The Aforementioned treaty heavily restricted BB CA and CL as well as the Nelson class (called the "cherry tree class" because it was cut down by Washington)
The treaty is largely responsible for the creation of the U.S. carrier fleet
What would have happened if the treaty was never signed, namely WWII, especially Modway?
Midway could easily have been lost due to the Japanese out gunning the U.S. With the largest battleship ever constructed and an overall better surface fleet
>>963816
With the treaty not being signed you would see a more pacific focused war from the onset by america. American's were restricted from fortifying pacific bases and was very much restrained by the ration put in place by the treaty.
That being said it is impossible to know if the American government would have invested more in the pacific, or if the Japanese economy could have afforded any more production of warships. Any naval ships they would have made would have without a doubt crippled them the further into the war they went.
Japan would be even more screwed. Both America and Britain could outproduce Japan at a much greater rate than 5:5:3. If they both pursued more active building programs, with more and better ships, it wouldn't have been pretty for the IJN.
>>963858
Well, it almost certainly would have affected Japanese strategic planning, probably in a less aggressive direction: The entire Japanese plan, as flawed as it was, was that if they could get a good surprise hit in on the U.S., they could keep a naval advantage for the projected 6 months or so they expected the war to last before an armistice was hammered out.
If you have no naval treaties, you're probably talking a world where you have a bunch of North Carolina and South Dakota class vessels already on the water, and even if they sink a bunch of older ships at Pearl, so what, the Americans would still have the short term advantage.
>>963820
>implying battleships were more than artillery on the water
Most historians even devalue battleships in WWI let alone WWII, for being cost ineffective and completly fucking useless
for everything except bombarding shores.
The bigger the fancier the more macho the battleship the bigger financial sinkhole
>>963985
>Most historians even devalue battleships in WWI let alone WWII, for being cost ineffective and completly fucking useless for everything except bombarding shores
Most historians are stupid. Like you have fucking people who thought that you have to learn how to wear armour or that mail didn't protect from arrows(good thing that middle-easterners didn't knew it, otherwise they would phase it out before they stopped using bows).
Read "Keep the Battleship Advantage" by William Steerman, actual naval officer first before believing retarded pop historians.
>>963816
>What would have happened if the treaty was never signed
Lots more battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers to get wrecked by carrier aircraft.
>>963841
>American's were restricted from fortifying pacific bases
In theory, but there was no impetus in the US among politicians or people to allocate funds to fortify pacific holdings.
This was really a phantom concession by the US, since its unlikely the US would have ever fortified them without the treaty.
In terms of overall numbers I suspect not that much would change. In the UK the political will (read: money) for a much larger fleet was not there, I suppose you'd see bigger and better BBs than we got but not many more of them. Similar in the US, only it actually was political will rather than money. Japan just didn't have the capacity to build more. It would have been good to see KGVs with a better armament though, 3 15 or 16in triples would have been p sexy
>>963985
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign#Allied_preparations_for_a_landing
the Allied warships should have blasted the hell out of the landing sites before any troop landings.
