Best British interwar fleet?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Hood, Oct 19, 2019.

  1. Dorknought Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2018
    IIRC after negotiations and an honest appraisal of the figures they settled on 27 bombers to a battleship.

    The USAF tried a similar thing with the B2 vs the aircraft carrier. The Navy responded that carriers have recently been at several flashpoint around the globe while the B2 has appeared at some air shows.
     
    Decatur, CV(N)-6, SsgtC and 2 others like this.
  2. Belisarius II Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2019
    Your 100% correct. In 1945 Admiral King didn't want the RN to participate in the Battle of Okinawa, because they'd be dependent on USN logistics. The British Steel deck carriers took a terrible ponding from Kamikaze attacks, but held up well. Unfortunately the armored box created a blast Furness effect for hanger deck fires. No solution is perfect.
     
    SsgtC and WaterproofPotatoes like this.
  3. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    Which only really happened the one time and to Illustrious - and to be fair few comparable ships could have taken that many bombs and not have sunk or been TCL
     
  4. Belisarius II Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2019
    Has a navy man I can say the B-2's been a work horse for the West. They flew 2% of the missions in the Kosovo War, and hit 50% of the targets. On one mission a B-2 would carry 20 GPS guided 2,000lb bombs, and hit, and destroy 20 targets. American heavy bombers have provided the vast majority of bomb strikes in the Middle East Wars, and got little credit for it. The A-10 Warthog gets most of the glory for close air support, because of the 30mm gun, zzzzzz, really only effective against older tanks, while the B-1 Lancer has conducted more CAS missions then any other aircraft. The F-16 comes in second.

    In the ME Wars the carriers have had to operate at long range, depending on air force tankers to support their strike missions. They've certainly been doing their part though. An F-18 got the first American air to air kill, since the Kosovo War, shooting down a Syrian SU-22. Go Navy.
     
  5. CV12Hornet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    *scribbles notes*

    But what kind of battlecruisers, though. I'll concede that a mix of battlecruisers and additional small 8" cruisers to counter light cruisers seems to be the more logical path for Japan. What kind of battlecruiser, though, is a problem post-Kanto. Amagi-type ships are too expensive, both in general and to procure in the numbers needed. Anything smaller starts running into the problem of an unrestricted environment meaning Lexingtons running around that'll eat just about anything short of an Amagi for breakfast.
     
    SsgtC and WaterproofPotatoes like this.
  6. WaterproofPotatoes #TeamMahan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    That there is the rub- only something Amagi sized is going to be able to deal with a Lexington. Two Amagis aren't a lot though.

    A Kongo at night might get lucky, but that's not a good place to be in. I'd suggest that the Kongos get one rebuild instead of two, most importantly so they get increased gun elevation, bulging and lengthening, partial armour reworking, and all oil firing boilers and new geared turbines.

    What the IJN will want is a bigger leader for the new Fubuki class destroyers- something like a bigger Yubari or even a Furutaka or Mogami type cruiser, big enough to actually be stable.
     
    jsb likes this.
  7. CV12Hornet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    They have those, though. Aside from the 14 5500-tonners actually built, there were another 5 Sendais on order, and those were fast enough to act as leaders for the Fubukis, being designed for the 39-knot Minekazes. Firepower isn't great, but they'll brush aside most destroyers well into the 1930s. And while the 5500-tonners had their issues, stability generally wasn't one of them.

    You're also misunderstanding the role of the Furutakas and especially the Mogamis. Neither were DLs; the Furutakas were counter-scouts and the Mogamis heavy screen-punchers.
     
    Goldkingy, jsb, SsgtC and 1 other person like this.
  8. WaterproofPotatoes #TeamMahan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    I shouldn't phone post past bedtime :p

    I meant like an enlarged Yubari or proto-Agano as a DL, for when the older 4-pipe 5500 tonners need replacing; even a CA stability aside wouldn't be a good buy in an unrestricted/much less restricted environment- they can't do a battlecruiser's job.
     
  9. Jellico Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    The Kongos give them a good head start. Two Kongos hard counter a Lexington as does an Amagi. The US will get superiority in the end but they have to burn more coin than the Japanese.

