The Ship Model Forum

A WWII era 1,100 foot version of the Wasp class. Depth, demensions, cost, facilities not an issue. Just what would it be for a ship to hold say, 35 helicopters (The advanced Huey, Cobra, Stallion, and Skycrane were invented faster due to the extremely healthy war economy), 100 tanks in a tanks deck, 3,000 troops, a small hanger (accomodates up to 10 helicopters for maintenance) and a well deck about 800 feet long. Also, what would be a good, balanced airwing for the ship?

Or...what if a Montana class, for some reason, was only done to the main deck, without the holes for any turrets, and the area up to her widest point was completed, and a floating drydock was placed there? A ship that actually has part of a floating drydock attached so all of the special equipment is already there, as the rest of the ship is built around it.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

There is no way for that kind of technology to exist back then. These massive jumps in technology you keep suggesting are impossible no matter how "healthy" a war economy you have in your alternate history. The jumps in technology would have to take place in weeks instead of years such as going from vacuum tubes to micro processors in 15 days. So unless you are going to say the Stargate aliens all of a sudden started making our arms for us, there is no way for it to have happened like you want.

Why don't you just have a modern day conflict with the same players? Why do you keep wanting to say all this happened in WWII?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

In my opinion, one what-if is just as impossible as another. People make decisions and/or come up with things based on things that happen to them. Thus, in order for a decision in history to have been changed, then something must have happened to cause this. But how can that "something" happen otherwise than what actually occurred? Because the thing that caused -that- was different? And how was that made to be different?
It goes on and on and on, until the beginning of the universe...and even then.

So basically, I wouldn't bother justifying what-ifs, because it would be impossible in this universe for it to have occurred, no matter how minor the change. In order for what-ifs to happen, the very fabric of the universe would have had to be changed - and this change could just as likely result in what Sr. Gopher is suggesting as an NTU Spruance, to take a more "reasonable" what-if.

Sorry if this hurts anyone's feelings, but that's how I view alternate timelines and history.

So Gopher, go ahead and make your crazy LHD - it's just as likely to happen as everything else in this section

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Indeed, Timmy. I am crying on the inside now...

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Although I like to speculate on alternative timelines, Generaly I would agree with Timmy. But there are odd pints in History where chance plays a role:-

What if Garvilo Princip had had an accident on his way to assasinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand, or even missed, how would that have affected the outbreak of WW1?

What if the wound Adolf Hitler received in the Battle of the Somme had been fatal? or he hadn't moved von Staufenburg's breifcase?

What if the Russian winter had come later & been milder in 1941?

What if the shot that struck the palisades at Calvi that partially Blinded the then Captain Nelson had traveling a foot higher & taken his head off?

What if Winston Chruchill had been killed in acion on the western front in 1916?

What if Teddy Roosevelt had died at San juan Hill?

Just some examples of where mere chance might have had a dramitic affect on World History, maybe not technology, but there are examples of discoveries being made by chance, how many more missed, an un noticed error in calculation meaning failure? Something being missed because it was not what was being looked for?

History does at time & time turn on chance, so I for one will keep on speculating.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

Thanks for the pep talk guys, and Dave, I've spent my entire modelling career focused on WWII, moslty because it was the most innovative, and in my mind, fair (ballistic nuclear missiles and smart bombs seem like you are trying to cheat the reality of war, and chemical weapons just seem like you are trying to kill the entire world but yourself) war. Actual people are doing the work, with no chance of anyone being able to hack into your weapon system, or melting your skin or organs off your body as you fight. This was the war that made modern technology possible, and it did accelerate development. The war was where the jet engine came into it's age, and where the ideas of the ballistic missile, nuclear bomb came, and the ideas of mass killings (chemical warfare) ended amongst militaries. It had just the perfect balance of modern and old technology. Plus, I barely know anything about modern systems, other than the aircraft (I was into planes before ships), and anti-aircraft systems.

