Alt- US Navy 1948: all large warships are build

[archibald]

Many thanks. Looks like I got my battleship numbers wrong, damn it.

Thanks for the Essex discussions. Extremely interesting.

I'm willing to forgot the Montanas, too huge and dinosaurs.

What happened to the last three Midways ? why were they canned ? Essex, i can understand - smaller and enormously plentiful (24 or 32 !). But Midways ? shame.

[1bigrich]

Aug 14, 2020 15:02:00 GMT lordroel said:

What do you mean with, depends on Kennedy's "Wiz Kids" as well.

Kennedy brought in a bunch of younger guys into his administration, including Robert Strange McNamara as Secretary of Defense, a disaster to put it mildly.  US defense procurement still suffers because of him, and it's appropriate he's buried in Arlington National Cemetery, since he is responsible for so many US servicemen being there.   Anything from the previous generation, especially Eisenhower's nuclear policy, was not worth considering, generally.   On the naval side, this when we get the Navy striking many of World War 2 era ships.   Under Eisenhower, some of the Clevelands.Independence class, and others, including the Colorados and previous battleships, were struck in 1959.   Under Kennedy, that kept going, then expanded into the fast battleships, etc.

The Iowas were kept, though, so when I say it depends on the 'Wiz Kids', I mean it depends on how the Montanas are seen by them.   They are either new, with little service on them, and retained like the Iowas, or they're slow and worthless, disposed of like the South Dakotas and North Carolinas.

Let me know if that helps.

Regards,

-edit for typo

[lordroel]

Aug 14, 2020 15:43:29 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 14, 2020 15:02:00 GMT lordroel said:

What do you mean with, depends on Kennedy's "Wiz Kids" as well.

Kennedy brought in a bunch of younger guys into his administration, including Robert Strange McNamara as Secretary of Defense, a disaster to put it mildly.  US defense procurement still suffers because of him, and it's appropriate he's buried in Arlington National Cemetery, since he is responsible for so many US servicemen being there.   Anything from the previous generation, especially Eisenhower's nuclear policy, was not worth considering, generally.   On the naval side, this when we get the Navy striking many of World War 2 era ships.   Under Eisenhower, some of the Clevelands.Independence class, and others, including the Colorados and previous battleships, were struck in 1959.   Under Kennedy, that kept going, then expanded into the fast battleships, etc.

The Iowas were kept, though, so when I say it depends on the 'Wiz Kids', I mean it depends no how the Montanas are seen by them.   They are either new, with little service on them, and retained like the Iowas, or they're slow and worthless, disposed of like the South Dakotas and North Carolinas.

Let me know if that helps.

Regards,

Would the Montana-class battleships being not able to get true the panama Canal be a factor to scrap them.

[1bigrich]

Aug 14, 2020 16:39:59 GMT lordroel said:

Would the Montana-class battleships being not able to get true the panama Canal be a factor to scrap them.

I very much doubt it.   The Midway class was in service, and they couldn't use the Canal.  The super carriers could not use it either.    I don't think it would impact the decision, especially with five, there would be more than one on each coast....

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Aug 14, 2020 17:33:17 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 14, 2020 16:39:59 GMT lordroel said:

Would the Montana-class battleships being not able to get true the panama Canal be a factor to scrap them.

I very much doubt it.   The Midway class was in service, and they couldn't use the Canal.  The super carriers could not use it either.    I don't think it would impact the decision, especially with five, there would be more than one on each coast....

My thoughts,

So everything older than a North Carolina class could be scrapped leaving only 4 South Dakota class, 6 Iowa class and 5 Montana class in service.

Also what about the Alaska-class cruiser, they are alsmost as big as a Iowa-class as seen in this great photo of USS Missouri)and USS Alaska moored at the same pier.

[1bigrich]

Aug 14, 2020 17:39:17 GMT lordroel said:

So everything older than a North Carolina class could be scrapped leaving only 4 South Dakota class, 6 Iowa class and 5 Montana class in service.

Also what about the Alaska-class cruiser, they are alsmost as big as a Iowa-class as seen in this great photo of USS Missouri)and USS Alaska moored at the same pier.

They were moored together because they did their 'shake down' cruises together. There are a number of color photos of the two of them operating together.  Here's a photo of Alaska taken from Missouri

They might go with the older fast battleships.   I don't think the Wiz Kids saw any value in them.    Wrong, of course.   The late Dick Landgraff (of the NavWeaps technical articles) mentioned when reactivating the Iowa class in the '80, he and his fellows had wished the Alaska class were around to be turned into Tomahawk shooters as well.

Regards,

[lordroel]

Aug 14, 2020 18:03:22 GMT 1bigrich said:

The late Dick Landgraff (of the NavWeaps technical articles) mentioned when reactivating the Iowa class in the '80, he and his fellows had wished the Alaska class were around to be turned into Tomahawk shooters as well.

Wonder how that would look like, also do you agree with this article: An Experiment in Failure: The Beautiful, Flawed, Expensive, and Expendable Alaska Class Large Cruisers

[1bigrich]

Aug 14, 2020 18:09:57 GMT lordroel said:

Wonder how that would look like, also do you agree with this article: An Experiment in Failure: The Beautiful, Flawed, Expensive, and Expendable Alaska Class Large Cruisers

Probably elimination of the catapults, at least a pair of the 5in/38 mounts and all the medium/light AA.   Add Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers, Harpoon (8 or 16), CIWS, and a small helipad on the fantail.

