All sorts of additional odd things happen if you extend the period before war. The Dutch would probably have their battlecruisers for the East Indies which changes all sorts of things in the Pacific too.
4 twin 4.5” mounts, 2 quintuple torpedo launchers, a good amount of 40mm bofors and 20mm orliken singlie, twin and quad mounts along with radar sets, rangefinding equipment, crew accommodations, supplies and ammunition for all of that in a hull large enough for a fast and heavy engine is a light cruiser displacement.
For the US, the key date to remember is June 22, 1940. The Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940 comes on July 19, 1940; The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 comes in September 1940. Without the French surrender in 1940, the United States isn't politically motivated to start rearming. Absent the start of war in 1939, and the need for both the UK and France to purchase aircraft, the aircraft industry in the US doesn't really get ramped up. A delay of 4 years might not make a huge impact in the US. More North Dakotas, more Yorktowns, etc.
Maybe more more of the South Dakotas and North Carolinas, Maybe another Yorktown or two but I still think we get the Essex class, just not a swarm of them. How many Fletchers do we get? More importantly do we build fleet oilers? Enough fast ones to keep up with the fleet, and a number of standard speed tankers to keep the fleet fueled? Does FDR get his light carriers purpose built say 6-8 for ferry duty and supplement the fleet? Do we build more of the Long Islands to provide CAP, anti sub warfare, and scouting/initial strike for the old standards? And once everyone else starts ramping up production does FDR start pushing Congress for more and more? And once production starts, does congress realize that spending stimulates the economy to finally pull out of the Great Depression?
Cockatoo island dockyard was supposed to expand with reclaimed land between the island and Birchgrove. A larger dry dock bigger than the garden island dry dock was to built with the ability to build carriers. This was planned but ultimately wasn’t done. In the 1920’s a huge combined naval base and shipyard facility was proposed in Port Stephens, it was based on what was Portsmouth and Devonport in the UK. A set of drawings was in the Australian naval magazine The Navy several years ago.
I can see the US Navy taking a conservative step before switching between the Essexes and the Midways. Maybe an armored variant of the Essex. It might be small run at first.
The U.S. was working on the 5” 54 caliber and an autoloading 8”. Would have been interesting to see what the cruisers and destroyers would have evolved (some cruisers were built postwar).
Hey; how would passing ships off to imperial members states have worked vs. the whole decolonization movement? I know it really only _really_ picked up steam after WWII, but there was still motion in that direction as early as the 1920s. Are there countries/territories that the UK might not have trusted with ships over a certain size, or not been interested in placing factories in areas where local resistance movements might have been able to sabotage them?
Flower Class corvettes & destroyers, especially old ones, they'd happily pass off; but larger units would go to loyal dominions, besides which the British were heavily invested & progressing with the dominionisation program of most colonies and actually quite a lot of the independence campaigns were part of that.
@@DrAlexClarke What did that mean for India? I'm a yankee so my understanding is heavily colored by a certain movie from the 80's and therefore am uncertain of the realities of Indian politics at the time.
With war delayed five years imagine what the french would do with the maginot line. The Polish probably have time to enlarge their submarine and destroyer forces. If i am remembering correctly they had very good designs in service already. Germany might fine a good chuck of its force at the bottom of the Baltic. Also hope you get better soon.
That brings in another of Alex's recent videos, would the Germans have an operational Fritz-X guided bomb? And would they think to make a bunker-busting version for use against the Maginot Line? Delay the start of war and things potentially start going in all sorts of really interesting directions.
@@ibex485True. One thing that they might have made and trialled could be the type XXI submarine, built for the USSR, allegedly. They would obviously have found out about the snorkel by then. What I kept thinking of was side-scanning ASDIC and using radar frequencies for short range ship to ship communication. The Germans didn't use Chain Home rather a directed beam spotting at a long distance by the end of 1941. Something I kept listening for was Fuel and Uranium in connection with the large ships required. I think they would use a lot of oil fuel. It was known that energy is released during Uranium fission. Would this be seen as a possible replacement for the large oil bunkers needed. Forcing these big ships through the sea needs a lot of energy. And you can't make these ships lightly if they are to fire those guns twice.
The older French battleships would probably be kept in service unless new construction could ensure matching the Italian fleet and replacement of old designs. If it could then I would place them in positions on the North French coast. From where they could fire out into the Channel and potentially rotate to cover parts of the Belgium border. As for fritz-x. An unmodified version might not do well against land forts. I am thinking of actually being able to penetrate that much earth and reinforced concrete. A modified version, probably with its own special plane, could be made. Especially as this would give Göring something to prove that his airfore is the superior branch of the military. As he can with one bomb destroy any fort and sink any battleship.
@@20chocsaday Hmm, it was in the 50's that fission was tamed enough for producing controlled amounts of heat used to boil water and turn it into high pressure steam. And how much of that knowledge was from the Manhattan project?
I don't know if Canada would have the money or crew to maintain an R class BB. Maybe a couple of Artheusa Class handed off to us. But we be spamming Flower Class and Black Swan like no end.
How would Merchant Navy develop in this time as we know the RN at least likes a hull to stick a gun on and also likes to Squirrel away useful bit so we would have guns from C Class cruisers available and the V&W class i imagine
For the UK, a very interesting scenario 1) in the BB Category: 1.1) About the KGV maybe upgrading their guns to a 9x3, 15/50 caliber? 1.2) About the Vanguards, maybe using the new caliber 15/50 too? 1.3) The Lions...which version will be? the 1938 design? the 1942 design? the 16-E38 4x3 16 gun design? or a Devastation style 4x4 16 gun wows version? 1.4) Or a 18 inch N3 mark 2 style bb? Maybe finally getting a standard DP gun in the form of the 4,5 inch gun, 40mm Bofors under licence, 20mm Oerklion and or Polsten guns for AA use and several radars could be installed from the beginning. Also the subject of "modernization" comes along, maybe the QE class gets fully modernized to QE/Warspite standards, with new boilers, idk about the R class getting such an upgrade, maybe some small upgrades AA and radar to make them 2nd rate BB to guard convoys and support landings. Hood/R class battlecruisers getting a full refit and the Nelsons too. In the form of carriers, maybe the Implacables gets more build and maybe a Malta on the way, or a ton of Colossus class, cheaper and in large numbers could be a decisive factor for the FAA, not the big us carrier, but a lot of medium/light flight carriers could do the similar job and getting more hulls into the fight.
Great discussion. Oh yes, give Ernest King 2-3 years to plan and be in charge. Good luck fighting that fleet. A fleet of Montanas, Iowas, Midways, supported with Des Moines and revamped Cleveland/Atlanta classes.
@@ericfehser6447 the Alaskas were a flex we did on the rest of the world. We said’We’re so bored building Iowas and Essexes that we’ll build this as a side gig.’ We weren’t serious about the Alaskas.
@@bkjeong4302 except that without the carrier battles of 42 and the Taranto raid plus others, battleships would still have been the queens of the seas. The exit door may have been open but they had not been shown the door yet.
@@StylinandProfilinBBsandBBQ Sure, they don’t know that they should stop putting new battleships into service at this point, doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea to stop building them.
There are so many variables to consider when speculating about an alternate history. The first one that comes to mind is the political situation in the future combatants, and a subsequent arms race. I am only knowledgeable about the "Two Ocean Act" in the late 30's in the US, "Plan H" in Germany" and Japan's construction program. All of these occurring in the mid-to-late 30s in their formulation. War is always an accelerant to technology, however, many of the innovations that were put into production after hostilities commenced Were in advanced stages of R&D as well as construction prior to 1939. Britain was already working on RADAR, ASDIC and jet engine technology. The squabbles between the RAF and RN stunted technology advancement in the Fleet Air Arm to a large extent however. The US had a number of designs that were under contract before 1939, and were working with the British on the aforementioned electronics pioneered by the British scientists. Japan like the Germans had regimes/general staffs/ministries that were somewhat at cross-purposes amongst themselves and with their rulers. This was particularly the case with Japan, where the almost hostile interservice rivalry was nearly as vitriolic as their disdain for their potential enemies. Cannot speak too much about the Germans, except to say that Goering was adamant that the Luftwaffe control Naval Aviation. VERY good information, and I have learned a lot over the past few years. Best wishes to your Mum!
Keep in mind that for much of the world WWII really began in 1936 & 1937 in Spain & Asia. The Germans got started faster than the General staff would have liked. That’s what happens when you’ve got a meth-head in charge of your country. Japan wasn’t waiting, though. If Hitler had gotten some bad drugs from Morell and been replaced by a more disciplined psychopath the Nazis probably good have bought them sleeves a three or four more years to prep, but I guarantee that something would have happened sooner than later that got the ball rolling. Stalin wasn’t the most reliable fella, either.
The US was already developing the 5"/54 with autoloading, and looking hard at the 6". Imagine if you will an improved Cleveland with full autoloading armament. Machine gun cruiser 2.0.
Actually, I think it likely the USN would have pushed hard for the 8" auto loading and you would have seen the Rochester and Des Moines classes developed a lot sooner. The work on them started in the late 30's but was delayed due to war needs.
