WesWorld

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

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.

How would you impose such a building holiday on a non-signatory?

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

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.

I think that would only work if it encompassed all shipbuilders with the capability; of the major powers, Japan and the SAE really aren't participating, and so they could in theory build for any of the minor powers while the signatories are stuck and unable to respond.

As per Hood's original proposal, the independent and semi-independent associated powers should be accounted for along with the parent country - Canada and Australia in the case of Britain, Indochina in the case of France, etc.

Answers to questions thus far.

My proposal is to cut, as snip says, some of the bloat and to retain the rump we need. The logic being that our threats lie overseas rather than on our doorstep. The entire remaining fleet would then be frozen. You will note there is no stipulation that the scrapped vessels have to be currently home-based but that those are the numbers that should be scrapped, so for example (as both me and Snip have found) older vessels and those up for disposal anyway can be put forward for scrapping and not replaced. Also I feel the relatively small numbers of ships scrapped would be more acceptable than a blanket 10-20% of all ships within the navy which would mean mass scrappings that would leave us weaker than the potential overseas opposition.
I feel that there probably should be more age or tonnage categories, for example light cruisers is rather vague and Britain, and I suspect other players too, would welcome some kind of stronger definition there, perhaps those over 9 guns or over 10,000 tons and minimum speed of 29.9kts?

Brock has a good point but I feel obvious cheating like that would stymie any agreement. The USA has stuck to its Cleito limits in capital ships and that's laudable but any return to those limits now would entail much larger scrappings and would be unacceptable to most players.

The European landmass element is a concession to Italy and France so that their territory there is treated as if it were a colony. Of course that poses problems for the USA because they are far beyond it. To some extent the USA differs from the norm here.

That is also why the colonial and dominions forces are excluded; to bring in the RCN and RAN would compromise overseas power and yet they do not contribute to European defence, neither does Indochina though I agree it reduces the need for France to keep warships there in peacetime and is a force multiplier in that sense. To bring them in would require British calls to include Chile as a GA member though to even the balance, Venezuela for Atlantis etc. The proposals call for scrappings, not sidelining ships to puppets and allies.

Rocky makes a good point about friends. I had thought about general bloc calculations along the same lines, e.g. GA totals and NATO totals but then how would we decided which members give up what and some European nations are now largely unattached. But I guess we could add a further calculation that cuts a further percentage off based on overall bloc numbers. Also good points on the export situation but I can't see getting any overseas nations like Mexico or Japan on board these talks and if we could we'd be better discussing a new international Cleito-style system or at least an international building holiday at the very least.

Brock's list of undertakings has perhaps some merit (though some are obviously tongue in cheek). Maybe a straw poll is required as to what everyone is more likely to support; a) a cutting of current fleet size and freezing for the next decade or so, or b) a battery of building holidays covering the largest warships from capital ships, big carriers, heavy cruisers and larger light cruisers beyond, say, 12,000 tons? Or c) a holiday followed by a displacement construction agreement for replacement warships to limit the sizes of new warships.

I would make the side comment here that I feel there is a background groundswell of gradual reductions and scrappings of old ships going on already among the European players here, Britain already plans to give up 3 BC and 1 CV before even these talks take effect and Snip has battleship reductions planned so I don't think an agreement need be too hard to reach given the movements already being made.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

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

In the latest round of clarifications, this point appears to have been overlooked. How would this matter be addressed?

I think that

Quoted

- Shall not build any battleships that are named Napoleon.

should be replaced by

Quoted

- Must build one warship that will be named Napoleon. Said ship may not be bigger than 10000 tons and must have guns >300 mm.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

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

In the latest round of clarifications, this point appears to have been overlooked. How would this matter be addressed?

IMHO, they still would. There overseas based forces would read 0, and there reaction forces would be defined as normal. The only difference in my mind between say Italy and Germany in terms of the letter ans spirit of the law is that Italy has an peacetime overseas commitment to defend territory under Italian influence wile Germany does not. The possession of reaction forces and home forces is still the same, even if the reaction forces are being used as part of say international fleets (Germany in GA functions, Greece in Warsaw Pact ones) as opposed to individual colony defense. When I was doing the Italian number yesterday, I treated the "Wartime Overseas Reinforcements" category as holding the forces that I would reasonably expect to shift from home defense to a combat theater as an offensive force be it in the Indian Ocean vs the SAE or in the Eastern Med engaging Warsaw Pact forces.

Quoted

That is also why the colonial and dominions forces are excluded; to bring in the RCN and RAN would compromise overseas power and yet they do not contribute to European defence, neither does Indochina though I agree it reduces the need for France to keep warships there in peacetime and is a force multiplier in that sense. To bring them in would require British calls to include Chile as a GA member though to even the balance, Venezuela for Atlantis etc. The proposals call for scrappings, not sidelining ships to puppets and allies.

