The Battleships that should have never been, 1930-1945!

Nice one

Also you can get shot of the fwd chin turret and the belly gun in addition to the side gunners for this ac - thats 4 men, 2 turret, at least 4 x 50 cal and ammo that can free up using napkin math about 2 tons? Should further improve its range and/or possibly double up on the number of fish it can carry to 4.

I could, and I thought about it, but you know? If this thing shows up at Coral Sea in the ITTL I'm working on (and it will), I think the people who are making it, will be like the people in mindset, who are making the Mackerels in the same ITTL, They will be sort of halfway committed to a "new crazy idea" and very nervous about it. I can see them using nose and belly guns early in the war and using AAF style combat boxes before they go into the line abreast attack runs a la classic aerial USN torpedo attack profile. And when you think about the cruise altitudes (about 3000 meters) and the expected opposition, A5M Claudes at the time of design modifications, and Chennault, jumping up and down, off in his little corner at the AAC Fighter Tactics School (where some USN pilots were also taught fighter tactics), screaming about BF 109s and the new A6Ms, the American navy is probably looking at something like this instead of a schnell bomber.
 
Super carriers today are a product of the only navy that matured the aircraft carrier and is still able to afford that capability.

1920's era carriers had to handle 3-4 generations of replacement aircraft that had to fit the carrier's lifts, catapults, deck space and hangars. As land based aircraft grew without these constraints so the 1st generation carriers became limited and liabilities. The 1st generation carriers also suffered from limited avgas supplies as requirements were underestimated. The staying power of a carrier is not how many aircraft it carries but how many sorties it can run. What drove large airgroups was the 'pulsed' nature of an airstrike (lots of action in 10 minutes - not sustained hours on end gunfire) and that carriers could only range and launch half their airgroup at one time.

Todays super carriers have to last 50 years and will still have 2-3 generations of aircraft that have generally maxed out with land based aircraft and are equivalent in performance.

The Naval Disarmament treaties in the 20's and 30's artificially constrained battleships and stretched out their lives. All it did was defer replacement spending that was all pushed into a late 1930's window that put pressure on the remaining ship building infrastructure.

Yes while a lot more generations of aircraft (3-4) will be used on an aircraft carrier in the 1930s in comparison todays (2-3) aircraft carriers, my point was that wietze said ships exceed those stats you gave by a wide margin, therefore as you said, ton for ton they must be even far more cost-effective in that era. Although I did get the ratio of a battleship life incorrect in relation today's aircraft carriers by 25 years.

In advocating for battleships the Naval Washington treaty hindered the second naval arms race where naval battles would have been EPIC!!! (Make Leyte Gulf look like a child's game) However, in hindsight the Naval Washington most definitely allowed the allies to win WWII. I would not really want to come in contact with Japan's 8-8-8 battleship fleet but on the other hand, USA, Britain, France and Russia all had plans in the pipeline as well. The image below shows the 8-8-8 timeline construction.

8-8-8-8 fleet (1).png

8-8-8-8 fleet (2).png


In conclusion whilst battleships may seem like a waste of money in that era it was not because that is how warfare was fought.
 
Last edited:
(^^^^) Build a battleship, you are stuck with it's armor and guns for 20 years.

Build an aircraft carrier and you change armament (planes) every five years. That is the argument Moffett and company made to the General Board. Who was right? He was. It was more expensive then the C and R program the WNT scrapped, but it was the right call. And to that end, I wish all the Lexington hulls had been converted. Scrap some battleship tonnage and trade up to the future. Neither the British nor the Japanese were that visionary and they could have been easily fooled by such a trade. Great man, Moffett.
 
However, in hindsight the Naval Washington most definitely allowed the allies to win WWII. I would not really want to come in contact with Japan's 8-8-8 battleship fleet but on the other hand, USA, Britain,
I really doubt this would a no WNT not mean a huge USN/RN, so what if the IJN is larger its realistically going to have its building program collapses under the pressure of competing with two far richer nations with more slips.... Would a pacific war even happen if Japan was made to face the realisation it could not win a building race and therefore the war?

I don't think the US or GB would accept less than the 60% ratio without a treaty and Japan will collapse first due to the quake so RN/USN would end up having the better ships. This also makes especially the RN far more powerful v the KM & RM in Europe early on so they can send more to support USN.
 
