Earliest the US Navy could match the Royal Navy?

[Cryhavoc101]

I believe you mean Quality VS Lesser Quality.

Nope - what I wrote first time

The NDs and Lexs also benefit from Post Jutland knowledge would this change if both nations were suddenly opposed?

The 12 BBs of the 5 Standard Battleship designs that the US built between 1916 and 1923 where inferior to the British Ships built between 1914 and 1923

You can dress it up and cherry pick information any way you like - but in OTL it was not until the US started building their magnificent Post treaty monsters that they over hauled the British (however had they built the Lions it might have been a different story).

 

[jlckansas]

Most people also leave out the fact that basically we were not using 1 and a half coasts for building. We only built the California BB on the west coast and nothing that large on the Gulf. The dock that existed in Tacoma was not used for BB building but was used for CV refits so it would be large enough to use to build. The Bay area alone has numerous places that you could set up more building areas. Look at what Kaiser did in WWII. Now as for the Southern California coast I think LA and San Diego would have a dock or two to build BB's and lower. This coast basically is not within easy reach of the UK except for what might be in Western Canada or Japanese allied units.

The Gulf Coast also is under utilized for building on. Look at Mobile Bay, Pensecola, New Orleans, Port Arthur, Galveston/Houston area and Matagorda Bay. Its just the fact we would want to invest in the yards and infrastructure to build in these locations.

 

[usertron2020]

The OP is NOT handwaving the First World War. Sorry guys.

The Royal Navy is emerging in 1920 with a navy that is over-aged, worn-out, and facing mass obsolescence both for their pre-dreadnoughts (why is anyone even counting them?) and their pre-15" gunned pre-Jutland designed BBs.

The USN has serious cruiser and DD/DDE issues, but those can be addressed much more quickly than with capital ships.

The Royal Navy didn't lead the world in all forms of naval innovation either as cafeteria messing and enclosed bridges weren't introduced until the 50 Lend-Lease destroyers.

But they sure were superior in their much more reliable weapons systems/torpedoes.

USN policy had been to build fewer BBs while concentrating on R&D, which paid off until the SD BBs & Lex BCs, both of which had serious design issues. Whether they could have been addressed in the dockyards or not (I doubt it) I'll leave to the expertise of HMS Warspite.

OTL the combination of financial exhaustion in the UK and war weariness overall made the WNT a godsend for the UK.

One can argue, correctly IMO, that the initial post-WWI DNs of the RN were marginally superior to the USN's, but that slight margin won't matter to the numbers of newer fresher USN DNs. [0] Then consider the American concentration on aircraft carriers [1] as opposed to the mess created by the Air Ministry's preventing the FAA from developing a truly first class naval air force. Astrodragon, where are you?

[0] OTOH, British destroyer flotillas ITTL could be devestating to the US Battleline.

1] One might well see more Lexingtons/Saratoga's ITTL!

 

[Tallil2long]

Nope - what I wrote first time

The NDs and Lexs also benefit from Post Jutland knowledge would this change if both nations were suddenly opposed?

The 12 BBs of the 5 Standard Battleship designs that the US built between 1916 and 1923 where inferior to the British Ships built between 1914 and 1923

You can dress it up and cherry pick information any way you like - but in OTL it was not until the US started building their magnificent Post treaty monsters that they over hauled the British (however had they built the Lions it might have been a different story).

It seems to me the questions that must be asked are:
Whom were the Americans building their battleships to fight against?
What were the expected conditions under which they were expected to fight?

If the primary opponent was Japan, and the BBs would have to go clear across the Pacific to get to the fight, the BBs will be designed in a particular fashion.

If the RN becomes the expect opponent, much closer to home, you're liable to see a much different design philosophy adopted.

Assuming the US will continue building its OTL BBs is essentially a case of assuming that one side mysteriously and conveniently fails to react to changed stimuli. Kind of like assuming that the KM could build a much larger battle fleet in the 1930's without the RN taking any steps to counter it. That's the tactics of the wank.

 

[MattII]

The Royal Navy didn't lead the world in all forms of naval innovation either as cafeteria messing and enclosed bridges weren't introduced until the 50 Lend-Lease destroyers.

Neither of which is specific to aircraft carriers. What they did get first was the under-way takeoff, the folding-wing aircraft, the purpose-built seaplane carrier, the full-deck carrier, the faired bow, the steam catapult, and the angled deck.