For France: the Alsace may be difficult, didn't the French need even larger shipyards for those? Instead of Richelieu's, they might alter the design slightly to 'Gascogne' with 1 turret forward, 1 aft; and go "quantity over quality", a bit similar to the British KGV idea. The Richelieu's were significantly less tonnage than Bismarck etc after all, whilst packing the same amount of large guns. The 'jeune ecole' of less armor originated in France after all. More Mogador's and other large destroyers, and a couple more Dunkirks? (maybe redesigned with different guns... swap to dual 380mm's? There was a USA proposal for Alaska's with 3 double 15" guns, which was supposedly less heavy than the triple 12-inchers. I don't know how feasible it would be to go for either 2x3 or 3x2 15" for the Dunkirks; turn them into true battlecruisers; nor whether it would even be desirable as losing 25% of the barrels is not ideal. On the other hand, the Dunkirks 'regular' battery is not underpowered vs any 'cruiser' opponent, if the fleet gets boosted by more Richelieu-Gascogne/Alsaces and carriers ). Mogadors are not something any other destroyer would be eager to face one would think; 8 x 138 mm guns and high speed. Higher than usual (for Europe) range would be good (well, better) for the pacific too. Question is: would France, during peace-time, modernize the AA? There were the advanced 37mm's iirc for their battleship. But their Mogadors etc have little AA. The French (ground) airforce would have seen all their production aircraft actually fitted with engines and delivered to the airbases XD. Not sure what carrier aircraft they'd be producing by 1942-43.
@@PeteOtton nonsense, no one needs these techno-fads. The French army conducts it's battles according to carefully prepared plans, there is no need for panic getting introduced because of some idiot shouting in the radio that there's enemy tanks on the flank, or that the glorious general has been overruled.
Always keeping in mind that the Germans probably have to go to war in '39 or stand down, which I have a hard time imagining, once hard data about Yamato gets out that'll really shake things up.
18" guns quickly become big ship battery; and everybody has radar on ships and planes. Canadian Ship building increases capacity and vessel size. Jets on Land but not on carriers yet. No happy time for subs, no mid Atlantic Gap. tim oneill, back in Florida.
BZ Dr. Clarke. Would the US have decided that a forward aviation support ship or two would be useful? Would FDR have gotten his light fleet carriers for ferry duty for the navy and army? Would the Long Islands have been built for CAP, ASW, scouting for the old standards? Swarm the faster ships and have the standards as a reserve in case you guessed wrong? If not they are still the bombardment group for the landings. Of course need fleet oilers, fleet oiler, and did I mention fleet oilers and maybe a food ship or two and an ammo ship to keep everything at sea for more than a week at a time. Also with delaying the war 5-6 years what does that do to leadership? Leahy will likely remain retired with FDR deceased. Does King remain in retirement? Have the brown shoes started to come to forefront of flag command? Are Fletcher, Spruance, Halsey, Lockwood, and Nimitz retired? Or does a larger fleet mean the retirement age is increased to keep leadership that was leaned down during the depression up? And the same question for the RN for leadership?
I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in the states if there's no war there's not going to be construction so yes we have all those Cleveland's and whatnot that come out during the war yes we had made plans for them but I don't think they would have actually been made
The USN knew its cruiser force was inadequate. The Brooklyns were all in service by 1941, and the initial run of Clevelands ordered. Baltimore was just a 8" Cleveland. You wouldn't have seen the quantity, but you would have seen a decent amount of ships.
@@DrAlexClarke Given some of the problems with getting jets onto carriers post war, I think the timeline kinda holds unless there is a major break through in getting jets into land based service early 42 at the latest.
I very much disagree with @bkjeong’s absolutist position regrading new WWII battleship construction. I do think that Germany & Japan would have been much better off of they’d given up on their BB dreams, however. Sharnhorst and Gneisenau were actually very well designed & if Germany had been willing to swallow its pride they could have been useful assets in the Mediterranean.This would have required Raeder to suck it up & let Italy tech the lead in the theater. They also really should have shared their radar technology with Italy & Japan. It wasn’t as good as UK/US radar, but their surface search systems at least were quite good. The Regina Marina & IJN could have saved themselves some nasty surprises early in the war if they’d had half-decent surface-search radar (in Japan’s case) or any radar at all (in Italy’s case, which didn’t seem to appreciate its value, at least not until after Cape Matapan.) If you swapped out Sharnhorst’s triple 283 mm guns (which I actually quite like for their North Atlantic role) for 380s, give them a modest upgrade that includes swapping out all the 150s and 128s for a 128mm DP secondary battery AND attach them to the Italian fleet the combined German/Italian force could have given Cunningham a lot of headaches. Japan could have perhaps returned the favor by trading its Type 93/Type 95 torpedo design to its putative allies. Maybe they could have thrown in some of their optics blueprints while they were at it. Also, all of the Axis navies could have benefited significantly if they’d adopted the Bofors 40 mm gun as their heavy AA standard. Japan in particular would have Sweden was putatively neutral in WWII but they did a plenty of business with Germany. Germany already had access to the Bofors 40mm/60 design, btw! They just didn’t use it much. Nazis gonna Nazi I guess. The best argument for Japan to build Yamato and Musashi was because if they hadn’t we never would have had Soace Battleship Yamato/Star Blazers, which is still one of my all-time fave animes. When I was a kid in the early ‘80s Star Blazers was love. Star Blazers was life. I’m not sure that qualifies as a legitimate strategic justification for building the ships, though. And Bismarck and Tirpitz were an even more egregious waster of resources. Obviously Germany should have built a lot more U-boats. I can see an argument for building an enlarged panzerschiffe if they could be built in useful numbers & also be used in a heavy cruiser/shore bombardment role. The CA’s Germany did build were so bad the Kriegsmarine might as well have skipped them. A bigger Deutschland-type with the improved 283 mm guns used on the Scharnhorsts & the newer 12-cylinder MAN engines, which made about 50-60% more power without taking up much more space would have been pretty formidable. In my hypothetical scenario where the Axis Powers decided that sharing is caring these improved Deutschlands, which probably would have displaced maybe 18k-20k tonnes-a little more than a Hipper, basically, used a 128 mm DP secondary with 40 mm Bofors for heavy AA & been properly protected against 8” gunfire with good deck protection. I probably would upgrade the torps a little, too, especially if Japan’s proving its Long Lance blue prints. I still like the diesels for their extended cruising range. Other than that most of my non-submarine naval tonnage for Germany would have gone into better light cruisers, more destroyers and more of their A-team style armed merchant cruisers. Those sneaky A-team were VERY effective surface raiders. The ones they sunk & captured almost 100k tonnes of merchant shipping each on average. I’m also building a lot more U-boats, obviously. Japan just did not no how to use its battleships in WWII. Most of the ones they did have were too slow for the Pacific. Only the Kongos, which really were still BCs were useful at all, even with their weakness. Everything else was too damn slow for the Pacific. The Yamatos could do 27 knots, which is just about fast enough to qualify them as slow fast battleships, but they were also massive fuel hogs. I probably would have just slapped that German surface search radar on my Kongos & CAs, switched over from the 127 mm secondaries to 100 mm secondaries as my standard, added the Bofors 40 mm in place of the 25 mm morale boosters and called it a day. I think it might have been worthwhile to see if Nagato & Mutsu could be re-engined to get their useful speed up a level where they could serve as adequate fast carrier escorts. Mostly I’d’ve concentrated on building heavy cruisers with a class of 31cm gunned super-cruisers as cruiser leaders & fast carrier escorts alongside the Kongos, which, by the way, would also be getting Type 93 torps of their own in this scenario. And there would have been a lot more carriers. Japan, I think, works best as a carrier/heavy cruiser/destroyer fleet in WWII. It’s best to concentrate on what you do best…
I don't know if the armed merchant raiders would have fared well in a world with more destroyers and cruisers. I don't know if the Germans could get too many ships to the Med, and certainly once the shooting starts they are going to have a very hard time doing so. What do Britain and the US share for tech? With a later time line does the USN get more training in other than the annual fleet exercise? With radar do they realize night fighting is not only feasible but likely and prepare for it? Does the USN start night flight ops?
I would have thought 12 18 inch guns would have been a better option for the A-150's possibly going with a 50 calibre. They were thinking of 50 cals for the Yamato's but come to decision to go with 45 calibres due to barrel whip making the 50's less accurate. I would have thought the A-150's would have had 8 20 inch guns or maybe even try and develop 20 inch triple turret but I think 20 inch guns would definitely have a 1 round every 2min rate of fire like especially with having to keep dropping the barrels and how many powder bags 10 if not more compared to 5-6 of 16 inch guns
I have always been fascinated by the fantasies explicated on this channel. The flights of peacetime fancy are nothing like wartime urgency. The British under wartime urgency never solved armament standardization for AAA defense in their fleet, for example. Why would counterfactual history be different?