I could, and I thought about it, but you know? If this thing shows up at Coral Sea in the ITTL I'm working on (and it will), I think the people who are making it, will be like the people in mindset, who are making the Mackerels in the same ITTL, They will be sort of halfway committed to a "new crazy idea" and very nervous about it. I can see them using nose and belly guns early in the war and using AAF style combat boxes before they go into the line abreast attack runs a la classic aerial USN torpedo attack profile. And when you think about the cruise altitudes (about 3000 meters) and the expected opposition, A5M Claudes at the time of design modifications, and Chennault, jumping up and down, off in his little corner at the AAC Fighter Tactics School (where some USN pilots were also taught fighter tactics), screaming about BF 109s and the new A6Ms, the American navy is probably looking at something like this instead of a schnell bomber.

Of course the Chin turret came later anyway on the (G version) due to head on attacks so it would not initially have it initially and earlier in the war the IJN and IJA pilots would not know to conduct head on attacks (or indeed have time to setup for such attacks)
 
USN doctrine was to strafe a ship on the run in to suppress AAA for follow on attackers. A chin turret makes "some" sense for that purpose.
 
In advocating for battleships the Naval Washington treaty hindered the second naval race where naval battles would have been EPIC!!! (Make Leyte Gulf look like a child's game) However, in hindsight the Naval Washington most definitely allowed the allies to win WWII. I would not really want to come in contact with Japan's 8-8-8 battleship fleet but on the other hand, USA, Britain, France and Russia all had plans in the pipeline as well. The image below shows the 8-8-8 timeline construction.
More like the Washington Naval Treaty hid the true industrial & industrial capability of the US and conversely also hid the true economic & industrial limitations of the Japanese. There was no way that Japan could have finished their full 8-8 plan, the finances was simply not there. According to Conway 1906-1921 volume (which I don't have at this moment, might come back with actual quote later if need be) by post WWI the IJN was taking up something like a third of the entire Japanese government budget. In the same time period the US could have match any other country's naval building plan and some had the need arose (Congress, being what it was, would have only act if seriously prodded on). Honestly the treaty might not even have occurred if the US was in a more militant mood.

Without the Washington Naval Treaty, it would have been obvious just how many capital ships the US could pump out if desired (WWI only proved that the US can pump out a lot of small warships, if at the expense of putting off bigger ships). If that had been the case then Japan might have realize their chance of taking on the US was less than good.
 
Last edited:
I will reply to those who are questioning my argument and I would love to get an ethical discussion but I cannot as I have more important things to do, but I will say one thing.................

The aim of Bismarck was to break out into the Atlantic and prey on Atlantic shipping, land-based aeroplanes and aircraft carriers (land-based aeroplanes cannot reach certain shipping and German aircraft carriers were primitive) however the Germans still built the battleship and sent it out into Atlantic, (without any tactical or stratic common sense) but if she had reached Brest and sunk Atlantic shipping, Britain may have collapsed. On the other hand, a collaborative approach of battleships, aeroplanes and aircraft carriers destroyed her which is good but the primitivity of aeroplanes and aircraft carriers in that era, we are talking Swordfish planes here ok, could not alone have destroyed her. An example of where battleships as a tool succeed in their job but I understand it would not work post-WWII because warfare has become precision precise and continues to do so. :cool:
 
Last edited:
More like the Washington Naval Treaty hid the true industrial & industrial capability of the US and conversely also hid the true economic & industrial capability of the Japanese. There was no way that Japan could have finished their full 8-8 plan, the finances was simply not there. According to Conway 1906-1921 volume (which I don't have at this moment, might come back with actual quote later if need be) by post WWI the IJN was taking up something like a third of the entire Japanese government budget. In the same time period the US could have match any other country's naval building plan and some had the need arose (Congress, being what it was, would have only act if seriously prodded on). Honestly the treaty might not even have occurred if the US was in a more militant mood.

Without the Washington Naval Treaty, it would have been obvious just how many capital ships the US could pump out if desired (WWI only proved that the US can pump out a lot of small warships, if at the expense of putting off bigger ships). If that had been the case then Japan might have realize their chance of taking on the US was less than good.

I am advocating for the use of battleships instead of aircraft carriers (1930s-1940s), whilst I did not know that its good to know, the 8-8 plan was something I just plucked out of the air because I knew it was a plan that in this argument advocated for building them.
 
but if she had reached Brest and sunk Atlantic shipping, Britain may have collapsed.
Not even close, WWII German surface raiders collective barely made a dent in the shipping, and their biggest contribution was that of a fleet in being (those that survived anyways).