Just for the record, I was serious about that floating drydock idea

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

Guys, you nuking this way too hard. The statement was that no matter how good an economy was, super historic leaps in technology like those proposed are not necessarily believable. The stargate guys showing up would he good though. 60-70 year jumps in real technology that has come to pass over actual periods of time being accomplished instead in single years is like saying we jumped straight from nuclear fission to matter/anti-matter reactors. I would suggest there is noting believable about advanced h-53s or any other modern helicopter in WWII. I would like to hear more about Sr. Gopher's motiation behind such incredible leaps in technology instead of basing the story in a modern timeframe where the advances actually took place.

I do, however, disagree with Timmy's thought that the very fabric of space-time would have to change for a Spruance-class Destroyer to get NTU. It was a real proposal for real utilization of 5 real ships with real systems to accomplish real missions that need to be addressed. I don't think we needed to create a quantum singularity for that one to be believable

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Okay, I'll try and fit everything in that would justify the creation of the ship (one of class):
All of the carriers (previous thread about naval aviation somewhere here) were already exceeding expectations of the JCS in 1942. By 1945, when the nuke development was in the final stages, the JCS looked at the massive navy, army, and the network of major bases. They did not want the technology fully developed in fear that if the enemy got it, the Allies would pay dearly. They have the Manhattan Project cancelled, and all facilities destroyed (research goes into an abandoned warehouse in remote Montana). Shipbuilding industry is in a lower swing, and only 2 of the massive carriers are being built to replace the loss of 2 large carriers. Using facilities made to build the Enterprise (Ford) and Hornet (Nimitz) class cariers a decade ago, and with the invasion of Japan and Korea coming up, the US starts a project based around large amphibious ships. The first of these are the Guadalcanal and Tarawa class ships (ex-CV-5 class, converted while being scrapped), then the Pearl Harbor class LSTs (similar requirements as Newport class), and the Normandy class helicopter carriers (considering that they were perfected into the Huey in 6 years of development after Germany fell in 1945), then immediately after, the America class multi-purpose landing ship: the current design. 10,000 surplus workers go aboard to start work, and she comes out of the yard a year later. Her specifications from the Navy were that she could hold 20 LCMs in a well deck, or 2 LCTs, 3,000 troops, 18 helicopters, and up to 60 heavy tanks.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

But yet, it didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? Because some people decided not to do it. Under what circumstances would that decision have changed from "no" to "yes"? HOW could those circumstances come about?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Is this a rhetorical question, or do you want a real answer?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

A real one that is supposed to make you think of factors that decide on what occurs in history, and how each of those factors are dependent on other factors that allow the "first" factors to happen, and so-on and so-forth.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

So, you want a real answer then. It sounds like all you are talking about are the variables that sway the consequences in an event causing process. First, understand there is a difference between the Spruance-class DDG I shared on here and a common "WIF". The Sprunace was an actual project proposal given to the Navy to solve a number of the issues it is facing.

The real answer to the Spruance question is that there was a lot of justicication needed to push the "New Family of Ships" fleet forward [CG(X), DD(X), FF(X) LCS, and street fighter.] Those programs, specifically DD(X), which turned into DDG-1000, and LCS needed a lot of justification for funding, becuase as you saw with my Spruance there are a lot of other options out there. So, here a choice was made at a fork in the road that caused a split time-line to which you're referring. Instead of taking a smaller bite and build affordable ships so the Navy could maintain the minimum fleet level of 301 ships and 12 aircraft carriers, the Navy decided to force the funding and development of DDG-1000 and LCS by putting the fleet in a vulnerable position by destroying the 26-27 usable ships of the Spruance-class.

"Most of the Spruance-class were all usable. They should not have been decommissioned,"... "I like your proposal a lot. You said you sent this to the CNO? You should have given it to us," and "...The Spruance-class were not only decommissioned but sunk to support the procurement of DDG-1000 and LCS." [NAVSEA rep Portsmouth, Virginia].

A fellow poster on here, CAPT Potter, first pointed this out and caused me to ask NAVSEA about it. I was very surprised to hear that be the case.

When I was doing the project, it was focused on the proposal of the last five existing Spruance-class ships of which were still in very good condition be reactivated to fill the NSFS, cheap AAW, and capable SOF hosting capability gap that exists. Here is another divergence: a decision was made to keep that proposal from either going any further, was ignored, or was rejected at a higher level. The reason, the factors involved and the history established you illuded to lead to very few conclusions. The most likely seems to be that this boiled down to keeping the fleet in a vulnerable position to force the funding of DDG-1000 and LCS, too.

