WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
MikeBrough
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by MikeBrough »

Stop wriggling, aurora.

If you're going to discount the RN ships due for scrapping in the near future (and they were all less than 12 years old in 1922!!), then you also have to discount the USN ships in a similar position. All we can do is count the number of BBs and BCs on the books at a given date.
MikeBrough
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by MikeBrough »

aurora wrote:All I am trying to get over to you Mike- is that first eight battleships you have listed- were all in line for scrapping or downgrading post 1922-which leaves the ten frontline battleships that I have stated for use during the inter war years.I know that Nelson and Rodney were added in the 1930's


aurora
And the Nelrods both commissioned in the 20s. :cool:
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by aurora »

I must say Mike that I accept your point.

aurora
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
BobDonnald
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:44 am

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by BobDonnald »

I am not sure what you mean by the context of "aircraft carriers not being limited by the treaty." It reads that the Japanese were limited to 81,000 tons of carriers with none to exceed 27,000 tons. The US and the UK were limited to 135,000 tons of carriers. The Japanese gave notice of exiting the treaty in 1934 and began laying down 2 of the aircraft carrriers that allowed the PH strike. The other two were newly completed in 1941. (Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, Zuikaku)
Aircraft carriers were limited to 27,000 tons and could carry no more than 10 heavy guns, of a maximum calibre of 8 inches. However, each signatory was allowed to use two existing capital ship hulls for aircraft carriers, with a displacement limit of 33,000 tons each. (Articles IX and X)
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by aurora »

As the first large, or "fleet", carrier completed by the Royal Navy, HMS Furious was extensively used to evaluate aircraft handling and landing procedures, including the first ever carrier night-landing in 1926. HMS Courageous became the first warship lost by the Royal Navy in World War II when she was torpedoed in September 1939.HMS Glorious unsuccessfully hunted the Admiral Graf Spee in the Indian Ocean in 1939. She participated in the Norwegian Campaign in 1940, but was sunk by the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau on 8 June 1940 in the North Sea.

Furious spent the first months of the war hunting for German raiders and escorting convoys before she began to support British forces in Norway. She spent most of 1940 in Norwegian waters making attacks on German installations and shipping, and most of 1941 ferrying aircraft to West Africa, Gibraltar and Malta before refitting in the United States. She ferried aircraft to Malta during 1942 and provided air support to British forces during Operation Torch. Furious spent most of 1943 training with the Home Fleet, but made numerous air strikes against the German battleship Tirpitz and other targets in Norway in 1944. She was worn out by late 1944 and was reduced to reserve in September before being decommissioned the following year. Furious was sold in 1948 for scrap.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
OpanaPointer
Senior Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by OpanaPointer »

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by aurora »

Thanks for your interest and input OP-there is certainly information in abundance-having first found the topic one wants.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
OpanaPointer
Senior Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: WASHINGTON NAVAL CONFERENCE OF 1922

Post by OpanaPointer »

aurora wrote:Thanks for your interest and input OP-there is certainly information in abundance-having first found the topic one wants.
Yeah, organization isn't my strong suit. :whistle:
Post Reply