The Ship Model Forum

DennisJP wrote:Unfortunatly I think everything would have fell as it happened.
1) Allot of the classes of ships, as far as Destroyers and Cruisers as well as modifications to the Essex's was due to the war. The Sumner, Gearing class Destroyers would not have existed if not for the war.
2) Also the new ships on the drawing bored. The Fast Battleships, Essex Carriers and Fletcher Destroyers were replacements for the older ships. The war only kept allot of the PH BB's in service as well as the Lexington class and Ranger, Carriers.
3) the Essex Class was produced in large numbers only because of the war. If no war it would of been on a replacement basis.

So if the ships were commissioned early it would of been :
1) Replacement of older ships needing retirement. (Fleet Modernization) So would of had fast BB's replacing old ones and Essex Carriers replacing the 7 original Carriers starting with Lexington and Saratoga.
All of this would have been done under normal time lines and budget restraints. With war in 1939 in Europe I believe on going projects would be sped up which I'am sure they were. Essex though was commissioned in December of 1942.
*** The Admiral in charge of the German Navy was tying to get Hitler to delay the war until 1942. If this would of happened then it would have been interesting. Essex would have been in the fleet. I'am sure one other Essex class would have also to replace the Lexington Class.

In summary there seems to be no other way for it to turn out accept the way it did. Looking at the Naval doctrine still favoring the Battleship as well as Political decisions between country's, like the embargo to Japan and Japans decision to invade French IndoChina and China which caused the embargo. As well as public thinking.

This was my thought as well.

As was hinted at earlier in the thread, but not generalized, the existence of Dreadnoughts/Superdreadnoughts were impossible to hide, and if the USN had been successful with carriers in WWI, that success would have been known globally.

You have people already, like Yamamoto Isoroku, who knew and understood carriers, and this would have just further strengthened their position, leading to Japan NOT attacking the USA, and instead preparing a plan for acting IFF (spelled correctly) America entered the war after Japan attacked the French and Dutch for the Oil in Indonesia and Java.

It would have led Japan to building Supercarriers earlier, rather than Super-Battleships. And, while they might have been armored monsters like the Shinano, the Shinano did not carry very many aircraft. The Japanese would likely have built carriers of that size that had air-wings of 150 aircraft or so, as well as focusing upon newer AA armament that could traverse faster, and had longer range and hitting power. One of the reasons they failed to develop such a weapons system is that they tended to be afflicted by the Victory Disease of Tsushima that kept them thinking in terms of the Decisive Battleship Battle. Were carriers shown to be the new Naval super-weapon, the Japan would likely have found this to be an inoculation against the Victory Disease Tsushima gave them.

It is likely they would have sought to avoid a confrontation with the USA, and then fought very differently had one occurred.

MB

The problem is aircraft. The Essex were built to handle the latest, biggest aircraft. If they had been designed and built earlier, they would have been smaller as no need for such large carriers existed. More likely they would have built more Yorktowns to the Hornet design.

Sr. Gopher wrote:What would have happened if the US saw the potential of the Aircraft Carrier in combat in the 20's, if the Lexingtons and Yorktowns were built for WWI and modernized for WWII? And if the Essex class was created in the early 30's? How would this have had an effect on the length of WWII, and the design of carriers to come? I personally think the Midways would have been something awesome to see fighting the Japanese. Some ideas that hopefully will be responded to...

Here's an idea: Lexington class carrier USS Constellation built in the 1920's and the navy decides to try something REALLY radical. AN ANGLED DECK CARRIER WITH WOOD FLIGHT DECK!

The earlier aircraft carriers were really bad. HMS Furious and HMS Vendictive were troublesome. Airplanes weren't ready yet. USS Langley CV-1 was at the forefront of Naval avation from the start. Lets say that Doolittle's sinking of the German BB had been taken seriouly by USN top brass. More effort on tactics would have happened earlier. The Yorktown class earlier would have delayed Essex because the first all metal monoplane fighter the Brewster Buffalo wouldn't have made the need for a larger flight deck as obvious until maybe four or five Yorktowns had been built/ordered.