Yet I must point out that both Canada and Australia have regularly received sidelined British ships in this fashion, while GA member Chile has never received this sort of assistance. It's more cogent to the discussion to state that Canada and Australia will simply decline to participate in any discussions of naval limitations which might affect them.

Quoted

Brock's list of undertakings has perhaps some merit (though some are obviously tongue in cheek). Maybe a straw poll is required as to what everyone is more likely to support; a) a cutting of current fleet size and freezing for the next decade or so, or b) a battery of building holidays covering the largest warships from capital ships, big carriers, heavy cruisers and larger light cruisers beyond, say, 12,000 tons? Or c) a holiday followed by a displacement construction agreement for replacement warships to limit the sizes of new warships.

Basically, Option B, which each signatory nation agreeing to do a list of certain things that is applicable and tailored solely to them. I don't believe any agreement is possible otherwise.

For instance:
- The signatories agree not to build capital ships over 20,000t light and 12" / 305mm guns, nor carriers over 45,000 tons light.
- France agrees not to build and deploy any new carriers to European waters, and to retire two carriers before the end of 1945.
- Iberia agrees not to build any cruisers over 15,000 tons or with 210mm guns.
- Italy agrees not to build any more carriers except as replacements for retired ships.
- Britain agrees to, etc, etc,...

Maybe it might be better to just ask each participant the following question: "What will you offer to do / not to do, and will you sign a treaty committing to it?"

Well I can't see any agreement on the proposal likely so perhaps we'd best sideline that because with only Britain and Italy supporting it, its going nowhere. Snip's answer to Bruce would be mine, Germany's GA force would count as the overseas reinforcement. Of course we need more opinions from AWOL players too.

So, asking Brock's question to everyone, "What will you offer to do / not to do, and will you sign a treaty committing to it?"

Australia would be willing to participate in such a treaty only if such countries as the SAE, Japan, and India also where included.

Mexico OTOH is willing to be included in said talks.

France offers the following:
1. Shall not spend more than 6,000 tons per quarter on aircraft carrier construction (approximately 22% of quarterly budget).
2. Shall retire, decommission, and scrap the carriers Clemenceau and Gambetta prior to commissioning the aircraft carriers Zélé and Héros (planned for completion in December 1945).
3. Shall retire, decommission, and scrap the carriers Suffren and Vauban prior to commissioning any further carriers, or by December 1948, whichever occurs first.
4. Shall retire, decommission, and scrap the destroyers of the Audaciaux class (eight ships), Gallant class (nine ships), and L'Terrible class (nine ships) before the end of 1946.
5. Shall not construct more than sixteen destroyers [1] to replace the twenty-six vessels named in 4.
6. Shall retire, decommission, and scrap at least two vessels of the Petain-class coast defense battleship class prior to commissioning the cruisers Redoubtable and Renommée (completion planned for June 1945).
7. Shall not commission more than twelve submarines of any type until all vessels of the CS-27 class submarines (seventeen vessels) are scrapped or sold; the total submarine fleet shall not exceed eighty units.
8. Shall not lay down any capital ship or cruiser of over 25,000 tons light until 1950.

[1] Destroyer defined herein as any surface combatant with a speed of 30 knots or more, between 1,500 and 3,500 tons light displacement, equipped with guns, torpedoes, and ASW weapons.

* * * * *

If this method of negotiation works, then I might make some further comments about deployments, but I'll wait on that once there is more significant buy-in.

Iberia will contemplate what commitments might be made.

Quoted from "Desertfox"

Australia would be willing to participate in such a treaty only if such countries as the SAE, Japan, and India also where included.

Mexico OTOH is willing to be included in said talks.

Bharat isn't rejecting the notion out of hand.

Italy offers the following:
1. Shall remove from effective service as a combat capable warship the Carrier Francesco Morosini on completion of the reconstruction of Europa in the second half of 1946.
2. Shall remove from effective service as combat capable warships the Battleships Cristoforto Columbo and Lepanto on the completion of Leonardo da Vinci and Dante Alighieri respectively.
3. Shall remove from service the 17 Soldati class Destroyers and replace them with 12 Admiral Class Destoryers by the end of 1945.
4. Shall not construct additional destroyers aside to serve as 1-to-1 replacements for current ships.
5. Shall remove from service the Antonio Sciesca, Argonauta and Adua class submarines (46 ships in total) and replace them at no greater then a 1-to-2 ratio.
6. Proclaims that the total submarine fleet shall not exceed 90 vessels with at least 10 being coastal boats.
7. Shall reduce the number of MAS boats in service to 176 by the end of 1946.
8. Shall not lay down any capital ship or cruiser of over 25,000 tons light until 1950 with the following exception.
A. A replacement carrier for Francesco Morosini may be constructed with a size no larger then the current Andrea Doria class IF there is a dramatic increase in the carrier power of nations capable of threatening the Italian Republic or the East African State.