I am advocating for the use of battleships instead of aircraft carriers (1930s-1940s), whilst I did not know that its good to know, the 8-8 plan was something I just plucked out of the air because I knew it was a plan that in this argument advocated for building them.
The thing with Japanese naval laws (the planning of ship construction, i.e. wishlist that may or may not come true) and their actual capability to fund and build their wishlist lagging behind. For example the Fuso (the Dreadnought one) was authorized in the early/mid 1900s (again, don't have my copy of Conway on hand at the moment) but the funding only showed up years later, and construction after that due to need to wait for slips to become available.
 
Not even close, WWII German surface raiders collective barely made a dent in the shipping, and their biggest contribution was that of a fleet in being (those that survived anyways).


The thing with Japanese naval laws (the planning of ship construction, i.e. wishlist that may or may not come true) and their actual capability to fund and build their wishlist lagging behind. For example the Fuso (the Dreadnought one) was authorized in the early/mid 1900s (again, don't have my copy of Conway on hand at the moment) but the funding only showed up years later, and construction after that due to need to wait for slips to become available.

Won the argument overall though, (in my eyes) moving, moving, moving on and gone.

(Ethics is a gray area and is perceptional, which means we could discuss it all day.)

Thanks for the Conway source as well... Already found all three volumes on Amazon.
 
Last edited:
Combat results is neither ethics, nor discussable. One is either sunk and dead, or not. Bismark was sunk and most of its crew dead. Prime causes to bring that situation about were aerial reconnaissance (Thanks to an American PBY training mission that was not even supposed to be there.), tracking and an aircraft carrier launched torpedo attack that made RTB impossible, even if Tovey had missed it with his battleships. Bismark would have run out of fuel. QED. Bismark failed as a weapon system. Tirpitz never even accomplished getting to sea to be a threat. What killed it and its crew? Aircraft, though subs helped immobilize it, killed it and most of its crew.
 

Driftless

Donor
Why? They were fighting a land war. Whatever they threw into the navy was going to be mostly a waste. As long as they get LL through Vladivostok and Iran they are good to go and that was primarily the USN's problem. The money they spent on ships would have been better spent on tanks, artillery and planes.

The Soviets needed something, especially in the Baltic. Rather than the huge Sovietsky Soyuz ships, maybe a few counterparts to the Swedish Pansarskepps? Just enough of a threat to give the Germans and Swedes something to think about. After that: torpedo and mine layers probably would have been sufficient in that era. As you note, the substantial sums spent on the big battleships would have been better employed elsewhere. Plugging Rubles into creating a fleet to rival the Japanese, Americans, and British in the Pacific would have been a waste.
 
Yes while a lot more generations of aircraft (3-4) will be used on an aircraft carrier in the 1930s in comparison todays (2-3) aircraft carriers, my point was that wietze said ships exceed those stats you gave by a wide margin, therefore as you said, ton for ton they must be even far more cost-effective in that era. Although I did get the ratio of a battleship life incorrect in relation today's aircraft carriers by 25 years.

In advocating for battleships the Naval Washington treaty hindered the second naval arms race where naval battles would have been EPIC!!! (Make Leyte Gulf look like a child's game) However, in hindsight the Naval Washington most definitely allowed the allies to win WWII. I would not really want to come in contact with Japan's 8-8-8 battleship fleet but on the other hand, USA, Britain, France and Russia all had plans in the pipeline as well. The image below shows the 8-8-8 timeline construction.

View attachment 378103
View attachment 378104

In conclusion whilst battleships may seem like a waste of money in that era it was not because that is how warfare was fought.

The WNT just kicked the expense can further down the street. The WW1 era ships needed to be replaced and they were in the late 30's instead of the early 30's.

In 1914 the Japanese Cabinet agreed on the 8:4 fleet with the ultimate goal of 8:8. However we can see that a sensitive funding point had been reached when the 1915 Bill was rejected and Ise and Hyuga were moved later - the opportunity was taken to squeeze a little more speed as per the overseas trend of the QEs and more importantly, the Borodinos.

An 8:4 fleet is a building tempo of 1:2:1:2 etc for a 24 year life - 8years 1st rank, 8 years B team, 8 years reserve. This is something that Japan can meet.

I posted the ratios as this was the guideline that those in charge worked with. In 1913, QE was designed as the first fast battleship but I'm sure they would have been disappointed that she fired her main armament in anger only twice, first in 1915 and then not again until 30 years later in 1945. On both occasions this fire was at land targets.
 
Top