One of the reasons they didn't solve it was the 4.5in program was paused to concentrate on getting the fleet as was into the war(then restarted and eventually completed post-WWII); one of the reasons for their being so many systems is that the RN had had two failed standardisation programs in the early-mid 1930s, and was in 1939 part way into a program supposed to deliver by 1942. They're not just loving a logistical challenge, there are reasons for the situation they find themselves in. And besides why replace guns that work, that you have ammunition for, when you can use the new guns for new ships? Scuttlebutt 5
The RN failures of the AAA program go to a confusion about the physics of effectors versus threat. HAC FC and guns match works against level bombers. Not so good against dive bombers. Not only an RN problem, but one that no-one solved adequatedly. But what I find fascinating is that the conventional excuses get trotted out when the 4,5 inch is mentioned. Here was a perfectly good effector that could have been DP and covered the midbands in the altitude engagement problem as well as be a decent antisurface gun. But the RN wanted the 5.1 for the role. I suppose someone thought about the key fault? How is the crew supposed to service the blasted thing at the cyclic rates at the lengths of engagement time required? But put that aside. Even in peacetime, with your rebuiilds and new construction, you would like to standardize ordnance? You make comments about procurement paths that ignores the fundamantal rule of war. Keep everything when preparing as simple and cheap as possible. In the 1930s, which gives a clue of what the RN would do projected forward, would the RN follow the rule? Probably not, from the actual 1935-1939 history. Being caught flatfooted with multiple failures in progress, is not a uniquely British excperience BTW. The French naval aviation, the Italians with their submarines, the Germans with their engine plants and artillery, the Japanese with their basic navval architecture and the Americans with name anuthing you want, that they did not bollix interwar. None of them can be expected to begin to achieve your speculations. They have too many present and emergent crises in systems, and procurement with what they have in the pipeline. They will miost likely spend their last peacetime years trying to remediate instead of boldly going forth with their 2 Ocean Navy Bills and Z Plans. We know the Japanese had to scramble to fix existent ship classes during the 2nd China War so that their planned build outs were delayed by at least three years while they corrected basic topweight and ship stability issues. That is yardtime not devoted to Yamatos.. War changes this situation. You send out what you have whatever its faults. You newbuild whatever is in the Springsharps. That is not peacetime economic and logistic logic though? Bear in mind the Americans, who had two years of hot war going around them, buit were still at peace. They knew 1/4 of their modern submarine fleet had defective HORS engines. They knew their AAA close in was trash. They even knew their new battleships and cruisers had vibration issues as well as defective artillery. They missed the torpedoes and their wrong aviation choices, but what they knew they started to fix first, instead of go helter skelter into new construction. That was eased back as long as "peacetime thinking" was the logic. @@DrAlexClarke
@@adammcgregor-d3yThe UK 114 mm gun was pretty darn good-almost as good as the US 5”/38. The 5.25” guns looked gun in theory but until they got the loading system more effectively automated the guns were less than optimal. It really comes down to shell mass. The larger British guns fired a shell than weighed about twice as much as a 4.5 or 5” round. Unless your navy has access to the kind of chemists favored by Russian Olympians maintaining a useful ROF gets difficult without heavy automation of the loading system.
Your premiss is wrong. Germany's logistics couldn't produce what it needed. Also in terms of capital ships access to the Atlantic did prove to be an Achilles Heel. Germany needed long range air power to strike shipyards. Also designing and 34:55 using submarines to strike capital ships would have helped also their destroyer design and function was dismal at best. Same premise can be used to evaluate other navies. As Admiral Bloch said about Pearl Harbor demonstrated that 20 knot Battleships were obsolete. War games proved before hand that Pearl Harbor anchorage could be attacked. The leadership of the military was just as obsolete in it's adamite belief of tactics whose day had long past. Japan's main problem was not only logistics but indebt training of replacement personnel. It's leadership cooperation between it's military branches proved fatal. Every side had it's flaws, some corrected to some extent but internal power struggles even at the end of the war remain. The poor Aussies not only endured fighting Japanese, jungle, supply problems, but McArthur also. He should have been relieved after his Philippine debacle.
You could do this for 10 hours straight and not cover everything! Love what you did though. First comment: From what you ae saying the Italians and French paths were set in part due to limitations of infrastructure. The French were counting on British forces bailing them out outside of Europe. Neither would have needed real carrier forces but might have a few completed. They might have changed the mix among carriers, cruisers and destroyers, but the changes would not have been major big picture. Japan was committed to the four Yamatos and potentially 2-4 of the successors, BUT they were also a real carrier power and carriers really mattered in the Pacific. IF the treaties were dropped, would Japan have modified the Shokaku design and built more to get carriers out with the US going to Essex class? The Taiho was under development, but watching the US build up would need a response. The next generation of Japanese aircraft were a real step up though not enough came in to service before the surrender. Were the Shokaku hangers sized for the bigger aircraft? You did not cover the USN program and I understand it would be the hardest to judge, especially if Congress did not see the need. People forget the Two Ocean Navy bill of June 1940 was in response to the collapse of France. No war, probably a lot less cash for ships. But three points anyway. Would the South Dakotas have been built at all or would the USN by simply gone with the Iowas for a fast wing and Montanas as a heavy line of battle but simply more of both? Say 8 and 8? Would the USN fleet have been able to force the designers to have increased the Montana speed to 30 knots with no treaty limitations? There are plenty of reports the fleet thought the battleship speeds needed to match the other ships. Would the US Navy have not built Hornet and simply gone straight to the Essex class? Would they have also built the Midway's in parallel and in larger numbers, say 6? There would have been no independence class, but would the idea of small fleet carriers have resurfaced for the USN? and last the RN. I know you say the RN would have been able to go with an 18" gun, but both the USN and RN tested 18" and had no real interest. The USN developed the super heavy shell as a realistic counter to the 18" having similar ballistics and (though lower) penetration stats. Differences would have been compensated by much higher rates of sustained fire from more guns. Was it likely the RN would have gone a similar super heavy shell path to stay with smaller guns? Also one general question. Radar was in its infancy in 1939, but by 1943 was radically changing gunnery. How big an influence would radar development have had on carriers and gun ship designs if war was delayed until 1945? Long range gunnery would have been far more important with a bigger need for deck armor. Would it have lead to battle ranges routinely in the 25,000 to 30,000 yard ranges for the new ships? And in that scenario would the old WW1 era battlewagons have lost value as escorts?
I feel that a if the Japanese yamatos become more well known, probably at some point in 1942, the US would likely order a Montana revision with 9x18 inch guns. They’re very attached to the 3 gun turret and i dont see a 12x18 inch montana based design being fast and armored enough for their needs. We could see a genuine rise of super cruisers. As dubious as the germans following through on it to the letter, Plan Z called for 12 more panzershiffs, while the 3 deutchlands initially as their largest ships before Scharnhorst was acceptable especially in context of hood and the renowns, another 12 in conjunction with larger ships may convince the Royal navy to adopt a heavier cruiser type, possibly 12x9.2 or 6 to 9 x12 inch gun armed. The alaskas may be expedited and built in larger numbers and the Japanese may create a response. The theoretical large cruiser race may actually be realized. This could also allow japan to widen it’s surface fleet that supports their yamato and successor types. You cant have a decisive battle if you can be swarmed with impunity from all directions. I could see greece turkey or one of the nordic nations ordering some large cruisers to get a capital ships adjacent vessel within their budget. I feel that some R class battleships and the prestandard us ships may actually be scrapped or converted to training ships, the R class for the turrets for further vanguards and the US ships for cost reasons. Congress only loosed the purse strings as it did in 1940 and 1941 because of an ongoing war in Europe, and even to respond to renewed buildup on all sized, some token gesture to cost savings may be demanded. And with all this new construction but with say 2 of the r class being converted into aa training ships ala Utah as a way to remove their turrets, 2 of the less modernized queen elizabeths may be sent to canada or Australia. I feel we would see a war with an overall more balanced cruiser to battleship ratio, the plan z cruisers may develop into something more rational (despite Germany’s best efforts), japan may develop a follow-on to the aganos with their older light cruisers becoming more obsolescent despite holding a vital role in their doctrine.
The USN did thoroughly test an 18"-45 cal gun in the 1930's and then relined it as a 16"-54 cal for additional testing. The result was the development of the 16"-50 cal super heavy 2800# 16" shell which was very similar to the 18"-45 in performance at most combat ranges. The USN found the 18" gun would have had a firing rate of 2 shells for every three 16" at best. It was larger, a lot heavier, and could only allow a twin turret in ships that had 16" triples. I also understand there would have been only 2 potential suppliers for the 18" shell complicating logistics. The super heavy shell evened performance out but gave up little in terms of firing rates. They would have stayed with 16"-50 cal guns.
@@Knight6831you are correct, the main issue with a commerce raider without supporting bases is that almost any damage can be a mission kill, but in the context of the P-class deutchland successors of which 12 were planned, they would retain likely the 11 inch guns but whether they be 52 or 54.5 caliber is hard to find. But the main concern is the speed, planned for 33 knots instead of the deutchland’s 28 they could actually marginally outrun the County and Exeter class, and in an engagement where they could actually dictate the range, to some degree. While the slower firerate is a downside, being able to outrange the british cruisers in a gun fight, with the lower firing arc allowing for greater accuracy at the same range as an 8 inch gun, may cause the british to consider larger gun caliber cruisers of a new design to also cut down the speed advantage. Also having a total fleet of 15 of these cruisers in this admittedly unlikely scenario they would be a concern not in just a commerce raider scenario but also in hypothetical German fleet operations. The royal navy could handle 3 deutchlands, they had 3 battlecruisers which could outrun them and destroy them, but a 33 knot deutchland type could outrun (barely) all 3 battlecruisers and even the vanguards and lion classes. Something would be built to counter them, and I believe it may be likely they proceed with the 1938 designs for a 9x9.2 inch or 6x12 inch cruiser at about 33 knots.
