An extra Yorktown in 41 is worth 2 Essex in 43

Interesting musings NOMISYRRUC, now as to the other side of the coin, how do the japanese react to Constellation &co plus the aviation increase? Can they push earlier some of the shadow conversions, order more planes like B5N2 (which was historically produced only up to August 1941 at Nakajima, the production stop being cause of sever OTL kanko shortages in 1942; production only restarted in spring 1942 at Aichi and then Hiro)? Or maybe they cancel one of the Yamatos of Maru 4 keikaku and build a proper carrier instead?! (or so i wish)

Btw, regarding the premise of CV-9 Constellation, the stronger reaction to Panay incident does it include an oil embargo?

To answer your questions in reverse order.

No it doesn't include an oil embargo. If it did the Japanese would have to back down or start the Pacific War 3-4 years earlier and I don't want that to happen because it would void the thread.

Having said that I read in one book about World War II that the oil embargo was included in the 1941 sanctions package by mistake! Is that true?

To answer the first part of the question I don't know. I interpreted the question as the Americans have one extra aircraft carrier in 1941, but the Japanese have the same number of ships. I think the Japanese should have done some of the things you suggested regardless of what the Americans did, plus some things that you haven't suggested. One of which is that Hiyo and Junyo should have been built as Shokaku class carriers. If the contracts are taken over in 1938 instead of 1940 as in OTL that might be possible.

However, Congress increased the aircraft carrier force from 135,000 tons to 175,000 tons in 1938 as a reaction to Japan ordering Zuikaku and Shokaku in 1937. If the Japanese had built 4 aircraft carriers in 1937 instead of 2 aircraft carriers and 2 battleships the Americans would have replied by increasing the aircraft carrier tonnage by 80,000 tons in 1938 and ordering 4 Yorktowns instead of one in the real world and two ITTL. In 1938 the USA probably had the resources to complete 4 Yorktowns by the end of 1941 without building fewer battleships and cruisers.

Furthermore if the Americans find out that the two large liners being built for the Japanese are actually fleet carriers they might respond by starting to build the Two Ocean Navy one or even two years earlier.

The other things I would have done to make Japan better prepared include having the IJN expand is aircrew training programme, build more merchant ships before 1941 and reorganise the shipbuilding industry for the mass production of merchant ships and convoy escorts after war breaks out. However, these preparations enable Japan to fight a long war more effectively. This is not so that they can win a long war, they can't. However, it might create a stalemate that lasts long enough for the American public to tire of the war and force the US Government to make a negotiated compromise peace.
 
According to Antony Preston - the USN on the morning of that fateful day in Dec 41 had

16 BB, + 16 Building

7 CV + 11 Building

18 CC + 8 Building

19 CL + 32 Building

4 CLAA (not yet commissioned at this time) + 2 Building

171 DDs of which 99 would be considered "modern fleet destroyers" - Starting with the Farragut class (1934) and beyond - another 188 DD were building

So even without extra ships being authorised that's still a lot of ships

Yes, but most of the ships that were "building" had been ordered in FY1940 and FY1941 so they would not be in service until 1943 at the earliest and as others have pointed out many of them hadn't been laid down yet.

That's partially why the Japanese started the war when they did. They had to strike before America's numerical superiority became overwhelming.

However, the ships I am taking about were ordered in FY1939 (i.e. between 01.07.38 and 30.06.39) which is enough time for the Americans to complete them in time to take part in the Coral Sea and Midway.

This applies especially to the destroyers, to paraphrase the proverb (and the tile of the thread), 12 destroyers in the fleet are worth 188 in the shipyard.

And although the USN had 171 Destroyers at the outbreak of the Pacific War a small relatively small number was available to screen the aircraft carriers at the Coral Sea and Midway.

I said that the USN ordered 4 Brooklyn class cruisers in 1939 for the same reason that Hornet was built to the Yorktown design, i.e. that it was quicker to build an existing design than a new one. However, nobody pointed out that they broke the 1936 London Naval Treaty because they displaced more than 8,000 tons. Therefore they would have had to build 4 Atlantas instead.
 
