vietnamese did nothing to the average Yank back home and were just protecting their shit

The UK and Japan would ally to contain the USN. All three nations would probably go bankrupt, or face revolts.

They thought they'd get to Tsushima 2.0 the Americans in a huge decisive naval battle

Pearl Harbor was a colonial territory obtained a couple decades ago. More Japs lived on it than Americans. It was not an attack on home soil in any meaningful sense.

[citation needed]

Wouldn't have mattered much. Most of the warships cancelled after the treaty were supposed to be battleships, and as we know these turned out to be useless facing naval aviation.

Of course you could say that without the treaty modern carriers wouldn't have existed by WWII, but I doubt it. Naval aviation was already being extensively developed before the 20s.

>but I doubt it
A true carrier existed during WW1
If anything you would see more and larger carriers by 1939.
>HMS Argus in 1918

The Japanese diplomats knew that the Washington Naval Treaty was a huge victory for them. In 1920, the US economy was about 8-10 times the size of Japanese economy, and with better metallurgy/tooling. The implications of an arms race was obvious. Limiting the US to a 5:3 naval advantage with 2 oceans to patrol is an incredibly good deal for Japan.

Keep in mind at this time, the Japanese 8-8 naval program was estimated to cost something like 33% of Japan's annual GDP, spread over 10-12 years. Anyone with a brain can realize how catastrophically stupid it was to spend 3% of your GDP/year on one weapons program, and that's just procurement, not including operations and maintenance.

For some perspective, the max planned F-35 procurement budget is around 0.05% of the US GDP/year.

>Their entire game plan hinged upon the war taking too long,
That's the exact opposite. They believed that Americans, being a people more disposed towards commerce than war, would sue for peace after the Japanese scored a decisive victory.

RtW 2 when?

>citation needed for things that are common knowledge

>RtW 2
Its been released for a while.

Common knowledge is relative. Citations should always be provided if asked for; after all, if you can't find a source to cite, your point is probably not valid.

Hawaii was only annexed by the US in 1898, the same year as the Philippines. Yes, it was a relatively recent addition to the US's territories, but that does not mean that an attack on sovereign slil of the United States was treated lightly by the average citizen.

Really? I can't find it on their store, only the original.

Are you talking about Rome:Total War 2?

Different user, but I'd assume he's talking about Rule the Waves 2 in a battleships thread.

that would make more sense

Ah shit, this actually looks super interesting like a sort of WWI Aurora.

It's fucking great if you like dreadnought era warships and can handle the mspaint graphics.

We would have a lot of cute ships.

Is the US op? I get the feeling that with its research and industrial base as well as its lack of enemies its basically like playing in sandbox mode.

To what extent can you command combat operations? Can you invade tiny South American nations with marines?

Nagato is my wife

You know, I always wanted to see a game set in a fantasy land where the world is one giant ocean and humans are scattered around various archipelagos where some nations have 1900s tech and others are shamanistic tribes.

Japan bombed Pearl Harbor at a moment when it appeared that Germany was going to win the European War. From their point of view, they were joining the winning side.

>Japan bombed Pearl Harbor at a moment when it appeared that Germany was going to win the European War. From their point of view, they were joining the winning side.
top kek.

ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm

>Interviewing Date 8/21-26/41

Survey #245-K Question #2

Which side do you think will win the war —England or Germany?

England............................69%

Germany........................... 6

Stalemate, no opinion................ 25

That makes Japan's leadership literally dumber than the average burger.

>anglo country favors an anglo victory

gee color me fucking surprised

Britain is better than US in RTW, since the Royal navy gets more funding and you start with bases everywhere, whereas the US has no presence in a lot of places at the start. When you start having to fight wars, the US really struggles in Europe, Africa, and Asia, where the Royal Navy is "lol 10 dreads on your doorstep anywhere in the globe".

But then you have the play as Perfidious Albions.

What are the main strengths of the US besides isolation?

Yeah, common knowledge is not so common to retards.

Honestly lad you've been huffing far too much /int/ if playing as the RN doesn't interest you despite their strong start pos.
Them and the French are the two strongest powers when it comes to good naming conventions, there's a large power gap between them and the rest.

Nah, I just like playing as the States. Would rather be the new kid with tons of potential than the old guard who already has everything.

The US can be locally stronger than the UK. If you have colonies in an area, you have to station a quota of ships in it, or you lose prestige due to not guarding your colonies.

The US only has one colony, while the UK and France have colonies everywhere, so half the British fleet is not in Britain at any given time. The US can declare war then sail the Atlantic fleet right up the Thames before the British can recall their fleet.

Rule the Waves doesn't simulate the historical diplomatic alignments of the great powers in 1900. Any power can end up at war with any country, although some will have difficulty reaching each other without bases close enough. If you play as the US you will end up at war with somebody sooner or later. The simulation of foreign policy pretty much extends to "tension" meters with each of the other great powers. You have no direct control over your country's foreign affairs (you're the chief of the admiralty, not the foreign minister), although you can influence tensions through naval policy.

