WesWorld

HOo, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that those ships are Type A Treaty cruisers, or that they have a displacement of 13,000 tons. Not with a length longer than Blucher and similar weapons! Not to mention heavier belt and turret armor, and more speed.

(OK, Blucher does have more extensive armor coverage, better deck armor, and a torpedo bulkhead, but then, Blucher is a design that's more capital ship than cruiser, Radiance is a true large cruiser.)

hmmm, I think it does say something about the SAE's opinion on the treaty:- its dead!

Well, if that's the case, they could say so at San Francisco! If enough countries that believe that say so, we can go home!

[Though Foreign Minister Stressemann, ever the gourmand, is enjoying the variety of cuisines he's getting to sample.]

I also reckon they have a very short range, especially compared to the most recent SAE BB designs

Likely a responce to either Italian large cruisers, or South American large cruisers. If the range is short, than they are probably suppose to be a fleet in being to allow the main battleline the ability to actually go hunting.

Well, my vessels have a range of 7700nm at 15kn, that´s hardly short legged . Such range should be suffice for their envisioned task.

Officially the SAE laid down two 13kts units. The encyclopedia entry is OOC. So there is no reason why the SAE should now state at the conference table they have two ships laid down that don´t fit into the current treaty classifications.

Please also note that these units are planned to be completed after the CT runs out in 1936. So they aren´t real treaty busters. Other countries are responsible for the CT ending 1936. Don´t blame the SAE. The RSAN just reacts to foreign design and ship saleing policies.

Quoted

Please also note that these units are planned to be completed after the CT runs out in 1936. So they aren´t real treaty busters.

Thats an _interesting_ interpretation.

Everyones missing the point, the CT is effectively dead anyway with some nations (well one anyway) already building outside of it before their official departure from the treaty.

Without any penaltys for building outside the treaty its dead the minute someone willfully breaches it. This effectively makes the San Francisco talks a meeting to discuss a new treaty.

The SAE has yet to make any statements at San Francisco so perhaps they may yet let everyone know the see the treaty as dead.

Wes, if you're referring to Japan, I think Walter could make the same argument that is being made here: the ships will not complete during the life of Cleito, therefore don't break it. Whether that's a correct interpretation of the treaty is a different matter.

True enough, on the flipside others seem to think that the SAE is breaching the treaty as well. Its all a matter of a nations interpretation of the treatys state of being.

Some designs seem to have been laid down as "leverage" in any new treaty talks, a sort of "look what will be built without a treaty" statement so its possible these are merely designs that will force others to rethink their negotiating stance. The timing of the keel laying of many designs seem to reflect this as the tonnage loss wouldn't be to great if a new treaty prevented them from being completed.

I must say however the treaty talks won't be the same without your imput Rocky!

Shamless plea for a return!

Well this brings up some questions, most of then likely retorical. Japan and now South Africa are building potentially treaty busting vessels that won't be in service until after the CT is suppose to have ended. Britian has laid down several large battleships in responce to the Japanese vessels and can easily outproduce anyone at this time. Italy, having be called and recalled on many treaty related issues, has several large cruisers either in service or at least launched with others under construction that can probably easily be seen as either treaty busting, or at least treaty threatening (depending on how you classify the vessels....cruisers. busting, capital ships, threatening in terms of numbers only). Atlanis has been called out over a few incidents of poor bookkeeping and the prolonged convertion of its old armored cruisers (mainly because no one could decide what should be done with them for all that time) and some issues with early lay down of new capital ships as oppose to treaty busting in size or numbers. This along with the large carrier issues has salted wounds between Italy and Atlantis that have quite frankly crippled the treaty more so than the leaving of Canada or the client states of Japan.

Is this a continuing trend with the treaty nations, or is this the end o f the road in 1934?

With South America's recent war have any effect on the treaty nations and international relations?

More importantily, will South American naval expansion programs effect the treaty members?

Is this a reasonable "cruiser" design coming out of South Africa?

Will eight 11" guns be more than a match for nine 10" guns?

What is this "cruiser's" mission and likely opponent by design?

Are Argentina and Brazil worried about this ships? (likely not unless they can find out its 11" gun armed rather than 8" guns armed)

OOC of course,

Straying off into rules-lawyering, but I guess it would hinge on what was meant by "build".

Quoted

Each Contracting Power shall be allowed a total tonnage allowance of capital ships, and may build or retain ships until that Contracting Power's tonnage-allowance has been filled, but not exceeded.

.

Consider, right now that keel displaces, well whatever a keel does- not much. Up until the ship(s) under construction, in conjunction with those in existence fill the tonnage allowance, they could be construed as legal to "build" . Once the material used in building displaces sufficient water to breach the limit, they are over- but have a grace period in which to scrap another vessel.

Of course the more common interpretation, would be that one can't start a ship one can not legally complete.
The fact that the Soveriegn signatories are not bound to listen to a lawyer's twists on definitions, but rather if it sounds like what everyone understood the deal was, probably means it will not be viewed well.

This sort of thing is not entirely unexpected, though not the source of the Dutch proposal for inspections and measurements once before launch- which would catch exactly this before it became a floating problem that had to have things cut off.

There is also that matter that by calling them 13,000 ton cruisers, there is a blatant failure to abide by article K(1) and (4).


However, the ships do fit in Dutch projections of likely escalation in the cruiser category

Unfortunately, the Dutch lack harbors sufficiently sheltered to hide construction of like vessels

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
treaty more so than the leaving of Canada or the client states of Japan.

Is this a continuing trend with the treaty nations, or is this the end o f the road in 1934?

With South America's recent war have any effect on the treaty nations and international relations?

More importantily, will South American naval expansion programs effect the treaty members?

