WesWorld

That's certainly a reasonable reading of things: the intent might be for others to react and cause the end of the Treaty, while leaving Japanese hands (ostensibly, at least) clean of being the first to walk away.

Chile's reaction if it was part of the treaty:

"I'm getting a fine tutsi fruitsing right here."
~ Groucho Marx

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
That's certainly a reasonable reading of things: the intent might be for others to react and cause the end of the Treaty, while leaving Japanese hands (ostensibly, at least) clean of being the first to walk away.

Thats certainly the way I see things as well and I'd say its working to some extent.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
From this reading is seems more like bait. Word a subject to spark a reaction. Point out a loophole. Get questioned on it. Point out that even without the loophole the "violator" is still within their normal treaty limits anyway.

If I recall France and Italy backed out of the Washington Treaty historically when the London Treaty came about.

Japan did so at the Second London Treaty leaving only the United Kingdom and United States in the treaty. They followed it until just before the war broke out if I recall correctly.

In theory. I remember reading a few places that the only reason the North Carolinas and South Dakotas are listed at 35k tons, is because those are the only figures the USN will release, and even though it's long since become a moot point, the US Government doesn't want to admit they violated the treaty. One of the arguments I remember, was that those ships were at worst comparable in capability to the Italian Littorios, which were treaty busters. Might sound like it has a bit of the conspirasy theorist rhetoric behind it, but when I read it, I thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
That's certainly a reasonable reading of things: the intent might be for others to react and cause the end of the Treaty, while leaving Japanese hands (ostensibly, at least) clean of being the first to walk away.

If the international community comes to the general conclusion that Japan has been violating the treaty without officially being the first to 'walk away', I don't think they'll consider their hands to be 'clean', either, no matter what protestations or excuses they try and make.

Quoted

If the international community comes to the general conclusion that Japan has been violating the treaty without officially being the first to 'walk away', I don't think they'll consider their hands to be 'clean', either, no matter what protestations or excuses they try and make.

It could be strictly an internal concern, not related to international opinion.

Quoted

Carriers and Battleships are more or less capital ships and as such have the specific wording involved.

I think you don't understand what I mean. What I mean is that with the 'Aviation Training Ships', there is absolutely no question about the limits. With the 'Capital Ships' and 'Other Surface Vessels', that's not the case.
So instead of this:

Quoted

. Capital ships



The following is to be carried out:

(1) Removal of main armament guns, revolving parts of all

barbettes and turrets; machinery for operating turrets;


but three turrets with their armament may be retained in

each ship;

(2) Removal of all ammunition and explosives in excess of the

quantity required for target practice training for the

guns remaining on board;

(3) Removal of conning tower and the side armour belt between

the foremost and aftermost barbettes;

(4) Removal or mutilation of all torpedo tubes;

(5) Removal or mutilation on board of all boilers in excess of

the number required for a maximum speed of eighteen knots.




3. Other surface vessels



The following is to be carried out:

(1) Removal of all main guns in excess of four;

(2) Removal of all torpedo tubes from cruisers;

(3) Removal of all aviation facilities and accessories;

(4) Removal of one half of the boilers from cruisers.

It should read like the 'Aviation Training Ships' part, so something like this:

Quoted

1. Capital ships
The following is to be carried out:

(1) Maximum of three main gun turrets.
(2) No more ammunition and explosives to be carried in excess of the quantity required for target practice training for the guns.
(3) No conning tower and no side armour belt between the foremost and aftermost barbettes.
(4) No torpedo tubes.
(5) Maximum speed of eighteen knots.


3. Other surface vessels
The following is to be carried out:

(1) Maximum of four main guns.
(2) No torpedo tubes.
(3) No aviation facilities and accessories.
(4) Maximum speed of eighteen knots.

This way, there is absolutely no question about the limits of training ships, converted or purpose built.
Should perhaps be some displacement limits as well on those ships...

Quoted

If I recall France and Italy backed out of the Washington Treaty historically when the London Treaty came about.

Japan did so at the Second London Treaty leaving only the United Kingdom and United States in the treaty. They followed it until just before the war broke out if I recall correctly.