However, the ships I am taking about were ordered in FY1939 (i.e. between 01.07.38 and 30.06.39) which is enough time for the Americans to complete them in time to take part in the Coral Sea and Midway.
...
I said that the USN ordered 4 Brooklyn class cruisers in 1939 for the same reason that Hornet was built to the Yorktown design, i.e. that it was quicker to build an existing design than a new one. However, nobody pointed out that they broke the 1936 London Naval Treaty because they displaced more than 8,000 tons. Therefore they would have had to build 4 Atlantas instead.


The Clevelands were ordered beginning in 1938 so the treaty is not going to stand in the way of ordering more of the St Louis subclass (4 twin 5" mounts, better machinery) of Brooklyns.

[Capital] Ships ordered in 1939 will not be laid much before 1941, and likely won't be commissioned before 1943.
 
Last edited:
The Clevelands were ordered beginning in 1938 so the treaty is not going to stand in the way of ordering more of the St Louis subclass (4 twin 5" mounts, better machinery) of Brooklyns.

Ships ordered in 1939 will not be laid much before 1941, and likely won't be commissioned before 1943.

The Clevelands were originally an 8,000 ton design, which was enlarged after the outbreak of World War II killed the 1936 London Treaty.

Hornet was ordered in FY1939 and completed before then end of 1941. Therefore I don't see why cruisers and destroyers ordered in the same financial year as Hornet can't be completed by the end of 1941.
 
Yes, but most of the ships that were "building" had been ordered in FY1940 and FY1941 so they would not be in service until 1943 at the earliest and as others have pointed out many of them hadn't been laid down yet.

That's partially why the Japanese started the war when they did. They had to strike before America's numerical superiority became overwhelming.

However, the ships I am taking about were ordered in FY1939 (i.e. between 01.07.38 and 30.06.39) which is enough time for the Americans to complete them in time to take part in the Coral Sea and Midway.

This applies especially to the destroyers, to paraphrase the proverb (and the tile of the thread), 12 destroyers in the fleet are worth 188 in the shipyard.

And although the USN had 171 Destroyers at the outbreak of the Pacific War a small relatively small number was available to screen the aircraft carriers at the Coral Sea and Midway.

I said that the USN ordered 4 Brooklyn class cruisers in 1939 for the same reason that Hornet was built to the Yorktown design, i.e. that it was quicker to build an existing design than a new one. However, nobody pointed out that they broke the 1936 London Naval Treaty because they displaced more than 8,000 tons. Therefore they would have had to build 4 Atlantas instead.

So 12 additional Benson class rather than 'repeat' them later

These original 6 ships were authorised in 1938 (laid down in 38 all commissioned in 1940) with the additional 24 authorised in 1941 and all but the last 2 commissioned during 1942.

So perhaps 6 Ships authorised as per OTL and an additional 12 additional vessels tagged on in 1939 and laid down in 1940 with the additional 12 repeats laid down as soon as they are launched and those last 12 effectively launched as per OTL

Perhaps with the additional Destroyers planned more of the Atlanta CL 'Destroyer Flotilla leaders' are ordered as well but realistically I cannot see this being more than 2 - so 6 originals and 4 repeats
 
The Clevelands were originally an 8,000 ton design, which was enlarged after the outbreak of World War II killed the 1936 London Treaty.

I didn't know that, thanks

Hornet was ordered in FY1939 and completed before then end of 1941. Therefore I don't see why cruisers and destroyers ordered in the same financial year as Hornet can't be completed by the end of 1941.

Carriers have no heavy armor or heavy guns. The carriers only took about around 1 year to launch and 3-6 months to commission. CVs 13 and 14 were commissioned in 13 and 14 months respectively.

Once a cruiser hull is launched it takes a much longer time to outfit it and commission the ship compared to a carrier.

The first four Clevelands averaged 22.25 months to go from keel to commission. The first 5 Essex CVs (excepting CV12 due to interrupted work) averaged 16.6 months.

Even once a ship is commissioned it still takes roughly 6 more months for working up and transit to the combat zone.
 
To answer your questions in reverse order.

No it doesn't include an oil embargo. If it did the Japanese would have to back down or start the Pacific War 3-4 years earlier and I don't want that to happen because it would void the thread.

