An Earlier Two Ocean Navy Act

Something like what @fester is doing on his thread.


Yes, but in the timeframe, it is the only logical ships to go with. The Helenas are a mature model of an excellent design, that could take a lot of damage and come back. The Wichita is workmanlike design, and does not have the problem of a mid ships firetrap, like all the preceding classes of heavy cruiser.
 
wouldn't hurt to get Andrew Higgins and Donald Roebling some money to start getting stuff into production either...this could turn out to be one of those "Penny Foolish, Pound Wise" sort of actions...

While working on landing craft spend a few bucks to import this gentleman. Howard Florey. Work on Malaria while Florey plays around with bread mold. Combat medicine is a force multiplier superior to a better torpedo.
 
Last edited:
While working on landing craft spend a few bucks to import this gentleman. Howard Florey. Work on Malaria while Florey plays around with bread mold. Combat medicine is a force multiplier superior to a better torpedo.

that's another good idea as well.....

to add to the list of ideas, throw a few bucks at Igor Sikorsky!!!! What if you could accelerate helicopter development by 3 to 5 years...
 
You know I wonder what Japan's reaction to an earlier two ocean navy act would be. I mean they freaked out when they found out about it in otl but in this timeline the period of opportunity that they had otl has been immensely shortened
 
Wichita follow-ons would not be quite similar to the original vessel. She was deemed too unstable and to have wasted too much weight in terms of displacement. some modifications would have been made. Helena's class had known similar issues, and it was not desired to repeat them.

The projected timespan increase for a new design, in 1939, was only 12 months, bringing it a total of 48 months for a new design to correct past issues vs 36 months to continue construction of existing ships. Given that both existing cruisers were seen as outdated and had known issues, there'd be a redesign as it is to take advantage of the lack of weight restrictions. They might look different and be less capable than the OTL cruisers developed, but they would be an evolution of previous vessels, not repeats.

The Alaska class, if design was rushed forward, could evolve in a myriad of ways. It possibly could be used as a slightly smaller 3x3 12" cruiser, but with otherwise better armor. It would seem even more wasteful than OTL considering that it'd only be a few k tons lighter and at the same time having only 67% of its firepower. It may be reduced to a super heavy 8" gun cruiser with 12 8" guns and be lighter. It could end up as one of the CA2 series (even up to CA2D, but that seems unlikely). Heck, it's remote, or you could see the 3x2 12" be remade as a 3x3 10" - the 10" gun was considered, but often not favored. Part of the reason for the Alaska getting more and more barrels is due to the belief that she was underarmed for her size. The 10" gun cruiser, with some armor reduction, could come in thousands of tons under her with the same number of barrels.

Or it could be cancelled. But that is boring and wouldn't trigger ursines :D Seriously, though, the Alaska design wouldn't be finalized until well after the PoD.

I would have to wonder, considering the higher battleship focus, whether any of the Montana (Whichver design is chosen) are laid down and if any would be finished, or if they'd be inevitably cancelled.

Also, considering the need, there is a decent chance that an Iowa or Alaska or etc gets sacrificed for a conversion to carrier. Assuming that a Pearl Harbor happens, which it won't.
 
Wichita follow-ons would not be quite similar to the original vessel. She was deemed too unstable and to have wasted too much weight in terms of displacement. some modifications would have been made. Helena's class had known similar issues, and it was not desired to repeat them.

The projected timespan increase for a new design, in 1939, was only 12 months, bringing it a total of 48 months for a new design to correct past issues vs 36 months to continue construction of existing ships. Given that both existing cruisers were seen as outdated and had known issues, there'd be a redesign as it is to take advantage of the lack of weight restrictions. They might look different and be less capable than the OTL cruisers developed, but they would be an evolution of previous vessels, not repeats.

The Alaska class, if design was rushed forward, could evolve in a myriad of ways. It possibly could be used as a slightly smaller 3x3 12" cruiser, but with otherwise better armor. It would seem even more wasteful than OTL considering that it'd only be a few k tons lighter and at the same time having only 67% of its firepower. It may be reduced to a super heavy 8" gun cruiser with 12 8" guns and be lighter. It could end up as one of the CA2 series (even up to CA2D, but that seems unlikely). Heck, it's remote, or you could see the 3x2 12" be remade as a 3x3 10" - the 10" gun was considered, but often not favored. Part of the reason for the Alaska getting more and more barrels is due to the belief that she was underarmed for her size. The 10" gun cruiser, with some armor reduction, could come in thousands of tons under her with the same number of barrels.

