The sinking of the Konigsberg

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

lwd wrote:
Gopher wrote:.... The USN laid down one carrier down between 1937 and 1941 a repeat of a 1934 design, the Royal Navy laid down 7 between 1937-1939 including one specifically designed as an aircraft maintenance ship. ....
Under the treaties enforce at the time the US didn't have any more tonage left to commit to aircraft carriers. The RN did. Not sure this line is relevant to the topic at hand however.
Treaty lapsed in December 1936 limiting total carrier tonnage
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

Saratoga 37500
Lexington 37500
Ranger 14500
Yorktown 19800
Enterprise 19800
Wasp 14700
143800


Argus 14500
Eagle 21600
Hermes 10800
Furious 22400
Courag 22500
Glorious 22500
Ark Royal 22000
136300


The point of revelence is laying down 7 carriers shows a commitment to naval airpower and if you look at numbers of planes the US built 150 F3F-1, 130 devastators and 260 vindicators of which @ 90 were for export the situation of the FAA in 1939 was not as isolated as one would imagine, at least the FFA would have a monoplane fighter in 1940. Like I said whether judged harsh or not these are comparisons our historians tend to overlook, they compare the RN FAA in 1939, with the Japanese in 1941 and the USN in 1942.Would the Petsamo raid have been different with US aircraft in July 41?
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by lwd »

Gopher wrote:
lwd wrote:
Gopher wrote:.... The USN laid down one carrier down between 1937 and 1941 a repeat of a 1934 design, the Royal Navy laid down 7 between 1937-1939 including one specifically designed as an aircraft maintenance ship. ....
Under the treaties enforce at the time the US didn't have any more tonage left to commit to aircraft carriers. The RN did. Not sure this line is relevant to the topic at hand however.
Treaty lapsed in December 1936 limiting total carrier tonnage
I don't believe this is the case. While the Japanese withdrawl from the treaty allowed the "escalator" clause to be invoked it didn't cause the treaty to lapse and indeed the London treaty rather confirms it.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

lwd wrote: I don't believe this is the case. While the Japanese withdrawl from the treaty allowed the "escalator" clause to be invoked it didn't cause the treaty to lapse and indeed the London treaty rather confirms it.
The second London Naval Treaty limited aircraft carriers to 23,000 but the total tonnage limitation from the original treaty had lapsed hence

Illustrious 23000
Formidable 23000
Victorious 23000
Indomitable 23000
Implacable 23500
Indefatigable 23500
Unicorn 14700
153700

Thats doubling the 135,000 allowance which is hardly in the spirit of the treaty if it had not lapsed . Compared to the Hornets 19,000 it shows the RN were serious. The Japanese laid down 2 and converted 4

Shokaku 25600
Zuikaku 25600
Zuiho 11200
Shoho 11200
Junyo 24100
Hiyo 24100
121800

Which makes the British total all the more impressive especially when the RN had the only monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage for the first 7 months of 1940.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by lwd »

This site: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/mil ... ntreat.htm claimes:
The series of treaties begun with the Washington Naval Treaty effectively ceased on September 1, 1939
On the otherhand this site: http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/w/washing ... reaty.html states:
On December 29, 1934, the Japanese government gave notice that it intend to terminate the treaty. Its provisions remained in force until the end of 1936, and it was not renewed.
The London treaties do seem to have allowed the invokation of an escalator clause if a party was "threatened".
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy-c16.html has the following:
The Washington Treaty put a limit to the total tonnage of aircraft-carriers for each power and no ship of this class was to exceed 27,000 tons. The London Naval Treaty of 1930 provided that no capital ships were to be laid down before 1936 and fixed the ratio of total tonnage of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines for Britain, the United States, and Japan at approximately 5:5:3.
I don't see anything in the above that indicates that the carrier limitation were removed unless the specific escalator clause was invoked. And www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/suspend-abm.pdf mentions that FDR suspended the London treaty in 39 so apparently the US felt still bound by the treaty up until that point in time.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... p/cv-7.htm notes that Wasp was sized to conform to the 1930 London treaty (as well as the Washington treaty) limits and was ordered in 34 with her keel being layed in 36 which suggest that even if the clause was invoked in 36 it wouldn't be until 38 that the US would start laying new keels.
A rather confused picture from what I can see.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

A couple of interesting clauses of the second London Naval treaty

Article VI

(1) No light surface vessel of sub-category (b) exceeding 8,000 tons (8,128 metric tons) standard displacement, and no light surface vessel of sub-category (a) shall be laid down or acquired prior to 1 January 1943.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) above, if the requirements of the national security of any High Contracting Party are, in his opinion, materially affected by the actual or authorised amount of construction by any Power of light surface vessels of sub-category (b), or of light surface vessels not conforming to the restrictions of paragraph (1) above, such High Contracting Party shall, upon notifying the other High Contracting Parties of his intentions and the reasons therefor, have the right to lay down or acquire light surface vessels of sub-categories (a) and (b) of any standard displacement up to 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) subject to the observance of the provisions of Part III of the present Treaty. Each of the other High Contracting Parties shall thereupon be entitled to exercise the same right.