Having said that I read in one book about World War II that the oil embargo was included in the 1941 sanctions package by mistake! Is that true?

To answer the first part of the question I don't know. I interpreted the question as the Americans have one extra aircraft carrier in 1941, but the Japanese have the same number of ships. I think the Japanese should have done some of the things you suggested regardless of what the Americans did, plus some things that you haven't suggested. One of which is that Hiyo and Junyo should have been built as Shokaku class carriers. If the contracts are taken over in 1938 instead of 1940 as in OTL that might be possible.

However, Congress increased the aircraft carrier force from 135,000 tons to 175,000 tons in 1938 as a reaction to Japan ordering Zuikaku and Shokaku in 1937. If the Japanese had built 4 aircraft carriers in 1937 instead of 2 aircraft carriers and 2 battleships the Americans would have replied by increasing the aircraft carrier tonnage by 80,000 tons in 1938 and ordering 4 Yorktowns instead of one in the real world and two ITTL. In 1938 the USA probably had the resources to complete 4 Yorktowns by the end of 1941 without building fewer battleships and cruisers.

Furthermore if the Americans find out that the two large liners being built for the Japanese are actually fleet carriers they might respond by starting to build the Two Ocean Navy one or even two years earlier.

The other things I would have done to make Japan better prepared include having the IJN expand is aircrew training programme, build more merchant ships before 1941 and reorganise the shipbuilding industry for the mass production of merchant ships and convoy escorts after war breaks out. However, these preparations enable Japan to fight a long war more effectively. This is not so that they can win a long war, they can't. However, it might create a stalemate that lasts long enough for the American public to tire of the war and force the US Government to make a negotiated compromise peace.

Thank you for your insight. A few more things.

How good was really the US intelligence about IJN, it's ships and japanese warship construction in those years? Did they really had solid info as to what they are building? Off the top of my head i read somewhere that they thought the japanese are building 4 or 5 "Chichibu" class battlecruisers, which led to the building of the Alaskas (which led to the japanese finding out about them and actually panning BCs of their own! the irony). Apparently the "Chichibu" refered to Shokaku hulls. Not to mention i just read a piece now from 1939 in which some US diplomatic report talks about four 40000 tons BBs to be completed by 1941 and another 4 by 1943 etc. (hope i'll find the link to it again)

They had little idea about the Yamatos, did they had any idea about the Shokakus, or they were just guesstimating? I have the feeling that they were overestimating the japanese warship construction numbers.

Oh and come to think of it, it is interesting to note what ONI thought of the japanese carrier forces as of early 1942, again overestimating it and talking about things like "Ryukaku" and "Koryu" and so on, and having an erroneous idea as to the newer ships' characteristics, this from J. Lundstrom's BSCA.

On another note, i'm trying to figure out the story with Junyo and Hiyo, were they really built on a military slip thus indeed blocking far more useful potential CVs being laid like you said - even two Hiryus would do nicely, never mind extra Shokakus- or were they built on civillian slips but were towed to and converted to CVs in military yards? There is the famous diagram of the japanese capital ships construction by shipyard, have to consult it again. Come to think of it more, from memory i think at least one of the Junyo was laid right after one of the Shokakus in the same slip, in which case yes, even if still in "peacetime" and with the benefit of hindsight that was a major dumb decision. You probably can have couple of 32 knot 17,500 tons Hiryus carrying 63 aircraft, powered by twin destroyer turbines in about the same timescale as the Junyos methinks!
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I know that the US believed there was a "Ryukaku" sister to Shokaku and Zuikaku, and they underestimated Yamato and her class pre-war...
 
Thank you for your insight. A few more things.

How good was really the US intelligence about IJN, it's ships and japanese warship construction in those years? Did they really had solid info as to what they are building? Off the top of my head i read somewhere that they thought the japanese are building 4 or 5 "Chichibu" class battlecruisers, which led to the building of the Alaskas (which led to the japanese finding out about them and actually panning BCs of their own! the irony). Apparently the "Chichibu" refered to Shokaku hulls. Not to mention i just read a piece now from 1939 in which some US diplomatic report talks about four 40000 tons BBs to be completed by 1941 and another 4 by 1943 etc. (hope i'll find the link to it again)

They had little idea about the Yamatos, did they had any idea about the Shokakus, or they were just guesstimating? I have the feeling that they were overestimating the japanese warship construction numbers.