Or it could be cancelled. But that is boring and wouldn't trigger ursines :D Seriously, though, the Alaska design wouldn't be finalized until well after the PoD.

I would have to wonder, considering the higher battleship focus, whether any of the Montana (Whichver design is chosen) are laid down and if any would be finished, or if they'd be inevitably cancelled.

Also, considering the need, there is a decent chance that an Iowa or Alaska or etc gets sacrificed for a conversion to carrier. Assuming that a Pearl Harbor happens, which it won't.

That is really confused thinking. (^^^) 8 inch gun cruisers will prove to be somewhat ineffective for purpose of SAGs. 12 inch gun cruisers will prove too expensive. I would be happy with something like this...
upload_2019-8-26_20-50-29.png


About 7,500 tonnes, 9 x 15.2cm/53 cm, 4 x 12.7cm/51, 8 x 5cm/70 (4 barrel AAA Gatlings), 10TT (2 x 5) torpedoes are 55cm x 550cm (run time 1000 seconds at 25 m/s); Ship cruise is 6 m/s and combat is 18 m/s. 20/20 hindsight of course. Author of the drawing is a chap named Tobias.
 
That is really confused thinking. (^^^) 8 inch gun cruisers will prove to be somewhat ineffective for purpose of SAGs. 12 inch gun cruisers will prove too expensive. I would be happy with something like this...
View attachment 483364

About 7,500 tonnes, 9 x 15.2cm/53 cm, 4 x 12.7cm/51, 8 x 5cm/70 (4 barrel AAA Gatlings), 10TT (2 x 5) torpedoes are 55cm x 550cm (run time 1000 seconds at 25 m/s); Ship cruise is 6 m/s and combat is 18 m/s. 20/20 hindsight of course. Author of the drawing is a chap named Tobias.

I would have to disagree, anything other then the Wichitas or Helena's would come from the Spring Styles Books of the USN. The plans and designs were fairly ready to go.
Yes the Helena's and Whicita have flaws, but fixes are quicker then new untried designs. The issue is now how many ships can we build and how fast. At this time no one has any idea how aircraft will truly change the naval warfare game. Surface actions by cruiser scouting groups are still the forte of larger cruisers, no one nows the effect of radar either, Scouting at night will be by surface vessel..
 
I would have to disagree, anything other then the Wichitas or Helena's would come from the Spring Styles Books of the USN. The plans and designs were fairly ready to go.
Yes the Helena's and Whicita have flaws, but fixes are quicker then new untried designs. The issue is now how many ships can we build and how fast. At this time no one has any idea how aircraft will truly change the naval warfare game. Surface actions by cruiser scouting groups are still the forte of larger cruisers, no one nows the effect of radar either, Scouting at night will be by surface vessel..
http://www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/albums/S584.htm

Spring style data source 1.

Spring style data source 2.

Cruiser spring styles, 1939-1944.

s511-03.jpg


It appears that this Springstyle gives no consideration to torpedo defense or low angle air attack.

s511-02.jpg


Better than an Atlanta, but still very top-heavy and lacking enough directors or a torpedo defense.

Later version, still top-heavy and no mid-band AAA defense.

s511-66.jpg


It is a miracle nobody at C and R was Bynged.
 
People forget the bureaucratic blood fued pre war between the various internal bureaucracies especially ially Engineering and Construction and Repair in the Navy Department. That feud was made insignificant by the true war losing blood fused between the IJA and the IJN!
 
People forget the bureaucratic blood fued pre war between the various internal bureaucracies especially ially Engineering and Construction and Repair in the Navy Department. That feud was made insignificant by the true war losing blood fused between the IJA and the IJN!
IIRC the Admiral in charge of developing the high pressure steam plants was investigated for the plants exceeding their range, efficiency and reliability requirements.
 
