Ships that Never Sailed

Ships that Never Sailed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

DOCUP -> Ships that Never Sailed (9/17/2012 12:51:58 AM)
What were some of the ships that never made from the drawing boards? I know of the Lexington BC's, Montana's, South Dakota's (1920) Japanese Amagi BC's Brits had a some but don't remember their names.

Empire101 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/17/2012 1:43:39 AM)
Royal Navy As far as I know there was one Battleship of the Queen Elizabeth class cancelled, and that was 'Agincourt' Four ships of the Lion class were never completed:- Lion Temeraire Conqueror Thunderer The Japanese KII class consisted of four 'Fast Battleships' Kii - cancelled 1924 Owari - cancelled 1924 Hull 11 - Cancelled 1923 Hull 12 - Cancelled 1923 US Navy Alaska class (Dreadnought battle-cruiser) six planned, Alaska & Guam completed. Hawaii Not completed Philippines Drawing board Puerto Rico Drawing board Samoa Drawing board Iowa class six planned, Iowa, New Jeresy, Missouri & Wisconsin completed Illinois Not completed Kentucky Not completed Colorado class (super-Dreadnought battleship) four planned, Colorado, Maryland & West Virginia completed. Washington 75.9 percent complete, sunk as target 26 Nov 1924 Montana class (super-Dreadnought fast battleship) five planned, none completed. Montana Drawing board ( not to be confused with the 'South Dakota' class BB of the same name, that was also not completed ). Ohio Drawing board Maine Drawing board New Hampshire Drawing board Louisiana Drawing board Germany The Kreigsmarine had 6 H-41 super battleships planned under the Z-Plan, two were laid down but scrapped in 1941, the other four never left the drawing board. Italy Vittorio Veneto class (Super-Dreadnought fast battleship) four planned, Vittorio Veneto, Littorio & Roma completed. Impero Not completed

wdolson -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/17/2012 4:19:10 AM)
Germany also planned a number of aircraft carriers, but never completed the first one. Bill

warspite1 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/17/2012 5:18:52 AM)
Following on from Empire's answer here are some ships not built for a number of reasons. Not an exhaustive list I'm sure - I have seen numerous versions of the Z-plan for example - but the main ones that could have been in WWII are here I think. World War I and after Royal Navy Experience of Jutland meant that HMS Hood’s three sisters, although laid down, were never completed. Washington Treaty doomed the four planned G3-type 16-inch gunned battlecruisers and four N3-type 18-inch gunned battleships. USN The Washington Treaty accounted for Six South Dakota-class 16-inch gunned battleships and an equal number of 16-inch Lexington-class battlecruisers (although two were turned into carriers). IJN Washington Treaty saw two 16-inch Kaga-class and four 16-inch KII-class battleships cancelled (one Kaga-class turned into an aircraft carrier. Four 16-inch Amagi and four 18-inch No.13-class battlecruisers cancelled (one Amagi turned into an aircraft carrier). Regia Marina Four Caracciolo-class 15-inch battleships were cancelled – I think more for economic reasons than directly due to Washington. Post Washington Royal Navy Four 16-inch Lion-class battleships cancelled (two had been laid down in 1939) One of the three Audacious-class aircraft carrier (laid down 1944) Four Malta-class carriers (never laid down) Two Surrey-class (versions of the 8-inch County-class cruisers) cancelled 1930 as RN wanted more 6-inch gunned vessels that could be built within tonnage restrictions. Other Various 6 and 8-inch gunned cruisers cancelled during the war. USN Two of the six Iowa-class and all five Montana-class 16-inch gunned battleships Four of the six Alaska-class battlecruisers Three Midway-class aircraft carriers Numerous 6 and 8-inch cruisers cancelled during the war IJN Two Yamatos (one completed as a carrier) Two B64-type Heavy cruisers (approved in 1942 but never laid down) Germany The fanciful Z-plan! Six 16-inch gunned battleships of the H-class (two laid down) Three 15-inch P-class battlecruisers (never even laid down) 2 Graf Zeppelin aircraft carriers (one almost complete when work stopped) One Seydlitz-class carrier Six 8-inch gunned M-class cruisers (three laid down) France Two of the Four Richelieu-class battleships (1 laid down the other never started) 2 Joffre-class aircraft carriers (one laid down before June 1940) Regia Marina One of the four Littorio-class battleship (launched but not completed) 1 Aquila-class carrier (almost complete by the armistice) and 1 Sparviero-class Soviet Union 4 Sovyetskiy Soyuz-class 16-inch battleships (3 laid down)