@@jamesb4789yes absolutely they made the logical choice for the iowas and montanas in the context of the time, the 16 inch guns provided similar firepower at a great rate than 18 inch guns, but with the knowledge of yamatos and seeing the potential of yamato successors, 18 inch guns with superheavy shells may be deemed necessary to counter the increased armor of those vessels and to future proof against any further leaps forward in size they may commit to.
@bertholdvonzahringen6799 At least with RN warships I'd like to provide a counter, now whilst the P class might have a slight superiority in terms of speed against RN heavy cruisers and faster capital ships, assuming their engines were capable of being reliable enough to do it, that isn't the whole story first off they're not fast enough at least against RN capital ships for them to be able to get away from their "reported" top speeds, not what those ships, and in this scenario we're dealing with a Hood who has had her rebuild, could do if they pushed themselves. They also don't out range the fast capital vessels and assuming the same holds true for cruisers, they can still be forced into a fight they'll inevitably take damage from. I think their margins are bit too thin to make them viable frankly.
Hello doc this was a really interesting topic...... Malta class laid down in 1942/43 ?? I could see that happening in response to the Essex and Midway's and just needing the room for the new generation of Fleet Air Arm aircraft development the Navy really want as apposed to what the Air Ministry what to give them and yes could see turbine engines and maybe jet's now that would be interesting.... As far as Australia and Canada yards getting big orders for Black Swan's to take pressure off the smaller yards so that they can contrate on destroyers and light cruiser for escort's for the new construction I could also see that happening but Cockatoo island would have to be expanded which would have to be done anyway to except the R class, happy days because I could see Devport in Auckland been expanded so that they can do limited run on Black Swan's as well
I doubt Maltas, but wouldn't be surprised if a variant of the Implacables with deck edge lifts come about, the British for political reasons will probably keep to a 27,000ton(standard) displacement till at least war breaks out...
The other issue is who is leading the RN, Dudley Pound might be jumped over for Andrew Cunningham, or Henderson, who is more likely to have lived because he would have been under a lot less stress
Fascinating, yer would the world political situation support this. Japanese need for natural resources, the limit of German industrial capabilities...And the world social needs? Very interesting.
oh there are many factors against this, and as I alluded to there are several nations which might go bankrupt during this period, but it was still a fun thing to work through how the fleets might develop.
I don’t know…I can see the RCN getting expanded but to me it matters more on who the government is. If Mackenzie King and the Libs run the show as historically. Then limited liability, with an emphasis on air and naval forces will play up to the RCN expanding. The RCN top brass were never happy being the Sheepdog Navy in WW2, but even then they had problems selling a big ship navy to the politicians. And if the Cons take power…all bets are off. So I don’t know if Canada with 3500 sailors in 1939, even by 1944 is going to have the capability to handle a couple of battlewagons plus cruisers and destroyers and escorts without war being on. Plus would the Flowers even get ordered until 1943 in this scenario? I can see an expansion for sure Getting the RCN to 12000 personnel is maybe doable without War. Maybe
Flowers were ordered/started construction in 1939, design had been selected in 1938... somewhere on here there is a whole video explaining how the war time emergency build is just gloss put on by Churchill for him to justify the capital ship/carrier pause he ordered before even getting briefed that unlike WWI, the RN already had the escort orders in hand. They were ordered then so that they would be worked up for duties with the fleet in 1942, which was the point the RN had to be fully ready for war. The RN in this scenario get two more bonus years after their focus date.
Frankly, I doubt Italy would build a carrier before 1944. Poor coordination between Regia Marina and Regia Aeronautica aside, Italy itself (plus its islands) is a massive carrier, and Italian naval operations would never be far from land-based aircraft range. The planned Indian Ocean fleet based in Mogadishu would have likely consisted in light cruisers and destroyers. It's likely Italy would have further developed light cruisers and destroyers
Oh the entire reason if they did would be Il Duce competing for ego points with Hitler... agreed on the problems, but as technically the Minister for Air & Minister for Navy, he could in theory force it through...
If Mussolini wants to 1 up the H class 16", do you see the Italians going for 18" or just more 16" than the H? If the Italians go 18", what do the RN & MN do?
If WW1 had been delayed for 5 years I doubt if there would be any experience of small aircraft suitable for offence. I expect there would be some able to take off from a short prepared airstrip but I don't know enough to talk about landing on a deck. We use a hook and a wire now but could a ship go fast enough for a fragile aircraft to be plucked out of the air as it drifted slowly past. If there had been a demand for it, I am sure that several useful proposals would have been put forward. If.
Thats actually where the History gets really interesting, the work that leads to sopwith cuckoo is actually traced to 1913, and the work that led to Hermes can be documented back to 1912. Furthermore the RN was really interested in something to shoot down Zeppelins as well, so honestly I would not be surprised at something loaded with 12/12 or 18/18 fighter/torpedo bomber mix, appears in 1917/8 - and if the British follow their usual habbit they'd probably build 3-4 of them. Looking at these potential ships is something I've considered for Christmas series or hoped might be a patreon suggestion as it really becomes interesting. There is also the fact that Japan is heading down that route as well, in fact, there is a real chance in this scenario that they end up having a qualitative race with each other and the other qualitative race members join in.
@@DrAlexClarke Thank you. I had not realised that British military thinkers thought much of aircraft at that time. I know a USA officer wanted one of the Wright brothers to take him up but he landed fatally.
Wing Commander Cave-Browne-Cave is a good example of the British officers en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cave-Browne-Cave, there are several more like him...
@@DrAlexClarke I see, an engineer. By 1st July 1914 he was Fl Lt (E) so he was in a military plane by then. How effective they would become I don't know but if they could assist in the accurate delivery of 15" shells and reduce the amount of steaming by the fleet it would be worth it.
Watching this now and realising Dr Clarke used intriguing the highest level of sarcasm allowed by an academic before they start shaking you angrily and asking why did you do this for German-plans at the 3 minute mark. Oh no this is not going be fun for them.
Discussing the British Empire I do wonder if in 5 years if India is still part of that or has spun off and whatvan intresting wrench in the gears that produces
Probably not it this scenario, historically that was 1947 and a lot of issues accelerated that, most of which were a result of the war so unlikely... As I've discussed before Britain had a plan for dominionisation of the entire empire and India was transiting along that route... Britain was cautious about such things because they worried the legacy of empire/rule by force could lead to unstable dictatorships arising if not enough attention was paid & time taken in the transition.
@DrAlexClarke you might see a course where the elements of the British empire remain under British control for foreign policy and cooperation on defense but have independent control of domestic policy
Thinking carefully. HMS New Zealand had such plot armour, if the Colonies get obsolete vessels like old war veterans and given Warspites own plot history... HMS Warspite ends up based out of Auckland and Wellington, and certain artifacts are gifted to her Captain in memory of the service of her fellow from Jutland. When Battle is done Warspite wades through combat with an unblemished hull and getting Golden Pea alpha strikes with the latest gunlaying computers and makes the British fleet look silly. Because we just added Plot Armour to Main Character talent and the nation of Egypt somehow ends up a New Zealand Colony due to misunderstandings and the fact no one dares fight Warspite. The scary bit is the roaming fleets of Tribals hunting surface raiders and disappearing into south America and coming back from somewhere with tank tracks and becoming Semi Amphibious and declaring Warspite their favorite Flagship.
@@20chocsaday it takes twelve years for the crown Colony class and their following successors to track down the roving packs of Tribals from their goal to hunt all the navies of the world for a scrap, and finally peace is found. The British ask for Warspite back presuming it'll be due for scrapping, unfortunately it found its way to a fresh water port... Lake Taupo, and is thus free of the usual rust problems, how precisely it got upstream from the Hooker Falls remains a mystery to most, but the Locals blame the local Taniwha, while the Tribals whisper that Warspite merely glared at the waterfall till it permitted access. Rumours of spottings of Warspite in various international lakes slowly begin to accrue over the years despite assurances that everyone believes the crew and ship are safely parked in the Caldera of a dormant Megavolcano keeping her hull warm ready for the next conflict.
