stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 25, 2024 17:55:00 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.
Possibly yes and no. For one thing he was pushing land based air, basically level bombers, for attacks on ships - carrier aircraft attacks only really being in its infancy then. For another as an American I doubt he would be happy with anything like the OTL heavy USN losses.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 25, 2024 18:11:48 GMT
Billy Mitchell will be sad. Possibly yes and no. For one thing he was pushing land based air, basically level bombers, for attacks on ships - carrier aircraft attacks only really being in its infancy then. For another as an American I doubt he would be happy with anything like the OTL heavy USN losses.
We would see that more instead of carriers, if carrier never became a thing. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 25, 2024 23:02:51 GMT
Possibly yes and no. For one thing he was pushing land based air, basically level bombers, for attacks on ships - carrier aircraft attacks only really being in its infancy then. For another as an American I doubt he would be happy with anything like the OTL heavy USN losses.
We would see that more instead of carriers, if carrier never became a thing.
Well I wouldn't say they never become a thing as the steady improvements in technology and development of weapons and doctrine would make them very powerful. However if both the US and Japan go for big gun ships as in this scenario its likely to delay things somewhat. The USN did have some advocates for CVs, including large ones and if they were built quickly things might not go much slower than OTL. Plus although their smaller converts and the RN have the limitations caused by the forming of the RAF and their control over all aviation the RN will have 4-5 carriers and sooner or later other nations will seek to build larger ones after early small and slow experiment ones.
Its just that with the loss of the converts and the capital, both fiscal and political spent on all those large new ships resources for a carrier arm will be less in the early years.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 26, 2024 7:34:41 GMT
So what are the closest British and Japanese counters to a Lexington class.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 26, 2024 10:19:54 GMT
So what are the closest British and Japanese counters to a Lexington class.
Well the British had 4 G3's on order which were projected to be ~48,000 tons, 32kts top speed and with 9x16" guns in three triple turrets. As such larger and similarly armed but slightly slower. The big difference was because of the lessons learnt in WWI although formally called battle-cruisers they were markedly more heavily armoured than all existing BBs and similarly to the heavily protected but much slower S Dakota class BBs. Coupled with the this, the adaption of an all-or-nothing system and the fact they concentrated the turrets with two forward and one midships which mean the very heavy armour to protect the guns and magazines could be over a shorter area of the hull.
This was somewhat hidden at the time by the BC designation and the fact that the US, not being aware of differences in design techniques couldn't accept that such designs could have BB level armour without a much higher tonnage. As such they believed the G3's had belts about 8" in thickness, similar in level to previous RN BCs and also to what the Lexington's had. I have seen it suggested that the RN helped in this misdirection by letting it be known that 8" armoured plates had been ordered. The USN and probably others assumed this was for the main belt but it was actually for the deck armour over the magazines!
The Japanese 8:8 programme changed over time, initially planned for 8 capital ships and 8 cruisers as a counter to an expected 25 USN BBs and cruisers - giving assumption that a proportion of the USN would always be elsewhere, especially in the Atlantic. This grew slowly in the period 1910-15 in planning and in 1917 in response to the USN programme of 16 large new capital ships reached its final aim of 8BB and 8BCs. The core details from the above link are: This would be further increased in 1919: The primary Japanese counters to the Lexington's would be the Amagi-class battlecruisers. Those if completed would have been ~42,000 tons, with 30kts speed, 10x16" guns in 5 twin turrets and max armour belts of 250mm[9.8"] and deck 95mm [3.7"]. The stress of the Japanese programme is highlighted by the following text from the link for the class. Note this was before the ordering of the Kii and last 4 BBs were ordered so there are serious doubts about whether Japan could have afforded all 16 ships in any reasonable time.
