Carriers in port at Pearl Harbor

[hzn5pk]

It is not the point of surrendering, but more the point of being willing to massacre its own people in a costly war for both. Politicians are opportunists, especially in the Democratic world, including the USA. If they see some gain, or a preventing of loss of money, they are always willing to listen at least. Whatever the people want is not at issue here, as the mind of a people can be guided by politicians and media.

The point is what the USA would have done, if the Japanese offered them peace in exchange for a return of former US held territory, such as the bases Wake and Guam and/or the Phillippines, which had no other purpose for the Japanese, other than to keep away Allied Armed Forces. A demilitarized Pacific region was an option, where the USA would not deploy forces in the region, and neither would Japan, at least outside the territorial waters of the homelands. Japan had no whishes in the Pacific, as its interests lay in Asia. Such a thing could be tempting for opportunists in the US House and Senate and perhaps the White House.

On the other side, the US People could also be moved agains the own leadership, by suggesting the US Government was making warcrimes, by sending to death US citizens in a war, nobody wanted. The US Fascist party and perhaps the Communists, could be mobilized to create internal chaos in the USA, especailly by the Germans, who were still Allied to Japan. (German-American Citizens were not thought to be a threath, compared to the Japanese-Americans).

The US people did reply immediately after Pearl Harbor. The reply is that they wanted war. Enlistments sky rocketed immediately. Recruiting ofices were swamped the week following Pearl Harbor. The offices were open 24 hours to process the me that wanted to figt. Both of my grandfathers signed up immediately after Pearl Habor. One was turned away because he was too old.

This might be one time in US history where there could of been demonstrations if the US did not avenge Pear Harbor! We were stabbed in the back and were pissed.

 

[MUC]

This might be one time in US history where there could of been demonstrations if the US did not avenge Pear Harbor! We were stabbed in the back and were pissed.

Which happened because the Japanese failed to declare war upon the US before the attack.
I always wondered if the public opinion would be a lot different, had the Japanese declared war a couple of hours before the attack happened.

 

[hzn5pk]

Which happened because the Japanese failed to declare war upon the US before the attack.
I always wondered if the public opinion would be a lot different, had the Japanese declared war a couple of hours before the attack happened.

The responce would be the same as it would still be seen as a pre-meditated attack. War declared on the same day as a massive attack. US population would still be pissed and would respond the same.

 

[DuQuense]

I am kind of wondering ?What effect this would have on the B-29 & The B-36 Programs.
It has been pointed out on other threads that the B-36 could hit Tokyo from Hawaii.

 

[merlin]

With the USN's overiding need for more carrier decks - is the USS Alaska class of 'Battlecruisers' underthreat!?
That is - with a launch date of August '43 - leaves time before turrets are installed to be re-designed?

 

[CalBear]

With the USN's overiding need for more carrier decks - is the USS Alaska class of 'Battlecruisers' underthreat!?
That is - with a launch date of August '43 - leaves time before turrets are installed to be re-designed?

I doubt it. Not that I would mind (for my money the CB was the biggest waste of steel in the USN).

Alaska wasn't even laid down until December 17th, 1941 (Hawaii was laid down the same day at a nearby slip). She was built at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, as were her sisters where the Independence class CVL were constructed, so the easiest change would be to use the slipways to go straight to more Independences, with Essex hulls the next most likely.

 

[merlin]

I doubt it. Not that I would mind (for my money the CB was the biggest waste of steel in the USN).

Alaska wasn't even laid down until December 17th, 1941 (Hawaii was laid down the same day at a nearby slip). She was built at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, as were her sisters where the Independence class CVL were constructed, so the easiest change would be to use the slipways to go straight to more Independences, with Essex hulls the next most likely.

Interesting, but Alaska was longer & wider than CVL.22 Independence. That is - the 'plan' conversion before any serious construction has taken place, could provide a carrier more akin to the Yorktown than the Independence.

 

[CalBear]

Interesting, but Alaska was longer & wider than CVL.22 Independence. That is - the 'plan' conversion before any serious construction has taken place, could provide a carrier more akin to the Yorktown than the Independence.

The slipways used were the same ones ued for the South Dakota class BB, so an Essex would fit easily. The advantage of the CVL hulls is that the yard was already experienced in the construction of the type, which would cut 3-4 months off the build time compared to a first of type.

 

[Dilvish]

With the USN's overiding need for more carrier decks - is the USS Alaska class of 'Battlecruisers' underthreat!?
That is - with a launch date of August '43 - leaves time before turrets are installed to be re-designed?

No! Alaska, Guam, and yes, Hawaii too deserve to live! Can you tell I'm a fan of the Alaskas? This being an alternate history, it may be possible to construct a scenario where the Alaskas are still needed.

Assume with Lexington and Enterprise being at Pearl Harbor, their presense spares two battleships. In this case, the Pacific Fleet will be relying more on a mix of carriers and gunships. Adm. Kimmel's WPPac-46 warplan called for carrier raids into the Marshalls with a backup force of battleships. The hope was to draw in parts of the IJN from the SE Asia theater. With cruisers and battleships playing a bigger role, there may be significant cruiser losses earlier, leading to a preceived need for the big Alaskas.

