An extra Yorktown in 41 is worth 2 Essex in 43

[Cryhavoc101]

There has been quite a few Pacific war based threads recently and this got me thinking

The Essex class CVs were laid down from Mid 1941 with the first joining the fleet in late May 43 and conducting her first mission in late Aug 43 (USS Essex CV-9)

Now I am an admirer of the Essex class but I cannot escape the fact that they were nearly 2 years late to the 'war' as far as the USN is concerned.

Given that for part of 1943 the USN in the Pacific was reliant on just 2 Fleet carriers and one of them was the "USS Robin"

Now what if the US like the UK decided to lay down new build carriers in 1937 as the treaty lapsed or even 1938

These would not obviously be Essex class (it would take several more years and operational experience before the design was finalised) - more likely they would be an improved Yorktown Sub Class - a 'Fat Yorktown' if you will somewhat freed of the treaty limitations but using an existing design for expediency.

Is this possible - could the US navy have had 3 or 4 more Yorktowns in service or in the process of Working up in 1941 and if so what differences would that have made to events in the pacific and elsewhere.

Would their have been enough aircraft to go round these and the OTL carriers?

 

[Saphroneth]

In all honesty it might butterfly the Pacific War entirely, it's no accident that the Japanese attacked the moment they had six fleet carriers plus sundry smaller ones to the US six fleets plus Ranger and Langley.

 

[Driftless]

These would not obviously be Essex class (it would take several more years and operational experience before the design was finalised) - more likely they would be an improved Yorktown Sub Class - a 'Fat Yorktown' if you will somewhat freed of the treaty limitations but using an existing design for expediency.

What specs do you see for a "Fat Yorktown"? Considering both the desire for a shorter build time and for operational use.

OTL Yorktown CV-5

General characteristics
Class and type: Yorktown-class aircraft carrier
Type: Aircraft carrier
Displacement: As built:
19,800 long tons (20,100 t) light
25,500 long tons (25,900 t) full load

Length: As built: 770 ft (230 m) (waterline @ design draft)
824 ft 9 in (251.38 m) overall

Beam: As built: 83 ft 3 in (25.37 m) (waterline)
109 ft 6 in (33.38 m) (overall)

Draft: 25 ft 11.5 in (7.912 m) (as built)

Propulsion: 9 × Babcock & Wilcox boilers,
4 × Parsons geared turbines,
120,000 shp (89 MW)
4 × screws
Speed: 32.5 knots (37.4 mph; 60.2 km/h)
Range: 12,500 nautical miles (23,200 km; 14,400 mi) at 15 knots (17 mph; 28 km/h)

Complement: 2,217 officers and men (1941)

Sensors and processing systems: CXAM radar from 1940[1]

Armament: As built:
8 × single 5 in/38 cal guns
4 × quad 1.1 in/75 cal guns
24 × .50 caliber machine guns

Armor: As built:
2.5-4 inch belt
60 lb protective decks
4 inch bulkheads
4 inch side and 3 inch top round conning tower
4 inch side over steering gear

Aircraft carried: As built:
90 aircraft
3 × elevators
2 × flight deck hydraulic catapults
1 × hangar deck hydraulic catapul

 

[deathscompanion1]

In all honesty it might butterfly the Pacific War entirely, it's no accident that the Japanese attacked the moment they had six fleet carriers plus sundry smaller ones to the US six fleets plus Ranger and Langley.

Maybe in order to work out any remaining kinks and brow beat Congress into rearming early it will still be working up in '41? The Japanese were masters at the art of deception and would doubtless use it well in hiding the true reality of the situation so that it appeared that the Americans didn't really have seven or eight fleet carriers but rather only six because they would only ever send the required amount to be destroyed in the decisive battle.


If it is really a problem they could always reduce the effectiveness allowed in war games so that everything goes as it should do.


... how did the two greatest powers in the world get their asses handed to them for a year by these people?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The USS Wasp wasn't nearly as useful as she should have been, due to the smaller size, lack of protection, etc.