Anyway only wiki links but hopefully this helps.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 26, 2024 10:21:59 GMT
So what are the closest British and Japanese counters to a Lexington class. Well the British had 4 G3's on order which were projected to be ~48,000 tons, 32kts top speed and with 9x16" guns in three triple turrets. As such larger and similarly armed but slightly slower. The big difference was because of the lessons learnt in WWI although formally called battle-cruisers they were markedly more heavily armoured than all existing BBs and similarly to the heavily protected but much slower S Dakota class BBs. Coupled with the this, the adaption of an all-or-nothing system and the fact they concentrated the turrets with two forward and one midships which mean the very heavy armour to protect the guns and magazines could be over a shorter area of the hull. This was somewhat hidden at the time by the BC designation and the fact that the US, not being aware of differences in design techniques couldn't accept that such designs could have BB level armour without a much higher tonnage. As such they believed the G3's had belts about 8" in thickness, similar in level to previous RN BCs and also to what the Lexington's had. I have seen it suggested that the RN helped in this misdirection by letting it be known that 8" armoured plates had been ordered. The USN and probably others assumed this was for the main belt but it was actually for the deck armour over the magazines! The Japanese 8:8 programme changed over time, initially planned for 8 capital ships and 8 cruisers as a counter to an expected 25 USN BBs and cruisers - giving assumption that a proportion of the USN would always be elsewhere, especially in the Atlantic. This grew slowly in the period 1910-15 in planning and in 1917 in response to the USN programme of 16 large new capital ships reached its final aim of 8BB and 8BCs. The core details from the above link are: This would be further increased in 1919: The primary Japanese counters to the Lexington's would be the Amagi-class battlecruisers. Those if completed would have been ~42,000 tons, with 30kts speed, 10x16" guns in 5 twin turrets and max armour belts of 250mm[9.8"] and deck 95mm [3.7"]. The stress of the Japanese programme is highlighted by the following text from the link for the class. The plan was approved in 1917, along with funding for two battlecruisers which became the Amagi class. In late 1917, the Navy proposed to expand the eight-four plan by adding two more battlecruisers; this was approved, and two more Amagi-class ships were ordered. However, having eight 41 cm (16 in) gun ships (four battleships and four battlecruisers) on order put an enormous financial strain on Japan, which was spending about a third of its national budget on the Navy. The massive size and scale of its building program was rapidly driving up the cost of naval construction and armament.[7]
Note this was before the ordering of the Kii and last 4 BBs were ordered so there are serious doubts about whether Japan could have afforded all 16 ships in any reasonable time. Anyway only wiki links but hopefully this helps.
If the United States did not convert the Lex into carriers, would other nations also not convert ore build carriers ore was the shift to carriers are the future starting to be underway before the lexs where turned. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 26, 2024 11:49:57 GMT
Well the British had 4 G3's on order which were projected to be ~48,000 tons, 32kts top speed and with 9x16" guns in three triple turrets. As such larger and similarly armed but slightly slower. The big difference was because of the lessons learnt in WWI although formally called battle-cruisers they were markedly more heavily armoured than all existing BBs and similarly to the heavily protected but much slower S Dakota class BBs. Coupled with the this, the adaption of an all-or-nothing system and the fact they concentrated the turrets with two forward and one midships which mean the very heavy armour to protect the guns and magazines could be over a shorter area of the hull. This was somewhat hidden at the time by the BC designation and the fact that the US, not being aware of differences in design techniques couldn't accept that such designs could have BB level armour without a much higher tonnage. As such they believed the G3's had belts about 8" in thickness, similar in level to previous RN BCs and also to what the Lexington's had. I have seen it suggested that the RN helped in this misdirection by letting it be known that 8" armoured plates had been ordered. The USN and probably others assumed this was for the main belt but it was actually for the deck armour over the magazines! The Japanese 8:8 programme changed over time, initially planned for 8 capital ships and 8 cruisers as a counter to an expected 25 USN BBs and cruisers - giving assumption that a proportion of the USN would always be elsewhere, especially in the Atlantic. This grew slowly in the period 1910-15 in planning and in 1917 in response to the USN programme of 16 large new capital ships reached its final aim of 8BB and 8BCs. The core details from the above link are: This would be further increased in 1919: The primary Japanese counters to the Lexington's would be the Amagi-class battlecruisers. Those if completed would have been ~42,000 tons, with 30kts speed, 10x16" guns in 5 twin turrets and max armour belts of 250mm[9.8"] and deck 95mm [3.7"]. The stress of the Japanese programme is highlighted by the following text from the link for the class. The plan was approved in 1917, along with funding for two battlecruisers which became the Amagi class. In late 1917, the Navy proposed to expand the eight-four plan by adding two more battlecruisers; this was approved, and two more Amagi-class ships were ordered. However, having eight 41 cm (16 in) gun ships (four battleships and four battlecruisers) on order put an enormous financial strain on Japan, which was spending about a third of its national budget on the Navy. The massive size and scale of its building program was rapidly driving up the cost of naval construction and armament.[7]
Note this was before the ordering of the Kii and last 4 BBs were ordered so there are serious doubts about whether Japan could have afforded all 16 ships in any reasonable time. Anyway only wiki links but hopefully this helps.