That is really confused thinking. (^^^) 8 inch gun cruisers will prove to be somewhat ineffective for purpose of SAGs. 12 inch gun cruisers will prove too expensive. I would be happy with something like this...
View attachment 483364

About 7,500 tonnes, 9 x 15.2cm/53 cm, 4 x 12.7cm/51, 8 x 5cm/70 (4 barrel AAA Gatlings), 10TT (2 x 5) torpedoes are 55cm x 550cm (run time 1000 seconds at 25 m/s); Ship cruise is 6 m/s and combat is 18 m/s. 20/20 hindsight of course. Author of the drawing is a chap named Tobias.

I'm quoting Friedman in US Cruisers. The 8000 ton cruiser was shelved as it didn't have the capabilities - and 8000 tons was determined during the 1937-38 light cruisers studies as the minimum tonnage allowable for a mixed-caliber light cruiser - at the time, protection for a 9 gun vessel at 8000 tons with similar armament would have been sufficient at most for 5.1" gun protection. Unsure what the 50mm AA guns would weigh (roughly a 1.1" Piano, I imagine for argument sake), but combine those with the slightly heavier torpedo armament and you'd receive. And those are all nominal, and margins grew smaller over development. And is that supposed to be the otl 5"/51, or is that some alternate design that was dropped OTL?

The actual 6" 10 gun cruiser, in design through late 1939, was a design nightmare that had them cramming a ship considered much less capable and less armored than the Brooklyn class on a hull almost 2k tons less. The ship itself was hampered by its use of dual purpose 6"/47 guns in its designs, but was required to meet its weight restrictions.

US cruisers that are not destroyer leaders wouldn't use torpedoes as it stands. If this is a successor.

Agreed that the 8" gun was proving lackluster by the late 30s, which is noted by most parties at hand, though that did nothing to dampen the general board's enthusiasm - they wanted more cruisers than they got, and they wanted more armor protection.

-

And I understand that you're arguing with hindsight completely in case. I was just trying to point out the line of thought going on in the design schemes in 1938/39.

Also, what are you referring to the midband AA defense in relation to CL-154? something between 40mm and 127mm? The 3" gun wasn't ready until postwar in the twin mount; the 40mm was what was available at that point in time.
 
I'm quoting Friedman in US Cruisers. The 8000 ton cruiser was shelved as it didn't have the capabilities - and 8000 tons was determined during the 1937-38 light cruisers studies as the minimum tonnage allowable for a mixed-caliber light cruiser - at the time, protection for a 9 gun vessel at 8000 tons with similar armament would have been sufficient at most for 5.1" gun protection. Unsure what the 50mm AA guns would weigh (roughly a 1.1" Piano, I imagine for argument sake), but combine those with the slightly heavier torpedo armament and you'd receive. And those are all nominal, and margins grew smaller over development. And is that supposed to be the otl 5"/51, or is that some alternate design that was dropped OTL?

A. This assumed a cruiser needed armor when what it really needed was a float bubble defense, since it turns out that a treaty cruiser is a one torpedo sink me exercise.

The actual 6" 10 gun cruiser, in design through late 1939, was a design nightmare that had them cramming a ship considered much less capable and less armored than the Brooklyn class on a hull almost 2k tons less. The ship itself was hampered by its use of dual purpose 6"/47 guns in its designs, but was required to meet its weight restrictions.

To quote someone; "men are lightweight, adaptable, can fix things and work well under adverse conditions." As gun bunnies they make a lot of sense.

US cruisers that are not destroyer leaders wouldn't use torpedoes as it stands. If this is a successor.

Guns punch holes into; but torpedoes sink ships in WW II. SAG combat was a normal feature of US naval wars up until WW I and it was a constant feature of Asian naval wars. What the hello made the USN think WW I was normal? It was an aberration.

Agreed that the 8" gun was proving lackluster by the late 30s, which is noted by most parties at hand, though that did nothing to dampen the general board's enthusiasm - they wanted more cruisers than they got, and they wanted more armor protection.

