Alt- US Navy 1948: all large warships are build

[1bigrich]

Aug 15, 2020 9:03:12 GMT lordroel said:

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.

In part that 'carrier panic' is because of the Second London Treaty.

Japan withdrew from Second London on 31 December 1936. The the caliber increase to 16" was on 1 April 1937. On 31 March 1938, the escalator clause to 45k tons was invoked by the US, UK and France.  So with North Carolina and Washington, the US had a sort of insurance policy in that the quadruple 14in and triple 16in had the same barbette diameter.   When the caliber increase comes around there is an effort to design a 16in armed ship with protection against its own guns, and the result is the South Dakotas.   When the tonnage increases, there's a further response to take advantage of that as well resulting in the Iowas.  The design of Essex had to wait until the design of the Iowa design was complete.   In part, as a result, the USN laid down Hornet CV-8 as a repeat/slightly improved (wider flight deck) Yorktown class.   The Yorktowns were flawed, and the USN knew it.   But it was a design ready to go.  All the while, the USN is designing new heavy and light cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts, etc.

One author, I don't recall whom, put it this way:  Montana, Midway, Alaska and Fletcher are all designs free of treaty restrictions.

My thoughts,

[lordroel]

Aug 15, 2020 11:44:42 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 15, 2020 9:03:12 GMT lordroel said:

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.

In part that 'carrier panic' is because of the Second London Treaty.

Japan withdrew from Second London on 31 December 1936. The the caliber increase to 16" was on 1 April 1937. On 31 March 1938, the escalator clause to 45k tons was invoked by the US, UK and France.  So with North Carolina and Washington, the US had a sort of insurance policy in that the quadruple 14in and triple 16in had the same barbette diameter.   When the caliber increase comes around there is an effort to design a 16in armed ship with protection against its own guns, and the result is the South Dakotas.   When the tonnage increases, there's a further response to take advantage of that as well resulting in the Iowas.  The design of Essex had to wait until the design of the Iowa design was complete.   In part, as a result, the USN laid down Hornet CV-8 as a repeat/slightly improved (wider flight deck) Yorktown class.   The Yorktowns were flawed, and the USN knew it.   But it was a design ready to go.  All the while, the USN is designing new heavy and light cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts, etc.

One author, I don't recall whom, put it this way:  Montana, Midway, Alaska and Fletcher are all designs free of treaty restrictions.

My thoughts,

Think we are going on a new rail track with the subject of the Alaska class on this thread, so lets put the train back on subject.

[stevep]

Aug 15, 2020 11:44:42 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 15, 2020 9:03:12 GMT lordroel said:

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.

In part that 'carrier panic' is because of the Second London Treaty.

Japan withdrew from Second London on 31 December 1936. The the caliber increase to 16" was on 1 April 1937. On 31 March 1938, the escalator clause to 45k tons was invoked by the US, UK and France.  So with North Carolina and Washington, the US had a sort of insurance policy in that the quadruple 14in and triple 16in had the same barbette diameter.   When the caliber increase comes around there is an effort to design a 16in armed ship with protection against its own guns, and the result is the South Dakotas.   When the tonnage increases, there's a further response to take advantage of that as well resulting in the Iowas.  The design of Essex had to wait until the design of the Iowa design was complete.   In part, as a result, the USN laid down Hornet CV-8 as a repeat/slightly improved (wider flight deck) Yorktown class.   The Yorktowns were flawed, and the USN knew it.   But it was a design ready to go.  All the while, the USN is designing new heavy and light cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts, etc.

One author, I don't recall whom, put it this way:  Montana, Midway, Alaska and Fletcher are all designs free of treaty restrictions.

My thoughts,

  1bigrich,

  Thanks.  Interesting that even the USN at this stage had limitations on design capacity as well as production.

  Steve

[1bigrich]

Aug 15, 2020 12:22:47 GMT stevep said:

  1bigrich ,

  Thanks.  Interesting that even the USN at this stage had limitations on design capacity as well as production.

  Steve

I agree, Steve.   A lot of resources still equals a finite amount.  

To digress for a moment, there have been several threads on Warships1/NavWeaps about alternate RN building programs.   One of my arguments i them was design staff was being tied up worry about light cruisers.  Leander and Arethusa for numbers, Towns for the 10,000 and 6in armed London ships, Colonies for Second London.   I think had the RN just stuck with Apollo's design after the Towns, the staff might have been able to produce a 27,000 ton Implacable.   But that's my opinion.

Regards,

[stevep]

Aug 15, 2020 12:30:36 GMT 1bigrich said:

Aug 15, 2020 12:22:47 GMT stevep said:

  1bigrich ,

  Thanks.  Interesting that even the USN at this stage had limitations on design capacity as well as production.

  Steve

I agree, Steve.   A lot of resources still equals a finite amount.  

To digress for a moment, there have been several threads on Warships1/NavWeaps about alternate RN building programs.   One of my arguments i them was design staff was being tied up worry about light cruisers.  Leander and Arethusa for numbers, Towns for the 10,000 and 6in armed London ships, Colonies for Second London.   I think had the RN just stuck with Apollo's design after the Towns, the staff might have been able to produce a 27,000 ton Implacable.   But that's my opinion.

Regards,

  Now that would be an interesting idea.  Even with an armoured deck for protection it could have carried a good deal more a/c.  Which probably wouldn't have mattered much until Lend-Lease came in as the FAA was so far down the pecking tree in terms of production and training but could have made the Far East fleet significantly more powerful once in service and equipped and trained up.

[lordroel]

Go of topic a bit, but nice article: Not Really a Cruiser, Not Really a Battleship, but Never a Battlecruiser: The Story of the US Navy’s Alaska-Class

Like the author saying: If you were to ask the US Navy if these ships were battlecruisers or cruisers, the emphatic answer was cruiser. Sure, there is certainly an argument to be made for battlecruiser, but this author leans towards these ships being cruisers on steroids.

[1bigrich]

Aug 19, 2020 15:29:27 GMT lordroel said:

Go of topic a bit, but nice article: Not Really a Cruiser, Not Really a Battleship, but Never a Battlecruiser: The Story of the US Navy’s Alaska-Class

Like the author saying: If you were to ask the US Navy if these ships were battlecruisers or cruisers, the emphatic answer was cruiser. Sure, there is certainly an argument to be made for battlecruiser, but this author leans towards these ships being cruisers on steroids.

That is my argument above...

Regards,