Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brendonbewersdorf986 the same thought crossed my mind. Italy, in particular, was stuck with some impossible ships, the four Elena class pre-dreadnoughts and the salvaged hulk of the da Vinci, classified as front line battleships, to fill up Italy's quota. Three Orions or KGVs would replace the tonnage of those five worst ships, or Erin, by itself, would make a good replacement for da Vinci. Sold to Italy for their scrap price, as that was their fate without a sale, which Italy could cover by selling the Elenas and da Vinci for scrap. But would Italy want the running cost? And, would the transfer of dreadnoughts that were only a decade old cause Italy to loose the licenses it was given to start building replacement ships in the late 20s, licenses which were used to build the first two Littorios? Without those licenses, the Littorios could not have been laid down until 1937, meaning they would not have completed until 41. With the Littorios not laid down until 37, the French would not have laid down Richelieu and Jean Bart until 38, so they would have been too far from completion when France fell to escape to North Africa. With battleships only ten years old, would Italy have been given the latitude for improving existing ships that allowed the rebuilds of the Cavours and Dorias?
2
-
@brendonbewersdorf986 the pre-dreadnoughts, and the RN 12" gunned ships were being sold for scrap before the treaty, so, if the UK had wanted to sell them to other users, they could have. The UK proposed selling the two surviving Invincibles to Chile, replacing the battleship that was halfway converted to HMS Eagle. That deal fell through, so the battlecruisers were stricken in March of 1920 and sold for scrap. HMS Canada, which had been purchased from Chile, was sold back to Chile with the deal closing in April of 20. The UK tried to sell the Gin Palace to Brazil, but Brazil declined. Greece already had the two former US pre-dreadnoughts. Greece's new-build ship, the Salamis, was tied up in litigation with the Vulcan yard in Germany for several years, with Greece trying to cancel it, and Vulcan wanting to be paid.
2
-
2
-
@brendonbewersdorf986 I find the most satisfying alt history scenarios are the ones where I try to poke holes in the scenario to see if it holds up. I ran a scenario a while back where the US bought one or both of the surviving Invincibles to get their large, fast, hulls to convert to more satisfying carriers than Langley. I required the conversion to be cheap, because that was how Congress rolled. Had in mind to use the powerplants from a handful of Clemsons that had been cancelled before being laid down in February of 1919, hence the plants would be surplus and available cheap. Worked out that the cancelled Clemsons were to be built by Newport News. News sourced turbines from Westinghouse and boilers from Babcock and Wilcox. Unfortunately, New York Shipbuilding sourced turbines and boilers from the same vendors, and laid down ten more Clemsons, after the ones from News were cancelled. So the powerplant vendors most likely trimmed the back end of their production schedule, components they had not started building yet, so no cheap surplus plants for the carrier conversions. Based on the re-enginging of North Dakota in 1917, new turbines, at market price, for an Invincible would cost $1.2M, plus 8 boilers, plus converting coal bunkers to oil tanks. I'm thinking close to $2M just to replace the worn out coal fired plant, before conversion to a carrier can even start. The budget for Langley was $500,000, so the Invincible idea is a no-go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I posted a comment related to this earlier, which the net seems to have eaten. There was a debate in the USN on this very topic during WWI. The head of BuOrd from 1913-16, Admiral Strauss, seemed dead set against the 16"/45. Strauss seems to have been of the opinion that optical gun direction systems would never be improved, and battleships would never engage at more than 12,000 yards. In his view, the greater range and long range penetration ability of the 16"/45 was unneeded, while the 14"/50 penetrated well enough at less than 12,000 yards, and, being lighter, more could be mounted on a ship. The 14"/50 could not penetrate battleship belt thickness armor at more than 12,000. In the 1915 BuOrd annual report, Strauss sneers at the mounts in the Tennessees being designed for 30 degrees of elevation, vs the 15 degrees of the New Mexicoes, because, in his view, that much elevation will never be needed. Even more disturbing, was the disinformation about the 16" being fed to American newspapers at that time. One story that appeared in several papers in early 1915, a couple months after the Battle of Dogger Bank, which proved that capital ships could engage at much greater distance than 12,000 yards, said that the 16" suffered very high erosion, the British 15"/42 only had a life of 100 rounds, and the 14"/50 was more durable. Barrel life data on Navweaps shows exactly the opposite: the early 15" and 16" both more durable than the 14". In an article