    I must admit that I am interested in the chains of gold side of all this. The English can't and won't spend huge money. See the lack of OTL attempt to match the SoDak/Lexington numbers. The Japanese can't spend the money because they don't have it. The US can spend the money, no real enemies, and have form in screwing themselves over. They are going to have to show real care to get things right.
     
  10. Finbarr the Fair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Location:
    South Ayrshire, UK
    Pretty accurate IMHO

    The only way the UK would be driven to spending the money needed to at least keep pace with the USN is if it felt the US was planning to use force (or the threat of force) to destroy its commercial interests in Latin America and Asia. Which is not OTL, though I suppose plausible PODs for the immediate post WW1 period could be created.

    For the 1920s that would mean building the G3s and probably a second set of modified G3s. Cruisers, mostly I think like Leanders and Arethusas, depending on the USN build up. Also try to regain the Alliance with Japan. In Europe, stay close to France .

    Financing this would require creativity. Probably stay off the Gold Standard or return at a much lower level than 1914. Default or unilaterally restructure the USD loans. Fund with sterling bonds and buy from the sterling zone.

    Not easy or ideal and only to be done under immediate threat from an openly hostile USA.

    Which is, I emphasize, NOT OTL.
     
    Goldkingy, WaterproofPotatoes and jsb like this.
  11. jsb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    I think that depends on just how much US builds, it could be quite easy to "match" USN building by simply counting a few older ships as "modern" ie all the 13x 15" ships and then just building G3s and counting them as BC and BB at the same time so 6 G3s would officially "match" both SD and Lex class (or roughly count deep tonnage and have say 8 G3 ships to match the USN 12).
    If the USN then slows down or stops due to Japanese collapse and internal spending cuts then RN can stay officially equal like it did after WNT and look at who actually built the most CAs in the 20s.....
     
    WaterproofPotatoes likes this.
  12. tigercat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2011
    Some earlier developments of marine diesels would have helped .
     
  13. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    I watched a US Airforce General a few years back being raked over the coals by congress when he suggested that CAS could be provided by B1s, F16s and the like in the absence of the A10 - they laughed him out of the room - they didn't get it!
     
    Zheng He likes this.
  14. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    CAS like provided by A-10, Apache or even Kiowa is a morale booster for the local troops, while an USAF asset dropping PGMs from 40k+ doesn't give that same effect, even if the target(s) are knocked out.

    You need both types of support
     
    Goldkingy, TonyA, Gunnarnz and 3 others like this.
  15. Mike D Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    From what I've read a lot of USAF grown ups would quite happily dump the A-10s tomorrow and save the money they have to spend keeping them flying but they can't because too many politicians and soldiers are too easily impressed by "big gun! brrraaaaapppppppp brrrrrraaaaappppppppp".
     
    WaterproofPotatoes likes this.
  16. Jellico Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Time for a new YAL-1. Zap.
     
  17. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    As someone who is only alive because an A-10 flew a danger close air support mission for my unit, that big gun is well worth the cost of keeping them in service. That warthog driver came in far lower and slower than any F-16 or F-35 would even think about doing and put every single round on target just feet from where I was. So IMVHO, the money spent on the A-10 is worth every single penny.
     
  18. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    yeah, stupid soldiers.
    Peopll on the pointy end never know what works, and what doesn't

    the A-10 which costs around $6,000/hour to run. The F-16 has hourly operating costs of around $8,000.
    The F-22 and F-35 are over 5x as much.

    EDIT: the B-2 costs between $135k and $175k/hr, and they are staged from CONUS, so that's a lot of hours to strike in Afghanistan
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019 at 9:06 AM
    TonyA and SsgtC like this.
  19. alspug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Too many people forget that no single weapon has ever won a battle . it takes many different platforms and weapons to win a battle . The M1 Abrams needs the Bradleys and Hummers carrying infantry to do their job . Those guys in turn need to be safe from enemy helo's and aircraft . This means you need AWACS , Tankers and fighters . A strong position that might cost many lives to take can be defeated by a PGM from a B-1 . A company of bad guys 50 yards from good guys can not be engaged by PGM from 40K feet . For that you need either attack helo or CAS and for the USA the A-10 is the bird to use .
     
    TonyA, McPherson and SsgtC like this.
  20. McPherson McPherson; a guy who needs a shave.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Location:
    Somewhere where rockets fly.
    You solve your problem in the weapon, not the launch platform. TORPEDOES.