 

[Saphroneth]

The OP is NOT handwaving the First World War. Sorry guys.

The Royal Navy is emerging in 1920 with a navy that is over-aged, worn-out, and facing mass obsolescence both for their pre-dreadnoughts (why is anyone even counting them?) and their pre-15" gunned pre-Jutland designed BBs.

Oh, okay. In that case, about three or four years after the Naval Treaty. More time if the USN has to outbuild the fleet the Brits still had as of 1920, because you can't simply ignore nearly forty dreadnoughts even if what you're building is superior.

 

[usertron2020]

Oh, okay. In that case, about three or four years after the Naval Treaty. More time if the USN has to outbuild the fleet the Brits still had as of 1920, because you can't simply ignore nearly forty dreadnoughts even if what you're building is superior.

That's fine. But it seems to me that RN [1] fan boys are arguing quantity when its to their advantage to do so and quality when it isn't.

1] Still the best in the world as of 1920 qualitatively, not arguing that. But it DOES upset me I'll admit when I see posts that sing the praises of the Royal Navy while mixing in some criticisms getting responses that poo-poo the criticisms and merely take the praising "as their due".

 

[usertron2020]

Neither of which is specific to aircraft carriers. What they did get first was the under-way takeoff, the folding-wing aircraft, the purpose-built seaplane carrier, the full-deck carrier, the faired bow, the steam catapult, and the angled deck.

I wish Astrodragon were here. He'd give you a nasty earful about how while the RN had STARTED many carrier innovations it was left to the USN and IJN to carry them out to completion. And even if the Royal Navy in the run-up to WWII had the best aircraft carriers in the world, which they certainly didn't (ranked third IMO), the FAA aircraft (See: Air Ministry again [1]) onboard and the quality of air operations other than at night sucked compared to the other two great carrier powers.

1] The Air Ministry was to the Royal Navy what the Bureau of Ordnance was for the US Navy.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm a bit confused. IF the US set out with a hostile attitude towards the RN determining their building plans, then its perfectly possible for WW1 not to happen, or if it does it may well happen in a completely different way. A US hostile to Britain is not going to give them easy loans, and is going to get much more pissed off at interception of trade. You could realistically see them join with the CPs against the UK

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[sharlin]

By the late 20s the USN was probably equal to the RN in terms of battle line but the destroyer and cruiser issue was not suitably solved until WW2.

The Standards were better than anything in RN service until the Nelrods came along, the QE's and R's were great ships with superb guns but the Standards were better protected in almost every regard. Also they were more modern than the majority of the RN's ships the rest of the fleet consisted of tired old KGV and Iron Duke class vessels.

The RN did of course have far more experience but that can only carry you so far.

 

[usertron2020]

It seems to me the questions that must be asked are:
Whom were the Americans building their battleships to fight against?

War Plan Red by its very nature is an off-the-wall idea, like drawing up plans for defeating invasions from Mexico and/or Canada, right down to how many rations will be needed by the troops. Crazy, but the plans are there, regularly updated. Same reason why during the Falklands War Britain was so relatively prepared organizationally.

What were the expected conditions under which they were expected to fight?

Handwaving politics, the side that attacks (crosses the Atlantic) loses.

If the primary opponent was Japan, and the BBs would have to go clear across the Pacific to get to the fight, the BBs will be designed in a particular fashion.

As OTL

If the RN becomes the expect opponent, much closer to home, you're liable to see a much different design philosophy adopted.

The US Navy had decided after serious errors made during the initial naval rearmament starting in 1880 to avoid "coast-defense battleships", except for aged or obsolescent designs.

Assuming the US will continue building its OTL BBs is essentially a case of assuming that one side mysteriously and conveniently fails to react to changed stimuli. Kind of like assuming that the KM could build a much larger battle fleet in the 1930's without the RN taking any steps to counter it. That's the tactics of the wank.

I don't think anyone here is thinking that. That was the absurd assumption stringently held fast to by the three "wankers" on the spacebattles.com thread I mentioned.

 

[usertron2020]

By the late 20s the USN was probably equal to the RN in terms of battle line but the destroyer and cruiser issue was not suitably solved until WW2.

The Standards were better than anything in RN service until the Nelrods came along, the QE's and R's were great ships with superb guns but the Standards were better protected in almost every regard. [1] Also they were more modern than the majority of the RN's ships the rest of the fleet consisted of tired old KGV and Iron Duke class vessels. [2]

The RN did of course have far more experience but that can only carry you so far.

