The USS wasp was a version of the Yorktown class carriers designed to use up the remaining carrier tonnage during the 1930's. Now as she was laid down just before the end of the Washington naval treaty, could she be delayed by a few months to be built as a Yorktown class carrier or could they ignore the fact they are breaking the treaty? What effect would this have on the second world war?
WI: USS Wasp as proper yorktown carrier
- Thread starter torten
- Start date
Delta Force
Banned
It would require the United States not acceding to the Second London Naval Treaty, which extended many of the conditions of the Washington Naval Treaty and added some new ones. As it turned out, the Treaty only served to restrict naval construction among the British Empire, France, and the United States.
Maybe the pod is that no Ranger class carrier is constructed or the Yorktown class carriers are slightly smaller in size which allows USS Wasp to be constructed as a proper Yorktown class carrier depending on tonnage permits.
In this case, the atl USS Wasp probably serves as a carrier in the Atlantic taking over USS Ranger's duties. Or maybe USS Hornet. In the Pacific, maybe the faster speed and increased aircraft means that it only receives damage from just one torpedo or bomb, if ever damaged during Guadalcanal. In the Battle of Santa Cruz, the USS Wasp contributes to the sinking of a Japanese carrier or 2 while the Americans suffer otl losses or something. After Guadalcanal, the events go more or less per otl.
usertron2020
Donor
Wasn't the loss of Wasp more due to poor leadership? Patrolling her constantly in the same pattern until a IJN sub could track her down? If so, making her bigger won't mean much. OTL, the Wasp went down hard.
Last edited:
Wouldn't being faster help it avoid the torpedoes? Which means she gets hit by one [more likely than none] or the submarine torpedoes some cruiser or destroyer instead. A couple extra planes may be lucky enough to spot I 19 and force it to dive or sink the submarine. Maybe, the carriers escorting the convoy may fight the Japanese Navy engaging nearby, but very unlikely with just a few more planes.
Nope, as I-19 attacked USS Wasp at a range of 985 yards with a salvo of six Type 95 torpedoes, which travel at 48 knots, indicating it took them about a minute or so to reach the target. As these torpedoes left no wake, they were not possible to spot, unless you know where to look at in the firstplace.
If a normal Yorktown carrier was in the place of USS Wasp, it would have been hit as Wasp had been, since the carrier at the time was traveling at a steady course being in operation of aircraft. So no possibility of zig-zag at the time. By the way, a Yorktown class was equally very vulnerable to shockdamage from torpedoes, as both USS Hornet and USS Yorktown were both cripled by one or two torpedoes, knocking out their propulsionsystem. Sicne the stricken Hornet was unable to make her way out, she was scuttled, which would have happened to Wasp as well, when disabled and far, far away form a nearby base in hostile territory.
According to Aircraft Carriers of the World by Roger Chesnau Wasp displaced 14,700 tons and Yorktown 19,872 tons.
In the first half of 1942 Wasp was attached to the British Home fleet and made two sorties into the Mediterranean to fly off Spitfires to Malta. I don't have the figures in front of me, but some of the Spitfires crashed on take off, others ran out of fuel and on the first trip many were destroyed on the ground before they could be refuelled.
Yorktown class carriers had a flight deck that was 75 feet longer (802ft vs 727 1/2 ft) and were 2 1/2 knots faster. If Wasp had been a Yorktown this might have resulted in fewer crashes on takeoff, fewer aircraft running out of fuel and more being ready to meed the air raids intended to destroy the survivors on the ground.
The Yorktown design was certainly more battleworthy than the Wasp as built. She was unarmoured and had a simpler torpedo protection system in order to cram as many aircraft as possible into the available tonnage. However, I don't know whether she would have survived being hit by three torpedoes at point blank range had she been a Yorktown.
In the first half of 1942 Wasp was attached to the British Home fleet and made two sorties into the Mediterranean to fly off Spitfires to Malta. I don't have the figures in front of me, but some of the Spitfires crashed on take off, others ran out of fuel and on the first trip many were destroyed on the ground before they could be refuelled.
Yorktown class carriers had a flight deck that was 75 feet longer (802ft vs 727 1/2 ft) and were 2 1/2 knots faster. If Wasp had been a Yorktown this might have resulted in fewer crashes on takeoff, fewer aircraft running out of fuel and more being ready to meed the air raids intended to destroy the survivors on the ground.
The Yorktown design was certainly more battleworthy than the Wasp as built. She was unarmoured and had a simpler torpedo protection system in order to cram as many aircraft as possible into the available tonnage. However, I don't know whether she would have survived being hit by three torpedoes at point blank range had she been a Yorktown.
I winder what the difference with the Saratoga was? Two torpedo hits months apart. In the second case the Sara was also in the S Pacific & far from a full service naval base. Was the save through better design, better damage control skill, or less destructive hits. Both hits IIRC were type 90 torpedos.
I don't know, but I suspect that being nearly double the displacement of a Yorktown would have helped.
Chesnau said, "During patrols off Pearl Harbour in January 1942, Saratoga suffered a torpedo hit from the submarine I-6 which caused insignificant damage. However, permanent repairs and major modifications were carried out at Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton. She was more seriously damaged by a second hit (I-26) on 31 August that year, with 3 boiler rooms flooded and the ship immobilised through shock. She was taken in tow to Tonga, patched up, and returned to Pearl Harbour for permanent repairs."
One of the several arguments for the big carrier.