Spanish American War. Cruesot steel armor on the Infant Maria Teresa thick enough to stop US 20.3cm (8 inch) bore diameter/35 guns had to be 22.9 cm (9 inches) thick. Great. Now about accuracy? 400 war-shots from the US fleet, 29 hits. WW II? About the same. BTW, both Battles of Guadalcanal? US destroyers and battleships are tearing Japanese upper works apart and mission killing 10,000 tonne treaty cruisers with 12.7cm (5 inch diameter bore)/38 gunfire. Willis Lee called it a knife-fight in a phone booth where he had stilettos and hammers when Washington did in Kirishima. 9 salvoes of 40.3 cm (16 inch) bore diameter/45 with 27 strikes. Over 200 strikes by 12.7cm (5 inch diameter bore)/38 gunfire. Kirishima was swiss cheesed but did not sink. She was scuttled after further bombing by the Cactus air force.

The need was for torpedoes.

-
And I understand that you're arguing with hindsight completely in case. I was just trying to point out the line of thought going on in the design schemes in 1938/39.

Absolutely agree. The Juneaus and the Atlantas which were built were incredibly hard to kill. That should have told somebody something.

Also, what are you referring to the midband AA defense in relation to CL-154? something between 40mm and 127mm? The 3" gun wasn't ready until postwar in the twin mount; the 40mm was what was available at that point in time.


Mid-band altitude is the still critical altitude, which aircraft exploit, where AAA systems are too small to reach or too clumsy to engage agile aircraft, about 3,000-5,000 meters. Any lower and auto cannons can saw a plane out of the sky. Any higher than 5,000 meters and modern ATG SAMs will kill that same plane LOS to the horizon. Radar or heat, take your choice.

Like the Soviet 5.7cm AAA gun, the 5.0cm (~2 inch bore)/70 ATL Gatling is a compromise to throw a shell stream fast enough and large enough to either saw a wing off in a bullet hose or blow Mister Airplane apart with a hit to kill fused shell at that critical altitude or closer in. WW II aircraft to hit a ship have low altitude or high angle release points no more than 3,000 meters offset from a moving ship for a torpedo plane or dive bomber. Level bombers from above 7,000 meters is a guaranteed miss. Ballistics.

The Gatling is the choice because you have 6-10 seconds interval to engage. How many projectiles can you hose across the plane in 6-10 seconds? You need 60-100. So 4 barrels at 600 r/pm cyclic is the minimum. 1,200 rpm is better and the best achievable with 1930s technology. Gun mount with weather house is 10 tonnes.
 
Last edited:
A. This assumed a cruiser needed armor when what it really needed was a float bubble defense, since it turns out that a treaty cruiser is a one torpedo sink me exercise.

Which was the line of thought at the time - torpedo protection only became more important after the start of the war, and protection from aircraft received the attention first. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the naval engagements through the start of the war were settled with gunfire - when was the first offensive sinking of a vessel by torpedo (vs scuttling)? I believe it was at Narvik, and that was a destroyer, which conflates with expectations. If the bill is being authorized in 39, there wouldn't be much experience to lead to a design choice based on that alone, certainly no more than OTL.

To quote someone; "men are lightweight, adaptable, can fix things and work well under adverse conditions." As gun bunnies they make a lot of sense.

Which doesn't fix a compromised design, which the OTL 8000 ton cruiser was. It shoved 5 mounts that were 25% heavier than the Brooklyn, roughly, removed secondaries and added two sets of triple tubes.

Spanish American War. Cruesot steel armor on the Infant Maria Teresa thick enough to stop US 20.3cm (8 inch) bore diameter/35 guns had to be 22.9 cm (9 inches) thick. Great. Now about accuracy? 400 war-shots from the US fleet, 29 hits. WW II? About the same. BTW, both Battles of Guadalcanal? US destroyers and battleships are tearing Japanese upper works apart and mission killing 10,000 tonne treaty cruisers with 12.7cm (5 inch diameter bore)/38 gunfire. Willis Lee called it a knife-fight in a phone booth where he had stilettos and hammers when Washington did in Kirishima. 9 salvoes of 40.3 cm (16 inch) bore diameter/45 with 27 strikes. Over 200 strikes by 12.7cm (5 inch diameter bore)/38 gunfire. Kirishima was swiss cheesed but did not sink. She was scuttled after further bombing by the Cactus air force.

The need was for torpedoes.

Isn't that also stating that the planned engagement range for combat should be reduced to knife fighting range, then, rather than standoff range where secondary engagements would be minimized? What would be the PoD in the proposed time frame to change the General Board's design scheme to focus on close range combat?