1] IDK about that, I've heard a lot of nice things said about the QE's enough to believe that their protection was equal to the Standards. And they had slightly better speed.

It was my understanding that the R's had serious design flaws that made them vulnerable to certain types of attack, and why as WWII went on they were being kept from danger more and more, not just because of the fact that due to overuse they were falling apart.

2] Most of which were scrapyard bait. I don't understand why people are counting older WWI RN DN BBs as being capable of being "fit-and-present" for service in the 1920s when they must have been in worse shape than the R's in 1945.

 

[Saphroneth]

That's fine. But it seems to me that RN [1] fan boys are arguing quantity when its to their advantage to do so and quality when it isn't.

1] Still the best in the world as of 1920 qualitatively, not arguing that. But it DOES upset me I'll admit when I see posts that sing the praises of the Royal Navy while mixing in some criticisms getting responses that poo-poo the criticisms and merely take the praising "as their due".

Right. The main question here is what "parity" means.
It's one of those tricky subjects, this, because you've more-or-less got to handwave the two into wanting a fight to begin with. Or, alternatively, you've got to say "okay, they're not fighting, they just both want the world's biggest navy". And, of course, that doesn't lead to large navies - it leads to treaty navies, because the US and the UK rather like one another (appearances to the contrary).

My view, BTW, is that as of 1920 the RN was still top dog, because it had at least quality parity and quantity superiority. It was also coming out of the strain of the nastiest war in generations (i.e. arguably worse than Napoleonic in what it did to the nation's resources).

The OTL solution to that strain was a treaty to limit spending, which makes OP actually quite trivial because strict parity was exactly what the treaty permitted.

As for the old DNs - 'tis true, they wouldn't be capable of much force projection. But they'd be capable of defensive roles, I assume.

 

[sharlin]

1] IDK about that, I've heard a lot of nice things said about the QE's enough to believe that their protection was equal to the Standards. And they had slightly better speed.

It was my understanding that the R's had serious design flaws that made them vulnerable to certain types of attack, and why as WWII went on they were being kept from danger more and more, not just because of the fact that due to overuse they were falling apart.

2] Most of which were scrapyard bait. I don't understand why people are counting older WWI RN DN BBs as being capable of being "fit-and-present" for service in the 1920s when they must have been in worse shape than the R's in 1945.

1) The QE's were good, but it was mainly their guns, the thickest part of main belt was actually very thin and covered a small area, whilst a standards belt was of one uniform thickness, covering a greater area. And yes the QE's were fast but not the 25 knots they were touted, more 24 knots than anything. The Standards had by FAR superior torpedo protection especially the New Mexico's and their types.

2) The R's greatest flaw was that they were designed within tight limits, and this precluded them from seeing much in the way of upgrades and modernisation without affecting their stability or seaworthyness. Their internal layout also contributed greatly to this. They were no more vulnerable to 'certain types of attacks' than any ships, and they were quite slow, 21kts is fine but when fitted with bulges and at full loads they would bumble along at 19 knots until they burned off fuel.

3) its because its numbers for the fleet, and even if they were dated, their guns were still capable, the 13.5 was a GOOD gun especially once it got Greenboy shells. Yes the ships were a bit tired and their armour scheme was not good but ignore a 13.5 inch gunned ship at your peril. Hell the Bismark could not ignore one if by some ASB intervention the RN still had them in service in WW2 as convoy escorts.

 

[usertron2020]

I'm a bit confused. IF the US set out with a hostile attitude towards the RN determining their building plans, then its perfectly possible for WW1 not to happen, or if it does it may well happen in a completely different way. A US hostile to Britain is not going to give them easy loans, and is going to get much more pissed off at interception of trade. You could realistically see them join with the CPs against the UK

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Handwaving WWI is a feat that would have given Skippy the Alien Space Bat if not a hernia, at least a muscle strain.

Having the US NOT giving loans to the Entente means its a WWI so far from OTL as to make comparisons meaningless. Having the US joining the CP puts it up there with TL-191.

The US Navy Department was already building two DN BBs a year for years, without the destructive wartime steaming the RN was forced to put its ships through. It was just enough to raise eyebrows in the Admiralty, but nothing more. The British had far bigger problems on their plate. Maybe in a world where the British had a much nastier Pro-Interventionist policy in the American Civil War, leading to decades of hostility, perhaps.

