No Washington Treaty

[R8J]

If there was no Washington Treaty what would Japan and America have used for second generation carriers (post Hosho and Langley)?

Would they have converted some more and maybe larger merchant types to get more experience? Or designed a new one, I'm guessing close in size to the Ranger?

So what would have been between the Hosho/Langley and Shokaku/Yorktown?

[Ian R]

Well, checked this in Conways (the 1906-1921 volume)

Lexington/Saratoga may still have been built. No Kaga and Akagi, but the RN large cruiser hull conversions would likely have still happened (they were starting with Furious a late WW1 development, pre WNT, usefully re-using what after Jutland were recognised as flawed designs) so the others would want CVs of similar speed, or so you could reasonably infer.

The IJN would have likely continued its "8-8" planning (which was official policy as from 4 April 1907 to 1921)- two squadrons of 8 BBs/BCs, supposedly less than 8 years old, but probably not financially achievable even with older ships being used... doesn't leave much money for carriers. I suspect a couple of older pre WW1 battlecruiser hulls would be converted if there was no money for new construction, following the RN practice as the IJN did. IJN carrier aviation can be traced back to the British Semphill mission of 1921 (Conways page 222).

There were plans pre WNT (Conways page 239) to build two new carriers, "large" [sic], fast [probably = 31+ knots to keep up with the Kongos] vessels to operate as a pair and scout for the battlefleet, one to carry torpedo bombers, and the other recon and spotter aircraft. The class name was (no surprise) Shokaku, the vessels were to be 12,500 tons each and were projected for the 1922 and 1923 building programmes. And thats all the detail Conways has on them. Suspect they would have carried upwards of 40 planes each, given their size and comparison to the Hosho's 21 plane airgroup. So if you designed a scenario based on this, add (by 1941) two old CVLs, and shift all the names two to the right as it were, The historical Shokakus become the Hiryus, the next two probably Taiho and something flowing on from that.

Had they decided to convert some older hulls (perhaps as well as the originally projected Shokakus), then the possibilities are the battlecruiser Ikoma (completed 1911) and/or the battlecruiser Ibuki (completed 1908) or its sister ship, small BCs of about 15k tons disp, armed with only 4 x 12" as its main battery, but with speeds of about 21 knots before any reconstruction lightened them, and each of which had passed its 8 years 'first line' life and was in its second 8 year 'support fleet' period. As they were really CBs ('large cruisers', like the German 'pocket battleships') which sufferred from being pre-dreadnought style mixed battery designs, they would have been usefully employed as carriers larger than the purpose built ones envisaged.


As for the USN, Conways (at 119) reports that the Lexington class BC design, which had originated in a 1916 order, and been modified as larger main battery rifles, small tube boilers, and the reports on Jutland became available (and after the design for the Hood had been sent over with Stanley Goodall during the war), was already being questioned before the WNT . There were studies in early 1921 of conversions of the (3) existing hulls to carriers, and how the material being gathered for the 4th, Ranger, could be used to build a carrier 'keel-up'. The WNT just confirmed what was already being considered.

So, maybe with no WNT the USN actually has a third Lexington (Constellation, was #2 in the class, Saratoga was #3) and maybe even two more Rangers - Constitution and United States (or seeing as that name never has actually been used, perhaps America instead).

[R8J]

Thanks. I'll have to get Conway's 1906-1921. I have both post 21 volumes.

There's plenty of info on planned and proposed BBs. I just can not find anything on CVs. I did not know there pre WNT thoughts of converting Lexington class BCs to CVs.