Unfortunatly I think everything would have fell as it happened.
1) Allot of the classes of ships, as far as Destroyers and Cruisers as well as modifications to the Essex's was due to the war. The Sumner, Gearing class Destroyers would not have existed if not for the war.
2) Also the new ships on the drawing bored. The Fast Battleships, Essex Carriers and Fletcher Destroyers were replacements for the older ships. The war only kept allot of the PH BB's in service as well as the Lexington class and Ranger, Carriers.
3) the Essex Class was produced in large numbers only because of the war. If no war it would of been on a replacement basis.

So if the ships were commissioned early it would of been :
1) Replacement of older ships needing retirement. (Fleet Modernization) So would of had fast BB's replacing old ones and Essex Carriers replacing the 7 original Carriers starting with Lexington and Saratoga.
All of this would have been done under normal time lines and budget restraints. With war in 1939 in Europe I believe on going projects would be sped up which I'am sure they were. Essex though was commissioned in December of 1942.
*** The Admiral in charge of the German Navy was tying to get Hitler to delay the war until 1942. If this would of happened then it would have been interesting. Essex would have been in the fleet. I'am sure one other Essex class would have also to replace the Lexington Class.

In summary there seems to be no other way for it to turn out accept the way it did. Looking at the Naval doctrine still favoring the Battleship as well as Political decisions between country's, like the embargo to Japan and Japans decision to invade French IndoChina and China which caused the embargo. As well as public thinking.

I forgot to add, the 5 incher, probably should have been reduced to maybe 3 to a Fletcher, Benson, and all of the pre-1943 destroyers, other than the Porter class, which, along with the Gearing/Sumner classes, should really have two twin mounts. The open spaces should have been filled by 40mm and more up-to-date 3 inch guns. Both of them were/would have been Kamikaze Killers. The problem with the 5 inch gun is that, even though they are good for surface targets, they fire too slowly for AA use, but when they hit, (not very often) they vaporized the thin Japanese aircraft. the 3 inch gun, if more up-to-date, could have a faster rate of fire, greater shell capacity, and could do the same damage as the 5 inchers. Even better with frag munitions. Thought, the 40mm, and 20mm were ridiculed for that same fact. They didn't have the stopping power to turn the aircraft off course. They instead punched holes and killed the pilot. This was useless if the plane was already on course.

carr wrote: Again, because of the budget issue, there would have been fewer of them. That's been my whole point - more carriers would have meant fewer of everything else. In fact, making things worse, a few more surviving carriers would have diluted the available escorts even further (fewer per carrier)...

If there weren't any fast BBs, that would leave more $$$ for destroyers.

carr wrote:[quote="Sr. Also, as far as using destroyers to replace budget deleted/delayed battleships, consider how many destroyers it would take to equal the AA firepower of one fast battleship. Even at the end of the war, a Fletcher had a few twin 40mm's and several 20mm's (the 5 in guns weren't that effective as AA) compared to a battleship with, what, around 20 quad 40's?

For that, I mut go back up. With more destroyers, there are more angles each individual gun could cover, and not just by a matter of feet, but by hundreds of yards. Each gun placed on a different ship firing at one or two targets increases the possibility for hitting the target than another gun placed on the same ship. Multiply everything, maybe 7 20mms, 6 or 10 40mms, and numerous 5 inchers, and you have the best chance of hitting the target than all of your guns coming from the same source. Some more thoughts for the hungry debators .

Sr. Gopher wrote: ... Farragut class and beyond? They had proven...

Quite right! The Farragut's were the first of the new generation of destroyer, an early Fletcher, if you will. I was referring to the use of mothballed ships which would have been pre-Farragut. At the outbreak of the war, the Farraguts were still fairly new ships, having been authorized in the early 30's and began coming into service in the mid to late 30's.

Again, because of the budget issue, there would have been fewer of them. That's been my whole point - more carriers would have meant fewer of everything else. In fact, making things worse, a few more surviving carriers would have diluted the available escorts even further (fewer per carrier).