But the whole point of this Discussion Thread is not HOW this all comes about politically, but WHEN it can be accomplished. BTW? One of the three on that spacebattles.com thread I mentioned gave the "catch-up" date for the USA vs. the British Empire as...1956! And qualitatively? NEVER.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

One of the three on that spacebattles.com thread I mentioned gave the "catch-up" date for the USA vs. the British Empire as...1956! And qualitatively? NEVER.

You should've just show them a list of the ships in the navies at the end of WW2. That should've shut them up.

 

[Grey Wolf]

But my whole point is that it can accomplished when the US wants to accomplish it, which depends on having the political will and thus the political attitude (anti-British) to drive it.

Thus, technologically and numerically I say it can be done by around 1917, but this throws things completely into WW1 territory so either the US attitude is enough to throw off geo-politics or it is enough to alter WW1.

I can't see the logic of asking when it COULD HAVE matched the British, if we don't take note of a need for them to desire it.

Beset Rearguards
Grey Wolf

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Handwaving WWI is a feat that would have given Skippy the Alien Space Bat if not a hernia, at least a muscle strain.

Having the US NOT giving loans to the Entente means its a WWI so far from OTL as to make comparisons meaningless. Having the US joining the CP puts it up there with TL-191.

The US Navy Department was already building two DN BBs a year for years, without the destructive wartime steaming the RN was forced to put its ships through. It was just enough to raise eyebrows in the Admiralty, but nothing more. The British had far bigger problems on their plate. Maybe in a world where the British had a much nastier Pro-Interventionist policy in the American Civil War, leading to decades of hostility, perhaps.

But the whole point of this Discussion Thread is not HOW this all comes about politically, but WHEN it can be accomplished. BTW? One of the three on that spacebattles.com thread I mentioned gave the "catch-up" date for the USA vs. the British Empire as...1956! And qualitatively? NEVER.

I will admit, with out apology ,that I am very defensive regarding the RN - I often find on teh interwebs, it and its ships disparaged with no recourse to how effectively they actually performed and the hard and effective service they gave in both World Wars.

And this makes me grumpy

That being said - I rather like the American Capital Ships - certainly from Arizona onwards they were very good ships relative to their peers and while their design concepts differed from the RN I cannot fault either without the benefit of hindsight - and even then they bear-up.

As for the USN as an organisation - it took one of the hardest blows a modern fleet ever took - and then due to its robustness - rocked back off the ropes and even before it could flood the Pacific with Fast SHBBs and Essex Fast Fleet Carriers - gave an even harder blow to the IJN.

In answer to the OP's question Qualititvly and Quantitively the US certainly caught up in OTL by 1943 (not sure what our colleagues on Space battles were smoking? 1956?) when the 2 ocean Navy appeared with its Fast Super heavy battleships, Essex Class Carriers and marvoulous fleet train - not to mention the Fletcher class type Destroyers etc

Had the US for whatever reason engaged in the "Dreadnaught race" from 1901 with no real change to the OTL time line then anything I say is a guess based on what I know from OTL - but I would suspect parity by 1923 if not before (assuming no Naval Treaty) - and assuming Post Jutland data/lessons and learned design concepts was shared with them - Qualititivly equal by this time (certainly post ND + Lex vs G3 + N3)

 

[NothingNow]

The US Navy Department was already building two DN BBs a year for years, without the destructive wartime steaming the RN was forced to put its ships through.

Yep. And This when the USN was building it's BBs to sail at full speed for a day without needing repairs, which is a hell of an advantage in wartime.

So yeah, by the mid 20's, with or without the WNT, the USN is going to have quantitative parity, and likely a qualitative edge just because of how light their wartime service has been, versus what they were designed to do.

The IJN can't keep up with both, but has a definite advantage in the quality of it's crews and roughly comparable quality of it's ships, and IOTL it kept that up till around Midway, when the losses became too high to sustain. Compared to those two though, the UK has been hemorrhaging money in WW1, while both of them were creditor nations, however modest that might have been.

 

[usertron2020]

You should've just show them a list of the ships in the navies at the end of WW2. That should've shut them up.

That 1956 calculation was also based on quantitative and qualitative strengths of armies and air forces, including within the British Empire...the Indian Army!? The guy was a world class Anti-American/Sun Never Sets type. If he were an American with similar attitudes (reversed), he'd be called an "American Exceptionalist".