pacifichistorian
Banned
It wasn't (I presume you're thinking of the "10-Year Rule"?), it was a doctrinal issue. IIRC, USN shared it. No idea where I saw it, tho. (Blair's Silent Victory tickles at memory cells, but don't bet on it.)Must admit I've never heard of that. Could have been something argued by a government to give an excuse for not constructing specific escort vessels.
That was true OTL RN & IJN (RCN, too, to a degree; less so USN, 'cause they got a lot of both), & escort always got short shrift. SOs were looking for fleet actions, not escort duty.True but it also means their available to be switched elsewhere, along with the larger capacity to support them. If Britain had x DDs say, to be split between various roles and got into a war with a Germany that had virtually no capital ships then you could transfer some DDs from fleet duties to elsewhere, such as convoy escorts.
I'm presuming not much changes in how the war starts (given a lot of temporal inertia), so conflict with Britain. Butterfly that, I'll readily accept a lesser U-boat threat.not sure why people seem so certain that would be the case?
Have a look at van der Vat's Atlantic Campaign for how it influenced, or The Great Naval Battle of Ottawa for the detailed story.Interesting. I knew about the problems with Harris and BC in getting the radars. Didn't realise that there were problems with the Canadian Naval leadership not being willing to develop/use such weapons.
That sounds good, but I have some doubts Canada was capable of producing DEs, even. DDs were out of the question; the technical skills didn't exist, which was why I suggested transferring a handful of DDs (ex-RN or ex-USN). If you'll accept a bit more vision for Britain's & Canada's government (& Newfoundland's too; still independent OTL, BTW), & in reaction to the Depression (tho it's a bit Keynsean for the balanced-budet fanatics of the OTL '30s), how about expansion of shipbuilding around Halifax & St John's? OTL, a lot of work couldn't get done close to the sealanes, 'cause the Canadian gov't had concentrated on Central Canada (where the votes were...). Maybe some expansion of Canadian technical capacity, on things like gyrocompasses? Too much to ask for RN to actually licence a DD or 2 for construction in Canada? (I mean, too far-sighted, but also a bit improbable, IMO.)That's what I was thinking of.... As such, while DDs would have been better the DEs were available when needed. With a more capable construction capacity plus the lack of the desperate need for new capital ships possibly in TTL you might have seen Canada produce the DEs while the UK produces the DDs that would be needed to win the war against the U-boats more quickly.
I'm not sure it's possible without ASB, but getting RN ASW SOs to listen to the OR guys when war starts, or (better still) do more realistic interwar trials, would be a big help. Maybe the best answer is (somehow...) prevent Appleyard's 1917-8 paper on ASW from disappearing into the maw, & instead have it become the RN bible for ASW interwar. Most of the things RN re-learned had been done already in WW1; with that strongly in RN's "corporate memory", getting SOs to listen when OR says a/c DCs are set too shallow, or convoys should be 80-100 ships, not 40, should be much EZr. That being true, you can reduce the demand for 'vettes & DDs. Add in OR warnings about slow convoys being at highest risk (not taken in, IIRC; could be OR missed it), or prewar exercises demo it, you might get some DDs transferred to RCN.