Article XXV

(1) In the event of any vessel not in conformity with the limitations and restrictions as to standard displacement and armament prescribed by Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the present Treaty being authorised, constructed or acquired by a Power not a party to the present Treaty, each High Contracting Party reserves the right to depart if, and to the extent to which, he considers such departures necessary in order to meet the requirements of his national security;



The 1st London agreement lapsed on 31st December 1936. Italy and Japan failed to ratify the 2nd London naval treaty therefore it became a dead letter. The RN laid down 5 Town's and 11 Dido's pre war, Manchester 3 days after the Second London treaty was signed (March 25th 1936). Like I said the RN laid down 7 carriers between 1937 and 1939 the US laid down 1 between 1937 and April 41. If there is ever a decent critique of Naval aviation written the USN certainly deserve a mention.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by 19kilo »

Not really sure what ur point is about the carrier construction in the mid to late 30s..........It would probably be worthwhile that during the times you mentioned the US was in a very isolationist mood, so getting funding for any sort of naval build up just wasnt in the cards. This "mood" lasted pretty much until early Dec of 41. Again, not really sure of the "point" that is trying to come across from the "UK built 7 to the US 1 line of reasoning, it does seem kinda moot as shortly there after the US started a naval construction program that kinda eclipsed every other nation on earth.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

19kilo wrote:Not really sure what ur point is about the carrier construction in the mid to late 30s..........It would probably be worthwhile that during the times you mentioned the US was in a very isolationist mood, so getting funding for any sort of naval build up just wasnt in the cards. This "mood" lasted pretty much until early Dec of 41. Again, not really sure of the "point" that is trying to come across from the "UK built 7 to the US 1 line of reasoning, it does seem kinda moot as shortly there after the US started a naval construction program that kinda eclipsed every other nation on earth.

The point is that RN capability and commitment to naval aviation was no worse than any other nations in 1939 and the single biggest blow to the FAA was the Fall of France because it diverted machines and more importantly pilots from it to the defence of Britain and later the air offensive against Germany. Every other FAA operation must be judged on those facts. It would be worthwhile to note the US laid down 6 Battleships during the same period and a further 4 before Pearl so there was funding but the commitment to the understanding of naval aviation as the dominant arm is contrary to what certain historians would have you believe. True there were many advocates and theorists but no more weight can be put on their influence than that of say Liddel Hart's influence on the British Army. As for moot points it took the USN until 1944 until it could seriously take the offensive, no disrespect to the people who served but that shows how short sighted US naval policy was before Pearl which incidently was two years into a world war and was the culmination of long foriegn policy struggle with Japan. A few interesting things to note are the Essex was not laid down until March 41, 9 Clevland class cruisers were converted to carriers post 1942, The government only authorized money for increased AA for capital ships 4 days after Illustrious was bombed, the Lex and Sara only had their 8 Inch guns removed in 42. The US industrial capability was nothing short of awesome but I would certainly argue the RN's crystal ball was slightly less cloudy than the USN.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by 19kilo »

That is true. Lets not forget that the RN also began 5 BBs with those CVs and started on anoth 3 of which only one was completed.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

19kilo wrote:That is true. Lets not forget that the RN also began 5 BBs with those CVs and started on anoth 3 of which only one was completed.

Yes the much debated KGV class. Along with North Carolina class the last useful class of Battleship built. The dual purpose suite and thought given to air attack incorperated in their armour scheme are noteworthy with regards anticipating future events.

As a point of interest since we mentioned the KGV class. An example of the lack of American foresight despite theorists like Mitchell the land based naval strike aircraft is a good example. The Nell entered service in 1935 and was equiped for torpedo use the Beaufort only started replacing the Vilderbeast in early 40, The JU88 was in service against ships in the Norwegian campaign and the SM79 was only converted to torpedo use in the summer of 1940 so in the field of land based anti ship aircraft the Japanese were ahead of the curve. Understandably we admire Japans foresight but we always read in our histories about the inadequacy of Coastal command, Goerings ineptitude with regards naval affairs and Italian incompetence yet they all got a land based naval strike aircraft in service something the US failed to do. American inter serivce rivalry must have made everyone elses look like the teddy bears picnic to create that state of affairs.
User avatar
19kilo
Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:46 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by 19kilo »

The US maritime strike a/c was the B-17. The Air Corp assured everyone that they would have no trouble hitting ships from high altitude using the Norden bombsight. Of course it didnt quite work out that way. The mere fact that they couldnt hit ships from altitude didnt stop the AC from making some pretty outrageous claims tho...........even as late as Midway they were claiming a great deal of damage to the Japanese CV force was done by Army bombers.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by RF »

Gopher wrote: Understandably we admire Japans foresight
.
This needs to be qualified, as it was foresight restricted by blinkers. The end result was the absolute defeat of 1945.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by RF »

Gopher wrote: and Italian incompetence .....
This is a fairly sweeping statement and not universally true.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

RF wrote:
Gopher wrote: Understandably we admire Japans foresight
.
This needs to be qualified, as it was foresight restricted by blinkers. The end result was the absolute defeat of 1945.

The foresight that we admire is not the strategic choice Japan made but the anticipation that in future land based naval strike aircraft would be a useful tool in a future war a factor entirely lost on the USN. The Nell and its more famous successor the Betty obviated the need for Japan to deploy additional (expensive) carriers in 1941 to project power, a feature lost on many writers. Whilst this projection came at a substantial cost ie a tradeoff between survivability and range the lack of modern Allied planes were unable to expose this until late 42 early 43
Gopher
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:06 am

Re: The sinking of the Konigsberg

Post by Gopher »

RF wrote:
Gopher wrote: and Italian incompetence .....
This is a fairly sweeping statement and not universally true.
I agree with you one hundred percent , I think you misunderstand my post. My criticism is directed at poor historians who criticize Coastal Command whilst forgetting that the RN was still the biggest navy in the world and the UK needed air defence. They waste no time in recounting all Goerings failures with regards naval cooperation but the 87,88 and Condor were wreaking havoc at sea when the USAF were flying about in museum pieces missing targets by miles. They also forget that the Italians were pioneering skip bombing and reliased the value long range torpedo aircraft by converting the SM 79 to that use.
Post Reply