lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763 
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 23, 2024 14:23:18 GMT
So it seems Navy General Board was asked to discuss the effect that the Lexington class battlecruisers would have on the US Navy had they been constructed, so here I am. Here is Part I for those who do not have Twitter (X): For the sake of keeping things moderately simple, I'll follow guidelines of the Original Naval Act of 1916 that called for ten new battleships and six battlecruisers. The Lexington class filled out the battlecruiser requirement in that Naval Act.  The reason for this is due to a discussion to cut the battleships in half in favor of producing an additonal five battlecruisers. There was also a post-war recommendation to build 28 dreadnoughts (12 battleships/sixteen battlecruisers) in additon to the original 16 ships.  This is in addition to the fact that most preliminary drawings for subsequent designs were trending towards heavily protected "Battleship-Cruisers" of 50,000+ tons, high speed, and twelve 16" guns. We will ignore these early fast battleship proposals.  So, going forward, we will only consider the impact of the Lexington class on the US Navy.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 23, 2024 17:10:08 GMT
A lot will depend on the circumstances of course, inside the US and around the world. If your going for the latter versions, that actually started production post WWI then while still distinctly fragile their markedly better designs than the earlier ones. Assuming all 6 are built - with none completed as large CV as two did OTL the other questions for the US are do the 4 Washington's and the 6 S Dakota's that were started alongside them also completed and are any further capital ships built? I would expect the 4 Washington's to definitely be completed as 3 were OTL i.e. Colorado. Maryland and W Virginia. Plus since the Lexington's are the more complex vessels with the US having no real experience of building very large fast ship's then probably the 6 S Dakota's are as well.
This would definitely prompt a reaction from Japan as it did OTL but especially after the 1923 earthquake that devastated the Kantō region which included Tokyo and Yokohama I doubt they would complete that programme before ~1930 if at all and under those circumstances you could see a number cancelled and later designs developed. Or some other response depending on what goes on in Japan and elsewhere.
Britain is probably likely to respond with something like the G3 BC - although it was actually a fast battleship with very good armour. Probably the initial 4 ordered in 1921 which will be built over the next few years. Ideally this would be followed by another 4 or slightly improved in a new squad started say 24-25. If the US completes all 16 of their ships I would expect at least 8 new ships and more likely 12 at a minimum but probably over a decade or so. This would need to be accompanied - as OTL - with a lot of expenditure on converting the empire's large array of coal reserves to oil stockpiles. I have read that a lot of the money normally claimed to have been spent on the fleet base at Singapore actually went on this operation as the fleet converted from coal to oil fueled ships.
I suspect that the US production would also be quite slow as OTL they were struggling in getting the funds through Congress, which in the system they had at the time was done on a year by year basis rather than multi-year funding for projects. As such there were a sizeable number of isolationists and also people who saw no need for such a massive and expensive fleet. As such while if the race goes on it would probably be quite slow between the Japanese with dire economic issues and the US with issues in Congress. Possibly the programme on drip feed and doesn't really complete until ~1926/27. Its likely that unless Japan does continue their programme markedly better than I expect that there will be funding fatigue in the US Congress and no more funding for new capital ships for a while. Which is likely to be reinforced if a depression comes around in 1929 and lasts as deeply as OTL. You might get some funding under a FDR type character who is looking to Keynesian economic but that would probably be for upgrades or for more smaller ships as OTL even without an treaty limiting new construction. They might also seen a fair number of older dreadnoughts as those ships come into service, which is likely in the RN and IJN as well.
I would also predict that no other great power makes any real effort for completing capital ships or building new ones during the 1920's. Both because all of them are either restricted - i.e. Germany, in a large level of chaos - Russia/USSR, no longer existing - Austria-Hungary, or still recovering from WWI - France and Italy. There's a possibility that you could see a small naval race in the southern cone - Argentina, Brazil or Chile although this is probably unlikely and if it does is likely to be smaller ships or possibly even reconstructed older ones from the great powers.
