The official discussion thread: 1918 - The German Navy sorties one last time -V.IV-

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Your ships look fine. As one gets farther from the POD, the technology would diverge from OTL. So even if some ship is 10% faster than possible in OTL, it would merely mean that country spent extra R&D on engines. So almost a decade into your TL, it is harder to nitpick, unless you are internally inconsistent.

Thanks I am trying not to get too silly with things! If I do, then I trust my readers to give me a whack across the nuckles

Sharlin was the one asking for help though! lol

So far ITTL, more money has been spend on marine diesel engines by the HSF, some additional gun development and obviously a heck of a lot more aerial development for the navy (And in general in Germany). Same for the army really. However, if I write all of these in..... Well, the technology for the army and airforce change or can change so quickly that I would be superceding it every few years! Also, a ship can take between 6 month (Destroyer/sub) to 5+ years (Battleship) to build, and then last for 20-30 years in service, but a tank or aircraft can be built in a month and do not last in service anywhere near that long generally - Hence me listing the naval side only.

Never fear though, before the next major conflict kicks off, I will list what the warring parties have in terms of equipment, and then include the in-war updates in technology

[Eternity]

Okies, I realized today that I dropped two balls (Or ships if you rather) and forgot to add in dates for Canada's two F-3 Class Fast Battleships, the HMCS Canada and HMCS Quebec. The forgotten items are below:


Too old to edit in - January 6th 1922
In Quebec in Canada, the first of the new Canadian F-3 Class Fast Battleships, HMCS Canada is laid down on the slipway recently freed up by the launching of HMS Rodney. As this ship is ordered for the Canadian Navy and not the Royal Navy, and as material has not been prepared in England, in advance of her construction, her construction will proceed at a more leisurely pace than the HMS Rodney's.

Edited in
October 18th 1923
February 28th 1925
August 19th 1925
September 17th 1925
June 18th 1927

Both ships are now commissioned and in service

[Eternity]

Ok. Another update about to go in. Sorry for not getting it up during the week as I had hoped, but busy busy busy with assingments.

Will hopefully spell-check another year and upload it this weekend as well.

On a side not, I am tweaking some of the more minor navies ships to better reflect their national views and capabilities. This is done with the assistance of HMS Warspite, and I will list the tweaks/dates as before when it is done.

EDIT:
Majorish alterations from pervious version:
The 1928 AH Radetzky Class Battleship is scrapped. Instead the Budapest Class ships are being upgraded/upgunned as they disapoint in service.
Look out for the HSF Lutzow Class Battlecruiser.

[Zmflavius]

Nice to see tension between the USSR and the other countries building up.

One question though, what was Professor Langford's discovery in Egypt? It's not ringing any bells for me.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Nice to see tension between the USSR and the other countries building up.

One question though, what was Professor Langford's discovery in Egypt? It's not ringing any bells for me.

Stargate. Not sure if I will use it though, and even if I do, it will be a spin-off

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Eternity

Stargate. Not sure if I will use it though, and even if I do, it will be a spin-off

Oh. Now I feel ashamed of being confused.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Oh. Now I feel ashamed of being confused.

lol Don't be. Happens to the best of us! In fact, I make it a point to be confused at least once a day. It usually resolves around food though - and trying to identify it! Somewhat worrying, but interesting none the less

[Eternity]

Okies.

I needed help figuring out how the super-secret Japan could be shown to have some 18.1" gunned ships aka the Yashima Class. Before I got to asking for suggestions, HMS Warspite had the same idea and messaged me the solution.

Therefore, the events regarding the fictional SS Bandung and equally fictional Karel van der Zande (The majority of the work for October 16th 1929) needs to be credited to him. Thanks Warspite!

[michaelbaneblade]

Great timeline Eternity keep up the good work. The only thing I know about ships is the sometimes float on water but you sir bring it to life. MANY THANKS

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by michaelbaneblade

The only thing I know about ships is the sometimes float on water

Sometimes, even that can be tricky! haha

No worries and you are welcome

[Eternity]

Just a note here everybody.