published in early 1916, Strauss is directly quoted as saying the 14" is the equal of the 15"/42, and, again, rattles on about how USN guns can penetrate "heavy armor" at 12,000 yards. A few months later, the Battle of Jutland, again, demonstrated that battles can be carried out at far grater ranges than the 12,000 that Strauss kept rattling on about. Strauss had his way with the New Mexicoes and Tennessees, but, the need to reach and penetrate at ranges of 15,000-20,000 yards, having been demonstrated twice, SecNav Daniels announced the Coloradoes would be armed with 16" guns. In the 1916 SecNav annual report, Daniels says the move to 16" is being made over the objection of some Naval officers. Also in late 16, Strauss was transferred out of BuOrd and given sea duty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@satern7473 I looked in to that a bit recently. The ships the Netherlands was looking in to at the start of WWI would have been meat on the table in 41. I'm not sure how realistic the 1047s were. They seem to be a very ambitious, and expensive, design. If they had built anything heavier than De Ruyter, I'm thinking maybe a variation on a Deutschland. Maybe with a steam plant, rather than diesel, as their fuel source was close at hand, so the ships would not need extreme range, and steam may provide more speed. During the invasion of the DEI, all four Kongos were in theater, escorting the carriers. If the Dutch had one or two Deutschalnds deployed, the Kongos would simply be brought forward to deal with them, if they had survived the air strikes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
wrt the 12" gun proposal at First London, I would say this was aimed directly at Italy, and, secondarily, at France. While First London overrode the replacement schedule in the WNT, and extended the battleship construction holiday through 1936, Italy and France each had two good until used licenses to build battleships that took effect in 1927 and 1929. At that point in time, the largest guns the RM had in service were 12", and the largest France had were 13.4". Even with the 12" proposal failing, I have read that the UK brought a great deal of pressure to bear on France to build the Dunkerques well below the treaty limits. This is clearly intended as a means to keep the Nelsons, QEs and Rs relevant, by leveraging the treaty to, as Drac correctly says, force Italy and France to build hilariously undersized and underarmed battleships. Meanwhile, the Versailles Treaty kept Germany down to the Deutschlands, with their 11" guns.
2
-
2
-
@Thecrownswill by 1940, the Dauntless was pretty much obsolete. It stayed in front line service so long because Curtis had so much development trouble with the Helldiver. Little reason for the UK to bother setting up an entire supply chain to produce an obsolete plane. The UK never bought the Helldiver at all, judging it unacceptable for any use, due to it's vile handling characteristics. The UK did buy a few Brewster Buccaneers, naming them Bermuda in RN service. The RN only used the Bermudas for training, judging them unacceptable for combat. Then there is the overhead clearance issue in the hangars of RN carriers. The Corsair's wing tips had to be clipped 6" to fit in some RN carriers with it's wings folded. The Dauntless' wings were longer, though a different in where the hinge was could make a difference in folded height. I looked, but could not readily find, a dimension for height for either plane with it's wings folded. The one USN bomber/torpedo plane the RN did buy in quantity was the Grumman Avenger, which, like all Grumman aircraft, folded it's wings parallel to the fuselage, so it did not suffer overhead clearance issues.
2
-
@rambling_reiver the need for speed has several factors: safer take off and landing due to more wind over the deck. Ability to take off with more gas and payload, due to more wind over the deck. The Brits took over some Vought Vindicators that the French had ordered, but wanted to use them on HMS Archer, a converted freighter, but, due to Archer's low speed, 16kts, the Vindicators could not lift a useful payload, so Archer got Swordfish instead. The third factor in favor of high speed for a carrier was that, for air ops, the carrier needs to head into the wind to maximize wind over the deck. Wind direction usually varies from fleet direction, so, with the extra speed, a carrier can chase the wind to launch a strike, then use it's high speed to catch up with the rest of the fleet.
2
-
@bkjeong4302 yes, that was the plan, by the late 30s, rendering the Lexington's 8" battery useless, but then Glorious was sunk, then Gambier Bay was sunk. When the Lexingtons were built, nothing larger than a cruiser could keep up with them, outside of the few remaining Brit battlecruisers, so 8" guns would be adequate to defend against any likely surface opponent. If Glorious had 8" guns, and was attacked by Prinz Eugen, it could have held it's own. If Glorious had been attacked by Lutzow, it could have run away. Just bad luck it ran into ships it couldn't outrun, or outgun with an 8" armament, if it had had that armament.