For a 1919 ww1 we need Franz Ferdinand to survive or dodge the assassination. the RN will have the full QE, R, and mark 1 Admiral class added to the fleet. I see no reason for carriers not to be developed with the RN leading the way. Japan will continue building as historically but won't get the economic boost from selling weapons to Tarest Russia. they'd probably be second to start carrier development, not sure were funding comes from. Us will continue build matching the RN, they'd make a carrier in response to Japan making one if nothing else. France will probably get a carrier, if the scratch build it should be serviceable, if conversion then its a Bearn. Italy is getting the Francisco Caracciola, not sure if they'd try for a carrier or go we don’t need one. Germany will make at least one carrier to prove they can. And continue a more modest building of its navy at the armys insistence. The last three will change on how ww1 is delayed if Franz survives the attempt. Austria-Hungary will get its ursats-yorks (spelled that wrong) but might fall apart before it can finish anything else. As partisans domestic or foreign may start rebellions. Russia and the Ottoman Empire could follow a similar path finishing their current naval builds and getting distracted. WW1 is then a set of smaller bite-sized but still terrible wars. If he dodges the assassination attempt this leads him open to latter attempts starting WW1. 1919. For ground warfare i see a armored car doctrine replacing calvary to some extent during the intervening years. Maneuver warfare may remain in vogue until terrain or technology stops the armored cars leading to the tank as we saw it.
A silly thought Dr Alex - can I propose a live house-warming party once you are properly installed in Casa di Clarke and you have yourself set-up properly? Your followers gathering together of an evening or a weekend afternoon with a drink of something that pleases them and perhaps something tasty and rejoice in the successful move and hopefully your recovery from your current malaise? Cocktails and Naval history sounds nice to me - people's tastes can vary....
Where do I start with my comment…Your PoV on German Submarine technology and capabilities of our timeline, does not really match the capabilities actualities of German technology in the mid 1940’s as established in both the Type XXI and XXIII classes. So let me help with a few facts on the problems as I have actually been on board U2540 in Bremerhaven which is the sole remaining Type XXI and have partially read a translation using google lens of the technical data; so here goes : 1- The production of sub-assemblies could not match the required level of accuracy to make a viable and reliable vessel. Reasons as to why are usually put down to a combination of the use of slave labour in German production, Sabotage in production and the fact that Germany was calling up a proportion of its skilled labour capable of meeting the needed standard …. to fight in the war. 2- The lack of specialists’ steels and other alloys needed towards the end of WWII, which were needed for some components 3- This only relates to the Type XXIII - if you combine the 2 issues above with the uses of 90% Hydrogen Peroxide (Catalyst) and Hydrozine (fuel) in the Walther Turbine the components had 1 better fit and 2 be made from the right stuff as the reaction of these materials are Hypergolic and its lethal when it goes wrong because it will simultaneously try to dissolve your body and set it alight. This was the problem in Germany that they could not meet the needed standards to do this. Now you may recognise this ….its the fuel combination which powers the Me163 Komet- get this wrong in an enclosed metal tube like say a small submarine, what you have is a supersized “pipe bomb”. So this is the scale of the issue, and it perfectly mirrors all the issues of the governance of “Mr Moustache” and his fat friend Herman. Yes the design of the XXI did have some excellent idea’s but Germany was not capable of executing these in our timeline efficiently and the results hardly count as a "SUPER SUBMARINE"
@@steveclarke6257 Your arguements are invalid, as it is set out that these requirements would be fulfilled before the beginning of the conflict. I am going in the assumption that everything works perfectly, just as it was planned. Just like it would have been for the Jumo 004 jet engine if it were to have been developed and built before the conflict. So, any weaknesses, or defects do not count in this "If" scenario. We go for 100% reliabilty and quality.
In many ways the Type XXI were brought about as a desperate attempt to increase the survivability of their Uboat fleet, after it had been devastated by the improving tactics and resources of the allies. There is no guarantee there would be the impetus to design them pre-war at all; I suspect they will focus more on range and possibly size (aircraft carrier subs perhaps, like the Japanese) than on super stealth during that period
@davidmarkwort9711 no it is your comments that are invalid, handwaving at this does not hide the systemic issues of German production in wartime; because you fail to understand the requirements of engineering in wartime. Germany always has the same characteristics with its engineering......German engineers mantra is precision whixh is fine in peacetime. But in wartime what is needed is mass production- is all about good enough and having quality control measures on production amd raw materials( the steel and alloys)...and that is the important thing in wartime. Germany could never do this because good enough is the enemy of perfection in their eyes. You say well it's all sorted out in peacetime. Well in peacetime they designed and built mostly excellent equipment (,we will ignore the Konigsbergs, everyone gets things wrong-see the mk 14 torpedo etc). But as wartime started Germany could never produce enough equipment to meet the long-term need of a wartime army; three reasons for this. 1- Germany fails to design equipment which is capable of being good enough for true mass production by semi-skilled workers. 2- Germany fails to fully utilise its whole workforce, it does not use women in male roles in engineering. 3- the British blockade denies Germany with all those" special materials" it needs in mass production quantities to make those special steels and alloys it needs. Making that equipment less less effective than its allied counterpart (heavier, less robust etc) This is why you can't hand- wave the problem away... .. all that and I haven't even got to say specifically just how useless "Fatso" Goring was, as "minister for procurement and production" for Germany in WWII. It's his dislike for the Navy means it never gets what it needed from him. So not is not until Speer takes over is their any political movement to change in policy and whilst he is an improvement, it's not saying much when you were already scraping the bottom of the barrel. So before you next post on this subject, I suggest you go and do some actual reading on German production and economics "in wartime" first.
the pre-WWII vs the post-WWII path to independence was very different, for better or worse - think of India more as going through a process of Dominionisation, like Australia, Canada & New Zealand, and the Indian political class was honestly mostly onboard with that as it was considered a safe step to independence until they had established themselves. It was the wartime changes in the global order brought on by WWII which changed their calculations and made the jump to straight independence more attractive. Hope that answers your query... Whats interesting is whilst the leadership of the independence movement doesn't change, views of their supporters, major indian industrialists and traditional leaders which evolved.
My next question takes this concept and twists it, but needs a heap of research. What if the treaties in Europe, in an effort to avoid another devastating World War One nations of Europe pledge to curtaintale their tank production and development... But leave wide open expanding Naval development Except Not Submarines. So Europe starts a naval arms race, Russia starts building shipyards to print something not dissimilar to the early T series, numerous but not great, Germany and Japan spending their whole economies on building super battleships, while Britian just invests in Shipyards across empire and printing Destroyers with more torpedos and guns and Raw battleship power... And Congress mostly sitting back and talking big but denying naval budgets because the arms race is a European thing and America never signed that treaty. Instead of 'what if they built whatever they wanted' What could their nationa economy actually produce with only Air, and Naval focuses.
The Germans getting an aircraft carrier is both a blessing and a curse. If they build the Graf Zepplin then they either have to order several of them, or only have the one, and then cannot order more until they figure out how the first one works. Either way, you either get multiple Bearn-level carriers, or only one, and then have multiple “fixed” carriers on order that aren’t built in time. I think the biggest problem is that the Germans will keep opting for quantity over quality, but as a result, completing much less than suggested, as they will constantly be reacting to UK construction and “re-working” ships in progress on the slipways, leading to increasing delays. So, by 1944, I’d imagine the Bismarks get finished, and maybe a pair of H39s, but everything after that is unfinished because they keep making changes. I think Japan actually undergoes economic collapse by 1942. The oil embargo and cost of the Sino-Japanese war likely causes the Army dominated gov’t to collapse if it can’t declare war. At which point the militants likely try another coup, fail, and then the military gets purged, after which, perhaps it leaves the Axis.
@@juicysushi Ultimately academic. Germany had to invade when it did because it was almost out of money. They had to loot and pillage and export their inflation or they'd be kaput.
To answer your question, I am not sure what happens if WW1 is delayed 5 years. Does Russia have a revolution in the meantime, leading to Austria getting a free pass to attack the Balkans? Does a Germany that’s abandoned the naval race 5 years before become more reluctant to violate Belgian sovereignty?
Could wind up with a situation where late-WW1 happens because of the communist revolution(s), as opposed to causing it, with all the other powers jumping in to stop communism a la the French Revolution. Naval wise it would probably be pretty boring, unless it's Britain that goes Red and Europe is teaming up against her. That could be an interesting hypothetical - Red Britain has the biggest stick, they're in a position that makes it difficult for their opposition to concentrate, but there's probably been significant purges in the officer corps. Is the 1919 Red Navy (assuming that the whole thing goes over, and we don't wind up with the Med. Fleet supporting the Royalists or something) enough to stand off all the rest of Europe on its own?
@@ericfletcher36I think Britain is possibly the least likely European power to have a revolution for a combination of cultural and economic reasons. Were it to happen, though, England would suddenly be much weaker as the colonies would be unable to be held together. Red Britain could not reclaim its imperial holdings in the way the Russians did to many territories of the former Russian empire during their civil war. I could see an Austrian-Balkan war being guaranteed, but without a Russia “defending the Slavs” there is no cycle of escalation dragging in Germany and France. I could see a potential German-Soviet war due to Soviet support for German socialists trying to incite a revolution inviting a German response. But France and the UK would not be coming to the USSR’s aid in the scenario.
@@ericfletcher36 The countries most likely to have revolutions are Russia, the many counties in the Balkans, and Austro-Hungry, and not necessarily communist except for maybe in Russia, but you need something to spark the powder keg and the long privations as well as the bloodshed of the war is was sparked that.
