WesWorld

Major concern was voiced over by some of the CT signataries about the recently published details of the Zeven Provinciën's planned rebuild. Both ships are intended to be updated to new standards in 1930, and some of the details of the rebuild may cause major discussions about the Cleito Treaty as it now stands, it's aplications and its intentions.


Both battlecruisers of the dutch navy are to lose their "Q" turret in an update that also covers the loss of the upper belt, increasing of main gun caliber and improvement of deck armor, between many other details; many of them are supposedly forbidden under the Cleito Treaty.

The letter of the Treaty explicitly says that no ship should be reconstructed with a change of number of main guns, nor its caliber. It also forbids changes of side armor, something including into the planned rebuild. However, on the public press conference given, the SubSecretary of Defence assured that those changes while illegal under the Treaty's clauses, are needed to avoid the construction of brand new ships:

"The treaty we signed years ago had one purpose: to avoid a naval arms race that would benefit none of us and may very well cause another war we all want to avoid.

"As such the spirit of the treaty was to keep naval shipbuilding on low levels and give each nation their fair share of naval assets, enough for self-defence. The treaty was signed to avoid new shipbuilding.

"However the letter of the treaty is against it's same spirit: there are certain times when a ship must be rebuilt with more powerful guns, there are certain times, too, when a ship should lose some of her turrets and side armor. The restrictions placed on available modifications by the Cleito Treaty means no chance at all to improve old ships so they can be kept in first line service, thus forcing new ships to take their place. This, I would say, is against the spirit of the treaty.


"We, the dutch people, think that the spirit of the treaty should be placed over the letter of the treaty. If the letter forces nations to go against the very same reasons why the treaty was signed on the first place, that letter should be voided of importance.
Our planned modifications to the Zeven Provinciëns are the most bassic needed to keep the ship operational in our fleet; if they can't be modified along those lines there will be no other choice than withdraw them and build two brand new warships in their place,something which would go frontally against the CT spirit.


"So, the Netherlands asks for a formal revision of the Cleito Treaty in 1928, according to the provisions of the treaty itself, and asks, too, for those clauses banishing the planned modifications of the Zeven Provinciëns to be voided and erased from the treaty, or at the very least modified to much less restringent standards. This issue is serious enough for our nation: if we are bound by the letter and not by the spirit of the treaty signed in 1920 then the treaty itself is nothing but wet paper. We hope that won't be the case after the talks to be held in 2 years from now.

"We hope that in 1928 this situation changes and the treaty letter is adjusted to the spirit so situations like the one we're talking about don't happen again in the future.


In any case the Navy high command is adamant about the issue: the ZPs will be rebuilt, and will be so under the already specified parameters regardless of 1928 talks allowing for them, or not. This could very well mean the official withdrawal of the Netherlands from the Cleito Treaty if the proposed modifications aren't accepted by other signatary nations...

Seems we're on the verge of some hot diplomatic battles regarding the Cleito Treaty...

The old South African mutters to himself again:

"The CT prevents you from enhancing the power of the ZPs and it doesn´t allow you to replace them prior to 1935 (20 years after their keel was laid down).

So I think the paragraph you´re refering to is indeed part of the spirit the Treaty was written in: to pevent a naval arms race in general.

The fact remains: the NL is violating both the letters and the spirit of the Cleito Treaty if they rebuild their battlecruisers as planned.

If the NL feels to be forced to leave the CT-club, then nothing can stop them. However, this will have some influence on Dutch creditability. To sign a treaty first but withdraw from it as soon as something doesn´t really fits ones needs isn´t a good sign, methinks.

But I could be wrong of course... I´m an old man after all. Things may have changed over the years."

...remains the same as before.

OOC:

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The old South African mutters to himself again:

"The CT prevents you from enhancing the power of the ZPs and it doesn´t allow you to replace them prior to 1935 (20 years after their keel was laid down)".

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

IC:


Remember, the Dutch Navy still has 2 old predreadnought capital ships to replace, the old "Utretch" class PDs...

that they are already scrapped doesn't mean they can't be replaced, does it?