Also, as far as using destroyers to replace budget deleted/delayed battleships, consider how many destroyers it would take to equal the AA firepower of one fast battleship. Even at the end of the war, a Fletcher had a few twin 40mm's and several 20mm's (the 5 in guns weren't that effective as AA) compared to a battleship with, what, around 20 quad 40's?

Going back to what seemed to be the original thrust of this thread, Midway's in combat, that would, indeed, have been interesting. I seem to recall (might be wrong about this) that they had armored flight decks like the British. If so, that would have been helpful against the suicide attacks.

Regards,
Bob

carr wrote: The pre-war Navy had a set budget. The country just couldn't afford much more than what the Navy had. This scenario envisions a redistribution of the spending priorities but you can't ignore the historical reality of monetary limitations. So, saying that "lots" of cruisers and destroyers would make up the difference is not realistic. Where would these "lots" of extra ships come from? There wouldn't be any budget to build them. In fact, with more spent on carriers, the result would be the same as for battleships: less cruisers and destroyers, not more. Pulling ships from mothballs is a legitimate idea, however, I assume that the only ships in mothballs would have been old, slow, and woefully underarmed (WWI leftovers) by the requirements of the Pacific war. Remember that one of the major developments in ship building was the need for fast battleships (30+ kts) and destroyers (Fletchers) to keep up with the carriers. Ships from mothballs could not have worked. You might be able to postulate adding more weapons (AA guns) to old ships (ignoring weight, size, and structural stability issues) but you can't postulate making them faster.

As I said before, flush deckers could take the place of the advanced vessels on Escort and Patrol Duties, and not for the carrier escort role. Considering the fact that the US turned these vessels into specialized ships for minesweeping, aviation support, amphibious, and even dedicated ocean patrol vessels fairly early in the war show that these could be easily adapted. The 3 inch DP guns that came on the original design would be effective in protecting convoys against subs and aircraft, and the torpedoes against everything on the water! Also, what's wrong with the ships from the Farragut class and beyond? They had proven that they could withstand battles with aircraft and other smaller surface ships, so why wouldn't they make good escorts? They performed perfectly at Midway, Coral Sea, Santa Cruz, and even at late war battles like the Philippine Sea, proving that they had fighting strength.

..

I was just thinking about that. My solution to the Shore Bombardment issue - Cruisers, with BBs for the thicker targets. For AA, again, cruisers and destroyers - lots of them. The destroyers in the mothball fleet could substitute for those more advanced vessels off on escort and patrol duties. But this all depends on if the USN had realized the coming air threat in WWI. Still - an issue not to be ignored.

..

Simon_Hwood wrote:
The other thought is that in fact if the US had a much more advanced Carrier Navy in 1941, and the Japanese had their actual strength, would they have attacked Pearl Harbour in the first place? especially in a scenario two situation where they would have known if US carriers were reguarly at sea off the Hawaian Islands and the dectection of their task force by an awake enemy was highly likely.

Just a few more thoughts.

Si

They probably would, considering the USN was still on low alert, and their carriers and battleships would have been sitting ducks in Pearl. Also, like I said somewhere, the carriers might have been off on transport duties, unless the CVE concept has already begun, with production turning out the Jeeps.

My thoughts in scenario one, are based around the United States still being caught by surpirse as, historically what happened, which is a sort of baseline, Even then I think the US would still come out ahead. Scenario two has US carriers catching the Japanese task force and defeating it before it can attack (worst case there the attacking aircarft would run into a wide awake defense).

The effect on the length of the war is harder to guage, Had the japanese task force been destroyed, or badly mauled then they would have been on the defensive from that point, The Allies would have lost less ground, and have a more powerful force to strike back, This could have had the Home Islands beseiged by early / mid 1944.

Would this have then lead to an Invasion of the Home Islands, assuming the Atomic Bomb will not be ready till 2nd Half 1945?

If you the japanese have ramped up their carrier design production (Scenario 3), whilst they could not match US Industrial capacity in the long run, in the short term they would have been better placed.

The other thought is that in fact if the US had a much more advanced Carrier Navy in 1941, and the Japanese had their actual strength, would they have attacked Pearl Harbour in the first place? especially in a scenario two situation where they would have known if US carriers were reguarly at sea off the Hawaian Islands and the dectection of their task force by an awake enemy was highly likely.