@@PeteOtton oh, agreed, except I'd probably add the Turks to the list (unless they're part of the Balkans?) Something like the Ottomans collapsing into civil war, and everyone picking sides to support seems much more plausible, but Crimean War 2.0 (now with more players!) is boring from a naval alt-history perspective. Maybe we'd get to see 'Voyage of the Russian Pacific Squadron 2: Indian Ocean Boogaloo', which entertains in cringe comedy style, but that's about it. I don't see a plausible arrangement of land powers that also makes for something interesting on the naval side. I suppose if the British stay out of it something interesting might happen, but that seems unlikely if the other Great Powers are throwing down.
All sorts of additional odd things happen if you extend the period before war. The Dutch would probably have their battlecruisers for the East Indies which changes all sorts of things in the Pacific too.
4 twin 4.5” mounts, 2 quintuple torpedo launchers, a good amount of 40mm bofors and 20mm orliken singlie, twin and quad mounts along with radar sets, rangefinding equipment, crew accommodations, supplies and ammunition for all of that in a hull large enough for a fast and heavy engine is a light cruiser displacement.
oh yes, it is definitely pushing 2,800tons+ (standard), it was what I would call a proto-Daring...
I forgot the asw equipment, communication and command/control suite as well.
definitely WWI scout cruiser size...
Basically, an actually useful Dido-class.
I think you’re overestimating the engineering capabilities of these countries.
Hey Doc, just want to say thanks for the good content. Don't be bummed about the live feature today or anything, for me it was a cool video!
For the US, the key date to remember is June 22, 1940. The Two Ocean Navy Act of 1940 comes on July 19, 1940; The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 comes in September 1940. Without the French surrender in 1940, the United States isn't politically motivated to start rearming. Absent the start of war in 1939, and the need for both the UK and France to purchase aircraft, the aircraft industry in the US doesn't really get ramped up. A delay of 4 years might not make a huge impact in the US. More North Dakotas, more Yorktowns, etc.
Maybe more more of the South Dakotas and North Carolinas, Maybe another Yorktown or two but I still think we get the Essex class, just not a swarm of them. How many Fletchers do we get? More importantly do we build fleet oilers? Enough fast ones to keep up with the fleet, and a number of standard speed tankers to keep the fleet fueled? Does FDR get his light carriers purpose built say 6-8 for ferry duty and supplement the fleet? Do we build more of the Long Islands to provide CAP, anti sub warfare, and scouting/initial strike for the old standards? And once everyone else starts ramping up production does FDR start pushing Congress for more and more? And once production starts, does congress realize that spending stimulates the economy to finally pull out of the Great Depression?
Cockatoo island dockyard was supposed to expand with reclaimed land between the island and Birchgrove. A larger dry dock bigger than the garden island dry dock was to built with the ability to build carriers. This was planned but ultimately wasn’t done. In the 1920’s a huge combined naval base and shipyard facility was proposed in Port Stephens, it was based on what was Portsmouth and Devonport in the UK. A set of drawings was in the Australian naval magazine The Navy several years ago.
Sorry connected to Drummoyne not Birchgrove.
I can see the US Navy taking a conservative step before switching between the Essexes and the Midways. Maybe an armored variant of the Essex. It might be small run at first.
The U.S. was working on the 5” 54 caliber and an autoloading 8”. Would have been interesting to see what the cruisers and destroyers would have evolved (some cruisers were built postwar).
Hmmm, Maybe some autoloading destroyers too? We had them on the 5" AA cruisers.
Hey; how would passing ships off to imperial members states have worked vs. the whole decolonization movement? I know it really only _really_ picked up steam after WWII, but there was still motion in that direction as early as the 1920s. Are there countries/territories that the UK might not have trusted with ships over a certain size, or not been interested in placing factories in areas where local resistance movements might have been able to sabotage them?
Flower Class corvettes & destroyers, especially old ones, they'd happily pass off; but larger units would go to loyal dominions, besides which the British were heavily invested & progressing with the dominionisation program of most colonies and actually quite a lot of the independence campaigns were part of that.
@@DrAlexClarke What did that mean for India? I'm a yankee so my understanding is heavily colored by a certain movie from the 80's and therefore am uncertain of the realities of Indian politics at the time.
Found this last night.
I just want to thank you for the 3:00AM bed time!!! 🙃
With war delayed five years imagine what the french would do with the maginot line. The Polish probably have time to enlarge their submarine and destroyer forces. If i am remembering correctly they had very good designs in service already. Germany might fine a good chuck of its force at the bottom of the Baltic.
Also hope you get better soon.
That brings in another of Alex's recent videos, would the Germans have an operational Fritz-X guided bomb? And would they think to make a bunker-busting version for use against the Maginot Line?
Delay the start of war and things potentially start going in all sorts of really interesting directions.
@@ibex485True. One thing that they might have made and trialled could be the type XXI submarine, built for the USSR, allegedly. They would obviously have found out about the snorkel by then.
What I kept thinking of was side-scanning ASDIC and using radar frequencies for short range ship to ship communication.
The Germans didn't use Chain Home rather a directed beam spotting at a long distance by the end of 1941.
Something I kept listening for was Fuel and Uranium in connection with the large ships required.
I think they would use a lot of oil fuel.
It was known that energy is released during Uranium fission. Would this be seen as a possible replacement for the large oil bunkers needed. Forcing these big ships through the sea needs a lot of energy. And you can't make these ships lightly if they are to fire those guns twice.
Where would the Armament from WW1 French Battleships end up Paris , Courbet etc -Railway guns or Maginot Line or coastal defence
The older French battleships would probably be kept in service unless new construction could ensure matching the Italian fleet and replacement of old designs. If it could then I would place them in positions on the North French coast. From where they could fire out into the Channel and potentially rotate to cover parts of the Belgium border.
As for fritz-x. An unmodified version might not do well against land forts. I am thinking of actually being able to penetrate that much earth and reinforced concrete. A modified version, probably with its own special plane, could be made. Especially as this would give Göring something to prove that his airfore is the superior branch of the military. As he can with one bomb destroy any fort and sink any battleship.
@@20chocsaday Hmm, it was in the 50's that fission was tamed enough for producing controlled amounts of heat used to boil water and turn it into high pressure steam. And how much of that knowledge was from the Manhattan project?
I don't know if Canada would have the money or crew to maintain an R class BB.
Maybe a couple of Artheusa Class handed off to us.
But we be spamming Flower Class and Black Swan like no end.
How would Merchant Navy develop in this time as we know the RN at least likes a hull to stick a gun on and also likes to Squirrel away useful bit so we would have guns from C Class cruisers available and the V&W class i imagine
Keep up the great work
Another great video thanks! Get felling better
I can certainly imagine the live version of this would definitely be a very discursive one.
For the UK, a very interesting scenario
1) in the BB Category:
1.1) About the KGV maybe upgrading their guns to a 9x3, 15/50 caliber?
1.2) About the Vanguards, maybe using the new caliber 15/50 too?
1.3) The Lions...which version will be? the 1938 design? the 1942 design? the 16-E38 4x3 16 gun design? or a Devastation style 4x4 16 gun wows version?
1.4) Or a 18 inch N3 mark 2 style bb?
Maybe finally getting a standard DP gun in the form of the 4,5 inch gun, 40mm Bofors under licence, 20mm Oerklion and or Polsten guns for AA use and several radars could be installed from the beginning.
Also the subject of "modernization" comes along, maybe the QE class gets fully modernized to QE/Warspite standards, with new boilers, idk about the R class getting such an upgrade, maybe some small upgrades AA and radar to make them 2nd rate BB to guard convoys and support landings. Hood/R class battlecruisers getting a full refit and the Nelsons too.
In the form of carriers, maybe the Implacables gets more build and maybe a Malta on the way, or a ton of Colossus class, cheaper and in large numbers could be a decisive factor for the FAA, not the big us carrier, but a lot of medium/light flight carriers could do the similar job and getting more hulls into the fight.
Great discussion. Oh yes, give Ernest King 2-3 years to plan and be in charge. Good luck fighting that fleet. A fleet of Montanas, Iowas, Midways, supported with Des Moines and revamped Cleveland/Atlanta classes.
Don't forget the Alaska class, they were ordered in this time frame as well.
@@ericfehser6447 the Alaskas were a flex we did on the rest of the world. We said’We’re so bored building Iowas and Essexes that we’ll build this as a side gig.’ We weren’t serious about the Alaskas.
Skip the Iowas and Montanas for even more Midways and Essexes plus more Fletchers and Gearings.
@@bkjeong4302 except that without the carrier battles of 42 and the Taranto raid plus others, battleships would still have been the queens of the seas. The exit door may have been open but they had not been shown the door yet.
@@StylinandProfilinBBsandBBQ
Sure, they don’t know that they should stop putting new battleships into service at this point, doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea to stop building them.
I’ve always been curious what WW2 would have been like had WW2 not started until 1950.