Dili -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/17/2012 12:10:05 PM)
There is a whole forum devoted to never weres unfortunately it seems to need registration http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index.php?sid=fb25b8fb3b3bd56f50b4dba2ab7ad762&mforum=warshipprojects There are also several websites around about it.

melspence_MatrixForum -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/19/2012 4:07:45 PM)
There were three Revenge class hulls that were never completed, slots were used for Renown amd Repulse IIRC

ilovestrategy -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/20/2012 3:13:06 PM)
I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier.

warspite1 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/20/2012 7:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: melspence There were three Revenge class hulls that were never completed, slots were used for Renown amd Repulse IIRC warspite1 HMS Resistance was the eighth ship - fortunately she was cancelled....

Walloc -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/20/2012 7:46:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier. http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/index.html A bit about Plan Z and the battleships plus plans for carrier/light carrier conversions like Project Jade and the french cruiser De Grasse. Kind regards, Rasmus

Gridley380 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/21/2012 1:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier. I can easily imagine them with a carrier. After all the effort and resources poured into their surface fleet finishing Graf Zeppelin would have been a minor matter. I cannot imagine WW2 era Germany conducting effective operations with a carrier (I suspect you were thinking along these lines also).

wadail -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/21/2012 3:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier. I can easily imagine them with a carrier. After all the effort and resources poured into their surface fleet finishing Graf Zeppelin would have been a minor matter. I cannot imagine WW2 era Germany conducting effective operations with a carrier (I suspect you were thinking along these lines also). IIRC from college (military history minor) The original German war plan called for the initiation of hostilities in 1946, with several aircraft carriers, a much larger surface fleet, and 2 or 3 times the number of U-boats they had in 1939. Hitler was in a hurry and didn't put too much "stock" in the kreigsmarine, so when he thought the army was pretty much ready he decided he could go ahead and risk war. In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help".

Dili -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/21/2012 5:23:33 PM)
quote: In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help". Without Hitler - and the disgraceful behaviour of France, England in 30's etc- i don't think that would have been a war. The rise of Hitlers reputation with German people was made on his gambling with Allies in 30's always paying off despite de advices in contrary of his generals. This meant that the generals were too weak politically at end of the decade to resist the war decision. Before war start Hitler was already able in 1938 to disband the Reichkriegminister and form the OKW.

wdolson -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 12:20:54 AM)
Hitler was brilliant at outfoxing his opponents early in his career, but he never established victory conditions. There was never "enough". Germany was also a continental power. They could build very good ships, but a blue water surface navy was never a serious priority. Controlling a large ocean was just way down the list of priorities. They could get just about everything they wanted with land forces. France and the Soviet Union were also continental forces. Both had navies, but they rarely fought and when they did, they tended to lose. Japan and Great Britain are the world's two greatest pure naval powers. Survival of their empires depended on having giant navies to protect their assets. The Netherlands was also a naval power. Imperial Japan had a large army, but they had to rely on naval transport to get anywhere. The IJA even maintained its own naval vessels to move its troops around. Their troops also lost effectiveness the further they got from a friendly port because their supply trains were dependent on naval support. I've read Hitler's big mistake in the invasion of France was thinking like a continental power when fighting a naval one. At Dunkirk, Hitler figured he had the BEF bottled up and he would deal with them as soon as he was done with France. For a continental power, being backed up to the sea is being trapped, but for a naval power, it's an opportunity to extract your forces, which the British did. The US has been history's only dual continental and naval power. Bill