What if the Wasp is delayed for a year or so (her keel was laid in '36, and the Naval Treaties ran out in '37).

So, effectively the Wasp is started after the treaties expire, and is built as a full sized Yorktown class. Then the Hornet (say) is built on about OTL's schedule.

But, ja. Getting another Yorktown laid down and built fast would be a good idea.

Hmmm.... Naval appropriations act of '38 that authorized both the Hornet and the Essex, what if it authorizes 2 Yorktowns (instead of just the Hornet) and the Essex?

 

[Zheng He]

The USS Wasp wasn't nearly as useful as she should have been, due to the smaller size, lack of protection, etc.

What if the Wasp is delayed for a year or so (her keel was laid in '36, and the Naval Treaties ran out in '37).

So, effectively the Wasp is started after the treaties expire, and is built as a full sized Yorktown class. Then the Hornet (say) is built on about OTL's schedule.

But, ja. Getting another Yorktown laid down and built fast would be a good idea.

Hmmm.... Naval appropriations act of '38 that authorized both the Hornet and the Essex, what if it authorizes 2 Yorktowns (instead of just the Hornet) and the Essex?

In fairness to USS WASP, she didn't get a chance to be useful as she got blown out of the water after only about a month of action in the Pacific. Also, I do not think the lack of protection is what killed her. She got hit by three torpedoes in quick succession while conducting flight operations with fuel lines full. IMO any WWII carrier hit by that salvo of torpedoes in that state of vulnerability is going to die.

 

[Zheng He]

There has been quite a few Pacific war based threads recently and this got me thinking

The Essex class CVs were laid down from Mid 1941 with the first joining the fleet in late May 43 and conducting her first mission in late Aug 43 (USS Essex CV-9)

Now I am an admirer of the Essex class but I cannot escape the fact that they were nearly 2 years late to the 'war' as far as the USN is concerned.

Given that for part of 1943 the USN in the Pacific was reliant on just 2 Fleet carriers and one of them was the "USS Robin"

Now what if the US like the UK decided to lay down new build carriers in 1937 as the treaty lapsed or even 1938

These would not obviously be Essex class (it would take several more years and operational experience before the design was finalised) - more likely they would be an improved Yorktown Sub Class - a 'Fat Yorktown' if you will somewhat freed of the treaty limitations but using an existing design for expediency.

Is this possible - could the US navy have had 3 or 4 more Yorktowns in service or in the process of Working up in 1941 and if so what differences would that have made to events in the pacific and elsewhere.

Would their have been enough aircraft to go round these and the OTL carriers?

An extra Y-TOWN certainly would have been useful but keep in mind depending on when she is finished, what if she is in Pearl on December 7th?

One way the US could get more carriers earlier is to not build a couple of the new battleships. Maybe carriers instead of INDIANA and MASSACHUSETTS?

Also, keep in the mind that the lack of carriers in mid-43 is a bit of an artificiality. If the need had existed Nimitz could have rushed some of the new carriers south, say ESSEX, YORKTOWN, INDY, and PRINCETON or something like that. The need just wasn't there. Most of what was being done in SOPAC could be covered by land based air so Nimitz could afford to husband his resources and work on first training and then the makee-learnee raids.

 

[Andras]

There has been quite a few Pacific war based threads recently and this got me thinking

The Essex class CVs were laid down from Mid 1941 with the first joining the fleet in late May 43 and conducting her first mission in late Aug 43 (USS Essex CV-9)

Now I am an admirer of the Essex class but I cannot escape the fact that they were nearly 2 years late to the 'war' as far as the USN is concerned.

Given that for part of 1943 the USN in the Pacific was reliant on just 2 Fleet carriers and one of them was the "USS Robin"

Now what if the US like the UK decided to lay down new build carriers in 1937 as the treaty lapsed or even 1938

These would not obviously be Essex class (it would take several more years and operational experience before the design was finalised) - more likely they would be an improved Yorktown Sub Class - a 'Fat Yorktown' if you will somewhat freed of the treaty limitations but using an existing design for expediency.