I generally don't agree with the article.  There was ZERO confusion about their design or mission.   The Alaskas' lineage is cruisers.   They were not designated as battlecruisers (CC-7 through 12), they were designated CB, large cruisers.   Their job was similar to battlecruisers, kill heavy cruisers in place of armored cruisers, but the Alaskas did not have guns of the same caliber as contemporary battleships.   Also, King, an aviator, wanted them in part to help protect the carriers.   In the pre-radar era, raiding heavy cruisers (read: Japanese) were a concern, and a cruiser that could kill a heavy cruiser with ease was required.  Also, the USN had seen the RN early in the war weaken the battleline for convoy escort duties.   It was thought weakening the battleline against the IJN was not desirable, to say the least.   So again, a ship that could stop raider (those heavy cruisers again) was needed.

I do agree, a roughly 30,000 ton, 12in armed ship would be a capital ship in any other navy of the era, and would likely be called 'battlecruisers'.   But not in the USN.  As we're exploring here, we're looking at 17 modern battleships.   Add in the Big 5, with previous classes disposed of, and we have a blattle fleet of 23 battleships.  Their size, armament and mission were startlingly similar to the Netherlands' 1047  design, and the RNN ships were rightly labeled 'battlecruisers', capital ships of their Navy.   But the Alaskas were not viewed as capital ships by their navy, and should not be so labeled. 

Don't ever post that over on NavWeap's BB board.   That argument has been going there for decades, literally.   I've been visiting since the ITW days, 1997-98, and they still have not come to a conclusion. 

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Aug 14, 2020 22:39:41 GMT 1bigrich said:

Don't ever post that over on NavWeap's BB board.   That argument has been going there for decades, literally.   I've been visiting since the ITW days, 1997-98, and they still have not come to a conclusion. 

My thoughts,

Would that be the Battleship Vs Battleship part of the forum where i should not post it.

[1bigrich]

Aug 15, 2020 7:21:33 GMT lordroel said:

Would that be the Battleship Vs Battleship part of the forum where i should not post it.

Exactly! 

[lordroel]

Aug 15, 2020 8:29:52 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 15, 2020 7:21:33 GMT lordroel said:

Would that be the Battleship Vs Battleship part of the forum where i should not post it.

Exactly! 

Well i read a lot that some people have issues with the Alaska, if they would be build here in the Alt- US Navy 1948 i would leave them and let the Iowas fulfill their role and have the Montana's be what the Iowas are, but that is just me thinking.

[1bigrich]

Aug 15, 2020 8:32:38 GMT lordroel said:

Well i read a lot that some people have issues with the Alaska, if they would be build here in the Alt- US Navy 1948 i would leave them and let the Iowas fulfill their role and have the Montana's be what the Iowas are, but that is just me thinking.

Theodore, of Warships1/NavWeaps and Stuart Slade's History, Politics and Current Affairs forums, once made an excellent point about the Alaskas.   They were NOT consuming heavy armor plate capacity.  I would add they were also not occupying slips at the Navy Yards that were used for battleship and carrier production, and they used the practically-mass produced power plant of the Essex class carriers.  Basically, with Alaska, the USN produced a major surface combatant outside of the industrial supply-line for battleship construction.  

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Aug 15, 2020 8:44:56 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 15, 2020 8:32:38 GMT lordroel said:

Well i read a lot that some people have issues with the Alaska, if they would be build here in the Alt- US Navy 1948 i would leave them and let the Iowas fulfill their role and have the Montana's be what the Iowas are, but that is just me thinking.

Theodore, of Warships1/NavWeaps and Stuart Slade's History, Politics and Current Affairs forums, once made an excellent point about the Alaskas.   They were NOT consuming heavy armor plate capacity.  I would add they were also not occupying slips at the Navy Yards that were used for battleship and carrier production, and they used the practically-mass produced power plant of the Essex class carriers.  Basically, with Alaska, the USN produced a major surface combatant outside of the industrial supply-line for battleship construction.  

My thoughts,

So could they do the same as the Iowas, if the Iowas where not build, that means more Alaska most likely and would that effect the Montana's.

[1bigrich]

Aug 15, 2020 8:47:41 GMT lordroel said:

So could they do the same as the Iowas, if the Iowas where not build, that means more Alaska most likely and would that effect the Montana's.

I would not exactly say that.   They were useful, but the Iowas had some tremendous advantages only size can give.  

The Iowas rode out heavy weather, including Typhoon Cobra, relatively easily, compared to how some of the smaller ships were tossed.    They also had a huge advantage in anti-aircraft armament.   Remember one of the keys to Iowas' design was the USN wanted a fast capital ship that could stand in the battleline as well as kill Japanese fast capital ships.  Contrast that to the thinking behind Alaska, a fast VERY well armed cruiser to kill Japanese heavy cruisers.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Aug 15, 2020 8:57:46 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 15, 2020 8:47:41 GMT lordroel said:

So could they do the same as the Iowas, if the Iowas where not build, that means more Alaska most likely and would that effect the Montana's.

I would not exactly say that.   They were useful, but the Iowas had some tremendous advantages only size can give.  

The Iowas rode out heavy weather, including Typhoon Cobra, relatively easily, compared to how some of the smaller ships were tossed.    They also had a huge advantage in anti-aircraft armament.   Remember one of the keys to Iowas' design was the USN wanted a fast capital ship that could stand in the battleline as well as kill Japanese fast capital ships.  Contrast that to the thinking behind Alaska, a fast VERY well armed cruiser to kill Japanese heavy cruisers.

My thoughts,

So the Alaska was a Anti-battlecruiser hunter in other words.

Also i hear from Drachinifel in this clip about the Alaska that they dodge a bullet during the carrier panic" in late 1941, when the US Navy realized that they needed more aircraft carriers as quickly as possible, instead the Cleveland class where converted.