The whole of the factors leading to the divergences in history that lead not to adopt a modified Spruance-class illustrate that the decision makers' priorities seem to exist in an office and not in the fleet.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Sr. Gopher,

I apologize for having hijacked your thread. My point is that you are trying to take too big of leaps in technology to be at all believable. I like your idea of Montanas and maybe making Forrestals, but the factors that lead to the Nimitz and Ford-classes were all lessons we had to learn over 50 years, not 3 years. If we had gotten as far as the Forrestals by 1947, then we would have built as many as those as possible instead of just jumped around classes that exist somewhere in the future. The Nimitz and Ford-classes are shaped by 1970s and 2000 capability requirements, not anything we saw before 1960.

We were only technologically capable of making the Midways by the late 40s. Money ("a very healty war-time economy") does not drive technological innovation or capability, evolution in thinking does, and only time provides that. All of the technological ingenuity you have noticed in your career of WWII modeling was as far and as fast as we could possibly go...or else we would have gone further. Anything else leaves the bounds of feasibility and jumps into the future.

So, if you are going to really crank up the shipyard production capabilities of WWII in your story, I would suggest, however, making 10-15 Midways and maybe...maybe...if you really wanted to push it 2-3 Forrestals.

I suggest you talk with Cliffy B about this, because he is very, very well versed in how and why things happened technologically in and around WWII. Progress on his own alternate history has suffered because he has spent so much time learning the facts of the ship building industry, weapons procurement, steel production, the limits of ship production, and why ships were built how they were in WWII, but it has given him a very firm and believable foundation for a story. He will probably cut you some tighter margins that what you suggest in your threads, but if you want to tell a story in the bounds of feasibility, believability...or even possibility...you should use him as a foundation resource.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

You outlined the main divergence point very succinctly, Dave.

My point is not so much about the DESIGN of the NTU Spruances (which are real enough), but rather, their actual (non-)construction.

What I'm saying is that in our universe, it was impossible for the NTU Spruances to be built. What could have happened to change the decision to sacrifice the numbers for a smaller fleet of expensive vessels? No matter how many times you rerun our universe history, the exact same reasons for making this decision to not go ahead with NTU Spruances will come up, leading to their non-construction. No matter how many times you rerun history, there will not be a person or group of persons who will suddenly decide to flick the switch from the DDG-1000&LCS to a more affordable large fleet. The exact same reasons for what happened in our time will exist in any other universe, unless something very fundamental caused a series of events that eventually resulted in the decision maker(s) to so drastically say "Yes" instead of "no".

Same thing with Sr.'s idea - no matter how many times we rerun our history, the situation would not be possible for his postulations either. And this shared impossibility of realization is what I'm alluding to with my comments regarding all what-ifs.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Thank you, my dear sir! Good times are shared.

That's where people like me come in. I am the guy who will drastically say "yes" instead of no. I am the guy who has convinced 3 admirals and 5 captains including the CO of the CNO's Strategic Studies Group...and maybe even the CNO himself...that battleship reactivation is the way to go right now. So, it's not impossible by any means, and like you said, there are elements that make the divergence; you're talking to one of them, and it seems that you may be talking to one of them.

There is a time where academia ends and actual implementation begins. Thankfully, I have found that point, and hopefully for the whole US Military my ideas will convince more than just 3 admirals and 5 captains.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

But in our history, you never did have an opportunity to say "yes", did you? And under no circumstances could you ever have.

(Speaking strictly about the past decision made some decade ago, not decision(s) that could be made/remade in the future)

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

For sure.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Okay, I just couldn't resist asking: are you callling him a tool?

Anyway, it has been a while since I've talked to the very wise Mr. B. I'll see what he has to offer when I get the chance...

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

No, not a tool but a resource

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Dave, I am merely just talking about ships the size of these. They have WWII systems, propulsion plants, and defenses. None of the SAMs, radars, or nukes buried under the hull. They are just the same size, operating WWII aircraft that don't have radar. I guess I forgot to mention that. All of my ships have the "basic" systems they had back then.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines