archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Aug 8, 2020 6:07:37 GMT
Whatif... in a different WWII, the USN manage to get build all large warships that were planned... (admittedly, Montanas may not happen).
End result:
52 cruisers; 15 battleships; 36 carriers.
CL/CA/CB
Worcester 10 Baltimore 14 / Oregon 10 Des Moines 12 Alaska 6
BB
South Dakota / North Carolina 4 Iowa 6
...
Montana 5
CV
Essex 30 Midway 6 Discuss... |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190 
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 8, 2020 8:02:26 GMT
Whatif... in a different WWII, the USN manage to get build all large warships that were planned... (admittedly, Montanas may not happen).
End result:
52 cruisers; 15 battleships; 36 carriers.
CL/CA/CB
Worcester 10 Baltimore 14 / Oregon 10 Des Moines 12 Alaska 6 BB
South Dakota / North Carolina 4 Iowa 6
...
Montana 5 CV
Essex 30 Midway 6 Discuss... That plus what they already have in service i guess, is a big whopping fleet. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2020 10:57:57 GMT
I would say that most would quickly end up mothballed once Japan surrendered. Given that by the end of WWII the next two fleets in size were Britain and Canada and both were friendly allies and cutting back drastically on their own fleets there simply isn't a need for most of them and most people will want to cut the military budget which I suspect many sailors will want to return to civilian life.
It gives a higher base of reserve units to be called up when the Korean conflict comes up and more are likely to be kept active as the cold war intensifies. However I suspect most will see little action. Possibly the Montana's will be retained instead of the Iowa's depending on where the extra firepower or speed is seen as more important.
Basically the USN had a far larger fleet than it needed OTL and this would only intensify the problem. Unless there is a major shooting war - only really practical with the Soviets - their going to be resource sinks. Even then with no real surface units in the Red Navy and a large sub force there's not going to be much demand for the BBs.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 9, 2020 0:47:06 GMT
Whatif... in a different WWII, the USN manage to get build all large warships that were planned... (admittedly, Montanas may not happen).
End result:
52 cruisers; 15 battleships; 36 carriers.
CL/CA/CB
Worcester 10 Baltimore 14 / Oregon 10 Des Moines 12 Alaska 6
BB
South Dakota / North Carolina 4 Iowa 6
...
Montana 5
CV
Essex 30 Midway 6 Discuss...
archibald,
I think you mean North Carolina 2 South Dakota 4 Iowa 6 Montana 5
So 17 new battleships
And there would have been 32 Essex class carriers
26 were laid down. Iwo Jima CV-46 and Reprisal CV-35 were never completed. The former was broken up on the slip, but that latter was over 50% complete and was used for tests. She was evaluated for possible completion, but was judged too damaged and scrapped.
In addition to those 26, six more, CV-50 through 55, were authorized as Essex class, but they were cancelled before they were laid down.
Historically, many of the ships that saw war service were mothballed while the newer ships were commissioned into the fleet. Many of those war veterans were returned to service for the Korean conflict, and stayed in the fleet afterwards. Many carriers found new lives, some as LPH, other with SCB-125 and SCB-27.
I think with so many new carriers, CVA-58 will still be on the table, and will still be cancelled. However, I think a 'super carrier' like Forrestal might be delayed 5 or 10 years.
With 10 new battleships historically, most ships before the Big 5 (Californias and Colorados) were disposed of. With 12 that might still be the case, but with 17, I think even the Big 5 will go. Although with her rebuild, West Virginia was thought to be an equal to a new battleship in all aspects but speed.
With so many cruisers, there might be more attempts at guided missile conversions, especially among the Worchesters. This might mean most Cleveland class will go without guided missile conversions. The opens up the possibility of Clevelands being transferred to allied powers instead of Brooklyns.
I do think there sill still be guided missile conversions of heavy cruisers, both Boston style and Chicago full-missile conversions. The latter were very expensive though. Perhaps without much new construction, more might be attempted. However, it would not surprise me if they were not, and stayed near historic levels.
With respect to carriers, I think with so many Essex hulls, the offers to Canada, Australia and the RN might be enhanced, say no cost for ship plus no cost or discounted air group.
My thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 9, 2020 6:44:20 GMT
With respect to carriers, I think with so many Essex hulls, the offers to Canada, Australia and the RN might be enhanced, say no cost for ship plus no cost or discounted air group.
Where Canada and Australia offered Essex's in real life during the war. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2020 9:49:25 GMT
Whatif... in a different WWII, the USN manage to get build all large warships that were planned... (admittedly, Montanas may not happen).
End result:
52 cruisers; 15 battleships; 36 carriers.
CL/CA/CB
Worcester 10 Baltimore 14 / Oregon 10 Des Moines 12 Alaska 6
BB
South Dakota / North Carolina 4 Iowa 6
...
Montana 5
CV
Essex 30 Midway 6 Discuss...
archibald,
I think you mean North Carolina 2 South Dakota 4 Iowa 6 Montana 5
So 17 new battleships
And there would have been 32 Essex class carriers
26 were laid down. Iwo Jima CV-46 and Reprisal CV-35 were never completed. The former was broken up on the slip, but that latter was over 50% complete and was used for tests. She was evaluated for possible completion, but was judged too damaged and scrapped.
In addition to those 26, six more, CV-50 through 55, were authorized as Essex class, but they were cancelled before they were laid down.
Historically, many of the ships that saw war service were mothballed while the newer ships were commissioned into the fleet. Many of those war veterans were returned to service for the Korean conflict, and stayed in the fleet afterwards. Many carriers found new lives, some as LPH, other with SCB-125 and SCB-27.
I think with so many new carriers, CVA-58 will still be on the table, and will still be cancelled. However, I think a 'super carrier' like Forrestal might be delayed 5 or 10 years.
With 10 new battleships historically, most ships before the Big 5 (Californias and Colorados) were disposed of. With 12 that might still be the case, but with 17, I think even the Big 5 will go. Although with her rebuild, West Virginia was thought to be an equal to a new battleship in all aspects but speed.
With so many cruisers, there might be more attempts at guided missile conversions, especially among the Worchesters. This might mean most Cleveland class will go without guided missile conversions. The opens up the possibility of Clevelands being transferred to allied powers instead of Brooklyns.
I do think there sill still be guided missile conversions of heavy cruisers, both Boston style and Chicago full-missile conversions. The latter were very expensive though. Perhaps without much new construction, more might be attempted. However, it would not surprise me if they were not, and stayed near historic levels.
With respect to carriers, I think with so many Essex hulls, the offers to Canada, Australia and the RN might be enhanced, say no cost for ship plus no cost or discounted air group.
My thoughts,
Sounds about right but never heard of that last bit. Do you know what time period that was please? If very shortly after the war I suspect the problem even if they were pretty much free would be that forces were contracting sharply and governments were seeking to rebuild the civilian economy so they wouldn't want such large ships. Possibly in/after the Korean war as cold war tensions were heightened and where some of the Essex class would have had more capacity and less wear and tear than the RN WWII CVs?
Steve
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 9, 2020 17:04:29 GMT
Sounds about right but never heard of that last bit. Do you know what time period that was please? If very shortly after the war I suspect the problem even if they were pretty much free would be that forces were contracting sharply and governments were seeking to rebuild the civilian economy so they wouldn't want such large ships. Possibly in/after the Korean war as cold war tensions were heightened and where some of the Essex class would have had more capacity and less wear and tear than the RN WWII CVs?
Steve
For the RN it was about 1966. See this post
by Obi Wan Russel. What is interesting in this is that these were the straight-deck units that were laid up with little service life, so the RN could rebuilt them to their own liking, rather than accepting the USN SCB-125/27 standard.
For the RAN, it was around 1964. I probably shouldn't have said 'offered' with respect the RAN, it was more like they considered an Essex. But in this scenario, I do think there would be offers. NewGolconda has posted on this topic several times:
Also, see his post in this thread
And this thread
I thought there was a proposal for the RCN in the '60s to take a CVS Essex, but I must be mistaken; I can't find any reference to it at all.