It's basically impossible for WW1 to happen, it's more like an alternate reality where that alliance system never happened and everyone keeps fighting limited unilateral wars like the Russo-Japanese War.

If you feel like the US start is too strong, there is an alternate history start where the Confederate States exists.

Also you don't control your own naval budget, you have to take what the government gives you, which is why Britain's is larger than everyone else's. Every country except for Britain actually has a naval budget like 2x larger than their real life one just to make it somewhat balanced.

How advanced can you make your ships in the end? We talking Iowa/Montana?

The game ends in 1925, so you don't have things like radar. The innovations and compromises involved in making the treaty battleships don't come into play, so you end up with 80,000 ton monsters armed with 12 18 inch guns and that kind of silliness.

Think 1918 South Dakota class and N class battleship on steroids.

>Them and the French are the two strongest powers when it comes to good naming conventions
I like Japanese boat names. They are at least equal to French if not better.

Pic unrelated I presume.

>A world where giant battleships are the norm

Truly the best timeline.

->It's basically impossible for WWI to happen, it's basically an alternate reality where the alliance system never happened and everyone keeps fighting limited unilateral wars like the Russo-Japanese
I think I just orgasmed

Lad US is easily the second best. France is good but has an inconsistent naval policy and nowhere near the industrial growth of the US or superimposed turret bonuses.
>playing France in RtW with historical budget
>instead of getting reamed by the RN, England offers me an alliance a which I wholeheartedly accepted. fuck the government I'll take the prestige and budget hit
>Rule the Mediterranean and bully Italy and A-H without fear since the RN will have my back.
>end up at war thought with Germany, shits going bad with me slowly losing ships in small engagments
>during a normal coastal raid on a target, my 3 BC task force ends up running into a lone German Dreadnought at night, proceed to gangbang it and the sinking of the ship alone was worth tens of thousands of VPs and instantly win the war next month.

>It's basically impossible for WW1 to happen, it's more like an alternate reality where that alliance system never happened and everyone keeps fighting limited unilateral wars like the Russo-Japanese War.

It sorta depends on circumstances, I have managed to get world warish wars couple times.
>one time as germany originally the war was uk-italy alliance vs me but my unrestricted submarine campaign brought in russia and japan
>second time as uk, managed to created alliance between us, germany, russia, and japan and team up against french

>80,000 ton
Only if you've fucked the tonnage limit, think that tops out around 55k

/nwg/ please stay.

Does it make sense to put torpedos on your battleships? Its not historical but this LP-er says they are powerful in the game.

Plz gib advice for the US of A. I'm guessing they need long range ships but don't need ships fit for colonial service.

little did they know of the yankee bloodlust

Early on? Guess that you could put couple underwater tubes even if they're a massive weak point and are likely to cause shitload of flooding if they get hit.
Late game: if you're close enough to enemy ships actually use them you're either unlucky or doing something wrong.

Your main naval garrisons should be US east coast & southeastern Asia with smaller ones on US west coast and Caribbean.

not really. Capitals use submerged torpedo tubes which are mediocre compared to the swivel mounts on destroyers and I cruisers after researching as well. submerged have a small angle of fire and if hit can explode destroying a part of the hull causing massive flooding unlike swivel mounts. Torpedos are sorta shitty at the beginning but after a few research upgrades they fuck shit up.

Thats what I thought. Didn't want to waste space on them anyways.

Speaking of armaments, should battleships have secondary guns or should they take that tonnage and invest in larger primaries?

It actually is historical. Not every battleship had them, but many of them did, including pic related.

Bismarck was actually torpedoed by HMS Rodney in 1941, the only time a battleship is known to have torpedoed another battleship.

>no secondaries

Hope that you're willing to get torpedoed by enemy DDs in every battle, plus there is little point in going beyond 15/16 inch primary battery.

Ship Design is by far the most important research for every country. It should be set to high priority as this research allows for superimposed plus triple and quad turrets, more centerline turrets, larger wing turrets, and a bunch of other goodies that can really give lots of firepower at lower costs and tonnage. Don't skimp on naval gun, fire control, or turret mounting research either as they all greatly help with killing which is more important than surviving in my opinion.

I don't see what they were thinking. If they were on a swivel on deck I could understand but the chance of a battleship being agile enough to lead a target to shoot torpedos at it with forward facing tubes seems extremely small.

guns larger than 6 in have a penalty to hit destroyers. 6 or 5 in ideal for secondary batteries on Battleships, Dreadnoughts, or Battlecruisers.

What are tertiarys for?

Torpedo ranges in that era were roughly comparable to gun range, so a column of battleships spamming their port/starboard torpedos at another column in battle would have at least a moderate chance of hitting something, or at least disrupting the enemy formation by forcing them to maneuver.

Naval guns is pretty pointless research subject unless you're majorly lacking behind in caliber (i.e. best you've is -1 12 inchers while everyone else is starting to field 14 inch and bigger). Personally I would focus on subdivision, fire control, turrets and gun mountings, ship design, light forces, and torpedoes but then again I'm a fan of torpedo warfare+destroyer spam.