Just a few more thoughts.

Si

I have some thoughts about some of your senarios, like in the first one - if the US had more carriers and knew that their outposts were in danger, wouldn't the carriers be out in doolittle type task forces? a carrier or two to transport the planes, and another to guard? This would have certainly had an outcome on the war, considering the carriers were getting larger every design, hence more aircraft, which means greater defense for the pacific at the start of the war.

Interesting scenario. I can see a number of ways this could have gone. assuming in all cases the attack on Pearl harbour was attempted / took place, no treaty limits on carrier construction & the US navy as of 7th December 1941 had 2 Lexingtons 3 Yourktowns, Wasp, Ranger and say 5 completed Essex class, one fitting out & 2 on the ways. I would also assume aircraft developement would have hastened & Hellcats / Helldivers / avengers would be in service, not yet replacing the older types fully, but there in numbers.

1. Assuming The US navy were alone in their insight & the Japanese attacked with their carrier historic strength, then worst case would be Battleship row becomes "Carrier Row" and the US have 5 or 6 carriers sunk or heavily damaged. In real terms that would leave them with similar numbers of carriers as they actually had, but better trained & equiped crews and a more advanced building programme, thus they would be in a position to strike back sooner & harder, thus limiting japan's expansion and probably shorten the war. Even in this situation however, it is possible that with all the airwings for the carriers around Pearl, a counter attack could have been launched & damage done to the Japanese strike force, limiting Japan's offensive capability. Best case scenario, enough of the carriers fighters would have got off their shore airfields to blunt the Japanese attack, less damage to the fleet, and a counter attack, Japanese Task force damaged, hunted down & sunk by reasonably intact US navy, No coral sea, no Midway, and in all cases the US Navy amost straight on back on the offensive, .

2. Assuming Historical japanese strength, US carrier at sea make contact with japanese carriers, Japanese carrier's launch against US carriers, Midway style battle takes place on 7th december both sides suffer losses, Pearl habour attack does not take place, but again US in much stronger position and straight on the offensive.

In both of the above, whilst it may not drastically shorten the war in the pacific, It would almost certainly free up resources for the Atlantic / Europe, which may shorten that war, and / or move the Iron Curtain further east.

3. The Japanese also have the same insight, and by the the Task force attacking Pearl Harbour has 4 or 5 Shinano sized carriers at it's heart. The air strikes launched would have more punch (Again Japanese naval aviation would be more highly developed than in real 1941) & may overwhelm the defenders and do real damage to Pearl Harbour & leave the US Carrier Fleet devestated. The US recovery may again be quicker, but they would be fighting a more capable enemy which could lengthen the war, assuming Midway took place with Essexes against Shinanos then could have been a Japanese Victory (which again I can only see lenghtening the war). had the japanese force taken damage at Pearl harbour, and offensive action by both sides limited to pinprick raids whilst they licked their wounds and Midway been a clash of "Midways" against Shinano's then likely a US Victory, war back on it's original course.


Even in case 3 I cannot see the Japanese being able to acheive enough to bring the US down, and in any sort of protracted war the US industrial might will out.

My take on this is, you cannot keep a bigger better carrier fleet a secret, no more than Dreadnought could have been, so Japanese, British, German etc intel would have known and possibly worked it out, and they may well have placed more emphasis on carrier construction and I think WW2 would have gone very differently. (The RN entering the war with 6 Illustriouses, and the Audaciouses building) even the french having a couple of carriers, Graf Zepelin and possibly a sister being in service. In thant case would the Kreigsmarine used Carriers as raiders.

Going even further it could have kicked off a Carrier race like the dreadnought race, and the war started earlier.

Some thoughts

Si

What would have happened if the US saw the potential of the Aircraft Carrier in combat in the 20's, if the Lexingtons and Yorktowns were built for WWI and modernized for WWII? And if the Essex class was created in the early 30's? How would this have had an effect on the length of WWII, and the design of carriers to come? I personally think the Midways would have been something awesome to see fighting the Japanese. Some ideas that hopefully will be responded to...