Naval developments in a world without nukes

[MUC]

Post-WWII the Navy fought the battle against the USAF on who should the prime deployer of nukes.

Without nukes, I believe the USAF will have the upper hand in the question „Who gets the resources to destroy the enemys infrastructure?“ and large armadas of large land based bombers would be procured. The USAF would make the argument that they need thousands of those to destroy the USSRs capacity to wage war. The Navy would still be a power projection force with its carriers, but without nukes, the USAF would be able to deliver more payload for less resources to more targets.

 

[MUC]

CHemical weapons at sea is that even a realistic option?

It is. However, without use of nukes in WWII, countries will be less willing in deploying WMDs. The last time it would have happened (excluding the Japanese use in China) would have been WWI.

I guess it depends a bit on how WWII ends. Do the US simply starve out Japan? Or does the invasion happen and do the Japanese deploy chemical/biological weapons on US troops. If the latter happens and lots of casualties take place, I can even imagine some post WWII treaty banning WMDs altogether.

 

[Monk78]

It is. However, without use of nukes in WWII, countries will be less willing in deploying WMDs. The last time it would have happened (excluding the Japanese use in China) would have been WWI. I can even imagine some post WWII treaty banning WMDs altogether.

How can CW be effective naval weapon please elaborate thanks

 

[MUC]

How can CW be effective naval weapon please elaborate thanks

Use it against troop concentrations or cities. Especially, on boomers it would make a formidable (although inferior) weapon as deterrence („Attack me and I will poison your cities“).

 

[Monk78]

Use it against troop concentrations or cities. Especially, on boomers it would make a formidable (although inferior) weapon as deterrence („Attack me and I will poison your cities“).

So like SLBM but with CW agents ? This could be a pretty neat weapon even in OTL
But only if used against a nonnuclear power

 

[HexWargamer]

...(uranium gun type was never tested they were so sure it would work)

.. and that's the problem. Laws of Physics ... a bomb IS going to be made because it IS going to work..
The 'only' problem is enriching the Uranium ... that's not easy and is rather costly ... especially if you do it in a hurry .... (like, because you are at war) reactor bred Plutonium is by far the cheaper route ...
Manhatten was working on 3 or 4 different urnium enrichment processes at the same time ... the goal wasn't 'one bomb' it was 'a factory capable of churning out a bomb a week' ..
Now if Japan surrenders in eary 1944, by which time it's obvious that the Nazi's are finished, maybe Manhatten gets canned .... in which nukes will indeed move to the back burner ... right up to the point when the USA discovers the Soviet spies in their midst (fear of Hitler getting the bomb is replaced by fear of Stalin getting one first) ....
I can't see a 10 year delay .... and that's what you need to drastically effect Navy fleet / building programs ...

 

[MUC]

So like SLBM but with CW agents ? This could be a pretty neat weapon even in OTL
But only if used against a nonnuclear power

Well yes, the assusmption is that nukes are never developed (for whatever reasons).

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I'd say without nuclear weapons to develop the Royal Navy gets the 1952 carrier design built to partner the two Audacious class.

 

[Dolnikan]

So like SLBM but with CW agents ? This could be a pretty neat weapon even in OTL
But only if used against a nonnuclear power

Yes, although it would be a horrendously inefficient weapon, even against civilian targets. Simply put, you need to hit with far more mass than a nuclear strike to do much against a city (or any other kind of target) and that in turn means that you have to manufacture lots of weapons and chemicals (that aren't too stable in most cases, so you need larger facilities for your subs. Or mix things on board or in the missiles. Furthermore, your missiles don't carry a lot of payload, so you need lots. As in, huge amounts of them and that means either very large subs, or lots of subs. Which, without nuclear power, become difficult to maintain at sea for any length of time.

 

[juanml82]

.. and that's the problem. Laws of Physics ... a bomb IS going to be made because it IS going to work..
The 'only' problem is enriching the Uranium ... that's not easy and is rather costly ... especially if you do it in a hurry .... (like, because you are at war) reactor bred Plutonium is by far the cheaper route ...
Manhatten was working on 3 or 4 different urnium enrichment processes at the same time ... the goal wasn't 'one bomb' it was 'a factory capable of churning out a bomb a week' ..
Now if Japan surrenders in eary 1944, by which time it's obvious that the Nazi's are finished, maybe Manhatten gets canned .... in which nukes will indeed move to the back burner ... right up to the point when the USA discovers the Soviet spies in their midst (fear of Hitler getting the bomb is replaced by fear of Stalin getting one first) ....
I can't see a 10 year delay .... and that's what you need to drastically effect Navy fleet / building programs ...

If the Manhattan Project doesn't start at all, nuclear weapons research can remain a low priority for enough time that they end up delayed for a few decades

 

[jlckansas]

If they keep going down the rabbit holes and not on track to a working bomb, you will still have reactors for power. Bomb research had a number of dead ends that ended up leading people to think a weapon type was not easily made or even could be made. Reactor technology is not the same as bomb tech, you can use Thorium to make a reactor that cannot be used to make bomb material and be a efficient power plant.

 

[Monk78]

Yes, although it would be a horrendously inefficient weapon, even against civilian targets. Simply put, you need to hit with far more mass than a nuclear strike to do much against a city (or any other kind of target) and that in turn means that you have to manufacture lots of weapons and chemicals (that aren't too stable in most cases, so you need larger facilities for your subs. Or mix things on board or in the missiles. Furthermore, your missiles don't carry a lot of payload, so you need lots. As in, huge amounts of them and that means either very large subs, or lots of subs. Which, without nuclear power, become difficult to maintain at sea for any length of time.

How about very large anti-ship missiles like the ones Soviet made with a smaller high explosive warhead and another chemical warhead? I’m not an engineer or anything so please reality check this idea

I think that metel or rastrub had a HE warhead and fuel was supposed to be incendiary?

 

[Dolnikan]

How about very large anti-ship missiles like the ones Soviet made with a smaller high explosive warhead and another chemical warhead? I’m not an engineer or anything so please reality check this idea

I think that metel or rastrub had a HE warhead and fuel was supposed to be incendiary?

I just looked them up, and those actually are a fair bit lighter than an SMBL but a large part of that will be propellant. But with chemical weapons, you really don't want to launch a giant puddle, you will need a spraying system and the like. Additionally, with ballistic missiles at least, temperature also is a big issue. Higher temperatures mean that chemicals degrade faster (I don't know the details of the thermostability of known chemical weapons, but the more complex ones will certainly suffer from issues there). So, you would have to resort to pretty short-ranged missiles that preferably don't come from above but follow a more horizontal trajectory. That not only makes them more vulnerable to air defenses (like cruise missiles, which is what they would basically be), but it also limits the launch points.

Additionally, defense from them is infinitely easier than defense against nukes, so they don't really work as a deterrent. Chemical weapons just aren't very effective against any sort of target with defenses. And if you have widespread threats of chemical attacks, the tools to survive will also be handed out to civilian populations as part of civil defense programs. Generally, high explosives are much more effective at doing damage and killing than chemical weapons ever will be, even with more funding poured into them.

 

[Monk78]

Some other thoughts
extremely high explosive conventional bombs might be used in depth charges

and cluster bomb like warhead of AShM to make up for lack of accuracy , airburst by proximity fuse and scatter bomblets over the sensitive sensors of the ship to achieve a mission kill at very least

 

[phx1138]

No boomers - as we know them. Maybe someday, post-war, there are diesel-electric submarine cruise missile carriers

Likely the Graybacks (& Tunny, too) carry something more like Harpoon than Regulus. As early as 1953? Well...