ORIGINAL: Terminus
It was my understanding that we were doing this as of 1922 (which others have done).
I'm just kibitzing as I've done a fair amount of reading around this period and there are a lot of changes that would have happened with or without the Treaty (such as the RN and USN battleship retirements), but which were claimed to be due to the Treaty as part of the general horsetrading ('we'll scrap all these battleships so long as you let us do X'). Some of the USN BBs scrapped were obsolete in 1914, never mind 1920. Whether you set the start point before the treaty or after makes a huge difference in both current status and future plans.
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
I believe the British (and almost everybody else) considered the "Hawkins Class" to be an abberrition.
The one exception being the USN's Navy Board, who saw the range as suiting it to the Pacific, the RN would have been much happier keeping cruisers at 4-6,000 tons, because of the numbers they needed.
The main points are no treaty, no great depression. How would this affect the major powers with their ship development.
Here are some of my thoughts;
Keep Germany to historic builds because of the treaty. If Gary wants to amend that we will work them up too. But lets face it, they would never be able to out build the Brits in numbers of hulls so its raiders and subs.
I thoughts on the US, build 2 of the BC because of the Hood. Continue planned scrapping of the OB's through the 1920's along with the AC's and PC's.
In the 1930's scrap the South Carolina's, Delawares, and Florida's. Convert the Wyoming's to training ships. Go with the planned historical construction of the BB's and light cruisers. I would like to add the change in history that the Navy see's the threat that Billy Mitchell showed them and they use the other 4 BC's hulls as carriers. Skip the Ranger and in the 30's build the Yorktowns.
The "heavy cruisers" are a challenge, but I see their mission as Asiatic squadron and showing the flag in the America's. As such they would be large cruisers which would stand up (with numbers)to any old BB they have in South America or the older Japanese ships in the Pacific. By the 30's they would be built along the lines of hunting the Graff Spee (fast, /w large caliber guns) or built with weight of broadside in mind and have 8 - 12 8" guns. Another thought would be they look at the Hawkins class and decided its the right direction and build a better ship. [;)]
Destroyers I would go with historical builds.
If I had a better feel for the British post WWI idea's I think it would be better if we designed the British navy first since I think the rest of the major powers would react to Britain.
Keep Germany to historic builds because of the treaty. If Gary wants to amend that we will work them up too. But lets face it, they would never be able to out build the Brits in numbers of hulls so its raiders and subs.
How about this for Germany. Germany scraps all her old battleships and light cruisers in the 1920s and builds 6 Deutschland class pocket battleships, 1 Emden and 5 "K" class light cruisers by 1930. No old junk for the Reichsmarine.