There are so many variables to consider when speculating about an alternate history. The first one that comes to mind is the political situation in the future combatants, and a subsequent arms race. I am only knowledgeable about the "Two Ocean Act" in the late 30's in the US, "Plan H" in Germany" and Japan's construction program. All of these occurring in the mid-to-late 30s in their formulation. War is always an accelerant to technology, however, many of the innovations that were put into production after hostilities commenced Were in advanced stages of R&D as well as construction prior to 1939. Britain was already working on RADAR, ASDIC and jet engine technology. The squabbles between the RAF and RN stunted technology advancement in the Fleet Air Arm to a large extent however. The US had a number of designs that were under contract before 1939, and were working with the British on the aforementioned electronics pioneered by the British scientists. Japan like the Germans had regimes/general staffs/ministries that were somewhat at cross-purposes amongst themselves and with their rulers. This was particularly the case with Japan, where the almost hostile interservice rivalry was nearly as vitriolic as their disdain for their potential enemies. Cannot speak too much about the Germans, except to say that Goering was adamant that the Luftwaffe control Naval Aviation. VERY good information, and I have learned a lot over the past few years. Best wishes to your Mum!
Keep in mind that for much of the world WWII really began in 1936 & 1937 in Spain & Asia. The Germans got started faster than the General staff would have liked. That’s what happens when you’ve got a meth-head in charge of your country. Japan wasn’t waiting, though. If Hitler had gotten some bad drugs from Morell and been replaced by a more disciplined psychopath the Nazis probably good have bought them sleeves a three or four more years to prep, but I guarantee that something would have happened sooner than later that got the ball rolling. Stalin wasn’t the most reliable fella, either.
Wow, the views have really shot up to put the video in the top 10 of most viewed videos on Dr Clarke’s channel, congrats Dr Clarke🎉
The US was already developing the 5"/54 with autoloading, and looking hard at the 6". Imagine if you will an improved Cleveland with full autoloading armament. Machine gun cruiser 2.0.
You have 4-5yrs more research & development time, before having to actualise that research... all sorts of interesting things happen
Actually, I think it likely the USN would have pushed hard for the 8" auto loading and you would have seen the Rochester and Des Moines classes developed a lot sooner. The work on them started in the late 30's but was delayed due to war needs.
Also interesting to see how the Dutch would evolve.
Someone will adapt 12-14 in projectiles sabboted in an 18" barrel to exceed the range and velocity over standard 18" rounds.
Probably easier to man handle than the standard 18" too I would imagine?
The Financial aspects of the Polish partition have been under researched.
For France: the Alsace may be difficult, didn't the French need even larger shipyards for those?
Instead of Richelieu's, they might alter the design slightly to 'Gascogne' with 1 turret forward, 1 aft; and go "quantity over quality", a bit similar to the British KGV idea. The Richelieu's were significantly less tonnage than Bismarck etc after all, whilst packing the same amount of large guns.
The 'jeune ecole' of less armor originated in France after all.
More Mogador's and other large destroyers, and a couple more Dunkirks? (maybe redesigned with different guns... swap to dual 380mm's? There was a USA proposal for Alaska's with 3 double 15" guns, which was supposedly less heavy than the triple 12-inchers. I don't know how feasible it would be to go for either 2x3 or 3x2 15" for the Dunkirks; turn them into true battlecruisers; nor whether it would even be desirable as losing 25% of the barrels is not ideal. On the other hand, the Dunkirks 'regular' battery is not underpowered vs any 'cruiser' opponent, if the fleet gets boosted by more Richelieu-Gascogne/Alsaces and carriers ).
Mogadors are not something any other destroyer would be eager to face one would think; 8 x 138 mm guns and high speed.
Higher than usual (for Europe) range would be good (well, better) for the pacific too.
Question is: would France, during peace-time, modernize the AA? There were the advanced 37mm's iirc for their battleship.
But their Mogadors etc have little AA.
The French (ground) airforce would have seen all their production aircraft actually fitted with engines and delivered to the airbases XD.
Not sure what carrier aircraft they'd be producing by 1942-43.
And radio for the army?
@@PeteOtton nonsense, no one needs these techno-fads. The French army conducts it's battles according to carefully prepared plans, there is no need for panic getting introduced because of some idiot shouting in the radio that there's enemy tanks on the flank, or that the glorious general has been overruled.
Always keeping in mind that the Germans probably have to go to war in '39 or stand down, which I have a hard time imagining, once hard data about Yamato gets out that'll really shake things up.
18" guns quickly become big ship battery; and everybody has radar on ships and planes. Canadian Ship building increases capacity and vessel size. Jets on Land but not on carriers yet. No happy time for subs, no mid Atlantic Gap. tim oneill, back in Florida.
BZ Dr. Clarke. Would the US have decided that a forward aviation support ship or two would be useful? Would FDR have gotten his light fleet carriers for ferry duty for the navy and army? Would the Long Islands have been built for CAP, ASW, scouting for the old standards? Swarm the faster ships and have the standards as a reserve in case you guessed wrong? If not they are still the bombardment group for the landings. Of course need fleet oilers, fleet oiler, and did I mention fleet oilers and maybe a food ship or two and an ammo ship to keep everything at sea for more than a week at a time. Also with delaying the war 5-6 years what does that do to leadership? Leahy will likely remain retired with FDR deceased. Does King remain in retirement? Have the brown shoes started to come to forefront of flag command? Are Fletcher, Spruance, Halsey, Lockwood, and Nimitz retired? Or does a larger fleet mean the retirement age is increased to keep leadership that was leaned down during the depression up? And the same question for the RN for leadership?
I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in the states if there's no war there's not going to be construction so yes we have all those Cleveland's and whatnot that come out during the war yes we had made plans for them but I don't think they would have actually been made
The USN knew its cruiser force was inadequate. The Brooklyns were all in service by 1941, and the initial run of Clevelands ordered. Baltimore was just a 8" Cleveland. You wouldn't have seen the quantity, but you would have seen a decent amount of ships.
If the Rs go to the Commonwealth, what happens to the Vanguards who rely on those turrets?
OK, I asked too early 🫣
I would have thought that Jet aircraft for a war 5 years later would be a given. Does that speed up angled deck and steam catapult?
in theory those should be on the way, however, never bet against the ability of internal politics to muck up technological development...
@@DrAlexClarke Given some of the problems with getting jets onto carriers post war, I think the timeline kinda holds unless there is a major break through in getting jets into land based service early 42 at the latest.
Please, Dominions. Different than colonies. Especially after December 11 1931
I very much disagree with @bkjeong’s absolutist position regrading new WWII battleship construction. I do think that Germany & Japan would have been much better off of they’d given up on their BB dreams, however. Sharnhorst and Gneisenau were actually very well designed & if Germany had been willing to swallow its pride they could have been useful assets in the Mediterranean.This would have required Raeder to suck it up & let Italy tech the lead in the theater. They also really should have shared their radar technology with Italy & Japan. It wasn’t as good as UK/US radar, but their surface search systems at least were quite good. The Regina Marina & IJN could have saved themselves some nasty surprises early in the war if they’d had half-decent surface-search radar (in Japan’s case) or any radar at all (in Italy’s case, which didn’t seem to appreciate its value, at least not until after Cape Matapan.)
If you swapped out Sharnhorst’s triple 283 mm guns (which I actually quite like for their North Atlantic role) for 380s, give them a modest upgrade that includes swapping out all the 150s and 128s for a 128mm DP secondary battery AND attach them to the Italian fleet the combined German/Italian force could have given Cunningham a lot of headaches.
Japan could have perhaps returned the favor by trading its Type 93/Type 95 torpedo design to its putative allies. Maybe they could have thrown in some of their optics blueprints while they were at it. Also, all of the Axis navies could have benefited significantly if they’d adopted the Bofors 40 mm gun as their heavy AA standard. Japan in particular would have
Sweden was putatively neutral in WWII but they did a plenty of business with Germany. Germany already had access to the Bofors 40mm/60 design, btw! They just didn’t use it much.
Nazis gonna Nazi I guess.
The best argument for Japan to build Yamato and Musashi was because if they hadn’t we never would have had Soace Battleship Yamato/Star Blazers, which is still one of my all-time fave animes. When I was a kid in the early ‘80s Star Blazers was love.
Star Blazers was life.
I’m not sure that qualifies as a legitimate strategic justification for building the ships, though. And Bismarck and Tirpitz were an even more egregious waster of resources.
Obviously Germany should have built a lot more U-boats. I can see an argument for building an enlarged panzerschiffe if they could be built in useful numbers & also be used in a heavy cruiser/shore bombardment role. The CA’s Germany did build were so bad the Kriegsmarine might as well have skipped them. A bigger Deutschland-type with the improved 283 mm guns used on the Scharnhorsts & the newer 12-cylinder MAN engines, which made about 50-60% more power without taking up much more space would have been pretty formidable.
In my hypothetical scenario where the Axis Powers decided that sharing is caring these improved Deutschlands, which probably would have displaced maybe 18k-20k tonnes-a little more than a Hipper, basically, used a 128 mm DP secondary with 40 mm Bofors for heavy AA & been properly protected against 8” gunfire with good deck protection. I probably would upgrade the torps a little, too, especially if Japan’s proving its Long Lance blue prints.