The "De Ruyter" BBs were already building when the CT was signed so they didn't need to replace any ship (Even when in practice, they did), and they weren't listed as replacements for CT effects.

So, all I should do is to complete the new Utretchs as replacements for "old" Utretchs, instead of replacements to the Ijseelmer class PDs, and the "new" ZPs as replacements to the "Ijseelmeer" class PDs...scrap the ZPs and Ijselijks, build 4 capital ships, and there you go, 8 capital ships under adequate CT legal cover


Manning and crewing the new ships shouldn't be a problem as experienced crews for the 4 new ships could come directly from the Ijselijks and ZPs...


Maybe I got this wrong, BTW, so if I'm in a mistake (again) then please correct me.

The present Dutch capital ship OOB is as follows:

2 BB of the "De Ruyter" class:
De Ruyter, Tromp

2 BC of the "Zeven Provinciën" class
Zeven Provinciën, De Hollandia

2 BC of the "Ijselijk" class
Ijselijk, Buitengewoon

2 PD of the "Ijseelmer" class
Ijseelmer, Molucca


With two Utrecht class battleships under construction.

When these are completed, the Dutch fleet will have 10 capital ships, against their Clieto Treaty allocation of 8.

There go the existing two PDs.

Now the Ijeselijk" class BCs, laid down in 1909 and probably entering service in 1911, could have a replacement laid down in 1928.

All this would be quite proper, and well within the spirit and letter of the Treaty.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
The present Dutch capital ship OOB is as follows:

2 BB of the "De Ruyter" class:
De Ruyter, Tromp

2 BC of the "Zeven Provinciën" class
Zeven Provinciën, De Hollandia

2 BC of the "Ijselijk" class
Ijselijk, Buitengewoon

2 PD of the "Ijseelmer" class
Ijseelmer, Molucca


With two Utrecht class battleships under construction.

When these are completed, the Dutch fleet will have 10 capital ships, against their Clieto Treaty allocation of 8.

There go the existing two PDs.

no, not exactly...

by 1924 the dutch fleet OOB was as follows:


2 BC of the "Zeven Provinciën" class
Zeven Provinciën, De Hollandia

2 BC of the "Ijselijk" class
Ijselijk, Buitengewoon

2 PD of the "Ijseelmer" class
Ijseelmer, Molucca

2 PD of the "Utretch" class
Utretch, Oceaan


with 2 "De Ruyters" being completed.


the planned building program for Netherlands (if ZP rebuild is not allowed by the CT Signataries) would be like this

Replaced ships------replaced by-----new ships

Utretchs--------------------------------new utretchs (40000 tons)
Ijseelmers-----------------------------new ijseelmers (21000 tons)
Ijselijks--------------------------------new Zeven Provinciëns (27300 tons)
Zeven Provinciëns-------------------cant be replaced until 1935 (to be scrapped)
De Ruyters----------------------------cant be replaced until 1939 (1936 if CT is not renewed)


explanation.

The "De Ruyters" were ships laid down in 1919,before the CT was signed. as such they weren't declared as "replacements" for anything. They complied with everything the CT asked by themselves, and were completed as standalone ships, not as replacements for anything (Even while they coming into service forced the old "Utretch" PDs to the scrapyard to respect the hull numbers given in the CT to Netherlands)

When the new "Utretchs" class BBs were started they were -from the start- (check news if you don't believe me) declared as "replacements" for the "old" Utretchs (up to the point that they received their same names) wich were already scrapped,but still could be replaced.

The "new Ijseelmer" class BCs (the planned substitutes for Ijselijk and Buitengewoon) will be declared as replacements for the "old Ijseelmer" PDs, even while for the moment they are to be started the "Old" Ijseelmers will be already scrapped too.

the Ijselijks will be withdrawn from service as soon as the "New Ijseelmer" class BCs come into service. They won't be replaced...

unless I have to scrap the ZPs too. From 1929 I can replace the those old BCs and use the newly build ships to replace the ZPs.


So, the treaty would be fully respected in that regard.


Did I got something wrong here?