Not trivial damage. Surviving that amount of flooding of the engine compartments suggest some adroit damage control as well as robust construction.
Rubicon
Banned
The Yorktown-class was at maxium size allowed for a carrier laid down as such due to the Washington Naval Treaty.
marathag
Banned
Friedman's book on Carriers notes she had worse gasoline storage than the Yorktowns, and it was the gasoline going off was what doomed her, like Lexington.
Under the Washington and First London Treaties aircraft carriers could displace up to 27,000 tons and the Second London Treaty reduced this to 23,000 tons. Except that the Lexington and Saratoga used a clause that allowed the USA, UK and Japan to have 2 carriers of 33,000 tons each
The USA was allowed a total of 135,000 tons of aircraft carriers. Lexinton and Saratoga absobed 66,000 tons. The Americans wanted to use the remainig 69,000tons build 5 Rangers. However, after she proved to be to small they built Yorktown and Enterprise to a new design of 20,000 tons, which left about 15,000 tons for Wasp.
What we could have is the Americans building a trio of enlarged Yorktowns instead of Ranger, Yorktown and Enterprise. Then CV-7 would have to be built after the the Second London Treaty came into force and the 135,000 ton limit was abolished. This would also mean that Hornet was a 23,000 ton ship and that might enable her to survive the Battle of Santa Cruz.
Still unlikely, as het consequense would have been fewer USN carriers in the first place, as the USA played it fair accepting the treaty limmitations and the actual amount of tonnage to build. With USS Ranger not being build and the other yorktown-Mod. type larger, meant only three more carriers, not four, besides the two conversions and Langley. With one on duties elsewhere, the Pacific would simply mis another pair in the first half of 1942 and one in the 2nd half (Both Wasp and Hornet not available, as ersatz Ranger would be in the Atlantic and Wasp was never created in the first place, leaving only Ersatz Yorktown, Enterprise and the two Lexingtons, with Hornet likely becomming a first Essex class later in the war.
That would result in an OTL scenario with only Enterprise left in late 1942, with Saratoga under repairs and nothing else. Not very hopefull for the USA with so little to play with. Perhaps building smaller carriers in larger numbers was better after all. They were sort of expendable at least, while a few large ones were not.
So in the last scenario, USS Enterprise was allone at Santa Cruz, against two large and two smaller IJN carriers. Hornet never been build and all IJN aircraft concentrating on USS Enterprise, propably hitting her fatally, even if it was a much larger ship. In the OTL the IJN airgroups had to slpit up between the two USN Flattops, allowing Enterprise to excape fatal hits, though still seriously damaged. Perhaps replacing a USN thinly proteced carrier with an Illustrious class was an option, as the bombs of the IJN divebombers were unable to pierce into their hangars, unlike the ooden decked USN carriers. Only torpedoes could defeat them and the Illustrious class had a very short turncircle, so could evade these even better than a Yorktown. (Length to beam on the waterline was shorter than on a Yorktown.)
marathag
Banned
Enlarged *Yorktowns, halfway between OTL Yorktown and the Essex, would be CV-5 Yorktown CV-6 Enterprise and CV-7 *Wasp
23,000, 28,000 Full load
Three deck elevators
(10) 5in/38
(8) 1.1" Quad mounts
(32) .50 cal
Doubtful there is a Doolittle Raid in this Timeline, and Malta may not get those supplies, but the *Yorktowns have a slightly improved AAA suite and better below decks protection
I accept that if the Americans build Lexington, Saratoga and 3 x 23,000 ton carriers instead of the real Ranger, Yorktown and Enterprise that the US Navy could not lay down another carrier before 31.12.36, which is when the tonnage quotas were abolished. I also accept that having 5 satisfactory carriers instead of 4 would make it harder for the Navy to persuade Congress to order an additional 23,000 ton carrier to be laid down in 1937. This way the Americans would have 5 satisfactory carriers to Japans 4 (Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu) plus the unsatisfactory Ryujo.
However, Hornet would be built, because she and Essex were ordererd in 1937 to counter the Shokaku and Zuikaku which were build under the Japanese 3rd fleet replenishment programme of 1937.
Therefore the USN would have had 6 adequate carriers in December 1941 instead of 5 adequate carriers and 2 death traps. Ranger spent nearly all the war on second-line duites in the real world. Here Ranger would have taken the place of Wasp in the Atlantic/Mediterranean in the first half of 1942 and the Pacific in the second. Wasp only took part in one battle, in August 1942, and was sunk a few weeks later. The worst that can happen is that a 23,000 ton CV built instead of Ranger is that she does a few runs to Malta, goes to the Pacific, takes part in one battle and is torpedoed a few weeks later. Either she sinks like Wasp or survives due to being 8,000 tons larger, being armoured and having a superior torpedo defence system.
Last edited:
Rubicon
Banned
Sorry but the OTL Ranger was needed as an experimental build, no country got it right the first time they built a carrier from the keel-up. So You'll still be stuck with lack of tonnage for what you wish the US would have built.
There is no need to be sorry.
CV-4 would not have been perfect as a 23,000 ton ship, but as many of Ranger (and Wasps) inadeqacies were due to cramming as many aircraft into the hull at the expense of other features, she might have been adequate. Yorktown and subsequent ships would have been half-sisters incorporating the lessons learned in Ranger. Wasp if built would have been built to the improved design.
Ryujo's problems were similarly caused by her designers trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot, not becuase she was Japans first keel-up carrier.