Link: Copy link
Just to be clear I don’t mean that the QEs are hopelessly outclassed by the Ise class, I mean that if Britain leaves Japan to complete the Kagas and Amagi class without responding they will be hopelessly outclassed.ChrisPat wrote:Bellerophon wrote:
...The RN is still considerably larger than the USN or IJN but most of the capital ships are older and smaller. Without the G3s anything Britain might send to Singapore will be hopelessly outclassed by the IJN...
15" battleships / barrels; RN 10 / 80.
15" battlecruisers / barrels RN 3 / 20. Neglecting the Outrageous class. Hood can also act like a 15" battleship.
14" / 13.5" battleships / barrels; RN 11 / 110, USN 11 / 124, IJN 4 / 48.
14" / 13.5" battlecruisers; RN 3 / 24, IJN 4 / 32.
12" battleships; RN 9 / 90, USN 6 / 64, IJN semi DNs neglected.
12" battlecruisers, DACs, RN 4 / 32.
I don't think the RN has to worry at all about pre 16" ships. Even taking those existing into account there are 16 barrels each in the USN and IJN, they don't really make up for 198 x 15" and 13.5"in the RN battlefleet vs 124 or 48 14" for their rivals.
The RN's problem isn't firepower now but maintaining it in the face of age and hard work combined with foreign building. They can offer economies in running costs by trimming their considerable margin. They were already doing that by withdrawing the 12" DNs.
With four laid down in 1922/3 and completed 1927/8 the RN will still have only 4 ships with 16” guns while Japan has 8 and the US possibly 10 (the first option in my post #15). That is not a good balance for the RN even assuming that neither of the other powers has laid down any further ships since 1922.
Maybe, maybe not. All those navies are going to retain some pre 16" ships, the RN was definitely planning four further ships. So it's 4 x G3s, 4 x G3s/N3s and ?x 15" vs 10 or 8 x 16" ships and ?x 14". If the USN and IJN go to 10x16" ships then 8 G3s mount another ship's worth of guns roughly balance the numbers of barrels.
While the USN and RN don't realise how fast the Nagatos are all G3s built will be faster, along with Hood.
I assume a couple of those USN 16" are battle scouts, while the G3s are not only "fully armoured battlecruisers" but fully armoured for an expected 18" threat.
The IJN 8-8 would be 2 x Nagatos, 2 x Tosas and 4 x Kiis with 32x18" and 36x16" as battleships with 4 x Amagis and 4 x Kii with 80x16". If built these would, at the top end, match 18" guns against the G3s 18" standard armour with comparable speeds but at the lower end less speed and armour with the middle being more lightly armoured with similar speed.
The RN didn't know most of that of course, how well they predicted the Japanese economy could realise the plan is another matter. The first 4-4 would be slightly inferior to 8 x G3s IMO. As above if the IJN gets those eight ships and retains the older eight the RN has an extensive list of ships to choose from in the "older" list. Match the new ships and overpower the old looks a reasonable aim and 8xG3s, 5 x QEs, 5 x Rs, Hood R&R as being rebuilt at the time) and Tiger would do that.
Joe - Can you please point to any records from the 1921 Imperial Conference which point to such a decision? My recollection is that they did not make a decision one way or the other, and deferred the matter to be resolved at the Washington Conference - and it didn't expire in 1922, the AJA historically remained in force until 1923 without any further extension.Joe Steel wrote: The EMpire had decided not to renew the AJA at the 1921 Imperial Conference, so it wasn't expected to be renewed in 1922 (by which time it had expired).
The Arethusa class had too short a range for really satisfactory trade protection in any but the short routes. It was a fleet cruiser (and a very good one, at that). Even the Amphions, with increased range, were strained in theaters like the IO and Pacific. It took the 8,000 ton Colony class to get 10,000 miles of range with all the rest of the capabilities a cruiser needed.