One obvious likely impact is that carrier development would be delayed somewhat, especially in the US and Japan. Both because the OTL conversions - Lexington/Saratoga and Kaga/Akagi won't be available and also with more pressure on funding after such large programmes and a lot of prestige involved in those huge new ships many officers are unlikely to be happy with some other officers suggesting that those new fangled carriers can play a major role, let alone be a serious threat to their expensive new ships. Such a pause would have less impact on the RN as it builds no new CV but instead some experiment converts such as Furious, Courageous and Glorious. [Possibly Eagle won't be completed in TTL but instead to its original design as a BB and sold to Chile along with its sister ship. Unfortunately the RN has its own handicap with the RAF controlling just about every aspect of carrier aircraft and crews which will retard development in the RN along with again some desire not to challenge the status of the new capital ships its built as in the other powers.
Anyway initial thoughts on the matter.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 23, 2024 17:15:52 GMT
Anyway initial thoughts on the matter. Good toughs, lets see what Navy General Board has to say about this subject in the upcoming maters, i will post them when they show up. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2024 14:34:11 GMT
Battlecruisers in the US Navy: Part 2 There likely would have been no Alaska class cruisers for one. With six large capital ships to patrol the sea lanes, there would be less impetus for the development of the large cruiser proposals in the 1930s.  As a side note, this might have even caused Germany to hesitate on the Deutschland class. The Renown class/HMS Hood were known to be the major threats to the class due to their speed and power. Having the threat of the Lexington class in the Atlantic would be added to this.  Another influence on the US Navy that the Lexington class might have had is that the Iowa class might never have been produced. Following the South Dakota class, the US Navy pursued two new designs, a fast battleship and a larger, slower battleship with more firepower.  With the Lexington class, some of the original roles that the Iowa class fulfilled were no longer required. This might have led the Navy to pursue the larger, slower battleship design first, likely along the lines of the Montana or the 18" variant of the South Dakota class.  There would have also been major changes to the development of the US Navy's carriers. Even before the Lexington class were converted to carriers, the US Navy had debated the pros/cons of a converted carrier vs. One that was purpose built.  Overall, the purpose-built carrier was thought to offer more advantages, but the conversion of the existing battlecruisers was ultimately more cost-effective. This is also due to the fact that the hulls were adequate and available. If the Lexington class remained as battlecruisers, this likely would have forced the US Navy to pursue a purpose-built design. This likely would have some other benefits, as it would have advanced certain aspects of US carrier development forward a few years. With the prospect of escorting higher speed battlecruisers, there might have also been some greater emphasis on faster escorts. The US Navy might have been inclined to pursue of the the higher speed variants of its destroyer and cruisers of the interwar years. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 24, 2024 15:43:46 GMT
I think the problem in trying to predict what happens a few years down the line, let alone 20-25 years with a design like the OTL Alaska's is a lot depends on the circumstances and how things might change in such a different world. A lot of things that happened OTL may not and different events are very likely but predicting them could be difficult. For instance in the crisis of a naval race crippling the economy does Japan double up on militarizing - possibly becoming something like a larger N Korea, see more democratic politicians gaining power, see the navy discredited and the army gaining even greater prominence at the expense of the navy and possibly a more continental strategy directed against the USSR. Just to use one example.
Similarly if say something like the Abyssinian crisis occurs. OTL one of the reasons [or excusing] the British government put forward for not taking a harsher line on Italian aggression against that nation was that with an elderly fleet, many ships in refit and concerns about Japan and to a much smaller degree Germany Britain couldn't afford to risk a conflict. In this scenario, where the Italian fleet is likely little if any stronger than OTL the RN is much strong with at least 8G3 class ships along with anything else ordered say from ~1927/28 and any older ships not yet retired. The latter is likely to include at least Hood and probably the 10 R and QE class BBs although they may have probably seen less upgrades than OTL.