warspite1 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 1:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help". Without Hitler - and the disgraceful behaviour of France, England in 30's etc- i don't think that would have been a war. The rise of Hitlers reputation with German people was made on his gambling with Allies in 30's always paying off despite de advices in contrary of his generals. This meant that the generals were too weak politically at end of the decade to resist the war decision. Before war start Hitler was already able in 1938 to disband the Reichkriegminister and form the OKW. warspite1 I think that is more than a little unfair to say the least. France and Britain were democracies, their leaders desperate to avoid a repeat of the carnage of WWI. Its easy to criticise with hindsight, but against that background they tried their utmost to contain Hitler - not realising until too late that his demands could never be satisfied. Yes, the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was a sorry episode, but again was done in a last bid to avoid a wider war.

warspite1 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 2:00:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wadail quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier. I can easily imagine them with a carrier. After all the effort and resources poured into their surface fleet finishing Graf Zeppelin would have been a minor matter. I cannot imagine WW2 era Germany conducting effective operations with a carrier (I suspect you were thinking along these lines also). IIRC from college (military history minor) The original German war plan called for the initiation of hostilities in 1946, with several aircraft carriers, a much larger surface fleet, and 2 or 3 times the number of U-boats they had in 1939. Hitler was in a hurry and didn't put too much "stock" in the kreigsmarine, so when he thought the army was pretty much ready he decided he could go ahead and risk war. In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help". warspite1 It was 1944. As for Hitler being "the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help". Not sure what this means. Had Hitler gone with the original Case Yellow and not Manstein's variant for example I suspect the war would have taken a very different turn. The idea that the German general staff was a paragon of virtue and that all the German mistakes were down to Hitler's meddling is simply nonsense.

AW1Steve -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 3:34:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson Hitler was brilliant at outfoxing his opponents early in his career, but he never established victory conditions. There was never "enough". Germany was also a continental power. They could build very good ships, but a blue water surface navy was never a serious priority. Controlling a large ocean was just way down the list of priorities. They could get just about everything they wanted with land forces. France and the Soviet Union were also continental forces. Both had navies, but they rarely fought and when they did, they tended to lose. Japan and Great Britain are the world's two greatest pure naval powers. Survival of their empires depended on having giant navies to protect their assets. The Netherlands was also a naval power. Imperial Japan had a large army, but they had to rely on naval transport to get anywhere. The IJA even maintained its own naval vessels to move its troops around. Their troops also lost effectiveness the further they got from a friendly port because their supply trains were dependent on naval support. I've read Hitler's big mistake in the invasion of France was thinking like a continental power when fighting a naval one. At Dunkirk, Hitler figured he had the BEF bottled up and he would deal with them as soon as he was done with France. For a continental power, being backed up to the sea is being trapped, but for a naval power, it's an opportunity to extract your forces, which the British did. The US has been history's only dual continental and naval power. Bill What about the former Soviet Union? If they weren't they did a pretty good impression of one. [:D]

wdolson -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 4:14:11 AM)
The Soviet Union was a continental power. They had a navy, but it was always secondary to the Red Army. The navy was predominantly a submarine force with a number of small surface ships. Their surface navy was predominantly a coastal defense force. Submarines don't control seas, they deny someone else from controlling a body of water. What controls a large body of water is a predominant force of surface ships/carriers. The USSR had a navy that could have caused trouble for the USN, even sunk a lot of US shipping, but could never have controlled a large body of water. Bill

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 6:19:37 AM)
The Dutch 1047 class would have been interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser They would have been roughly equivalent to the Schranhorst class. In terms of AA defense they also would have been among the best protected ships in Dec 1941. 12x140mm dp guns, 14x40mm and 8x20mm cannons. And at 28,000 tons they would of had room to 'grow' as AA ships. I have seriously considered adding them to my custom Ironman scenario. I may do it if I can find someone to do the artwork.