Quoted

From 1929 I can replace the those old BCs and use the newly build ships to replace the ZPs.

No, from 1932...since the two "new Utretchs" take up the "two pre-1910 replacements", regardless of the lay-down date of any additional ships the Netherlands cannot lay down any further Capital Ships until the building holiday expires.

Quoted

Originally posted by Swamphen

Quoted

From 1929 I can replace the those old BCs and use the newly build ships to replace the ZPs.

No, from 1932...since the two "new Utretchs" take up the "two pre-1910 replacements", regardless of the lay-down date of any additional ships the Netherlands cannot lay down any further Capital Ships until the building holiday expires.

not sure if I understood this right when reading the CT thread...I take it that replacing older than 20 year ship aren't concerned by the 10-year building holiday, isn't it?

if it is as I say then the date from when I can start the new ships is 1929.

if I don't is in Q4 1930 (treaty was signed in november 1920, building holiday is 10 years long).

The Treaty sez:

"Each Contracting Power that under Part 3, Chapter A, Article V above, retains at least one capital ship laid down prior to January 1st 1911, and has not given up capital ships laid down after January 1st 1911, shall be permitted to lay down two capital ships in replacement of two existing capital ships that would otherwise be retained under the treaty, which are to be disposed of as per Part 3, Chapter H, Articles I-VIII below, upon completion of the replacement-tonnage."

So since you've already replaced the Utrechts, that's those two ships.

Huh, you're right about the holiday...tho I'd say Q1/31 since the treaty took effect 1/1/21. Not sure why I thought 1932. :-?

Damn you're right...reading so much in english is giving me fits lately

Ok, then the "new" Ijseelmers and ZPs will have to wait until 1931 to be started .The rest of the plan is as already explained.

A Dutch withdrawal from the Cleito Treaty would likely cause India to reconsider both its own situation and the value of any existing or future agreement with the Netherlands.

Whether reconstructing two battlecruisers is worth this price is for the Netherlands to determine.

I'm getting a headache!

Quoted

"Each Contracting Power that under Part 3, Chapter A, Article V above, retains at least one capital ship laid down prior to January 1st 1911, and has not given up capital ships laid down after January 1st 1911, shall be permitted to lay down two capital ships in replacement of two existing capital ships that would otherwise be retained under the treaty, which are to be disposed of as per Part 3, Chapter H, Articles I-VIII below, upon completion of the replacement-tonnage."

Don't worry, ships can still have "accidents" or disappear.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Don't worry, ships can still have "accidents" or disappear.

True, but it´s not very likely to loose a BB or a whole class of BBs during peace time. And doing it after all those discussions would just too obvious, wouldn´t it?

Quoted

Originally posted by RAM
Ok, then the "new" Ijseelmers and ZPs will have to wait until 1931 to be started .The rest of the plan is as already explained.

With a building time of about 4 years this means they wouldn´t enter into service until 1935... Quite a difference to what we heard so far. :o)

Btw, could you please post the complete stats of your planned rebuild if you haven´t done so far (can´t find it)? Thanks. There´s something I really need to know...

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

With a building time of about 4 years this means they wouldn´t enter into service until 1935... Quite a difference to what we heard so far. :o)

1934 actually ,for the "new Ijseelmers"...30 months of building for them, 36 months for the "new ZPs", wich would take until 1935.

the plan was to rebuild the ZPs and build the new Ijseelmers starting in 1929, that would finish the program in 1932, but I didn't notice the clause forbidding the replacement of more than 2 old capital ships in the CT...shit happens

of course if I'm forced to start the building of 4 ships I can do an intermediate class of 4 ships of around 24500 tons each. Those would take around 33 months to complete.

Quoted

Btw, could you please post the complete stats of your planned rebuild if you haven´t done so far (can´t find it)? Thanks. There´s something I really need to know...

well, most of the design details are kept in secret thus far, is a rebuild planned for 1930 and I don't want to give in public more details than those neccessary until the moment comes.

Will PM you with them, however...if you have any concerns about it I'd like to know as soon as possible