Oh and come to think of it, it is interesting to note what ONI thought of the japanese carrier forces as of early 1942, again overestimating it and talking about things like "Ryukaku" and "Koryu" and so on, and having an erroneous idea as to the newer ships' characteristics, this from J. Lundstrom's BSCA.

On another note, i'm trying to figure out the story with Junyo and Hiyo, were they really built on a military slip thus indeed blocking far more useful potential CVs being laid like you said - even two Hiryus would do nicely, never mind extra Shokakus- or were they built on civillian slips but were towed to and converted to CVs in military yards? There is the famous diagram of the japanese capital ships construction by shipyard, have to consult it again. Come to think of it more, from memory i think at least one of the Junyo was laid right after one of the Shokakus in the same slip, in which case yes, even if still in "peacetime" and with the benefit of hindsight that was a major dumb decision. You probably can have couple of 32 knot 17,500 tons Hiryus carrying 63 aircraft, powered by twin destroyer turbines in about the same timescale as the Junyos methinks!

I have not got my copy of Conways out, but IIRC the liners that became Hiyo and Junyo were taken over by the IJN in the middle of 1940 after both had been laid down. Also IIRC one of them was built in the same yard as Zuikaku and 3 days after Zuikaku was launched, which suggests that she was laid down in the same birth.

Maybe the Japanese could lay them down as aircraft carriers in the first place, but say that they were passenger liners until mid 1940 when the IJN takes them over officially. US Naval Intelligence might be fooled or it might not. I simply don't know.

Though there is a story that the British Director of Naval Intelligence asked the Director of Naval Construction how the Japanese were able to build faster, heavier armed and better armoured ships than the British on the same displacement. The DNC replied that the Japanese were lying or building their ships from cardboard.

However, even if the Japanese do build 2 proper fleet carriers instead of Hiyo and Junyo only one of them is going to be ready for Midway and all other things being equal will be used for the Aleutians diversion. However, if the USN does have 6 carriers at Midway ITTL when the Japanese were expecting 2 IOTL they might have one big carrier striking force instead of one medium and one small force or call off the operation entirely.
 
The Clevelands were ordered beginning in 1938 so the treaty is not going to stand in the way of ordering more of the St Louis subclass (4 twin 5" mounts, better machinery) of Brooklyns.

Ships ordered in 1939 will not be laid much before 1941, and likely won't be commissioned before 1943.

I got my copy of Destroyers of World War II by M.J. Whitley out and did a spreadsheet. If his information is correct and I didn't make any typos I discovered the following:

8 Gleaves class destroyers were ordered in the real FY1938 programme and completed between 16/07/1940 and 15/04/1941.

8 Gleaves class destroyers were ordered in the real FY1939 programme and completed between 30/01/1941 and 17/07/1941.

204 destroyers were ordered in the real FY1940 programme and the first was completed on 22/10/1941 and a total of 3 had been completed by the time of Pearl Harbour.

Therefore the Americans could have ordered 12 additional destroyers in FY1939 and completed them in time to take part in the Coral Sea and Midway.
 
Last edited:
I got my copy of Destroyers of World War II by M.J. Whitley out and did a spreadsheet. If his information is correct and I didn't make any typos I discovered the following:

8 Gleaves class destroyers were ordered in the real FY1938 programme and completed between 16/07/1940 and 15/04/1941.

8 Gleaves class destroyers were ordered in the real FY1939 programme and completed between 30/01/1941 and 17/07/1941.

204 destroyers were ordered in the real FY1940 programme and the first was completed on 22/10/1941 and a total of 3 had been completed by the time of Pearl Harbour.

Therefore the Americans could have ordered 12 additional destroyers in FY1939 and completed them in time to take part in the Coral Sea and Midway.


I meant Capital Warships in the context of the discussion about cruisers and carriers.
 
I meant Capital Warships in the context of the discussion about cruisers and carriers.
I also wrote that I had changed my mind about ordering 4 Brooklyns as they displaced 10,000 tons and therefore would have broken the 1936 London Naval Treaty.

