Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "The Drydock - Episode 114" video.
-
@bkjeong4302 the thought crossed my mind that, had the Navy gone with the North Carolina option of 725' with a 13.5" belt, 9-14" guns and a 30kt capability, at the 35,000 ton limit, would they have been deemed fast enough and well protected enough, to render the Iowas redundant and thus never built. The story goes Admiral Reeves rejected the 30kt concept as too slow to work with 33kt carriers, so they went with the 28kt version, presumably in the expectation that the BBs would operate separately from carriers, so they went for bigger guns instead. Of course, the irony of Reeves' assessment is that the 28kt BBs did operate with carriers, so the 30kt option he rejected would have been fine, and the extra 10,000 tons, months wasted arguing with the Brits to get the 45,000 ton limit, the ludicrous amount of power and cost, to get 3 kts, was all unnecessary, and the Iowa concept would have been tossed in the dustbin with the Lions. A decision that a 30kt battleship was good enough might have prevented the Alaska class cruisers seeing the light of day as well.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@bkjeong4302 oh yes, I have noted your stated opposition to all BBs. You would have a hard time selling that to the USN in 38 tho. In defense of BBs, they can carry more AA than a CL or DD, and if they have to take a torpedo to protect the carrier, they can take the hit better than a CL or DD. Having them along helps in situations like Guadalcanal, where Washington and SD were detached from the carrier force to kill off a Kongo. The ultimate Steve Plan for late 30s BBs rests on a couple of assumptions: BB guns are very expensive and take a long time to make, and making the guns for the NCs and SDs took a lot of material and manpower away from making more cruiser and DD guns. While the Pennsylvanias and New Mexicos were updated significantly in the late 20s/early 30s, next to nothing had been done with the Tennessees and Colorados since they were built, so those last two classes may have been in significantly worse material condition that the earlier ships. The triple 14" turrets in the Tennessees and twin 16" turrets in the Colorados use the same diameter barbette, and the twin 16" turret and gun combination is about 70 tons lighter than the triple 14". So, the Steve plan is to use the NC class plan known as XVI-C with the 9-14" gun option, which gives the 13.5" belt and 30kt speed. Scrap the two Tennessees and move 6 of their turrets, with the rebuilt and upgraded 14"/50 Mk 11 to NC and Washington. When the escalator clause triggers, use the same ship design, for the four SDs, while scrapping the Colorados and moving three of their twin turrets with the newly rebuilt 16"/45 Mk 8 to each of the new SDs. Then we have 6-30kt BBs that can hang with the carriers pretty well, carry lots of AA, and put the hurt on any enemy fast cruiser force that manages to get within gun range of the carrier force, and it's done relatively cheap, quick, and without burdening the Naval Gun Factory. Then when someone proposes the Iowas and Alaskas, people ask "all that expense and work, for a lousy three knots over what we already have?" That is probably what did the Lions in more than anything else. They were only a couple knots faster than the KGVs, the 14" on the KGVs were proving effective, so the Lions didn't offer enough of an advantage to really motivate anyone to push ahead with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesb4789 Several good comments in your post. The US agreed to the Second London treaty, which had the gun size reduction, so if command wants to give the stink-eye to someone, give it to their own leadership. If the NCs had been built with the lighter 14" guns and ammo, they would have been faster. If the NCs had been built with twin 16" turrets, instead of triples, to save weight, they would have been faster. Something in the American psyche always wants bigger and more.
Everything I read says the General Board was very happy with the 9-14"/30kt option, because it had the armor to get stuck in against BBs, and speed to better hang with carriers, everyone, except Reeves. It seems Reeves' mind set was it's all about the carriers, everywhere, all the time, and anything that impedes carriers to the slightest degree needs to be tossed out. So, he seems to have rejected the 30kt option in the expectation that the BBs would never, ever, be operating with carriers, while the guys who always want more and bigger guns, pounced on the chance to load up on 16", as soon as the escalator clause tripped, regardless of impact on speed. Just for good measure, there was a large faction crying for battle cruisers to hang with the carriers, but, with the treaty and power plant technology constraints, that would have required sacrifice of armor, which would put them behind the 8-ball if they got stuck in against real BBs.
So, with factions pulling in different directions, the compromise design that could do everything fairly well, the 9-14"/30kt, was tossed aside, in favor of ships that had lots of big guns, but speed compromised and armor compromised. As for the SDs, I find it interesting that SD was laid down the day after Lion. Both with 9-16" guns, but Lion was a hair over 40,000 tons and could make 30kts, on the same 130,000shp that SD had, without the benefit of SD's 600psi powerplant.
1
-
@jamesb4789 again, you make a lot of good points, but my take on Reeves' position was that, in his search for the perfect, he missed an opportunity to get "pretty good", and got "what were we thinking with these tubs?" instead. iirc the Brits looked at a KGV with 9-15 or 16" guns and the extra weight required too much sacrifice of armor. The Brits and US should have agreed on the tonnage escalation in Second London beforehand. All the treaty text says is they can go to 16" guns, but it only says the signatories need to consult and try to come to an agreement on tonnage increase. The US and UK spent the first half of 38 arguing about how much to increase the tonnage. The Brits were looking for around 42,000, as that was the largest their facilities could build and service, while the US was holding out for 45,000, so they could build the "perfect" BB that could match carrier speed, and have a lot of really big guns, and have a lot of armor. That's why I pointed out earlier that the fat, slow, SD was laid down the day after the 40,000 ton, 30kt, 9-16" gun Lion was laid down. If the US was OK with 30kts, instead of holding out for 33, they could have built better ships than the SDs, starting in 39.
Impact on the RN of a 40,000 ton limit written in to the escalator clause? While the first three KGVs were ordered in 36. Anson and Howe were not ordered until April 28 of 37, four weeks after the escalation clause was triggered. If the escalation clause in the treaty offered 40-42,000, without all the negotiating the US and UK did later, Anson and Howe could have been ordered to the Lion design. As it was, by the time they got around to the Lions, they already had five KGVs building, and the incremental improvement offered by the Lion was probably not enough to maintain enthusiasm for getting them built. By the same token, if the NCs and SDs had been capable of 30+kts, the incremental improvement offered by the Iowas, may not been enough to get them built, when the USN already had 6 BBs building.
1