Most of this is, like with Hood's initial proposal, is stuff I was planing to do anyway and the rest makes for interesting rollplay.

Great Britain undertakes to:
1. Not lay down any new battleships or battlecruisers displacing more than 30,000 tons light tonnage for at least ten years from the start of the Agreement
2. Not lay down any new large aircraft carriers exceeding 30,000 tons for at least five years from the start of the Agreement
3. To decommission the battlecruisers HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible and to begin scrapping before the end of 1945
4. To decommission the battleships of the Queen Elizabeth class and retain only one for as a training vessel and to scrap the remainder
5. To permanently transfer the battlecruiser HMS Hood to the Royal Canadian Navy in early 1945
6. To permanently transfer the large aircraft carrier HMS Majestic to the Royal Canadian Navy as a training carrier at the end of 1945
7. To scrap the large aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal at the end of 1945
8. To replace the four Kent Class heavy cruisers with four new large cruisers not exceeding 14,000 tons light displacement and main armament not exceeding 8 inch calibre, work to begin in 1946 with no further cruisers to be built with guns exceeding 6 inch calibre for at least ten years from the start of the Agreement unless any European nation begins work a cruiser with guns of greater calibre than 9 inch before 1950
9. To scrap the ten O Class coastal submarines during 1945 and only build five replacement submarines during 1945 and no more coastal submarines shall be built for at least ten years from the start of the Agreement
10. Not to routinely deploy more than five battleships in home waters in peacetime, not counting those vessels briefly returning to home ports for routine repairs or refits
11. Not to routinely deploy more than five aircraft carriers of all sizes in home waters during peacetime, not counting those vessels briefly returning to home ports for routine repairs or refits

The Iberian Confederation is prepared to contemplate holidays or caps on capital ship and carrier construction for a five year period.

It will not make commitments related to geographic deployments.

As Iberia's primary overseas threats derive much of their naval power from vessels sold by larger powers, the Confederation concludes that it can not limit its cruiser and minor combattant programs unless substantive action is taken to prevent the sale, transfer and/or disposal of warships.

Maybe we should make this a IC event?

Maybe. We need someone banging his shoe in the room.

An IC thread may be warranted.

Germany states that it:

1. Will not lay down any non-aircraft carrying warship larger than 40,000 tons light displacement and bearing a main armament larger than 30.5cm prior to 1 January 1951, and shall give one year's notice prior to that date if it intends to lay down such a warship after that date.

2. Will not lay down any aircraft carrier larger than 40,000 tons light displacement prior to 1 January 1951, unless one year's prior notice is given before the start of construction of such a vessel.

3. Will not construct any heavy cruiser (defined as a vessel of at least 9,000 tons light displacement bearing armament larger than 15 cm but less than 28 cm) over and above the number of such vessels in service (presently four such vessels are in service) prior to 1 January 1951. Replacement of existing vessels on a one-for-one basis will be permissible.

4. Will designate the aircraft carrier Moltke as a dedicated aviation training vessel and will refrain from refitting the aviation training vessel Otto Lilienthal to increase its current capacity.

5. Will limit the total number of submarines in service to no more than sixty units of all types in active service at any one time for the period ending 31 December 1950, and will give one year's notice prior to that date if the number of submarines in active service will be advanced beyond the limit of sixty units of all types after 31 December 1950.

Quoted from "The Rock Doctor"

The Iberian Confederation is prepared to contemplate holidays or caps on capital ship and carrier construction for a five year period.

It will not make commitments related to geographic deployments.

As Iberia's primary overseas threats derive much of their naval power from vessels sold by larger powers, the Confederation concludes that it can not limit its cruiser and minor combattant programs unless substantive action is taken to prevent the sale, transfer and/or disposal of warships.

Well, Britain has hardly ever sold any ships beyond members of the British empire, the biggest was a light cruiser to Yugoslavia in the mid-30s. Britain has pondered buying up surplus ships to keep them out of Chinese hands but never done so because of the costs involved.

For Atlantis to even consider a building holiday, other first rate naval powers such as the SAE and Japan would also have to participate. Aside from that I would have to give some serious thought as to what I would be willing to give up/forgo building ect.