Therefore I wrote a follow-up post saying that 4 Atlantas were ordered instead.

According to US Warships of World War 2 by Paul H. Silverstone the first 4 Atlantas (CL51 to 54) were ordered in FY1938 and 46 cruisers (Hull Nos 55 to 100) were ordered in FY1940.

Jane's Fighting Ships 1939 and Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-46 agree that the CL51 to 54 were ordered in FY1938. But they say that CL55 and 56 were ordered in FY1939 to a design displacing 8,000 tons. However, Conway's goes on to say that the 8,000 ton design was to mount ten 6" in five twin DP mountings, but they were cancelled and re-ordered in FY1940 to the 10,000 ton design that was actually built. (The 8,000 ton design mounting five twin 6" DP turrets did not die and evolved into the Worcester class.)

Although they were ordered in FY1938 (which ended on 30th June 1938) CL51-54 were not laid down until March to May 1940. However, once they were laid down construction was rapid because they were launched between July and October 1941 and completed between December 1941 and February 1942. That is about 21 months each from laying down to completion.

CL55 to 58 (the first 4 Clevelands) were ordered in FY1940 (which ended on 30th June 1940). They were laid down between July and December 1940, launched between November 1941 and April 1942, and completed between June and October 1942. Again about 21 months each from laying down to completion.

That was what US Industry could do with its plentiful resources when it put its mind to it.

Therefore ITTL if Congress authorises CL55 to 58 in FY1939 as a repeat batch of Atlantas I think they can be laid down in the first half of 1940 along with the FY1938 ships and be completed in the first quarter of 1942, that is between 1st January 1942 and 31st March 1942. That will be just enough time to work them up and join the Pacific Fleet for the Battle of Midway.

The second batch of Atlantas IOTL CL95 to 98 would be ordered as Cleveland class ITTL. I would also like to make the final batch of 3 (CL119 to 121) additional Worcester class ships. IOTL they were laid down about 6 months before the Worcesters and the last Atlanta CL121 Frenso was actually laid down a month before CL144 Worcester.

Also I have now decided that the war scare that followed the Panay Incident led to 2 CV, 4 CL and 32 DD being ordered in FY1939, instead of 2 CV, 4 CL and 20 DD as I had written previously and 1 CV, 2 CL and 12 DD IOTL. However, "only" 180 DD are ordered in FY1940 instead of 204. The resources released from building 24 fewer Benson/Gleaves class destroyers in FY1940 would be used to accelerate the production of destroyer escorts and build a greater proportion of them to the full specification of 12,000 shp steam turbines for 24 knots and two single 5" DP guns.

The extra carrier, 4 extra cruisers and 24 extra destroyers can all be built to the timetable I have proposed because the US economy was not yet running at full capacity. The same should also be true for the extra first and second-line aircraft needed for Constellation's air group and my jiggery pokery that resulted in more Wildcats and Dauntlesses being built in place of the Buffalo and SBN-1.
 
Last edited:
I also wrote that I had changed my mind about ordering 4 Brooklyns as they displaced 10,000 tons and therefore would have broken the 1936 London Naval Treaty.

Therefore I wrote a follow-up post saying that 4 Atlantas were ordered instead.

According to US Warships of World War 2 by Paul H. Silverstone the first 4 Atlantas (CL51 to 54) were ordered in FY1938 and 46 cruisers (Hull Nos 55 to 100) were ordered in FY1940.

Jane's Fighting Ships 1939 and Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922-46 agree that the CL51 to 54 were ordered in FY1938. But they say that CL55 and 56 were ordered in FY1939 to a design displacing 8,000 tons. However, Conway's goes on to say that the 8,000 ton design was to mount ten 6" in five twin DP mountings, but they were cancelled and re-ordered in FY1940 to the 10,000 ton design that was actually built. (The 8,000 ton design mounting five twin 6" DP turrets did not die and evolved into the Worcester class.)

Although they were ordered in FY1938 (which ended on 30th June 1938) CL51-54 were not laid down until March to May 1940. However, once they were laid down construction was rapid because they were launched between July and October 1941 and completed between December 1941 and February 1942. That is about 21 months each from laying down to completion.

