Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Plan D looks good to me as well. What would happen to speed in this Modification?

Figure we could have 3 BBs nearly done with this Modernization and have the upgrade immediately available for the other pair on Dec 7th. Would probably pull the other BBs out of the action for at least six months under wartime work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Plan D looks good to me as well. What would happen to speed in this Modification?

Figure we could have 3 BBs nearly done with this Modernization and have the upgrade immediately available for the other pair on Dec 7th. Would probably pull the other BBs out of the action for at least six months under wartime work.

How is this?

The US Navy realizes that its most modern battleships are no match for the refitted Tosa-class battleships the Japanese were allowed to keep under the WNT. A US naval attache shot pictures of the upgraded ships in 1936, prompting the US to request the money. Under the guise of NRA funding, President Roosevelt approved to extensive overhauls to begin in early 1939 with a target completion date of late 1942 for the first three ships. Due to the attack on Pearl Harbor, shipyard officials at the Puget Sound and Mare Island Naval Shipyards pushed as fast they could with the completion of the rebuilding, eventually completing them in April through June of 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Plan D looks good to me as well. What would happen to speed in this Modification?

Figure we could have 3 BBs nearly done with this Modernization and have the upgrade immediately available for the other pair on Dec 7th. Would probably pull the other BBs out of the action for at least six months under wartime work.

How is this?

The US Navy realizes that its most modern battleships are no match for the refitted Tosa-class battleships the Japanese were allowed to keep under the WNT. A US naval attache shot pictures of the upgraded ships in 1936, prompting the US to request the money. Under the guise of NRA funding, President Roosevelt approved to extensive overhauls to begin in early 1939 with a target completion date of late 1942 for the first three ships. Due to the attack on Pearl Harbor, shipyard officials at the Puget Sound and Mare Island Naval Shipyards pushed as fast they could with the completion of the rebuilding, eventually completing them in April through June of 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

PS: Nice to see "Naval Nutjobs" still floating around!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

PS: Nice to see "Naval Nutjobs" still floating around!!!

I'm like a bad penny, I'm hard to get rid of.

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Fairly plausible really as the Navy was one of the few areas of defense that Roosevelt could push through budget prior to PH.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The 'nut job' just got shot down on the companion to this Thread, however, he succeeds here. I LIKE the idea. Consider this a plan. We shall pull the Big 3 and have them due to come out in March-April of 1942. Essentially the Americans will get a hybrid BB with excellent AA but slow speed. Might lead to some interesting choices in 1942!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

Just a thought for something that wouldn't add more hulls for the British, but maybe make them more effective.

Real History: In the 1930s, the British used the escalator clause in the 1930 London Naval Treaty to keep the C and D class light cruisers. It was planned to upgrade these cruisers to 4.5" DP guns. Unfortunately, the war intervened, along with lack of money pre-war, to prevent these upgrades from happening.End Real History

Do we want to make a change that allows those upgrades to have happened? It would eliminate some decent surface combat platforms with ones that are better for AA protection, but that might be more useful in the onslaught of Japanese aircraft early in the game.

On a related note, the Dido-class CLAAs were proposed as early as 1936, but the 5.25" DP mount development was not completed by that point. If we assume that the mount design was completed when the ship design was, it would allow for all of the Dido's to be completed with their designed battery (10x5.25"). We can leave the arrival times the same, but give the ships their true battery rather than the 4.5" open mounts that many were completed with.

Refits late in the war would still have to remove the third mount (X?) forward as weight compensation, but I think that would make the ships more balanced light cruisers than they were in reality.

While discussing possible British refits, we could also give the Kent and London classes of heavy cruisers(Counties) the same refit that the London received. This would give them a more effective AA battery and additional deck armor, but would mostly be an change to arrangement since the more protected aircraft handling equipment and fire control improvements aren't dealt with in game.

These seem to be changes that a British government more concerned about a Japanese threat in the 1930s could have accomplished "on the cheap." Certainly more economically that the construction of additional cruisers. As much as I would like to see the British (or colonies) building more Arethusa or Leander class cruisers, that would be a large investment for either.