For pre-dreads, or when you only have 2 main battery turrets available and probably will want to use large caliber secondaries to improve your available firepower.

The one advantage submerged tubes have over deck mounts is they can be reloaded in battle. Swivel mounts can only be reloaded in port.

I feel that naval guns are important if your putting out larger ships in force like the RN. If your doing a meme run or don't have the budget for large ships then ya I wouldn't care too much about naval guns.
I usually just use Torpedoes as a killing blow against crippled and isolated capital ships, never in the heat of battle where the destroyers will certainly get raped by smaller caliber fire trying a torpedo run that's not guaranteed to hit.

The battleship torpedo thing was also infouenced by the late 19th century belief naval firepower was being outrun by naval armor technology, to the effect that gunfire might not be capable of killing armored battleships. This led to a brief obsession with naval ramming, and a longer-lasting drive to develop torpedos as an alternative offensive weapon.

Well historically speaking, actually not true at all. Swivel mounts can be reloaded in battle, and at a faster speed than tube reloads.

The problem is that people don't want to carry any more torpedos above deck than they have to, because torps are a huge fire hazard. The IJN notably carried reloads for their torpedos right behind the swivel mount, so the mount can swivel back after shooting and reload very quickly. However, they lost at least 2 ships to spare torpedoes exploding under fire.

>can't provide proofs
>lel retards im smarter than you
which /pol/ board are you from, faggot

Yes, but afaik the Japs only started doing this with the Fubuki class, which is outside rtw's 1900-1925 timeframe.

This thread is like a comfy cabin of autism while a storm of ideologically motivated shitposting rages outside.

all you have to do is talk about a subject that /pol/ has zero knowledge of.

zero interest in*
zero knowledge doesn't stop them

So what's the RN gameplan? Feel I spend too much on equipping foreign stations.

Fill foreign stations with weaker units designed to hold the line until main fleet arrives and fucks shit up.

...

She had big guns.

Rude.

To elaborate, make crappy, excessively heavy old and slow coal fired ships. Foreign station requirement is by tonnage only, not by how powerful the ships assigned to it are.

Burning Love!!!

>ungainly casemate arrangement
>awkward looking funnels
>fugly masts

And this is before nips spent +30 years beating her up with an ugly stick and adding eyecancer inducing pagoda and overly long aft into the mix. Boatslut version of her isn't much better either desu.

>Japan bombed Pearl Harbor at a moment when it appeared that Germany was going to win the European War.

Lmao what? By 1941 the Nazis had failed to knock Britain out of the war. Their big push to maintain air superiority over the area was stopped with The Battle of Britain and they had to change their strategy by focusing on the East.

After this, Operation Compass was in full swing and the Italians got absolutely btfo in Africa which forced the Nazis to once again change their strategy to bail them out. Even with Nazi help, the Africa campaign was extremely difficult for the Axis to control and whenever they made progress securing territory they promptly lost it a few weeks later, this is because Britain had a much easier time resupplying their troops in the region because of the naval superiority and access to ports.

If Pearl Harbor happened in the early 1940s then you'd be right but it didn't, the Japs bombed the Americans when the Nazis were literally losing their momentum.

Kongou is best boatslut. Prove me wr-- Nevermind you can't.

AMATSUKAZE

someone put this thread in desu archive or whatever it is

The treaty was essentially inevitable because nobody wanted to keep spending so much money on battleships. Something often overlooked is the immense toll that WW1 took on the treasuries of the various world powers. Governments wanted to drastically reduce military spending so that they could finally start paying off the massive debts incurred during the war. The USA alone had the financial health to continue the naval arms race, but Americans had no stomach for it. Besides, who would they arms race against? Germany was crushed in the war, Britain was friendly to American interests, and Japan wasn't seen as a threat at this time.

They wanted to emulate what happened during the Russo-Japanese War but with the USN

But they barley won that one and nearly bankrupted themselves. The only way they avoided bankruptcy and defeat was due to being bankrolled by a butthurt Jew.

yfw main battery in casemates

Post Bongous

...

Without the Washington Naval Conference, new battleship construction would have been involuntarily halted or slowed down by the onset of the Great Depression. At that point, the UK probably would have deactivated or scrapped most of its WWI-vintage battleships anyhow.

Carrier construction could have continued unabated because they could be made in any size and were generally cheaper to build (if not operate) than an actual battleship.

Civ?

>Civ
Nah, I like strong world-building (not procedurally generated) and actual combat and nation-management.

You must not be American because you would have understood the importance of "Do not fuck with our shit. You can fuck with us on your shit, but do not fuck with our shit." Hawaii, albeit a recently obtained colonial territory, is still our shit and was still considered, "our shit" at the time of Pearl Harbor.

Besides DDs like the other guys said even light gun secondaries are useful against battleships in the early game.

>tfw no preserved Royal Navy dreadnoughts
I know if I want to see a dreadnought I can see the Texas but it's not the same.

Does not taking colonial posessions mean you get reparations instead reading a playthrough that suggests this.

I don't think that is implemented. afaik one has no influence on the other