CL55 to 58 (the first 4 Clevelands) were ordered in FY1940 (which ended on 30th June 1938). They were laid down between July and December 1940, launched between November 1941 and April 1942, and completed between June and October 1942. Again about 21 months each from laying down to completion.

That was what US Industry could do with its plentiful resources when it put its mind to it.

Therefore ITTL if Congress authorises CL55 to 58 in FY1939 as a repeat batch of Atlantas I think they can be laid down in the first half of 1940 along with the FY1938 ships and be completed in the first quarter of 1942, that is between 1st January 1942 and 31st March 1942. That will be just enough time to work them up and join the Pacific Fleet for the Battle of Midway.

The second batch of Atlantas IOTL CL95 to 98 would be ordered as Cleveland class IOTL. I would also like to make the final batch of 3 (CL119 to 121) additional Worcester class ships. IOTL they were laid down about 6 months before the Worcesters and the last Atlanta CL121 Frenso was actually laid down a month before CL144 Worcester.

Also I have now decided that the war scare that followed the Panay Incident led to 2 CV, 4 CL and 32 DD being ordered in FY1939, instead of 2 CV, 4 CL and 20 DD as I had written previously and 1 CV, 2 CL and 12 DD IOTL. However, "only" 180 DD are ordered in FY1940 instead of 204. The resources released from building 24 fewer Benson/Gleaves class destroyers in FY1940 would be used to accelerate the production of destroyer escorts and build a greater proportion of them to the full specification of 12,000 shp steam turbines for 24 knots and two single 5" DP guns.

The extra carrier, 4 extra cruisers and 24 extra destroyers can all be built to the timetable I have proposed because the US economy was not yet running at full capacity. The same should also be true for the extra first and second-line aircraft needed for Constellation's air group and my jiggery pokery that resulted in more Wildcats and Dauntlesses being built in place of the Buffalo and SBN-1.

So with USS Wasp also being built as a proper Yorktown and USS Constellation being the 5th unit - the USN has 7 large Fleet carriers fully worked up by Early 42 with enough Escorts and Cruisers and aircraft to just about go around!
 
So with USS Wasp also being built as a proper Yorktown and USS Constellation being the 5th unit - the USN has 7 large Fleet carriers fully worked up by Early 42 with enough Escorts and Cruisers and aircraft to just about go around!

Not exactly. We had worked out that Wasp was built to the same design as the real world because the Panay Incident happened too late.

And 12 of the 24 extra destroyers are to screen Ranger and Wasp for their deployments to the Home Fleet and Force H in 1942.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
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?

We were distracted by this motherfucker:

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S33882_Adolf_Hitler_retouched-e1378954526244.jpg
 
I have not got my copy of Conways out, but IIRC the liners that became Hiyo and Junyo were taken over by the IJN in the middle of 1940 after both had been laid down. Also IIRC one of them was built in the same yard as Zuikaku and 3 days after Zuikaku was launched, which suggests that she was laid down in the same birth.

Maybe the Japanese could lay them down as aircraft carriers in the first place, but say that they were passenger liners until mid 1940 when the IJN takes them over officially. US Naval Intelligence might be fooled or it might not. I simply don't know.

Though there is a story that the British Director of Naval Intelligence asked the Director of Naval Construction how the Japanese were able to build faster, heavier armed and better armoured ships than the British on the same displacement. The DNC replied that the Japanese were lying or building their ships from cardboard.

However, even if the Japanese do build 2 proper fleet carriers instead of Hiyo and Junyo only one of them is going to be ready for Midway and all other things being equal will be used for the Aleutians diversion. However, if the USN does have 6 carriers at Midway ITTL when the Japanese were expecting 2 IOTL they might have one big carrier striking force instead of one medium and one small force or call off the operation entirely.

Speaking of Junyos and intelligence, in the "US aircraft carriers" book it is said that the US found out or (more likely) suspected the big japanese liners under construction since 1939 (soon to be Junyo and Hiyo) were planned to be converted to XCVs, which made them draw plans for even bigger and faster liners that would be converted to XCVs in wartime, the 41,000 tons P 4P project.
 
How much might things have changed if the US had atarted to build CVEs in 1940? How many could have been ready by Pearl Harbor?
 
Top