HMS Exeter

[Burger]

Reaverman you truly are the Wayne Rooney of mini painting!
Yer I originally wanted to use 1/6000 cos its so much cheaper, and painting would be so much quicker... but seeing the size of this mini, I think I'll stick to 2400!

[Locutus9956]

Seem told you GHQ's shippies rule Nice paint job btw Burger (and for the record even those excellent photos STILL dont quite show how nice and detailed they are

Burger?

lol sorry, its the avatars, and I was VERY tired yeasterday Same statement but with subsitute reaver for burger

[Zee Zee]

Exeter was hit by a Jap 8" shell at the the Battle of Java Sea.The shell which did not detonate still did a awfull lot of damage to the steam lines and her speed and power for weapons was severley reduced.She survived the battle and managed to return to Java but was later sunk by two Japenese heavy cruisers whilst trying to escape the fall of Dutch Indoneasia when the damage steam line temorory repair failed.

[Low Roller 1-1]

Nice Job Reaverman,

Still not saure on what size ships to use my self buyt that looks great to me.

[Hash]

Reaverman you truly are the Wayne Rooney of mini painting!
Yer I originally wanted to use 1/6000 cos its so much cheaper, and painting would be so much quicker... but seeing the size of this mini, I think I'll stick to 2400!

Ditto - awesome job mate, especially the custom base - really looks like its ripping through waves to get to the enemy!

[captainsmirk]

The Washington Treaty? Well only sort of. In fact for most of the 1920s the RN still was the most powerful force by far, only in the early 1930s when everybody else gangs up together does this change. Because of the treaty and internal politics the US looked inwards and had a very unblanced fleet - strong battleline but not so good cruiser force. And the IJN was kept at a manageable size.

Sort of? It set a maximum tonnage that was the same as the USA for the RN which was much bigger to begin with, the RN had to scrap much of its existing fleet and couldn't build any new ones. Where as the American's had no such problems. They were able to cut their only significant rival for naval supremacy down to equal size by signing a piece of paper...
The Washington treaty was an extremely well crafted bit of politically motivated statecraft on the part of the USA. Shame we couldn't ignore it like the Japanese did due to out massive war debts...

Nick

[Lord David the Denied]

Why did we even sign it? The damn treaty cost us the G3 battlecruisers, and they'd have equalled the Iowas about twenty years early...

[DM]

Because we couldn't afford them

[captainsmirk]

WW1 basically bankrupted us, WW2 literally bankrupted us...

See a pattern here...

Nick

[rbax]

Don't forget the followup to the Washington treaty was the London Treaty, which curtailed the 8-inch guns cruisers, creating the 6-inch "Light" Cruiser. The British pushed for this addition to the treaty.

But the thing that really hurt the RN was simple English honesty. When other nations discovered that, for example a good all-round 8-inch gun cruiser couldn't be done on 10,000 tons, they got real creative or simply lied. The German constantly understated their displacements, or incorrectly used long tons versus short tons (or is it tonnes), measured their ships when completely empty instead of partly supplied, etc. The British didn't and were forced to compromise their cruiser designs.

Also the British were one of the last to abandon the treaties when all of the other nations had already left. By the time the British admitted to themselves that the war was coming it was essentially to late.

---- Rich

[BuShips]

Seem told you GHQ's shippies rule Nice paint job btw Burger (and for the record even those excellent photos STILL dont quite show how nice and detailed they are

Burger?

Well as the saying goes, all of you "Boneheads" look alike...

[Jellicoe]

The Washington Treaty? Well only sort of. In fact for most of the 1920s the RN still was the most powerful force by far, only in the early 1930s when everybody else gangs up together does this change. Because of the treaty and internal politics the US looked inwards and had a very unblanced fleet - strong battleline but not so good cruiser force. And the IJN was kept at a manageable size.

Sort of? It set a maximum tonnage that was the same as the USA for the RN which was much bigger to begin with, the RN had to scrap much of its existing fleet and couldn't build any new ones. Where as the American's had no such problems. They were able to cut their only significant rival for naval supremacy down to equal size by signing a piece of paper...
The Washington treaty was an extremely well crafted bit of politically motivated statecraft on the part of the USA. Shame we couldn't ignore it like the Japanese did due to out massive war debts...