Of course, if money is no option, there were always Jellicoe's ideas for a Pacific Fleet composed of colonial squadrons based around the battlecruisers Australia and New Zealand. That would have required a change to the WNT to allow their retention, but hey... they are such insignificant ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

If you are really worried about the Tosa's, There is an answer for them. First, if the IJN has them, then the Treaty has to have allowed exemptions. For the USN that could be two modified design South Dakota BB's using the engines from the Lexington class BC's. 8 - 16" Mk 3's, 30 kt speed, 40,000 tons on a hull somewhat shorter than the Lex's but a lot better for speed than the original SoDaks. I'm sure that the USN would gladly swap the Arkansas, Wyoming, New York, and Texas for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

If you are really worried about the Tosa's, There is an answer for them. First, if the IJN has them, then the Treaty has to have allowed exemptions. For the USN that could be two modified design South Dakota BB's using the engines from the Lexington class BC's. 8 - 16" Mk 3's, 30 kt speed, 40,000 tons on a hull somewhat shorter than the Lex's but a lot better for speed than the original SoDaks. I'm sure that the USN would gladly swap the Arkansas, Wyoming, New York, and Texas for that.

My understanding of the alternative history is that the US wasn't concerned about the Tosa-class at the time of the treaty and allowed their construction (not my history - it doesn't make sense to me). This new found concern would be generated in the 1930s.

I think that the US would have swapped the Utah and Florida for the Washington, which would bring you up to a division (4 ships) of 16" armed ships without the obvious treaty busters of the South Dakota-class.

Oh look a chicken (thought while typing)...

What happened at the 1930 conference in this reality? All three powers would have to made concessions, but the Japanese seem rather uneffected. Does this mean that we could have a legitimate excuse for the Iron Duke-class battleships and Tiger?

It would also effect the Wyoming, Florida, Utah, North Dakota and Delaware for the US.

It would give the Japanese more targets, which they not so secretly desire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

What I postulate in the AltHist I have worked up is that in the early 30's, some of the old beasties are retired because of age, and a few ships are allowed to maintain the balance of both ships and tonnage, and to keep things more or less equal. Since I had to increase max ship size to accommodate the Tosa's, it becomes 40K tons. That would also seem to mandate an increase in total capital ship tonnage, but that is not in this particular AltHist Universe in this thread.

That is where I came up with the modification to the South Dakota 1919 class. The IJN was unaffected except they did not get to continue the 8-8 program, which they probably could not have finished anyway. I ignore the earthquake (different shipyard, or some such) and have the Tosa and Kaga finished as Tosa class BB's, and the Akagi and Amagi finished as sisters, which does not slow down the KB with Kaga's deficiency in speed and range, and give the IJN two fast(er) 10-16" gun ships. you would probably have to have one less ship in the fleet (14 vice 15) but... with the last two ships to be let go being the New York class,in this case... that would not be a bad trade off. Less gunfire support for more capable ships for doing other things... like escorting CV's or hunting Bismarcks.. Springsharp says they'd be wet boats, but they would be sturdy, and 9 kt faster than the existing battleline.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

What I postulate in the AltHist I have worked up is that in the early 30's, some of the old beasties are retired because of age, and a few ships are allowed to maintain the balance of both ships and tonnage, and to keep things more or less equal. Since I had to increase max ship size to accommodate the Tosa's, it becomes 40K tons. That would also seem to mandate an increase in total capital ship tonnage, but that is not in this particular AltHist Universe in this thread.

That is where I came up with the modification to the South Dakota 1919 class. The IJN was unaffected except they did not get to continue the 8-8 program, which they probably could not have finished anyway. I ignore the earthquake (different shipyard, or some such) and have the Tosa and Kaga finished as Tosa class BB's, and the Akagi and Amagi finished as sisters, which does not slow down the KB with Kaga's deficiency in speed and range, and give the IJN two fast(er) 10-16" gun ships. you would probably have to have one less ship in the fleet (14 vice 15) but... with the last two ships to be let go being the New York class,in this case... that would not be a bad trade off. Less gunfire support for more capable ships for doing other things... like escorting CV's or hunting Bismarcks.. Springsharp says they'd be wet boats, but they would be sturdy, and 9 kt faster than the existing battleline.