I have had a major cleanout of my inbox. It is truly amazing how many messages I get over adding in new ships to the TL!

Anywho, as a result I have a nice, shiny and empty inbox that is feeling very very lonely, so if anybody has any suggestions for the TL, then please feel free to PM me with them, so my inbox has company again!

[Eternity]

Hi all,

I am after your thoughts on US Capital ship construction please.

ITTL, the South Dakota Class of 1920 was constructed, but after that, nothing has been built. In the 1930's, I have America building a new class, and then after that I am not too sure.....

With a Washington Treaty limiting displacement (To 35,000t. No gun calibre limit), I see them building as OTL - The North Carolina Class (1937) and then the South Dakota Class (OTL, 1939) - If an escalation clause is implimented.

With NO Washington Treaty standing though, what would they do? I don't see them building a 35,000t vessel - There is no treaty to abide by, so why be limited? This means the OTL North Carolina's are out. Do you see America going to something akin to the OTL South Dakota's of 1938 (Which was a treaty-designed, but escalated ships) or them skipping ahead to something like the Iowa's, which is not a compramised design to achieve a specified tonnage, and therefore more balanced? Or something inbetween perhaps? Can I have your thoughts please?

NOTE: I am specifically looking at 1937/8 for laying down this class, so think accordingly.

Thanks in advance all!

EDIT: I should add in that something akin to the Montana Class in size is out as these ships are to be designed to pass through the Panama Canal.

[HMS Warspite]

All would depend heavily on the politcal climate in this ITTL in the USA, which tended to be a more radical form of Isolationalism, meaning the USA were not interested in the world oversea and were radically anti Colonialistic in nature.

This would also be relevant to see what the USA would do in such a case with their own "colony": the Philippines. A very early independence is a possiblility, most likely resulting in a very weak and chaotic Philippine State. With the Isolationalistic attitude, the USA would also not be willing to form military obligations toward former protectorates, such as the Philippines. This might reflect in a anti militaristic attitude in a strong reduction in investments in the armed forces overall, especially the expensive Capital Ship building.

The USA however were inventive enough to produce all sorts of designs, from expensive to cheap in all sorts of equipment, so a relatively low cost new capital ship design is an option as well. (Some odd looking designs had been produced in the OTL in the 30's, some with mixed gunpower and aircraft capabilities, basically combining the aircraft carrier and capital ship in one hull. These hybrids were naturally not good in reality, so none were actually produced, but the ITTL political demands to restrict the budget made these designs tempting.)

Some examples:

[Eternity]

I have managed to miss out some more dates! My bad

Dates edited in are as follows, and all relate to American ship upgrades.

July 31 1925. USS New York and USS Texas modernized.
August 22 1927. USS Nevada and Oklahoma modernized.
September 20 1928. USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS Washington and USS West Virginia refitted.
June 1 1929. USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona modernized.
December 12 1929. USS Tennessee and USS California refitted.



NOTE: They are all OTL Refits, unless otherwise mentioned.

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by Eternity

I have managed to miss out some more dates! My bad

Dates edited in are as follows, and all relate to American ship upgrades.

July 31 1925. USS New York and USS Texas modernized.
August 22 1927. USS Nevada and Oklahoma modernized.
September 20 1928. USS Colorado, USS Maryland, USS Washington and USS West Virginia refitted.
June 1 1929. USS Pennsylvania and USS Arizona modernized.
December 12 1929. USS Tennessee and USS California refitted.



NOTE: They are all OTL Refits, unless otherwise mentioned.

Those early refits were moderate and not the be exchanged with the more radical refits of the mid 30's, where their appearance (New York, Nevada and Pennsylvannia classes) was altered as well, bu replacing their cagemast with tripods. The refits of the 20's was mainly bulging the hull and adding a few more AA guns and removing of poorly placed secondary guns, that were too near the bow, or stern. The Tennessee and Maryland Class ships were never refitted in the 30's, remaining basically in their original state, untill WW2 refits altered their appearance. As such, these newest OTL Dreadnoughts were effectually the worse ships, being not upgraded to modern standards, prior to WW2 in the OTL, with weak deck protection and obsolete equipement.