Regards,
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,896
Likes: 13,274
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2020 21:47:21 GMT
Sounds about right but never heard of that last bit. Do you know what time period that was please? If very shortly after the war I suspect the problem even if they were pretty much free would be that forces were contracting sharply and governments were seeking to rebuild the civilian economy so they wouldn't want such large ships. Possibly in/after the Korean war as cold war tensions were heightened and where some of the Essex class would have had more capacity and less wear and tear than the RN WWII CVs?
Steve
For the RN it was about 1966. See this post
by Obi Wan Russel. What is interesting in this is that these were the straight-deck units that were laid up with little service life, so the RN could rebuilt them to their own liking, rather than accepting the USN SCB-125/27 standard.
For the RAN, it was around 1964. I probably shouldn't have said 'offered' with respect the RAN, it was more like they considered an Essex. But in this scenario, I do think there would be offers. NewGolconda has posted on this topic several times:
Also, see his post in this thread
And this thread
I thought there was a proposal for the RCN in the '60s to take a CVS Essex, but I must be mistaken; I can't find any reference to it at all.
Regards,
Many thanks. Sounds like Healey was really determined to deny the navy any carriers at that point. 
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 10, 2020 18:48:38 GMT
Many thanks. Sounds like Healey was really determined to deny the navy any carriers at that point.
Definitely. And the short service-life Essex class would have been a good baseline for the RN to make as they wanted. USN carriers used the hangar floor as the strength deck, the flight deck was a superstructure built on top of it. They should have been much easier to rebuild than Victorious, with her armored flight deck, which was also the strength deck.
Sy something along these lines Basically a US-style angled deck, the forward elevator deleted, the midships elevator moved inboard. Hermes(1959)-style superstructure, longer C-13 catapults than US modified Essex class, RN style stern. Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 10, 2020 18:51:27 GMT
Many thanks. Sounds like Healey was really determined to deny the navy any carriers at that point. Definitely. And the short service-life Essex class would have been a good baseline for the RN to make as they wanted. USN carriers used the hangar floor as the strength deck, the flight deck was a superstructure built on top of it. They should have been much easier to rebuild than Victorious, with her armored flight deck, which was also the strength deck.
Sy something along these lines Basically a US-style angled deck, the forward elevator deleted, the midships elevator moved inboard. Hermes(1959)-style superstructure, longer C-13 catapults than US modified Essex class, RN style stern. Regards, Where there only plans fore 3 Midway class carriers and where there other plans for fleet carrier in between the Essex class and Midway class. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 10, 2020 20:12:30 GMT
Where there only plans fore 3 Midway class carriers and where there other plans for fleet carrier in between the Essex class and Midway class. Not sure what you mean, lordroel.
The six Midway planned were to be CV (later CVB) 41 through 44 and 56-57. The original 26 Essex class laid down were CV 9 though 21. CV 31 through 40 and CV 45-47. The six ordered but not laid down were CV 50 through 55.
The USN did explore different concepts in before finalizing the historic design of Midway, but none were ever planned to be built. Scheme B makes for an interesting comparison with Audacious at 38,500 tons. Schme CV-E was another.
Regards,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 11, 2020 3:17:43 GMT
Where there only plans fore 3 Midway class carriers and where there other plans for fleet carrier in between the Essex class and Midway class. Not sure what you mean, lordroel.
The six Midway planned were to be CV (later CVB) 41 through 44 and 56-57. The original 26 Essex class laid down were CV 9 though 21. CV 31 through 40 and CV 45-47. The six ordered but not laid down were CV 50 through 55.
The USN did explore different concepts in before finalizing the historic design of Midway, but none were ever planned to be built. Scheme B makes for an interesting comparison with Audacious at 38,500 tons. Schme CV-E was another.
Regards,
Thanks for the explanation 1bigrich. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 11, 2020 4:50:34 GMT
As has been said, the real impact comes further down the food chain.
1.) The initial pruning of battleships will take out everything prior to North Carolina. In turn, with 6 Iowas and 5 Montanas, the USN is quite set in terms of its “next stage” after the initial cutbacks, so the 6 older fast BBs are likely to be stricken earlier than 1962, perhaps in 1954 as the New Look gathers pace.