Nick

The tonnage allocation for the RN and USN was the same, but if you for example examine the capability that this battleship tonnage had there is a significant advantage to the RN throughout the 1920s. In terms of gunnery the RN modernised its battleships earlier and as a result could outrange most of the USN vessels. At long range, from 22000 yards upwards, it had around a 2:1 superiority in vessels able to engage targets. This was something the USN was well aware of, but could not do much about until funds became available at the end of the decade to modernise its units.

Then there is also the speed advantage that part of the RN battleline had - battlecruisers in the form of Renown, Repulse and Hood, but also the fast QE battleships. US battleships were slower.

The RN did have to scrap more actual vessels, but this was not as bad as it seemed because most of the ships were from the first classes of dreadnoughts which were a) worn out b) already obsolete.

And of course the RN was entitled to build 2 new 16" battleships - Nelson and Rodney.

[BuShips]

And of course the RN was entitled to build 2 new 16" battleships - Nelson and Rodney.

I for one want to see an "Armageddon" VaS list that has these two ships as they were originally proposed...

[Jellicoe]

Don't forget the followup to the Washington treaty was the London Treaty, which curtailed the 8-inch guns cruisers, creating the 6-inch "Light" Cruiser. The British pushed for this addition to the treaty.

But the thing that really hurt the RN was simple English honesty. When other nations discovered that, for example a good all-round 8-inch gun cruiser couldn't be done on 10,000 tons, they got real creative or simply lied. The German constantly understated their displacements, or incorrectly used long tons versus short tons (or is it tonnes), measured their ships when completely empty instead of partly supplied, etc. The British didn't and were forced to compromise their cruiser designs.

Also the British were one of the last to abandon the treaties when all of the other nations had already left. By the time the British admitted to themselves that the war was coming it was essentially to late.

---- Rich

As a result of the 1935 Anglo-German naval treaty though the Germans got the permission to build a “proper” fleet which was far easier to contain by the RN. If the RN had a concern about the German naval build up it was that it would continue along “freak” lines with more Panzerschiffe that did not fit into any conventional structure and posed more of a threat.

The Germans took the bait and went ahead and built the conventional ships they so wanted. But this was exactly the potential threat the RN could contain and out-build in any naval arms race. Just like before 1912.

The German 8” cruisers were also a complete waste of resources and once war broke out the Kriegsmarine realised it. They had no operational requirement for such a vessel and it just acted as a diversion of resources from other ship types. Good ships, but ultimately pointless. They were only built because A cruisers were seen as a status symbol for a first rate naval power so Germany needed to have some.

The RN knew that the Germans were cheating already from the first Panzerschiffe, the question was sometimes, by how much exactly.

[Lord David the Denied]

Why were the 8" cruisers pointless? I'd have thought such ships would be handy for commerce raiding with a half-decent captain...

[captainsmirk]

The tonnage allocation for the RN and USN was the same, but if you for example examine the capability that this battleship tonnage had there is a significant advantage to the RN throughout the 1920s. In terms of gunnery the RN modernised its battleships earlier and as a result could outrange most of the USN vessels. At long range, from 22000 yards upwards, it had around a 2:1 superiority in vessels able to engage targets. This was something the USN was well aware of, but could not do much about until funds became available at the end of the decade to modernise its units.

Then there is also the speed advantage that part of the RN battleline had - battlecruisers in the form of Renown, Repulse and Hood, but also the fast QE battleships. US battleships were slower.

The RN did have to scrap more actual vessels, but this was not as bad as it seemed because most of the ships were from the first classes of dreadnoughts which were a) worn out b) already obsolete.

And of course the RN was entitled to build 2 new 16" battleships - Nelson and Rodney.

My point was that in the past we worked on being as numerically strong as the next two strongest fleets combined. After the Washington Treaty Britain was equal on size roughly to the USA and there is Japan as well (after the removal og Germany). All though of course the likely hood of us fighting an alliance of the USA and Japan was somewhat low...

On a completely unrelated note, Japan in fact nearly built the first "Dreadnought", the Satsuma. It was only because we failed to give them enough 12" guns to give her a homogenous armament that the Dreadnought became the first all big gun battleship.

Nick