 

[HMS Warspite]

No! Alaska, Guam, and yes, Hawaii too deserve to live! Can you tell I'm a fan of the Alaskas? This being an alternate history, it may be possible to construct a scenario where the Alaskas are still needed.

Assume with Lexington and Enterprise being at Pearl Harbor, their presense spares two battleships. In this case, the Pacific Fleet will be relying more on a mix of carriers and gunships. Adm. Kimmel's WPPac-46 warplan called for carrier raids into the Marshalls with a backup force of battleships. The hope was to draw in parts of the IJN from the SE Asia theater. With cruisers and battleships playing a bigger role, there may be significant cruiser losses earlier, leading to a preceived need for the big Alaskas.

I tend to disagree, as in the OTL the days of the gunnery capital ship and even the heavy cruiser was over, after the Pearl Harbor Attack. More potent weapons were available in the form of aviation and submarine, as both were much less costly to construct and more powerfullly armed. The USA were the only states to continue buil;ding big gunned ships of war, as they had the least propblems in doing so. Other navies, more limmited by less budgets and capacity in the shipyards, focussed on the new, more effective weapons of the Naval Warfare.

In this point of view, the building of the USN's battleships, battlecruisers and even the heavy cruisers, was a waist of materials and resources, but it did not make up any difference in the war itself. There were plenty of carriers, aircraft and submarines too, so who cares about obsolete and relatively unnessecary units in the Fleet.
From a aftersight point of view, building the Alaska's, Iowa's, South Dakota's and even the Baltimore's, was a waist of resources. This material used on these vessels could have been relocated to more urgently needed Armored Vehicles and Armored Aircraft Carriers, such as the Midway class. At the time of construction, this was not understood logically.

 

[CalBear]

Are you even passingly familiar with the Solomons Campaign?

How about the naval Battle of Guadalcanal?

Surface ships were still vitally important. The U.S. continued to build the larger ships because they were still needed.

I tend to disagree, as in the OTL the days of the gunnery capital ship and even the heavy cruiser was over, after the Pearl Harbor Attack. More potent weapons were available in the form of aviation and submarine, as both were much less costly to construct and more powerfullly armed. The USA were the only states to continue buil;ding big gunned ships of war, as they had the least propblems in doing so. Other navies, more limmited by less budgets and capacity in the shipyards, focussed on the new, more effective weapons of the Naval Warfare.

In this point of view, the building of the USN's battleships, battlecruisers and even the heavy cruisers, was a waist of materials and resources, but it did not make up any difference in the war itself. There were plenty of carriers, aircraft and submarines too, so who cares about obsolete and relatively unnessecary units in the Fleet.
From a aftersight point of view, building the Alaska's, Iowa's, South Dakota's and even the Baltimore's, was a waist of resources. This material used on these vessels could have been relocated to more urgently needed Armored Vehicles and Armored Aircraft Carriers, such as the Midway class. At the time of construction, this was not understood logically.

 

[CalBear]

I don't see how two BB are spared. The outside moored ships may take a few fewer torpedoes, but they all probably still take enough damage to require a trip to Bremerton.

No! Alaska, Guam, and yes, Hawaii too deserve to live! Can you tell I'm a fan of the Alaskas? This being an alternate history, it may be possible to construct a scenario where the Alaskas are still needed.

Assume with Lexington and Enterprise being at Pearl Harbor, their presense spares two battleships. In this case, the Pacific Fleet will be relying more on a mix of carriers and gunships. Adm. Kimmel's WPPac-46 warplan called for carrier raids into the Marshalls with a backup force of battleships. The hope was to draw in parts of the IJN from the SE Asia theater. With cruisers and battleships playing a bigger role, there may be significant cruiser losses earlier, leading to a preceived need for the big Alaskas.

 

[Markus]

12.) US still has priority for Torch in fall of '42, but Ranger could be used to launch planes for Midway to join Hornet and Yorktown. Perhaps though that after delivering planes between US west coast and PH for a couple of months, the Langley can swap with the Ranger for June and July and deliver those planes to an african port.

So after Midway, Ranger goes back to ATL for Torch. The Hornet and Wasp are in the Pac until Lex is repaired and Essex comes online which is pushed up.

*gulp* Ranger had next to no armour. Protection-wise she was a larger, faster version of a CVE that could be killed with one bomb. Better keep her in the Atlantic. And Langley needs to survive the japanese attack on the DEI before she can be converted back to a (slow) carrier.

 

[hzn5pk]

*gulp* Ranger had next to no armour. Protection-wise she was a larger, faster version of a CVE that could be killed with one bomb. Better keep her in the Atlantic. And Langley needs to survive the japanese attack on the DEI before she can be converted back to a (slow) carrier.

With the Japanese code broken ad Japan's move on Midway proven, the USN will see it as a managable risk to place the Ranger in. What was needed was available decks to launch planes and that was what the Ranger could be seen as, a flat top to launch planes.

A POD for me is that theLangley is not even vetured to the DEI, she is sent back to USA to continue as a seaplane tender in delivering planes to Hawaii and Midway. Therefore she is not even risked. The USA places the perimeter of defence at Midway, Hawaiin Islands, and Samoa. The DEI along with the Phil. Islands are screwed. The Langley continues as a seaplane tender and no time is wasted to refi her to a carrier.