WesWorld

I've started this new thread to discuss a potential new European naval treaty. I fully realise that this will be a difficult task due to differing aims and player absence. Realistically this would require Britain, the four major European GA powers, Iberia, Italy, Netherlands and Nordmark and perhaps Greece to sit round the table to make this worthwhile. Perhaps the USA could observe or even wish to join as a NATO ally of Britain and Atlantis?

Brock suggested I make an initial proposal. I haven't got a solid proposal but what I have in mind is some kind numerical or tonnage based limits on home-fleets whilst providing for the wider colonial needs of the various powers. A level that allows self-defence but not threatening levels of naval power and overly large forces whilst encouraging moving current units overseas to alleviate the need for any mass scrapage scheme but perhaps entailing some cuts. Perhaps some kind of floating reserve fleet idea or encouraging replacement rather than expansion to allow capability increases and some inevitable individual size growth. A building holiday for capital ships and maybe large carriers and some kind of tonnage-restrictions on new designs for capital ships and super-CA cruisers etc. as a high-end maximum ceiling to size. I know we love designing ships and this is a ship sim but all the European nations have navies of more than sufficient size and capability for ample self-defence and the treaty system has more or less made European war all but impossible while we nearly all share the same foreign threats (the usual SAE-China-Chosen-Japan bogeymen). If we could relate our fleets to each other in terms of size and allied support and define some kind of maximum-fleet likely to be deployed at home it would make planning easier and avoid everyone trying to outdo each other for no real reason. I think we've nothing to loose to attempt this even if it fails and we've kind of gotten ourselves into a current 2013 situation where Europe spends a lot on defences with fast jets and frigates etc. yet face no real conventional threats to warrant mass defence spending. A wider land and air agreement is probably beyond us at this time.

I see no reason Iberia wouldn't attend, but can't say I have any strong ideas to contribute right this moment.

I don't think Italy would go for this, but I say that without looking at any sort of dedicated proposal. I would be able to offer up a more structured comment with greater details on the plan, but will try. When it comes to the home vs colonies talk as a factor in limitation, that puts Italy at a major disadvantage as her only real "colony" just became a full member of the Republic. How does that factor into the agreement, seeing as it is on a different continent but is still "part of the home"? How does the difference in relationship between the EAS and a "traditional" colony factor in? Do most of the GA powers congregate together out of mutual goals or "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer'? Are nations inside a power block that is focused on defence, ie. Warsaw Pact, treated the same as nations outside of one, ie Italy? I think there are some more questions that need to be answered, both for individual nations and for the idea as a whole before it could be discussed further.

Germany is willing to consider such a proposal, though it sees many possible obstacles. The suggestion of one standard for home fleets and a second standard for "colonies" seems to favor those nations with colonies against those without. Of course, that is but one of the several suggestions made; and there is as yet no concrete proposal to discuss. Speculating too far without such a concrete proposal is probably unwise and I shall heed my own advice.

The US would be willing to sit on talks, though what is outlined the USN is already doing with the current Atlantic Fleet only having Yorktown as a carrier, and the 14 in battleships and California and Tennessee being deployed there. The rest is in the Pacific.

Nordmark is certainly willing to attend and discuss proposals. In general, Nordish plans focus on modernization rather than increase in numbers, so significant issues are not anticipated.

OOC: I'd be happy to play along as the Greek player. The IC response, once something more 'concrete' as others have mentioned, is set, would be much more old school, Alt_Naval style Greek paranoia. Sounds fun.

My proposal, it includes tonnage/ hull numbers to cater for whatever folks think best. I quite like working on hull numbers rather than tonnage as the latter tends to devolve into complicated maths and arguments over who should be entitled to what and defining what tonnage is actually worth. I've included an example based on the UK. To answer snip's initial point the proposal splits home and aboard forces and ringfences those and home-based forces that would primarily be used for overseas use. Note the UK example is just that at this stage but based on my thoughts for 1945 and included the transfer of battlecruisers and carriers already agreed. I have toyed with a 25% scrapping level but that could be a compromise later on. My example is a template for everyone else to use, it has to be done that way because only you guys know what vessels are earmarked in your plans for overseas. I of course welcome all comments, criticisms and other proposals.


Initial Proposal

Capital Ship Building Holiday
No construction of new battleships and battlecruisers with a main armament including and exceeding a calibre of 12 inches and a tonnage over 20,000 tons (light) and aircraft carriers exceeding 45,000 tons (light) for a period of five years. This would not prejudice construction of such vessels for export to non-signatory nations. This would not prejudice refitting or rebuilding of existing ships.