American designs removed torpedoes from warships due to threat of explosion as it stood - the only ones that retained torpedoes through the war were the ones that served as destroyer flagships, as it were (Omaha and Atlanta). Why bother adding torpedoes to cruisers designed to engage at long range when you already have destroyers with mounts similar to/identical to proposed? Especially considering the amount of damage taken to the superstructure in close range.

Mid-band altitude is the still critical altitude, which aircraft exploit, where AAA systems are too small to reach or too clumsy to engage agile aircraft, about 3,000-5,000 meters. Any lower and auto cannons can saw a plane out of the sky. Any higher than 5,000 meters and modern ATG SAMs will kill that same plane LOS to the horizon. Radar or heat, take your choice.

Like the Soviet 5.7cm AAA gun, the 5.0cm (~2 inch bore)/70 ATL Gatling is a compromise to throw a shell stream fast enough and large enough to either saw a wing off in a bullet hose or blow Mister Airplane apart with a hit to kill fused shell at that critical altitude or closer in. WW II aircraft to hit a ship have low altitude or high angle release points no more than 3,000 meters offset from a moving ship for a torpedo plane or dive bomber. Level bombers from above 7,000 meters is a guaranteed miss. Ballistics.

The Gatling is the choice because you have 6-10 seconds interval to engage. How many projectiles can you hose across the plane in 6-10 seconds? You need 60-100. So 4 barrels at 600 r/pm cyclic is the minimum. 1,200 rpm is better and the best achievable with 1930s technology. Gun mount with weather house is 10 tonnes.

Is there any comparable weapons project OTL in any time frame for a system of such size? I cannot find any proposals for any rotary cannon/mount design in any timespan, though I have seen some 35mm/37mm varieties. It's too small for a VT fuse in the time frame at hand, so it would be limited the same as a Bofors. At best, one of these mounts would be the same as a quad 40mm mount with roughly half again the RoF, but on top of mechanical complexity.

-

How does any of this relate to the PoD in question, though?
 
Which was the line of thought at the time - torpedo protection only became more important after the start of the war, and protection from aircraft received the attention first. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the naval engagements through the start of the war were settled with gunfire - when was the first offensive sinking of a vessel by torpedo (vs scuttling)? I believe it was at Narvik, and that was a destroyer, which conflates with expectations. If the bill is being authorized in 39, there wouldn't be much experience to lead to a design choice based on that alone, certainly no more than OTL.

I already explained once, so I will reiterate. These USN garbage decisions were based not on total US naval experience and good battle analysis, but on the idiotic conclusions that flowed from a series of combats in the North Sea and Falklands by two navies' results, two navies that seemed to have lost their collective marbles and lost sight of the overall historical lessons of naval warfare. Narvik and the other RN idiocies that comprised the Norway campaign are post facto, by the way.

The main course of naval combat among steel hulled navies up to 1938, showed two things. Gunfire punches holes in ships above the water-line. Torpedoes SINK them. You want to kill a ship, you torpedo it. Open holes below the waterline. Therefore float bubble is more important than armor.

Which doesn't fix a compromised design, which the OTL 8000 ton cruiser was. It shoved 5 mounts that were 25% heavier than the Brooklyn, roughly, removed secondaries and added two sets of triple tubes.

What did I write about the Atlantas? TOUGH ships; practically no armor, really oversized destroyers, but heavily compartmentalized with good float bubbles.

Isn't that also stating that the planned engagement range for combat should be reduced to knife fighting range, then, rather than standoff range where secondary engagements would be minimized? What would be the PoD in the proposed time frame to change the General Board's design scheme to focus on close range combat?

Since naval geography *(where you think you are going to fight) dictates combat tactics as well as op-art...

p_010.jpg


That is crowded, island infested ocean, very like the Mediterranean Sea. Guess what kind of sea fights the Italians and Austrians fought in WW I? Knife fights with fast attack torpedo craft. Lots of subs, lots of PT action, mines, the kind of warfare the USN will find it fights in the SW Pacific. In that case, a 10,000 tonne Northampton or Myoko is an expensive liability. The destroyers are too short endurance and not AAA adequate. Guess what is left? Better start thinking about the Spanaw and what worked in those waters in 1898, General Board.