2.) The Montanas go fairly much straight into reserve and get stricken in the early 1960s.
3.) With 6 Iowas, there isn’t a guarantee they will all survive. We oft think of the first four as sacred cows because of the particular circumstance of their unlikely survival and return to service, but they might not even see service in Vietnam, given the presence of multiple 8” automatic cruisers. Without a purpose, they could go the path of Jean Bart.
4.) The presence of the Alaskas might make 1950s conversions more likely. If so, they stick around until the early 1970s and are then scrapped.
5.) 12 Des Moines will cover cruiser requirements from the late 1950s onwards with bells on, both as conversions and if there are any legacy ships left over. Similarly, the Worcesters have a brief life and get converted; nice sized hulls.
6.) Building 10 Oregon Citys hopefully doesn’t entail all of them being as flawed as the name ship. Presuming they aren’t, they have better AA arcs for that very brief period of time when conventional AA guns were considered as having a role. As planes get faster, that raison d’être goes away.
7.) There was no mention of the Fargos, which are to Clevelands as OCs are to Baltimores.
8.) I agree that the Clevelands take on the role of the Brooklyns for South American sales, with the others being quickly scrapped or sold to a select few other countries.
9.) The Baltimores take on the Cleveland role, going into reserve by 1950, sticking around until the late 50s in mothballs and then being scrapped en masse.
Carriers have fairly much been covered, but I can see more Essexes simply being laid up rather than seeing CVS service; even the USN has limits as to how many operational flat tops it deploys. 6 Midways will make for a bigger Sunday Punch in the Med, leading to some earlier international disputes as to command arrangements.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 11, 2020 21:47:26 GMT
As has been said, the real impact comes further down the food chain. 1.) The initial pruning of battleships will take out everything prior to North Carolina. In turn, with 6 Iowas and 5 Montanas, the USN is quite set in terms of its “next stage” after the initial cutbacks, so the 6 older fast BBs are likely to be stricken earlier than 1962, perhaps in 1954 as the New Look gathers pace. 2.) The Montanas go fairly much straight into reserve and get stricken in the early 1960s. 3.) With 6 Iowas, there isn’t a guarantee they will all survive. We oft think of the first four as sacred cows because of the particular circumstance of their unlikely survival and return to service, but they might not even see service in Vietnam, given the presence of multiple 8” automatic cruisers. Without a purpose, they could go the path of Jean Bart. 4.) The presence of the Alaskas might make 1950s conversions more likely. If so, they stick around until the early 1970s and are then scrapped. 5.) 12 Des Moines will cover cruiser requirements from the late 1950s onwards with bells on, both as conversions and if there are any legacy ships left over. Similarly, the Worcesters have a brief life and get converted; nice sized hulls. 6.) Building 10 Oregon Citys hopefully doesn’t entail all of them being as flawed as the name ship. Presuming they aren’t, they have better AA arcs for that very brief period of time when conventional AA guns were considered as having a role. As planes get faster, that raison d’être goes away. 7.) There was no mention of the Fargos, which are to Clevelands as OCs are to Baltimores. 8.) I agree that the Clevelands take on the role of the Brooklyns for South American sales, with the others being quickly scrapped or sold to a select few other countries. 9.) The Baltimores take on the Cleveland role, going into reserve by 1950, sticking around until the late 50s in mothballs and then being scrapped en masse. Carriers have fairly much been covered, but I can see more Essexes simply being laid up rather than seeing CVS service; even the USN has limits as to how many operational flat tops it deploys. 6 Midways will make for a bigger Sunday Punch in the Med, leading to some earlier international disputes as to command arrangements. Generally agree, but I can't see the Montanas going that early. I do think the North Carolinas and South Datkotas might go if there are 11 newer battleships in reserve. Of course, it also depends on Kennedy's "Wiz Kids" as well.
Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,190
Likes: 49,580
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 14, 2020 15:02:00 GMT
Of course, it also depends on Kennedy's "Wiz Kids" as well. What do you mean with, depends on Kennedy's "Wiz Kids" as well. |
|