Reduction of Home Based Naval Forces
Each nation shall lay out its force requirements in terms of hulls and overall tonnage for all capital ships, aircraft carriers (capacity over 12 aircraft and vessels with through-decks), heavy cruisers, light cruisers and submarines for stationed or routinely operated for the majority of the year in overseas stations, excluding the vessels of colonial territories that have semi-independent or independent naval forces, in peacetime.
Each nation shall also lay out its requirements for wartime reinforcements or forces of operations in colonies and in support of allies beyond the immediate geography of coastal waters surrounding the western European landmass that are normally stationed in home ports.
Each nation so also lay out how many home-based vessels will remain uncommitted to overseas use and therefore assumed to be for home defence. All three calculations may take into account ships under construction during of Q1/1945 and to complete during or after that quarter and also existing vessels being disposed of by sale or scrapping before or during that quarter. Excludes disarmed vessels, hulked vessels and small submarines less than 100 tons surfaced displacement.
These tonnages and hull numbers will be protected by Treaty to form the peacetime maximum overseas fleet and the required home-based forces to reinforce and support will similarly be protected from inclusion within the reduction calculation.
A proportion equal to 15% (rounded down to nearest whole number for hulls) of the wartime home-based reinforcements of each category will be added to the non-included home fleet to represent that tonnage/ hull numbers required for peacetime training.
The tonnage/ hull number reduction will be equal to 50% (rounded up to nearest whole number for hulls) of the remaining Non-committed Home-Based force. Those ships must be scrapped within a year and existing ships can only be replaced on a one-for-one basis once the existing vessel has reached its replacement age – this rule will apply to ALL vessels within each of the three categories effectively freezing overall fleet size. Armament may be stored and reused on new construction or refitting.
The replacement ages will be: capital ships 25 years, aircraft carriers 20 years, heavy cruisers 25 years, light cruisers 20 years, submarines 15 years. The capital ship holiday applies to the relevant categories of vessels regardless of replacement age.

***

Britain

Peacetime Overseas Requirements
BB & BC – 10
CV – 6
CA – 12
CL – 45
SS – 45

Wartime Overseas Reinforcements
BB & BC – 5
CV – 2
CA – 4
CL – 15
SS – 10

Remaining Non-Committed Home-Based
BB & BC – 5 (0 protected for training)
CV – 2 (0 protected)
CA – 0 (0 protected)
CL – 26 (3 protected for training)
SS – 25 (3 protected for training)

Vessels to be scrapped
BB & BC – 3 scrapped
CV – 1 scrapped
CA – 0 scrapped
CL – 12 scrapped
SS – 11 scrapped

I'd presumably add that those nations without "overseas commitments" (Germany, Greece, etc) would be exempt from dividing things up like this, yes?

Ok, here are the Italian Number with the following assumptions.

1. Tripolitania & Cyrenaica are not considered overseas possessions as they are part of the Italian Republic in 1945.
   
2. Italy holds defense obligations to the East African State.
3. The East African State has independent naval forces, so its ships do not count.
4. The Italian Indian Ocean Squadron (which is based out of Mawassa) counts as Colonial Forces.

Italy

Peacetime Overseas Requirements
BB & BC – 1
CV – 2
CA – 0
CL – 2
SS – 0

Wartime Overseas Reinforcements
BB & BC – 6
CV – 6
CA – 6
CL – 12
SS – 20

Remaining Non-Committed Home-Based
BB & BC – 3 (0 protected for training) (counting two under construction)
CV – 5 (0 protected)
CA – 3 (0 protected)
CL – 5 (1 protected for training)
SS – 85 (13 protected for training)

Vessels to be scrapped
BB & BC – 2 scrapped
CV – 3 scrapped
CA – 2 scrapped
CL – 2 scrapped
SS – 36 scrapped

If it is assumed that Tripolitania & Cyrenaica do count as overseas possessions, but all other previous assumptions hold, then the numbers look like this.
Peacetime Overseas Requirements
BB & BC – 1
CV – 4
CA – 3
CL – 4
SS – 8

Wartime Overseas Reinforcements
BB & BC – 6
CV – 6
CA – 6
CL – 12
SS – 28

Remaining Non-Committed Home-Based
BB & BC – 3 (0 protected for training) (counting two under construction)
CV – 1 (0 protected)
CA – 0 (0 protected)
CL – 3 (0 protected for training)
SS – 69 (10 protected for training)

Vessels to be scrapped
BB & BC – 2 scrapped
CV – 0 scrapped
CA – 0 scrapped
CL – 2 scrapped
SS – 35 scrapped

OOC response: Both look acceptable, but I know which I would prefer. The two battleships were ones I was planing on getting rid of anyway, and everything else has places I can see what I would get rid of if forced to. As its worded, the status of Tripolitania & Cyrenaica is *ahem* interesting (when is it not). On the one hand, they are a part of the Republic in the same manor as any Italian (or what the Yugoslavians think are theirs ) province. On the other, it does say "European landmass". A bit of a sticky wicket, if I may borrow the phrase.