If the United States did not convert the Lex into carriers, would other nations also not convert ore build carriers ore was the shift to carriers are the future starting to be underway before the lexs where turned.
I did say in an earlier post Britain already had a few conversions under way or planned which are likely to go ahead although they weren't very good, were some way from a final form and it had the issue of control with the RAF. Thinking of Furious, Glorious, Courageous and Eagle with the 2nd and 3rd being distinctly the best of those. Also all three navies were building small CVs from scratch that would investigate the new idea - Hermes for the RN, Langley for the USN and Hosho for the IJN. Those are all likely to occur in a non-treaty world. Its likely that the US and Japan will desire some larger CVs and point to the range of RN CVs to argue their case. They, especially the USN are likely to have some response but a lot depends on how soon Congress which has paid a very large fortune for the 16 new capital ships and many DDs will be willing to pay for this and how much the gun captains will oppose such a move as a wasteful diversion, at least until their precious new capital ships are completed.
As such new large purpose built carriers will be built but this will be a few years down the line and there won't be the two big converts from cancelled capital ships that occur OTL.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 1, 2024 14:24:08 GMT
Battlecruisers in the US Navy: Part 4 (the end). I imagine they would have spent the interwar years split between the Atlantic and Pacific Fleet, generally following the distribution of the battleships. Most of them likely would have been sent to the Pacific along with the Battleline by the late 1930s to contain Japan.  Any battlecruisers left in the Atlantic would have likely supplemented or even replaced the three battleships covering the Neutrality patrols at the outbreak of the Second World War. The higher speed and great range likely would have been invaluable in covering more territory.  Following the (official) US entry into WW2, the Lexington class likely would been quickly pressed into the carrier escort role, being the one of the few available dreadnoughts that had the speed and size to escort the carriers effectively.  They might have also allowed the US Navy to break more of their battleships away from the carrier groups, allowing them to take a greater role in several of the ship to ship naval actions between the US and Japan. The battlecruisers themselves might have taken a more direct role in combat, but with the US Navy's thoughts on battlecruisers and their vulnerabilites, I suspect they would have been kept near the carriers for the most part. Overall, I think the Lexington class would have rather unglamorous WW2 careers spent serving as oversized, specialized carrier escorts. Their most direct involvement being the pre-war patrols prior to the US declaring war. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 1, 2024 21:13:37 GMT
That could be fairly accurate IF things develop very much as OTL, especially in Japan despite the butterflies. Although it depends on what has happened, especially in the 3 primary naval powers. For instance what other ships have been built and especially what has happened in carrier development. Also how much the larger size of those fleet influence political and economic as well as military developments around the world.
For instance with a massively larger/more powerful RN would German still follow Hitter's delusion for large capital ships or might the Germans put an higher priority of subs earlier. True that will prompt a response from Britain and possibly France but both also have to consider what Italy is doing presuming it still goes fascist and also what is happening in Japan.
|
|