2
-
2
-
@TwinHuginHelmet I would think the IJN would go with Tosa or Kaga, as their construction was more advanced than the Amagis, having gotten to the point of launching. For the USN, none of the 40,000 ton ships was all that great. The South Dakotas were too slow and the Lexingtons were vulnerable. The USN was in a spot. It laid down so many ships in 1919-20 because Congress had passed a Naval appropriation bill on July 1, 1918, which compelled the Navy to begin construction of all the ships that were authorized in the 1916 act, but not yet begun, to be begun by July 1 of 1919. That was some 48 ships, including three Colorados, all the South Dakotas, all the Lexingtons and all the Omahas. Were I in SecNav Daniels' shoes, I would have tried to reason with Congress that the Colorados were a waste of money, because the South Dakotas, in breaking with the "standard battleship" template, made the Colorados obsolete. Failing that, I would step into Secretary Hughes' shoes at the Washington conference. Understanding that Congress in 1922 will not fund much of anything, I would look at the US being the only one of the big three navies stuck with ships mounting 12" guns, and demand licenses for future construction the same way France and Italy had licenses due to their obsolete, 12" gunned ships.
2
-
@gregorywright4918 I am more familiar with US history. You may be right. The UK did return Java to the Netherlands and some possessions to France after Napoleon's defeat. I do not see mention of any possessions sold for cash or barter in the late 19th or early 20th century. I don't know enough about British politics to know why, other than maybe pride. I can think of several reasons why President Harding would not be interested. Congress passed a law requiring all debtors to repay their war debts, in full, in cash, on time, with interest. Some of the large debtors, including the UK, opened their negotiations with the assertion that all the US' loans should be entirely forgiven. as the US' contribution to the war effort. One reason I can think of that Harding would not be interested is that the West Indies, particularly Jamaica, were famous for rum production, and prohibition was the law of the land in the US. The US apparently did not impose prohibition in the Philippines, but prohibition was the law in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Due to proximity to the US, prohibition would probably have been imposed on all the West Indies colonies, putting a lot of people out of work and stirring resentment of the US. Another reason that comes to mind is that US immigration policy in the 20s was very restrictive and blatantly racist. Some of the newspaper articles from the early 20s that I read noted that the British tended to treat citizens of color better than the US treated it's black citizens. Most of the British West Indies islands have populations that are 80-90% of African decent. I can see Harding and his cabinet, given their biases, taking one look at large numbers of blacks, out of work because rum production is shut down, coming to the US looking for work, vs a nice, big, pile of cash, and grabbing the cash, in spite of the payment schedule negotiated with the UK being 62 years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@emperordave3006 the USN had a 14"/50 in 1915. In 1916, the USN looked at what had been happening in Europe, and switched to the 16"/45. I don't understand the physics, but, apparently, a lighter shell looses momentum faster compared to a heavier shell. I have access to partial copies of USN gunnery range tables from the mid 1930s. I looked up both a 14" and 16". both fired with an initial muzzle velocity of 2600fps. By the time the shells reach 14,500 yards, the 16" shell is traveling 200fps faster than the 14". So, it comes down to a 16" holding momentum longer, and hitting at longer ranges with higher velocity. Looking at the late 1930s rebuilt USN 14" and 16", the 14"/50, with a muzzle velocity of 2900fps could penetrate 13.75" at 20,000 yards, but the 16"/45, with a muzzle velocity of 2520fps could penetrate 16.24" at 20,000.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tripducey3076 The treaties after WWI, rather than WWII? the appeal of the treaty was that no-one really wanted to get into another naval building race, partly due to their debt overhang from WWI. Nothing really happened if someone broke or left the treaty system. Japan gave notice in 1934 that it would leave the treaty system when First London, which Japan signed, expired at the end of 36. France broke First London when it laid down Richelieu and Jean Bart. but signed Second London anyway. Italy did not sign Second London, because of the criticism of it's invasion of Ethiopia. The only consequence in any of the treaties for anyone dropping out was tripping the gun size escalator clause in Second London, that stipulated that, if any power that had signed the previous treaties did not sign Second London, maximum gun size would go back to 16" from the 14" that Second London stipulated. As Japan had given notice two years earlier it would not sign, it was a certainty the clause would be triggered. The tonnage escalator was much more vague. It stipulated that if any power not in the treaty system built a ship that exceeded treaty limits, the parties to the treaty would negotiate an appropriate increase in treaty limits. As soon as the US and UK discovered how much material was being ordered for Yamato, making it clear it would exceed treaty limits, they started negotiating the tonnage limit increase.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2