In teh ITTL, the more pacifist attitude of a more Isolationalist USA would likely result in even less money put into refittingprograms, basically due to the lack of need to keep an ocean going fleet in perfect condition. (no policing of the worlds oceans in this ITTL, so no need to have a large fleet at all.) The bulk of the fleet would likely be put into reserve, awaiting needs to be fielded again, after a small refit to make the ships seaworthy again, just as the Royal Navy essentially did in the Age of Sail.

[Eternity]

lol Only a few were..... How do I put it? umm 'All out refits'.

I did check to see what the OTL refits were, and when they were

<------ As no new e-mails from Mum and Dad, goes back to his film (Priest - 2011).

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Eternity

NOTE: I am specifically looking at 1937/8 for laying down this class, so think accordingly.

Thanks in advance all!

EDIT: I should add in that something akin to the Montana Class in size is out as these ships are to be designed to pass through the Panama Canal.

I would base it on the Iowa and Montana class, scaled down for the guns available. You need something to fit through the canal, so you end up with a narrow ship, so why not go fast BB - Iowa Class.

And you need a bigger powerful ship, so the Montana makes sense. The Montana is the big punch for the fleet. The Iowa can be rushed from Ocean to Ocean.

[HMS Warspite]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I would base it on the Iowa and Montana class, scaled down for the guns available. You need something to fit through the canal, so you end up with a narrow ship, so why not go fast BB - Iowa Class.

And you need a bigger powerful ship, so the Montana makes sense. The Montana is the big punch for the fleet. The Iowa can be rushed from Ocean to Ocean.

Since the USN in the ITTL already possessed several large and fast 16 inch gunned ships (Lexington and South Dakota 1921 type), the Iowa and Montana classes would not be seen as much improvement in either firepower, nor protection, especially when scaled down a bit, to use the existing infrastructure in especially the Panama Canal. Politically such new vessels of no bigger capabilities would be rejected by the two houses, even if the adminstation wanted them that realy.

The solution would be either to come with something compeltely different, such as the 1930's idea of a dedicated cruiser killer (of which USS Alaska eventually was the OTL endproduct). A second option was to delete the big gun altogether and create a much longer ranged and far more effective aircraft carrier force (or whatever aircraft capable sort of capital ship). The 30's also suggested admiral Moffet's idea of much more intense use of aviation at sea, in the times radar was basically not in use in the USN still. the typical USN flightdeck Cruiser, or CLV in technical terms, was the outcome.

[Eternity]

I would point out that in TTL the USS Ashland and USS Townsend have been built as that sort of thing (Flightdeck Cruisers).

As such, any design which fires UNDER the flight deck is out now (Due to experience )

They would also have learnt of the bonuses of a longer flight deck. As such, I don't see the second ship being built, as it has the shortest deck (Unless extended forward up to 'C' turret)

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by HMS Warspite

Since the USN in the ITTL already possessed several large and fast 16 inch gunned ships (Lexington and South Dakota 1921 type), the Iowa and Montana classes would not be seen as much improvement in either firepower, nor protection, especially when scaled down a bit, to use the existing infrastructure in especially the Panama Canal. Politically such new vessels of no bigger capabilities would be rejected by the two houses, even if the adminstation wanted them that realy.

No, they would just repeat the pattern. A fast BB that goes through the canal, and the Iowas is about the best you can do. Maybe you do go the Alaska route or some 14" route.

And for the Montana, the go up to the 18" guns or 19" guns.

But it is the same basic idea. The USA needs two BB. A big design that will not fit through the canal. Biggest the budget allows. A fast ship that goes through the canal that can fight in a capital gun line. Once the USA decides it needs BB, the canal drives it procurement process.