Hello Rupert,

> On 10/02/2020 3:37 PM Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 02Oct2020 1003, Thomas RUX wrote:
> > Hi Phil,
> >> On 10/01/2020 1:44 PM Phil Pugliese - philpugliese at yahoo.com (via
> >> tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My experience is that a 'common sense' approach to military budgets &
> >> spending doesn't work so well.
> >> After all, wasn't that attempted with the various Naval Treaties of
> >> the 20's & 30's?
> >> Didn't really work so well.
> > My recollection from my world history college course was that the
> > treaties were to ensure that major naval powers stayed the top dogs
> > and to keep the smaller and or WW I losers from being able to
> > challenge them in another war. Of course not having to build a lot of
> > ships also reduced budgets, which unfortunately as you mentioned
> > really did not work out.
> >
> > Tom Rux
> Smaller navies were choked by a rule that said major naval powers
> weren't allowed to build battleships for other people. It wasn't really
> intended to stop minor navies expanding, as they'd never be able to
> threaten a major navy without building up their own ship-building
> industry anyway. It was mostly about ensuring that a major ship builder
> couldn't use this as a way of having a couple of battleships sitting
> round almost finished that they could add to their navy in no time flat
> if a war started (as the UK did was several dreadnoughts in WWI).
>
> It also meant that everyone was equally inexperienced and ill-equipped
> at and for at building big ships, something that shows when you look at
> battleship building and design in the late 30s when they start up again.
> Lots of new technology (better guns, better powerplants, radar...), but
> major choke-points in construction (armour for the Japanese, guns for
> the UK), tech that turns out to not be as good as expected (engines for
> Germany), SNAFUs in design (the guns and barbettes for the Iowas didn't
> match and it was nearly an utter disaster), some things that just didn't
> work (large Italian gun shells)...
>
As usual I left out a word in a reply the correction is as follows: "My recollection from my world history college course was that the treaties were to ensure that major naval powers stayed the top dogs and to keep the smaller Navies and/or WW I losers from being able to challenge them in another war."

I agree the countries with smaller navies would have to up their shipbuilding and other industries to challenge the big boys.

The UK dreadnaught hulls were built before the treaties were technically not new builds or counted against the tonnage count since they were laid up on the slip ways or in a graving dry dock or moored some place waiting for completion which from my take they were bending but not breaking the requirements.

I agree that when WW II came along many of the major and minor naval powers got caught with their pants down.

Tom Rux