Shark7 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 6:37:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson Hitler was brilliant at outfoxing his opponents early in his career, but he never established victory conditions. There was never "enough". Germany was also a continental power. They could build very good ships, but a blue water surface navy was never a serious priority. Controlling a large ocean was just way down the list of priorities. They could get just about everything they wanted with land forces. France and the Soviet Union were also continental forces. Both had navies, but they rarely fought and when they did, they tended to lose. Japan and Great Britain are the world's two greatest pure naval powers. Survival of their empires depended on having giant navies to protect their assets. The Netherlands was also a naval power. Imperial Japan had a large army, but they had to rely on naval transport to get anywhere. The IJA even maintained its own naval vessels to move its troops around. Their troops also lost effectiveness the further they got from a friendly port because their supply trains were dependent on naval support. I've read Hitler's big mistake in the invasion of France was thinking like a continental power when fighting a naval one. At Dunkirk, Hitler figured he had the BEF bottled up and he would deal with them as soon as he was done with France. For a continental power, being backed up to the sea is being trapped, but for a naval power, it's an opportunity to extract your forces, which the British did. The US has been history's only dual continental and naval power. Bill What about the former Soviet Union? If they weren't they did a pretty good impression of one. [:D] The Soviet Union of the cold war had the worlds largest submarine fleet and while they did have a powerful surface fleet, they had only one mission...prevent the US from resupplying Europe. The USSR was a continental power, they need only practice the art of denying the sea lines of communication to win. Their strategy was built around this concept, which is why they had so many SSNs.

msieving1 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 3:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager The Dutch 1047 class would have been interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser They would have been roughly equivalent to the Schranhorst class. In terms of AA defense they also would have been among the best protected ships in Dec 1941. 12x140mm dp guns, 14x40mm and 8x20mm cannons. And at 28,000 tons they would of had room to 'grow' as AA ships. I have seriously considered adding them to my custom Ironman scenario. I may do it if I can find someone to do the artwork. Well, they weren't planned to be completed before 1944, at the earliest. It might be interesting to consider the Dutch battleship plans of World War I and how they could have been updated had they been built. The designs considered were between 26,000 and 28,000 tons, armed with 8 X 14" guns, with a speed of 22 kt. Except in speed, they would have been comparable to the IJN Kongo class.

Shark7 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/22/2012 4:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: msieving1 quote: ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager The Dutch 1047 class would have been interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser They would have been roughly equivalent to the Schranhorst class. In terms of AA defense they also would have been among the best protected ships in Dec 1941. 12x140mm dp guns, 14x40mm and 8x20mm cannons. And at 28,000 tons they would of had room to 'grow' as AA ships. I have seriously considered adding them to my custom Ironman scenario. I may do it if I can find someone to do the artwork. Well, they weren't planned to be completed before 1944, at the earliest. It might be interesting to consider the Dutch battleship plans of World War I and how they could have been updated had they been built. The designs considered were between 26,000 and 28,000 tons, armed with 8 X 14" guns, with a speed of 22 kt. Except in speed, they would have been comparable to the IJN Kongo class. Given that they were intended to be deployed to the DEI, not the Atlantic may give you the reason they so closely resembled the Kongo class.

Chernobyl -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/23/2012 3:17:08 AM)
I added the Kii, Owari, Tosa, and aircraft carrier Amagi to my game for fun. It was tough verifying the exact direction of the guns (center, left or right, and how many turrets?) Also, I think the Tosa was originally specified to carry torpedo tubes. Would these have been removed prior to 1941, or was it not unheard of in Japanese doctrine to equip capital ships with torpedos?