Is this a reasonable "cruiser" design coming out of South Africa?

Will eight 11" guns be more than a match for nine 10" guns?

What is this "cruiser's" mission and likely opponent by design?

Are Argentina and Brazil worried about this ships? (likely not unless they can find out its 11" gun armed rather than 8" guns armed)

OOC Dutch responses
A. Frankly we, up to July 25th, thought a stronger Commonwealth, particularly a concerned local admiralty, a good offset for the Client states. Further, Japan could have just armed Persia/China instead of Formosa/Chosen and avoided the entire Client state issue. Though, of course that would entail Japan seeking to avoid controversy, rather than taking joy in it.

B. The Dutch are hoping it's not a continuing trend. As you may have noted, they think ships are growing unreasonably large and expensive for their roles, and would like to roll that back, not see it expand.

C. The Dutch were hoping it would lead to more natural international responsibility, rather than handsitting. Unfortunately the Argentinians have specifically excluded LON help in Paraguay.

D. South America expansion is unlikely to effect Dutch deployment as SATSUMA is so much more pressing. Long term goals include a Kongo-Suriname force, but mainly as a presence. The more likely impact is as further asymetrical ships are build As the number of ACs/BCs grow, there is a growing contingent within the Dutch Navy that wish to match them, going with 6 BBs, and 2 light BCs, rather than 7 BBs.

E-H: Right now, we're more concerned about Japan, India, etc, rather than our friends and relatives in the SAE.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Is this a continuing trend with the treaty nations, or is this the end of the road in 1934?

With South America's recent war have any effect on the treaty nations and international relations?

More importantily, will South American naval expansion programs effect the treaty members?

Is this a reasonable "cruiser" design coming out of South Africa?

Will eight 11" guns be more than a match for nine 10" guns?

What is this "cruiser's" mission and likely opponent by design?

Are Argentina and Brazil worried about this ships? (likely not unless they can find out its 11" gun armed rather than 8" guns armed)

OOC Atlantean responce

A. Given the fact that only the two nations in question had a dispute over the bookkeeping errors and large carriers Atlantis views this as a nation trying to politically attack Atlantis rather than genuinely trying to fix any errors in the treaty.

B. Atlantis sees little change in this trend as already finger pointing has begun in the current treaty talks. In addition the preposed tonnage reductions, while noble do nothing for non signatory's and Client states who are just as much a threat to CT signatory's as other CT signatory's. Reductions would exasterbate these threats further.

C and D. Given the fact that the allies of Atlantis, France and Russia have strengthened their military forces significantly, war in europe while still possible is still seen as less likely. Both nations enjoy good relations with the bulk of their neighbours, some of which also share common interests as Atlantis.

South America on the otherhand is posing its own problems. While the growing influence and independance of South American nations is seen as possitive, it also increases the potential for conflict if SA country's policy's are significantly different. Factor in foriegn efforts to destabilise various governments in the region and the threat balance changes from Europe to south America.

Finally, if the current treaty talks lead to a reduction in tonnage allotments but fail to tackle the issue of client states and non-signatory's then the naval buildup in South america, along with other regions, will definately start to become an issue to treaty members.

E-G. For now Atlantis would take the SAE at face value given their current track record on the treaty. Even if they did know the true size of the vessels its not likely the issue would become a major issue. The treaty is for the most part dead anyway and theirs no bad blood between the SAE and Atlantis. Meanwhile the SAE has several potential enemy's who can and/or are building outside the treatys restrictions.

H. Most likely they would be if they knew their true size as they are comparable to Brazilian and Argentinian designs. Chile would probably also prefere them not to exist even if their designs are slightly more gunheavy than their counterparts.

A few points:

- For the SAE the Cleito Treaty is still not dead - until it runs out officially in 1936. Not a single ship or ship category in service with the RSAN will exceed any limits until then.

- The hereby discussed cruisers are obvisously(?) replacements as they are intended to use the old Hertog-class guns (if you´ve chekced the drawing), most likely with a new shell.

- Given the still notable number of elderly units in the RSANs battlefleet which are ready for replacement or will so in the near future. Calculations have shown the RSAN wll not really be over capital ship limits by far if at all (using ofiicially known displacements for all known capital ships).

- Yes, calling them 13kts units is against the CT as stated above. However, it helps the navy to get the money from the politicians - there are already so many other capital ships building and re-building - and avoid puplicity. Such manover also helps to suprise potential opponents like the Italians who run similar ships (as the encyclopedia entry is OOC).

However, I consider this a minor break of the CT compared to other nations obvious rule breaking, cheating and free interpretation of technical details (use of liners to install larger guns with a down-sized 38cm caliber for example).

Quoted

Some designs seem to have been laid down as "leverage" in any new treaty talks, a sort of "look what will be built without a treaty" statement so its possible these are merely designs that will force others to rethink their negotiating stance.

That may be - however, any future treaty will have to take those designs, and whatever foreign counters others insist on, into account. The posturing sends a message, but it further complicates any genuine effort at arms reduction.

Quoted

I must say however the treaty talks won't be the same without your imput Rocky!

I believe that if I were still playing, I'd have India staying at home, declining to negotiate further arms control until further progress was made on decolonizing Asia. So I'm not sure you'd really notice the difference.

Quoted

More importantily, will South American naval expansion programs effect the treaty members?

This is an excellent question. The geopolitical situation that defined the various Cleito limits no longer exists. An insistence on ~Europe's part that the post-WW1-dervied balanced-of-power be retained will lead to rejection by other powers that have grown and matured since then. It would be my view that a future arms control treaty can not be concluded unless non-European powers have at least equal standing in their own front yards.

And yes, if the world seriously wants to do arms limitation, then it should be giving the Italian proposal a bit more attention.