Is this possible - could the US navy have had 3 or 4 more Yorktowns in service or in the process of Working up in 1941 and if so what differences would that have made to events in the pacific and elsewhere.

Would their have been enough aircraft to go round these and the OTL carriers?

Hornet and Essex were ordered after the Treaty was abrogated in 1937.

Instead of waiting for the Essex plans to be finalized, they could have ordered both as repeat Yorktowns instead of one and the future Essex in 1937 to counter Shokaku and Zuikaku.

That would give you Lex/Sara; Ranger/Wasp; and 4 Yorktowns in total delivered before 1941. 6 Fleet carriers, and 2 smaller ones.

Another thought was w/i the USN went for three 23,000t (treaty max) for their 69,000 tons left over for treaty carriers instead of R/Y/E. When the Treaty goes away in 1937, order two more (H/W) for delivery before 1941. Then you can begin your Essex program with Essex laid in late 40 as soon as H comes off the ways.

That gets you two 33kt and five 23kt* fleet carriers at the beginning of 1941.

If they don't have the smaller fleet carriers you may see some early CVE conversions to provide ASW support in the Atlantic, 4 in 1940 and 4 in 1941 is easy to accommodate. Use the French ordered F4Fs, Helldivers and SBDs for their aircraft. For training and ASW patrols, they will be sufficient.
4 Bogues: 9 F4F-3, 12 SBC Helldivers
4 Sangamons: 9 F4F-3, 21 SBD-2
72 F4F-3, 48 Helldivers, 84 SBD-2

That would be 7 fleet and 8 CVEs near the end of 41.




*The older carriers can be run through drydock and given anti-torpdo bulges during this period also. Enterprise was pushing 30kt by the end of the war due to her upgrades and rebuilds. H/W can come off of the ways with the bulges already in place. L/S needed to have their armament revamped and the aft elevator enlarged along with the bulges.


see also
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=347645
and
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=306640

One way the US could get more carriers earlier is to not build a couple of the new battleships. Maybe carriers instead of INDIANA and MASSACHUSETTS?

.

If you are willing to let the second pair of Iowas (and the Alaskas) be cancelled, you can get an amazing amount of Essex hulls into commission by 1945, basically the entire lot of 32, not just 14.

 

[MattII]

Japan announced they were going to abrogate the treaty in December 1934, so there's really no reason Wasp couldn't have been laid down as a Yorktown class, if they'd only waited another 9 months. Alternatively, she could have been laid down as an improved version of Ranger, and a prototype for a new class of light fleet carriers, as opposed to the full-sized fleet carriers that would be the Essexes. There was really no call to lay her down as under-powered, under-armoured Yorktown.

 

[usertron2020]

In all honesty it might butterfly the Pacific War entirely, it's no accident that the Japanese attacked the moment they had six fleet carriers plus sundry smaller ones to the US six fleets plus Ranger and Langley.

The USN was never going to use the difficult to manage, unprotected, slightly less than fleet-speed, and highly combustible Ranger in combat where it could face enemy air or surface power, and the Langley had already been converted to a seaplane tender with half her flight deck removed.

An extra Y-TOWN certainly would have been useful but keep in mind depending on when she is finished, what if she is in Pearl on December 7th?

Kimmel had his carriers going dazzle-dazzle all over the Pacific delivering fighters to remote outposts. An extra carrier means more planes at Wake and Midway, not a carrier sitting in Pearl. Not on a Sunday.

One way the US could get more carriers earlier is to not build a couple of the new battleships. Maybe carriers instead of INDIANA and MASSACHUSETTS?

Before or after the pre-Pearl Harbor Black Shoe Navy hangs you for treason?