I don't know if the US would have wanted a faster ship in 1922. There were already plans to convert the battlecruisers into carriers in place before the WNT made it a necessity. My reading of the timeperiod is that the US would have gone with the slower, more heavily armed and armored battleship. Maybe made some sacrifices in speed to get the South Dakota's down to a 40,000 tonnage, or they might have used the 3,000 tons for improvements exemption that they used while converting the Lexington and Saratoga.

Heck, if they want a 30 kt fast ship, just complete the Lexington and Saratoga while converting the two later ships to carriers. That would be a much more simple plan than trying to adapt the South Dakota design for higher speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The thinking wasn't about the Tosa's but pertained to the Japanese gaining 3.5 in their tonnage. This allows for the completion of the two ships and when the earthquake occurs Atago is substituted for the wrecked Amagi.

MateDow: If the Americans fought to retain Washington (like how the Japanese begged to keep Mutsu IRL) what would they concede to the Japanese? I am not adverse to adding a 4th 16" BB but need to stay within the Treaty parameters...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

What I postulate in the AltHist I have worked up is that in the early 30's, some of the old beasties are retired because of age, and a few ships are allowed to maintain the balance of both ships and tonnage, and to keep things more or less equal. Since I had to increase max ship size to accommodate the Tosa's, it becomes 40K tons. That would also seem to mandate an increase in total capital ship tonnage, but that is not in this particular AltHist Universe in this thread.

That is where I came up with the modification to the South Dakota 1919 class. The IJN was unaffected except they did not get to continue the 8-8 program, which they probably could not have finished anyway. I ignore the earthquake (different shipyard, or some such) and have the Tosa and Kaga finished as Tosa class BB's, and the Akagi and Amagi finished as sisters, which does not slow down the KB with Kaga's deficiency in speed and range, and give the IJN two fast(er) 10-16" gun ships. you would probably have to have one less ship in the fleet (14 vice 15) but... with the last two ships to be let go being the New York class,in this case... that would not be a bad trade off. Less gunfire support for more capable ships for doing other things... like escorting CV's or hunting Bismarcks.. Springsharp says they'd be wet boats, but they would be sturdy, and 9 kt faster than the existing battleline.

I don't know if the US would have wanted a faster ship in 1922. There were already plans to convert the battlecruisers into carriers in place before the WNT made it a necessity. My reading of the timeperiod is that the US would have gone with the slower, more heavily armed and armored battleship. Maybe made some sacrifices in speed to get the South Dakota's down to a 40,000 tonnage, or they might have used the 3,000 tons for improvements exemption that they used while converting the Lexington and Saratoga.

Heck, if they want a 30 kt fast ship, just complete the Lexington and Saratoga while converting the two later ships to carriers. That would be a much more simple plan than trying to adapt the South Dakota design for higher speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

Of course, if money is no option, there were always Jellicoe's ideas for a Pacific Fleet composed of colonial squadrons based around the battlecruisers Australia and New Zealand. That would have required a change to the WNT to allow their retention, but hey... they are such insignificant ships.

No one commented on this one way or the other.

Any thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

With the new code for sharing of CW aircraft - you could designate some aircraft to be CW nationality allowing all CW nations to use them and maybe amalgamate some types so they have more pool density.

e.g. Change Beaufighter Ic to CW would allow all CW nations to use it, amalgamating production of Beaufort, Beaufighter X, Beaufighter Xc, Hurricane IIb and IIc maybe Kittyhawk I's (i.e. do away with NZ, Aus and Canadfian and make them all one pool with higher replacements and just make it all CW allowing any CW nation to use it) - to keep it simple for the AI pick one of the types and set it to a higher level of production as nation CW and set others to 0 production so you dont need to mess about with re doing upgrade paths

maybe add Fairey Battles as a cross CW training and light bomber