IC response: "Well, if you examine the text carefully, it does say ""beyond the immediate geography of coastal waters surrounding the western European landmass"". Now, are we under the delusion that Africa is part of Europe? Thought so. Here are the defense requirements for the Italian provinces of Tripolitania & Cyrenaica. Yes, we do need a squadron of Heavy Cruisers stationed there."

Quick response, a more detailed one coming later.

With the USN only building 6 new capital units in the last 20 years to replace the 7 units it plans on retiring it wishes an exemption of 2 capital ships of 45,000 tons.

So...

1) We decide what we need, based on our own assessments?

2) Rather than reduce numbers because we have friends to help us, we increase numbers because we have friends to help?

This doesn't seem like it would reduce naval arms in any way.

The USN is reducing numbers at least in the Atlantic.

Or does going from 7 battleships to 4 isn't a reduction in numbers? Interestingly when all is said and done the USN would have 16 capital units, which is what they had under Cleito

I don't know what the rest of your math looks like, nor what your assumptions are, so I can hardly comment on specific American numbers...

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

So...

1) We decide what we need, based on our own assessments?

2) Rather than reduce numbers because we have friends to help us, we increase numbers because we have friends to help?

This doesn't seem like it would reduce naval arms in any way.

You have a point, but your #2 is incorrect insofar as my understanding of the proposal is concerned. It basically sub-divides the Fleet into three categories; Overseas Station, Reaction force, and Home Guard. The numbers from the third category are used to determine the cuts. The theory (as far as I know, please correct me if I am offbase Hood) is that the treaty limits the major European navies based on how much "bloat" they have after what is necessary to defend there colonies.

I don't think this proposal will really work, because it lets me do something like this:

Quoted

Total Metropolitan:
- 5 BB
- 1 BB(T)
- 3 BC
- 5 CV
- 5 CVL + 2 construction
- 2 CA + 2 construction
- 8 CL

Total Overseas:
- 1 BB
- 1 BC
- 5 CDBB
- 5 CA
- 4 CL

Home-Based Reinforcement Forces:
- 5 BB
- 3 BC
- 5 CV
- 5 CVL + 2 construction
- 2 CA + 2 construction
- 8 CL

Remaining Non-Committed Home-Based:
- 1 BB(T)

Perhaps it might be better to do things more like this (examples may be slightly ridiculous):

Quoted

The Republic of France agrees they:
- Shall not commission any new carriers without retiring old ones on a one-for-one basis.
- Shall not build any fleet submarines with guns larger than 20cm.
- Shall not build any battleships that are named Napoleon.
- Shall not build more than two cruisers in excess of 14,000 tons light.
- Shall not deploy any more capital ships or carriers in European or North African ports than are presently stationed there.
- Shall not build any ships with ugly tumblehome hulls.
- Etc.

Everybody agrees they:
- Shall not build carriers above 45,000 tons light
- Shall not expend more than X% of their quarterly naval budget on submarines, nor shall they expend more than X% of their budget on capital ships or carriers...
- Etc.

My apologies, I assumed you were.

The USN assumes it needs a minimum of 4 capital units and 2 carriers in Atlantic Waters, and 12 capital units and 10 carriers in Pacific Waters. That is what it is working towards.

Quoted from "TheCanadian"

My apologies, I assumed you were.

The USN assumes it needs a minimum of 4 capital units and 2 carriers in Atlantic Waters, and 12 capital units and 10 carriers in Pacific Waters. That is what it is working towards.

No worries, my response to Hood could have been clearer.

Speaking to Hood's original proposal once more, I suspect Iberia could agree to a capital ship holiday and the temporary cap of carrier size. It could also agree to the notion of no cruiser submarines and no ugly French tumblehome ships.

I'm tempted to propose that the building holidays would extend to building for non-signatories; a new capital ship delivered to Mexico would make things tricky for Iberia; a new capital ship delivered to Australia might change the situation for France.