Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "USS Langley - Guide 172" video.
-
The Langley is one that really make me want to crank up the WABAC machine and give the General Board a good talking to. My first point to them would be "You have been banging on for years about how all the capital ships need to have the same speed capability, so they can maneuver together. How can combined air/surface tactics be worked out if the carrier can't keep up?" I would propose the two Wyoming class BBs be converted instead: they can keep up with the other BBs, slightly longer than Langley, 28' wider than Langley, which might save some aircraft and pilots from going over the side and the Wyomings, alone among BBs of the time were flush decked, somewhat simplifying the job of building a hanger and flight deck on top of the hull, while the 6 barbettes provide a wide selection of locations for elevator wells. The Wyomings, with their 12" guns and coal fired boilers, were obsolescent, and, with the South Dakotas building, would soon be expendable anyway. Of course, the impact of the Washington Treaty would have been unknown at the time, but the treaty gives rise to another interesting speculation. With the two Wyomings being converted to carriers, the US could have argued that it would be shortchanged on BBs and work out a deal where, besides allowing Colorado and West Virginia being completed to replace the two Delawares, Washington be completed to replace the two Wyomings.
1
-
@glennricafrente58 good points, though, at the time Langley was taken in hand for conversion, the Lexingtons were expected to complete as battle cruisers, not carriers. Considering Jupiter could have been sold as a functioning ship, while the Wyomings probably had a date with the breakers, along with the Delawares and Floridas when the South Dakotas completed, the money lost by temporarily foregoing the scrap value of the two BBs would not be that great. Yes, converted Wyomings would not be as fast as Couragous, for instance, but being faster than Jupiter, more wind over the deck means safer air ops, and, at 21kts, they compare very favorably to the WWII CVEs. I have offered before that the Lexingtons were horribly inefficient as carriers, and consumed far more of the USN's treaty tonnage allotment than clean sheet designs of the same capacity would have. Having the converted Wyomings in the fleet, rather than the dangerously inadequate Langley, could have persuaded the USN to take a pass on the Lexingtons, in favor of a clean sheet design, once they had gained more practical experience with the Wyomings.
1
-
@glennricafrente58 Ideally, the Wyomings would have been converted to seaplane tenders, as Langley was, to free up the tonnage under the treaty. So, the USN would enter the war with Ranger, and 6 Yorktown size carriers, plus whatever was built after the treaty collapsed. Ideally, Ranger would have been built 2-3 years sooner. Then Yorktown and Enterprise built in 30-32, then Wasp and Hornet built as full sized improved Yorktowns with deck edge elevators in 34-37, and two additional built 36-40. Then the naval expansion act of 38, following the collapse of the treaties, included two more carriers, which would have resulted in two more built 39-41, instead of what the act actually lead to: Hornet, built to the somewhat outdated Yorktown plan, plus design work for Essex, which delayed construction.
1
-
1