In this scenario if Britain said no and decides to close the Suez canal to Italian shipping, which in itself would probably end the invasion, let alone any other actions such as supply arms to the Ethiopians what does Mussolini do? Going to war with Britain, who would probably be supported by France would be suicidal. At the very least in a quick, 'colonial' war Italy is likely to lose its overseas empire in Africa and much of its fleet and merchant shipping. Which even if this doesn't prompt regime change in Rome is going to leave Italy a much weaker power and threat to the allies. If he backs down the material losses don't occur but its going to be a huge loss of face, which is important to a demagogue and also Ethiopia stays independent and anti-Italian as a result.
Also of course a war which will it will mean allied losses will also give them some recent battle experience, showing what is and isn't working and also boost the idea that using military force to defeat aggression is a practical idea.
Just using that as an example that comes to mind. Plenty of other things could be different in a world with significant changes developing from ~1921.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2024 15:45:28 GMT
I think the problem in trying to predict what happens a few years down the line, let alone 20-25 years with a design like the OTL Alaska's is a lot depends on the circumstances and how things might change in such a different world. A lot of things that happened OTL may not and different events are very likely but predicting them could be difficult. For instance in the crisis of a naval race crippling the economy does Japan double up on militarizing - possibly becoming something like a larger N Korea, see more democratic politicians gaining power, see the navy discredited and the army gaining even greater prominence at the expense of the navy and possibly a more continental strategy directed against the USSR. Just to use one example. Similarly if say something like the Abyssinian crisis occurs. OTL one of the reasons [or excusing] the British government put forward for not taking a harsher line on Italian aggression against that nation was that with an elderly fleet, many ships in refit and concerns about Japan and to a much smaller degree Germany Britain couldn't afford to risk a conflict. In this scenario, where the Italian fleet is likely little if any stronger than OTL the RN is much strong with at least 8G3 class ships along with anything else ordered say from ~1927/28 and any older ships not yet retired. The latter is likely to include at least Hood and probably the 10 R and QE class BBs although they may have probably seen less upgrades than OTL. In this scenario if Britain said no and decides to close the Suez canal to Italian shipping, which in itself would probably end the invasion, let alone any other actions such as supply arms to the Ethiopians what does Mussolini do? Going to war with Britain, who would probably be supported by France would be suicidal. At the very least in a quick, 'colonial' war Italy is likely to lose its overseas empire in Africa and much of its fleet and merchant shipping. Which even if this doesn't prompt regime change in Rome is going to leave Italy a much weaker power and threat to the allies. If he backs down the material losses don't occur but its going to be a huge loss of face, which is important to a demagogue and also Ethiopia stays independent and anti-Italian as a result. Also of course a war which will it will mean allied losses will also give them some recent battle experience, showing what is and isn't working and also boost the idea that using military force to defeat aggression is a practical idea. Just using that as an example that comes to mind. Plenty of other things could be different in a world with significant changes developing from ~1921. Steve
True, but that is why we have these discussions do we not, even if this one has appeared on many other places and discussed many times. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2024 15:52:05 GMT
There is a reason why their stuff is on Twitter and not any rigourous naval AH boards - that it is surface level, reductionist stuff that has their change occur in a vacuum.