Also, keep in the mind that the lack of carriers in mid-43 is a bit of an artificiality. If the need had existed Nimitz could have rushed some of the new carriers south, say ESSEX, YORKTOWN, INDY, and PRINCETON or something like that. The need just wasn't there. Most of what was being done in SOPAC could be covered by land based air so Nimitz could afford to husband his resources and work on first training and then the makee-learnee raids.

There is that. While Coral Sea, Midway, and the Solomons had bled out much of the carrier strength in the US Navy, Japan's situation with carriers, aircraft, and pilots were beyond critical. It wasn't like the IJN & IJA could field a credible threat to the Allies by this time.

Hornet and Essex were ordered after the Treaty was abrogated in 1937.

Instead of waiting for the Essex plans to be finalized, they could have ordered both as repeat Yorktowns instead of one and the future Essex in 1937 to counter Shokaku and Zuikaku.

That would give you Lex/Sara; Ranger/Wasp; and 4 Yorktowns in total delivered before 1941. 6 Fleet carriers, and 2 smaller ones.

IDK, if you are abrogating the treaties too why build the Wasp over another Yorktown? The only reason the Wasp was built was to keep within artificial treaty limitations. Can anyone really imagine for example the Nelson-class being built as was were it not for keeping within the inter-war battleship limits?

Another thought was w/i the USN went for three 23,000t (treaty max) for their 69,000 tons left over for treaty carriers instead of R/Y/E. When the Treaty goes away in 1937, order two more (H/W) for delivery before 1941. Then you can begin your Essex program with Essex laid in late 40 as soon as H comes off the ways.

That gets you two 33kt and five 23kt* fleet carriers at the beginning of 1941.

Again, IDK. Too much concentration on naval air power pre-PH IMO. Then again, the Japanese were going for the marbles with their carrier force too, so....

If they don't have the smaller fleet carriers you may see some early CVE conversions to provide ASW support in the Atlantic, 4 in 1940 and 4 in 1941 is easy to accommodate. Use the French ordered F4Fs, Helldivers and SBDs for their aircraft. For training and ASW patrols, they will be sufficient.
4 Bogues: 9 F4F-3, 12 SBC Helldivers
4 Sangamons: 9 F4F-3, 21 SBD-2
72 F4F-3, 48 Helldivers, 84 SBD-2

That would be 7 fleet and 8 CVEs near the end of 41.

Interesting. It was only the counsel of desperation that led the USN to go for the Independence class CVLs. Generally speaking, when the US Navy wanted something, they wanted them big. Not referring to CVEs, tho.

*The older carriers can be run through drydock and given anti-torpdo bulges during this period also. Enterprise was pushing 30kt by the end of the war due to her upgrades and rebuilds. H/W can come off of the ways with the bulges already in place. L/S needed to have their armament revamped and the aft elevator enlarged along with the bulges.

Yeah, but the SARAs will always have their issues with age, handling, wear and tear, obsolescence, and those damned vulnerable turbine engines.

If you are willing to let the second pair of Iowas (and the Alaskas) be cancelled, you can get an amazing amount of Essex hulls into commission by 1945, basically the entire lot of 32, not just 14.

Those IOWAs really were needed with the start of the kamikaze threat, and as to the ALASKAs every country has to learn the hard lesson of the stupidity of "battlecruisers" *BOOM* for themselves. They just can't learn from other people's mistakes.

Japan announced they were going to abrogate the treaty in December 1934, so there's really no reason Wasp couldn't have been laid down as a Yorktown class, if they'd only waited another 9 months. Alternatively, she could have been laid down as an improved version of Ranger

There is no improving a Ranger. If you improve it enough to be a good ship, its not a Ranger.

and a prototype for a new class of light fleet carriers, as opposed to the full-sized fleet carriers that would be the Essexes. There was really no call to lay her down as under-powered, under-armoured Yorktown.

All good ideas, but would you really get CVLs ordered this early and pre-PH?