American designs removed torpedoes from warships due to threat of explosion as it stood - the only ones that retained torpedoes through the war were the ones that served as destroyer flagships, as it were (Omaha and Atlanta). Why bother adding torpedoes to cruisers designed to engage at long range when you already have destroyers with mounts similar to/identical to proposed? Especially considering the amount of damage taken to the superstructure in close range.

The IJN kept theirs and look at the results. You need to think about what you are trying to do.

Is there any comparable weapons project OTL in any time frame for a system of such size? I cannot find any proposals for any rotary cannon/mount design in any timespan, though I have seen some 35mm/37mm varieties. It's too small for a VT fuse in the time frame at hand, so it would be limited the same as a Bofors. At best, one of these mounts would be the same as a quad 40mm mount with roughly half again the RoF, but on top of mechanical complexity.

1280px-Hotchkiss_canon_revolver_before_1923.jpg


You extrapolate.

In addition, since the Gatling auto cannon would be sawing the sky with a stream of projectiles, who needs proximity or timed fuse detonators? This is a HIT TO KILL shell.
How does any of this relate to the PoD in question, though?

One of the things you want to think about when Congress hands you a bag of money is; "I've got this bag of money, what do I spend it on?"

William_Leahy_cropped.jpg


He chose "poorly". In fact I dislike him for the USN almost as much as I excoriate Brereton for being an air force foul-up. He effed up everything he touched. The Navy Two Ocean Bill was just one of his many many mistakes.

If both of them had been killed, early in their careers, before they did the harm they did, the Americans would not have been as fouled up. It was not just the Soviet Union who had their "politicals" like Grigory Kulik.

If I wanted input on the Two Ocean Bill I would have liked to build a fleet train, larger ocean going destroyers and more of them, a cheap mass-produce capable ASW escort. I would have wanted LIVE weapon testing to make sure what I HAD, worked. I would have tried for that kind of light cruiser. Fixed the USNAS. Put the fleet through realistic combat training. Performed an officer review like Marshal did for the army and get rid of the Charles Pownall, Miles Browning and Marc Mitscher idiots before the balloon goes up. Organize a strategic submarine striking force with a battle staff, similar to the fleet ones in existence. At least scouted out and prepared Australia as a future base instead of coming to Oz cold turkey. These things for which I would have traded every old battleship and half the new ones if I needed more money. And on top of that I would have run the fleet at sea in war conditions until saltwater bled out of the bluejacket's eyes. Night-fighting drills? You better believe it. I would out Japanese the Japanese in training until my fleet was ready for Kula Gulf, Vella Lavella and some of those other OJT exercises that killed so many US bluejackets.

I would even do flour bag bombing for real in flattop vs flattop duels until my air staffs could launch alpha strikes and do recon/strike ATOs in their sleep and hang the casualties. Bleed in peace, enemy dies instead of you in war.

Battleships pfui!

McP.
 
Which doesn't fix a compromised design, which the OTL 8000 ton cruiser was. It shoved 5 mounts that were 25% heavier than the Brooklyn, roughly, removed secondaries and added two sets of triple tubes.

One more specific comment. I have no trouble foregoing the semi-auto being proposed and still sticking with the older Brooklyn mounts to save weight. It is not speed of cyclic but accuracy which is needed. More attention to fire control and maybe allocating more tonnes to that purpose is needed, not a faster load time.
 
What the hello made the USN think WW I was normal? It was an aberration.

In fairness, that is a lot easier to see now than it was in the 20's and 30's, isn't it?

The Great War was so great that it had quickly become the only possible frame of reference for military planners. I shudder to think how many times Jutland was replayed at Annapolis and the Naval War College, let alone the fleet exercises.
 
In fairness, that is a lot easier to see now than it was in the 20's and 30's, isn't it?

The Great War was so great that it had quickly become the only possible frame of reference for military planners. I shudder to think how many times Jutland was replayed at Annapolis and the Naval War College, let alone the fleet exercises.
On the upside the USN learned and modernized the Imperial German Navy damage control doctrine because of Jutland which has served it rather well
 
Last edited:
Top