They do not mention, for example that the Lexington design as a battlecruiser was absolutely pants, or that the lauded 1916 fleet was largely made up of the wrong type of designs. Going into depth on these issues requires reading and debate far beyond however many words can be fit into a Twitter thingy.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 24, 2024 15:57:06 GMT
There is a reason why their stuff is on Twitter and not any rigourous naval AH boards - that it is surface level, reductionist stuff that has their change occur in a vacuum. They do not mention, for example that the Lexington design as a battlecruiser was absolutely pants, or that the lauded 1916 fleet was largely made up of the wrong type of designs. Going into depth on these issues requires reading and debate far beyond however many words can be fit into a Twitter thingy. Okay, true, but mi knowledge reading these kind of never where comes mostly from reading stuff on Twitter, Secret Projects Forum, All the World's Battlecruisers and the NavWeaps Forums. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 24, 2024 16:09:26 GMT
The last three are good, but the big loss to the Warship community was when Warships Projects was hacked down. There is a pale shadow of it out there, but there was so much knowledge, experience and hidden gems there.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 25, 2024 15:16:09 GMT
Battlecruisers in the US Navy: Part 3 More than likely the Lexington class would not have undergone any substantial refits until the 1930s as the US had to first take care of older dreadnoughts in service. Once available, I believe that many of the modifications would have mirrored those of the Colorado class.  The anti-aircraft battery likely would have been strengthened with 5"/25 guns (8-10 guns). In addition, a smaller number of 1.1" (28mm) anti-aircraft mounts would be installed, likely 2 to 4 mounts. The associated directors (mark 33) would also be installed around this time.  Like the Colorado class, there might have been a push to add additional horizontal protection due to the increasing threat of aircraft. Up to 2" (80#) of additional deck armor over the citadel. The turret tops might have also received some additional armor protection.  So far as vertical protection goes/torpedo protection goes, I am less sure. At the time, the Lexington class were already roughly 106' at the beam. The Navy likey would have balked at bulges to retain the ability to use the Panama Canal during the 1930s.  Now, if we fast forward a bit to the Second World War, I image modifications would be more radical. Especially if some of our battlecruisers were at Pearl Harbor at the time.  With greater undersea threats and less need for speed, I believe bulges likely would have been fitted to the Lexington class battlecruisers. They would still be plenty fast enough to keep pace with carriers. More importantly, it would offset the weight of additional equipment.  The aft Lattice mast would likely be cut down, being replaced with the simplified superstructure fitted to the Colorado class at the end of their careers. They might have served as midterm roll as anti-aircraft platforms prior to being fully cut down. The forward superstructure would have been different. Ships not present at Pearl Harbor would have likely retained the forward lattice mast and had an improved bridge and platforms built around it. Ships undergoing more substantial rebuilds likely would have the forward superstructure and mast razed completely. A lighter, simpler forward structure patterned after those used on light cruisers would be installed, similar to what you see on USS Tennessee here. The Lexington class would have the advantage of more space for anti-aircraft weapons. I imagine that 5"/38 guns would replace the 5"/25 guns, Sixteen to twenty guns in twin mounts being utilized. This would have extended to the light weaponry as well. Somewhere between sixteen to eighteen quadruple 40mm mounts and a sizable number of 20mm mounts being gradually added.  At the same time, the original secondary armament of 6"/53 guns in casemate mounts would be removed to provide space, reduce weight, and free up volume for other uses (or at least whatever guns remained by this time). The torpedo tubes would also be removed. Finally, your typical electronics would be fitted. The latest radars, fire control equipment, directors, etc, would be fitted as the ships returned for scheduled refits. Other things, such as remote power control for the main battery would also be fitted if time allowed. More or less, they would have followed the upgrades of the US battleships at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 25, 2024 16:04:10 GMT
A thought exercise about pushing good money after bad ideas. If the Lexingtons aren’t converted to carriers, then they are vulnerable white elephants. A 5-7” belt is much worse than the poor Alaskas, and worse than the Lions, Tiger, the Kongos, Hood, the Dunkerques and the Scharnhorsts.
I believe I’ve said it before, but just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. The Lexingtons bring nothing that can’t be done by a full sized 1930s heavy cruiser apart from 16” guns, but they can’t be used if the ship is too dainty to risk someone shooting at them.