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/23/2012 4:47:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Liebestod I added the Kii, Owari, Tosa, and aircraft carrier Amagi to my game for fun. It was tough verifying the exact direction of the guns (center, left or right, and how many turrets?) Also, I think the Tosa was originally specified to carry torpedo tubes. Would these have been removed prior to 1941, or was it not unheard of in Japanese doctrine to equip capital ships with torpedos? Torpedoes were essential to the Japanese doctrine of 'decisive battle' which they wanted to take place at night. There is no way they would have removed the torpedo tubes.

Nikademus -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 4:28:25 PM)
There were two schools of thought post WWI within the IJN when it came to Capital ships and torpedoes. One favored them as an additional weapon as had been the case with most nation's views prior to WWI (most BB's carried underwater tubes), however the other school recognized the danger of carrying such additional ordinance in relation to the opportunity to use them. WWI showed that TT's on capital ships were a dubious prospect at best. None managed to score a hit against another BB with them. A compromise was reached. Cruisers, which were seen as a vital component of the Night Battle Force retained them but battleships dispensed with them given the lessons of WWI. I doubt the tubes would have been kept or retained for the Tosa class but it is possible. It depends on the fate of the Kongo class, which after their promotion from "Battlecruiser" to "Battleship" were organizationally detached from the primary Battlefleet and were to have participated in the night phase of the DB. Their speed also allowed them the flexibility to serve as carrier escorts. However their role in any NB would have been distant gunfire support while the smaller cruisers and DD force dashed in to launch torpedoes so torpedoes were not needed for them. The primary Battleline force was to finish the DB during daylight with a classic gun battle

Nikademus -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 5:01:28 PM)
of course the fun part about such mussings is that any topic involving what if ships from the post WWI period has to take into account the far reaching effect of the Naval limitation treaties. Because of the treaty, the various nations involved found themselves with modern but required to be discarded hulls. Many were scrapped. However a few hulls that were in an advanced state of completion were able to serve as test platforms. IIRC the Tosa herself was tested to destruction by the Japanese. The test was revealing in many ways and influenced future IJN BB design. The test also clearly showed the danger of carrying torpedoes with very large explosive warheads aboard a battleship/battlecruiser that takes many large caliber hits. For the Japanese it was highly influential in the decision to dispense with the weapon for these Capital ships. As I mentioned, their job was to take out/finish off the their opposites in a classic daylight surface battle.

wadail -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 8:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 The idea that the German general staff was a paragon of virtue and that all the German mistakes were down to Hitler's meddling is simply nonsense. Not at all. First and foremost, without Hitler there probably would have been no war. That said, he made some crucially bad decisions at key points in time that doomed Germany to failure. The list is a very long one.

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 8:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wadail quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 The idea that the German general staff was a paragon of virtue and that all the German mistakes were down to Hitler's meddling is simply nonsense. Not at all. First and foremost, without Hitler there probably would have been no war. We dont know that. War was in the air however with or without Hitler. That said, he made some crucially bad decisions at key points in time that doomed Germany to failure. The list is a very long one. He also made some crucially good decisions (Ah I dont mean ideology ok ?) Blaming Hitler for everything was very popular after the war because he was dead and the obvious mad man. Dont get me wrong he was a nutjob indeed but I cant stand this ohgermanywouldhaveeasilywonifhitlerwouldnothavebeensostupid talk.

Chickenboy -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 8:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin ohgermanywouldhaveeasilywonifhitlerwouldnothavebeensostupid Grafin, you're German, right? Isn't this an actual (and typical) German word? [;)]

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 8:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin ohgermanywouldhaveeasilywonifhitlerwouldnothavebeensostupid Grafin, you're German, right? Isn't this an actual (and typical) German word? [;)] Dunno, after a second thought it looks Welsh to me.

warspite1 -> RE: Ships that Never Sailed (9/24/2012 9:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin ohgermanywouldhaveeasilywonifhitlerwouldnothavebeensostupid Grafin, you're German, right? Isn't this an actual (and typical) German word? [;)] Dunno, after a second thought it looks Welsh to me. Warspite1 You got there first!!!!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.734863