Massive goal post shifting yet againThe one that puts the Russians in Berlin?
But had they kept on building Type 1924 TB, they would have what were in fact decent small destroyers.I'm ignoring the German Type 35s as a design disaster because they did serve as cadet ships and fill-ins for destroyers which the Germans did not have.
Even worse. The French design, the Scorpène, works. The Spanish began to develop it with the French, but they wanted a bigger submarine, so they renegaded the agreement to develop their own. But in the process, they used the French technology (some might say they stole it) they didn't completely comprehended, hence the story.No one has mentioned the S-80+ Subs for Spain? A French design built in Spain contracted for 4 boats in 2004 for €1.7B. 1st boat laid down in 2007. In 2013 a serious weight problem meant that they could not surface, apparently a decimal point error. General Dynamics Electric Boat brought in to solve the problem in 2014 - lengthen the hull by 7 metres. Now the hull wont fit the dock. Wont be delivered till 2022 - 15 years of construction.
Parenthetically, that was also what happened to the Space Shuttle. It had to be large enough to carry a spy satellite (which it never did), which entailed going to the hull tiles, which of course caused the Columbia disaster. The costs of development meant that the Manned Flyback Stage had to be omitted, which led to the Challenger disaster. And with the usual delays for everyone and their sibling putting in something . . .There are plenty of light FFG/Heavy corvettes that they could have chosen. A reworked/enlarged Sa'ar 5 would have been an easy solution. Damned ships were even built in Mississippi (of all places) by a major U.S. defense contractor.
The problem the U.S. ran into is the same one that has screwed up the F-35 program for so long. They tried to create an "all in one" jack-of-all-trades ship rather than build proper ships for the roles. That is clever as hell if/when it works, the operative term being "if/when", when it doesn't you wind up the F-111 (thank God for Tom Connolly). Coup-led to that was the over reliance on vaporware to make the ships function, especially the Non-Line-of-Sight Missile. There was also the classic "oooh...shiny" problem when it came to the concept of "mission modules", several of which were themselves reliant on unproven/undeveloped tech to work.
The result was a 3,000 top warship, the same size as a Sumner class DD (3x2 5"/38, 3x2 3"/50 DP, 10 21"torpedoes, and misc light automatic weapons/Robert B Smith class DD/minelayer (as before except with 80 mines replacing the torpedo tubes) armed with a 57mm gun, two 30mm chain guns (sometimes, they are part of the Surface warfare module) and 4x1 M2 .50 cal. The LCS are far faster than the older DD, but are also shockingly less survivable than a 72 year old design and carry armament that barely qualifies them as an inshore patrol boat.
Never buy something designed by a committee working for four or five different bosses with entirely different goals.
Was it? See your own follower comments.Massive goal post shifting yet again...
Got it in one.But you know what yes - winning the Battle of the Atlantic = lots of lovely lend lease = helped putting the Russians in Berlin
And to think on it a bit more - the Axis losing the Battle of the Med also had a part to play in that
The Type 1924s were horrible sea boats. They had a tendency to weather helm, which in nautical terms is what DUTCH ROLL is to aircraft. That can kill you.But had they kept on building Type 1924 TB, they would have what were in fact decent small destroyers.
Even assuming that the improved type 24 would have cost more and be built in 2/3 the numbers, they would have had 15 decent ships rather than 21 nearly useless ones.
The post said "Improved type 24s" And the type 23 and type 24 had very useful careers, having active wars, unlike the Type 35 and type 37s that where mostly kept on secondary roles.The Type 1924s were horrible sea boats. They had a tendency to weather helm, which in nautical terms is what DUTCH ROLL is to aircraft. That can kill you.
Annnddd....back down the rabbit hole he goesWas it? See your own follower comments.
Got it in one.
1. Artic route from US ports.
2. Indian Ocean route from US ports.
3. Torch, Husky, Avalanche, Baytown; the actual applied FDR touch to Churchill's messy disorganized Med. dream and then NEPTUNE.
= naval knockout with the Russians being the ANVIL with the Germans in the middle.
The HAMMER was sea-power.
The post said "Improved type 24s" And the type 23 and type 24 had very useful careers, having active wars, unlike the Type 35 and type 37s that where mostly kept on secondary roles.
If we assume that the later type 1939 is what an improved Type 24 would be, they would suit the "15 decent ships" target quite well.
The type 39 would probably be a bit more expensive compared to the type 1935 than the 2 vs 3 ratio that I mentioned, but a simpler 1100tons 1935 version with more conventional machinery might be a useful, pratical ship.
An altenative would be to buid an evolved version of the Spica Class, like Sweden did with the Mode class.
View attachment 518604
The UK could easily have done better but then they wouldn't have been able to persuade the Treasury that they were building cruisers not aircraft carriers.Britain could have done better and ended up with something like a Tarawa class without the dock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_aircraft_carrier
Defer to your judgement about Baltic sea conditions. To me they look topheavy, their kick in a turn must have been interesting and their heel, likewise.Mode had better AA, 21'' TT rather than the 17.7'' on Ariete and the Swedes changed the hul design for better seakeeping. Mode is, IMO, a Spica done right.
Actually the Swedish navy judgment. They built four of this during WW2 and upgraded and kept them long after the war.Defer to your judgement about Baltic sea conditions. To me they look topheavy, their kick in a turn must have been interesting and their heel, likewise.
I mean the early 50s felt a lot like the 40s, in both politics, military technology, and pop culture. The 50s with rock and roll, Cinemascope, cars with big fins, jet fighters and missiles would be the late 50s. Early 50s would be swing music, Victorolas, Ford Coupes, Spitfire planes, and Iowa class battleships, where military thinking and technology was still very World War 2 like. I think in 1949 the British were still considering building those Lions.
And here's the Sverdlov class Light Cruiser, a class of ship that might've been the state of the art in the early 1950s, but was became horribly obsolete by the end of the decade. The Soviets kept these ships until the 1980s, and even a few soldiered on until the late 1990s.