 

[Saphroneth]

Oh, I certainly agree Ranger and Langley aren't worth counting, but if you want to mention the Japanese CVLs (which weren't much cop) then you have to mention Ranger and Langley too because they're vaguely similar (crap; small; best kept away from flammable things like bombs)

 

[Just Leo]

Having more decks early sure would be handy, but one thing you could say about the 1943 Essex was that she carried the brand new F6F Hellcat. As the pointed end of the carrier's stick, the aircraft complement was a significant factor in a carrier's potency, and a large factor in Japan's defeat.

 

[MattII]

There is no improving a Ranger. If you improve it enough to be a good ship, its not a Ranger.

Okay, so a good ship of about Ranger's displacement.

All good ideas, but would you really get CVLs ordered this early and pre-PH?

I don't know, maybe as a convoy escort? Alternatively, maybe as a delivery craft so you don't have to send your main fleets on those sorts of missions?

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I've always wondered of a POD where FDR starts laying down 4 more Yorktown's (and a few battleships) about spring 1936, explaining that the WNT is already dead (between Japanese, German, and Italian militarism- his speechwriters can fix it), but saying America will only build to a one to one replacement. Gets rid of the weak Ranger (keep her as a training carrier?).

 

[GTStinger]

If you want a completely offbeat POD for an extra carrier......

USS Washington (BB-47) was 75% complete when the WNT was passed. Eventually she was sunk for target practice in 1924.

POD: USS Washington gets converted in the mid 20's to a huge seaplane tender/repair ship/oiler/transport with the contingency that a flight deck could be added later. Think an earlier version of Shinano but with no capability to launch aircraft.
Probably ASB since the navy wouldn't want to devote that much crew to a huge support ship. But it is a way to get another fleet carrier by 1941.

 

[usertron2020]

If you want a completely offbeat POD for an extra carrier......

USS Washington (BB-47) was 75% complete when the WNT was passed. Eventually she was sunk for target practice in 1924.

POD: USS Washington gets converted in the mid 20's to a huge seaplane tender/repair ship/oiler/transport with the contingency that a flight deck could be added later. Think an earlier version of Shinano but with no capability to launch aircraft.
Probably ASB since the navy wouldn't want to devote that much crew to a huge support ship. But it is a way to get another fleet carrier by 1941.

slow-slow-slow

 

[Saphroneth]

slow-slow-slow

Still means that a carrier group can be in operation for longer, if it carries spares. Think of it as like HMS Unicorn.

 

[GTStinger]

Yep, size of a fleet carrier, speed of an escort carrier. It would probably maneuver with the old battleships.
Might have spent her time in the Atlantic with Ranger.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Forgive me if this repeats points that have already been made.

Although the Washington and 1st London Treaties expired in 1937 it appears that the US Navy was still limited to 135,000 tons of aircraft carriers under US Law and that would explain why Wasp was built as a 14,700 ton ship instead of to the Yorktown design. I don't recall the year but Congress had to authorise an increase of 40,000 tons to allow two ships to be built in reply to the Japanese Shokaku and Zuikaku ordered in 1937. The ships built were Hornet and Essex.

Hornet was ordered in FY1939 as a repeat Yorktown precisely so that it could be put into service faster than a new design. The new design evolved into the Essex class and wasn't ready until after World War II had broken out. That is why Congress authorised the building of 11 Essex class in the Two Ocean Navy Programme authorised in FY1940.

Therefore it's perfectly feasible to order 2 repeat Yorktowns in FY1939 and have the second one completed at the end of 1941 (Essex was completed on the last day of 1942). She should be ready to fight at the Coral Sea or Midway at the latest.

And if Congress can be persuaded to increase the carrier tonnage by another 5,000 tons in 1937 they can build Wasp to the Yorktown design, but she will still sink when the torpedoes hit her. There was a thread on that a few months ago and the conclusion was that if not sunk outright it would not be possible to tow her back to a friendly port.

 

[GTStinger]

Still means that a carrier group can be in operation for longer, if it carries spares. Think of it as like HMS Unicorn.

Neat. I had never read about HMS Unicorn before.