Yes, I looked it up. Japan left the WT in 1936. I couldn't really find whether France and Italy left the WT right away or, like Japan, kept following it until 1937. Don't get the impression they did the latter. If France and Italy did leave the WT at the time of the London Treaty, it should clearly indicate that one can leave the CT before 12/31/1936 since the CT is based on the WT.

Quoted

Chile's reaction if it was part of the treaty:

"I'm getting a fine tutsi fruitsing right here."

So Chile's President is Groucho Marx? :-)

Quoted

I don't think they'll consider their hands to be 'clean'

They'll be as clean as the hands of Lady Macbeth. :-)

Walter is right. There should be more limits to the various ship categories. However, you´ve to keep in mind those parts of the treaty were written at another time when the whole treaty looked different. Back then the treaty was one solid piece even if it had flaws. Now it´s just a clustered, complex piece of .... with so many things changed that I´m sure every second sentance offers a chance for a loophole.

If some people hadn´t insisted on modifying the treaty the new parts wouldn´t have been added and this discussion would never take place.

I still think whole chapter H has nothing to do with newly build ships - but this little "...or purpose-build" - which I missed entirely before, I have to admit - wrecked it all.

So yes, the treaty is kaputt (with two T, Wes, with two).

I expect the newly-built clause was inserted in consideration of training carriers, which might or might not be constructed from other units. Not to mention that historically there have been some new-build training cruisers.

Quoted

I still think whole chapter H has nothing to do with newly build ships - but this little "...or purpose-build" - which I missed entirely before, I have to admit - wrecked it all.

Originally the CT didn't have 'purpose-built' in there, like the WT. That bit was added during the Kopenhagen talk and, as I read that training ship discussion, I get the impression that it was done by the one who is your ally and mine.

Well, if the treaty is kaputt, then we can discuss that at Cowes and go forward, in whatever way seems best. But let's someone who can open an area for the Cowes discussions (whatever they turn out to be) so things can get going.

You mean 'fix' it, either with glue or with hammers.

For Cowes an area of WesWorld has been dedicated... (below the 1929er talks)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
So yes, the treaty is kaputt (with two T, Wes, with two).

Sorry, I'm part British, and I had a hankering for some "T".

You´re transferring quite a bit IP to COSINE - where can I read what happens with this stuff?

In the encyclopedia sections for Chosen and Formosa there is word of a second capital ship for both navies (Dairen II class). Which of the ships currently under construction in Japan are these two units?

Why aren´t those "free nations" building those ships with their own material?

How do those two nations plan to maintain their oversized (?) fleets which will then be centered around a CV and two BCs each?

Quoted

You´re transferring quite a bit IP to COSINE - where can I read what happens with this stuff?

When its too late for you to respond effectively.

I'll concede that the COSINE contribution to Persia in 1932 is not yet reported, because I've not done the yearly report for Persia yet. However, the Philippines' turn began in Q2 1932 and can be found in Alikchi's reports.

Stephan, you're having trouble finding the battlecruisers in these sim reports because they do not exist. They are not under construction. Japan, Chosen, and Formosa are not (currently, at least) building them.

Quoted

That's certainly a reasonable reading of things: the intent might be for others to react and cause the end of the Treaty, while leaving Japanese hands (ostensibly, at least) clean of being the first to walk away.

Suppose that Japan, Chosen, and Formosa publically discussed the idea of building new battlecruisers - while never actually intending to build any - to see how others reacted...?

I just wanted to be sure - I´ve heard to many different things about those BCs. Including information from Walter, that is. But it wouldn´t be the first time I miss something in a players report... :o/

Quoted

Suppose that Japan, Chosen, and Formosa publically discussed the idea of building new battlecruisers - while never actually intending to build any - to see how others reacted...?

*snickers*

Quoted

I just wanted to be sure - I´ve heard to many different things about those BCs. Including information from Walter, that is. But it wouldn´t be the first time I miss something in a players report... :o/

The only information you should trust about those BCs are what I told you OOC in that first PM (as I can't quite remember what I said about them in the second PM).
I do like the design, so I'm wondering if I should alter my building in order to build a pair of those BCs for Japan.