Perhaps not everything that someone posts on Twitter or a forum about neverweres is profound or noteworthy.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 25, 2024 16:08:00 GMT
Perhaps not everything that someone posts on Twitter or a forum about neverweres is profound or noteworthy. True, still one ore two more post about this subject by Navy General Board regarding the Lexington class battlecruiser is not going to take a lot of space on this forum, especially with the CanisD shipyard having a lot of dock space free at this momment. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 25, 2024 16:16:43 GMT
It isn’t a matter of space at all, but of depth. If, like some of his posts on the Yamatos, these extracts looked at consequences or debates rather than “They could carry these guns: X, Y and Z”.
There is nothing harmful or negative about the topic, but what does it add to the knowledge of the Lexingtons? Not much. What questions or responses can come from this? Not too many.
Steve has made two excellent extended posts, so the issue isn’t utterly doomed; perhaps after the pasting in of the thoughts of the General Board chap, you might want to consider your own thoughts or pose a few questions in light of NGB’s thoughts. I’ll try and add a few more too; from that, a thread is made.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,495
Likes: 12,915
|
Post by stevep on Jul 25, 2024 16:31:14 GMT
I would suspect this section is rather optimistic in terms of timing. Given how new they would be and the possibility with funding issues that they don't start enter service until the mid-20's then assuming no later new capital ships are bult they won't be upgraded until what older ships that are maintained are refitted. - Which older ships are maintained would depend on the circumstances but with 16 new capital ships with 16" guns as compared to 3 OTL I would expect all the 12" ships would be scrapped in the late 20's and probably the 14" gunned ships of the New York class [New York and Texas] which were built before the US developed the all or nothing system of armoured protection that they preferred. This would leave 9 ships with a range of 14" guns and all or nothing protection as well as the 16 16" armed ships a total of 25 vessels. It might be smaller than this with more older ships scrapped or at least mothballed depending on events elsewhere and what public support there is for funding and manning such a large force. - OTL it was due to be accompanied by a large number of the small 4 stack destroyers of which 267 of the Wickes [111] & Clemson [156] were completed with another 6 of the last class not completed. Possibly more of those units might be completed as the USN would want escorts for its battlefleet while the examples of WWI would show that their very important in ASW warfare/convoy protection. Its possible that the USN might have built more light cruisers, a class that they were desperately short of.
If new capital ship production occurred then its far less likely that existing ships would see major reconstruction/refits for at least a decade and depending on technological and doctrine develop as well as the force pool and perceived threat that might only be for the S Dakota and Lexington classes as older and much smaller ships might be seen as likely to become obsolete, especially if post Lexington construction stayed at the same sort of size or larger. Such upgrades might occur during the late 30's, especially if there was growing tension with other powers - most likely Japan, although possibly some Anglo-American tension. Whether this would include radar or advanced fire control, especially for AA fire would be included in such a reconstruction would depend on the circumstances.
In no new capital ship production occurred reconstruction of older ships would probably state a little earlier but would very likely start with the oldest of the remaining 14" gunned ships. As such such reconstruction might start a bit later compared to the other option, although this would probably mean better refits as there would be experience learned from the earlier ones and the later date would mean more advanced technology would be available. Also if say because of rising tensions in the late 30's you might see new construction started in which case the S Dakota's and Lexington's might fall into a gap, being considered good enough until more modern ships came in.
As such if some conflict similar to WWII occurred and the US was drawn in then the status of Lexington's and other ships would be uncertain as they might have no refits, an earlier and less advanced one or a later and better one. With the possibility in the latter case that some ships of those classes might be unavailable because their in the midst of such a refit when it occurs.
I would say its unlikely that a Pearl Harbour type air attack would occur because that was fairly unlikely OTL and also carrier aviation is likely to be less advanced than OTL.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 66,763
Likes: 48,208
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 25, 2024 16:40:19 GMT
I would say its unlikely that a Pearl Harbour type air attack would occur because that was fairly unlikely OTL and also carrier aviation is likely to be less advanced than OTL. Billy Mitchell will be sad. |
|