I still like the diesels for their extended cruising range. Other than that most of my non-submarine naval tonnage for Germany would have gone into better light cruisers, more destroyers and more of their A-team style armed merchant cruisers. Those sneaky A-team were VERY effective surface raiders. The ones they sunk & captured almost 100k tonnes of merchant shipping each on average.
I’m also building a lot more U-boats, obviously.
Japan just did not no how to use its battleships in WWII. Most of the ones they did have were too slow for the Pacific. Only the Kongos, which really were still BCs were useful at all, even with their weakness. Everything else was too damn slow for the Pacific. The Yamatos could do 27 knots, which is just about fast enough to qualify them as slow fast battleships, but they were also massive fuel hogs.
I probably would have just slapped that German surface search radar on my Kongos & CAs, switched over from the 127 mm secondaries to 100 mm secondaries as my standard, added the Bofors 40 mm in place of the 25 mm morale boosters and called it a day. I think it might have been worthwhile to see if Nagato & Mutsu could be re-engined to get their useful speed up a level where they could serve as adequate fast carrier escorts. Mostly I’d’ve concentrated on building heavy cruisers with a class of 31cm gunned super-cruisers as cruiser leaders & fast carrier escorts alongside the Kongos, which, by the way, would also be getting Type 93 torps of their own in this scenario.
And there would have been a lot more carriers.
Japan, I think, works best as a carrier/heavy cruiser/destroyer fleet in WWII.
It’s best to concentrate on what you do best…
I don't know if the armed merchant raiders would have fared well in a world with more destroyers and cruisers. I don't know if the Germans could get too many ships to the Med, and certainly once the shooting starts they are going to have a very hard time doing so. What do Britain and the US share for tech? With a later time line does the USN get more training in other than the annual fleet exercise? With radar do they realize night fighting is not only feasible but likely and prepare for it? Does the USN start night flight ops?
I would have thought 12 18 inch guns would have been a better option for the A-150's possibly going with a 50 calibre. They were thinking of 50 cals for the Yamato's but come to decision to go with 45 calibres due to barrel whip making the 50's less accurate. I would have thought the A-150's would have had 8 20 inch guns or maybe even try and develop 20 inch triple turret but I think 20 inch guns would definitely have a 1 round every 2min rate of fire like especially with having to keep dropping the barrels and how many powder bags 10 if not more compared to 5-6 of 16 inch guns
I have always been fascinated by the fantasies explicated on this channel. The flights of peacetime fancy are nothing like wartime urgency. The British under wartime urgency never solved armament standardization for AAA defense in their fleet, for example. Why would counterfactual history be different?
One of the reasons they didn't solve it was the 4.5in program was paused to concentrate on getting the fleet as was into the war(then restarted and eventually completed post-WWII); one of the reasons for their being so many systems is that the RN had had two failed standardisation programs in the early-mid 1930s, and was in 1939 part way into a program supposed to deliver by 1942. They're not just loving a logistical challenge, there are reasons for the situation they find themselves in. And besides why replace guns that work, that you have ammunition for, when you can use the new guns for new ships?
Scuttlebutt 5
The RN failures of the AAA program go to a confusion about the physics of effectors versus threat. HAC FC and guns match works against level bombers. Not so good against dive bombers. Not only an RN problem, but one that no-one solved adequatedly. But what I find fascinating is that the conventional excuses get trotted out when the 4,5 inch is mentioned. Here was a perfectly good effector that could have been DP and covered the midbands in the altitude engagement problem as well as be a decent antisurface gun. But the RN wanted the 5.1 for the role. I suppose someone thought about the key fault? How is the crew supposed to service the blasted thing at the cyclic rates at the lengths of engagement time required?
But put that aside. Even in peacetime, with your rebuiilds and new construction, you would like to standardize ordnance? You make comments about procurement paths that ignores the fundamantal rule of war. Keep everything when preparing as simple and cheap as possible. In the 1930s, which gives a clue of what the RN would do projected forward, would the RN follow the rule? Probably not, from the actual 1935-1939 history. Being caught flatfooted with multiple failures in progress, is not a uniquely British excperience BTW. The French naval aviation, the Italians with their submarines, the Germans with their engine plants and artillery, the Japanese with their basic navval architecture and the Americans with name anuthing you want, that they did not bollix interwar. None of them can be expected to begin to achieve your speculations. They have too many present and emergent crises in systems, and procurement with what they have in the pipeline. They will miost likely spend their last peacetime years trying to remediate instead of boldly going forth with their 2 Ocean Navy Bills and Z Plans. We know the Japanese had to scramble to fix existent ship classes during the 2nd China War so that their planned build outs were delayed by at least three years while they corrected basic topweight and ship stability issues. That is yardtime not devoted to Yamatos..
War changes this situation. You send out what you have whatever its faults. You newbuild whatever is in the Springsharps. That is not peacetime economic and logistic logic though?
Bear in mind the Americans, who had two years of hot war going around them, buit were still at peace. They knew 1/4 of their modern submarine fleet had defective HORS engines. They knew their AAA close in was trash. They even knew their new battleships and cruisers had vibration issues as well as defective artillery. They missed the torpedoes and their wrong aviation choices, but what they knew they started to fix first, instead of go helter skelter into new construction. That was eased back as long as "peacetime thinking" was the logic. @@DrAlexClarke
@@adammcgregor-d3yThe UK 114 mm gun was pretty darn good-almost as good as the US 5”/38. The 5.25” guns looked gun in theory but until they got the loading system more effectively automated the guns were less than optimal. It really comes down to shell mass. The larger British guns fired a shell than weighed about twice as much as a 4.5 or 5” round. Unless your navy has access to the kind of chemists favored by Russian Olympians maintaining a useful ROF gets difficult without heavy automation of the loading system.
BZ, thanks!
Your premiss is wrong. Germany's logistics couldn't produce what it needed. Also in terms of capital ships access to the Atlantic did prove to be an Achilles Heel. Germany needed long range air power to strike shipyards. Also designing and 34:55 using submarines to strike capital ships would have helped also their destroyer design and function was dismal at best. Same premise can be used to evaluate other navies. As Admiral Bloch said about Pearl Harbor demonstrated that 20 knot Battleships were obsolete. War games proved before hand that Pearl Harbor anchorage could be attacked. The leadership of the military was just as obsolete in it's adamite belief of tactics whose day had long past. Japan's main problem was not only logistics but indebt training of replacement personnel. It's leadership cooperation between it's military branches proved fatal. Every side had it's flaws, some corrected to some extent but internal power struggles even at the end of the war remain. The poor Aussies not only endured fighting Japanese, jungle, supply problems, but McArthur also. He should have been relieved after his Philippine debacle.
He should have been relieved after he ordered the cavalry to run down WWI vets wanting their bonuses now instead of 10 years so they could live now.
You could do this for 10 hours straight and not cover everything! Love what you did though.
First comment: From what you ae saying the Italians and French paths were set in part due to limitations of infrastructure. The French were counting on British forces bailing them out outside of Europe. Neither would have needed real carrier forces but might have a few completed. They might have changed the mix among carriers, cruisers and destroyers, but the changes would not have been major big picture.
Japan was committed to the four Yamatos and potentially 2-4 of the successors, BUT they were also a real carrier power and carriers really mattered in the Pacific. IF the treaties were dropped, would Japan have modified the Shokaku design and built more to get carriers out with the US going to Essex class? The Taiho was under development, but watching the US build up would need a response. The next generation of Japanese aircraft were a real step up though not enough came in to service before the surrender. Were the Shokaku hangers sized for the bigger aircraft?
You did not cover the USN program and I understand it would be the hardest to judge, especially if Congress did not see the need. People forget the Two Ocean Navy bill of June 1940 was in response to the collapse of France. No war, probably a lot less cash for ships. But three points anyway. Would the South Dakotas have been built at all or would the USN by simply gone with the Iowas for a fast wing and Montanas as a heavy line of battle but simply more of both? Say 8 and 8? Would the USN fleet have been able to force the designers to have increased the Montana speed to 30 knots with no treaty limitations? There are plenty of reports the fleet thought the battleship speeds needed to match the other ships.
Would the US Navy have not built Hornet and simply gone straight to the Essex class? Would they have also built the Midway's in parallel and in larger numbers, say 6? There would have been no independence class, but would the idea of small fleet carriers have resurfaced for the USN?
and last the RN. I know you say the RN would have been able to go with an 18" gun, but both the USN and RN tested 18" and had no real interest. The USN developed the super heavy shell as a realistic counter to the 18" having similar ballistics and (though lower) penetration stats. Differences would have been compensated by much higher rates of sustained fire from more guns. Was it likely the RN would have gone a similar super heavy shell path to stay with smaller guns?
Also one general question. Radar was in its infancy in 1939, but by 1943 was radically changing gunnery. How big an influence would radar development have had on carriers and gun ship designs if war was delayed until 1945? Long range gunnery would have been far more important with a bigger need for deck armor. Would it have lead to battle ranges routinely in the 25,000 to 30,000 yard ranges for the new ships? And in that scenario would the old WW1 era battlewagons have lost value as escorts?
I feel that a if the Japanese yamatos become more well known, probably at some point in 1942, the US would likely order a Montana revision with 9x18 inch guns. They’re very attached to the 3 gun turret and i dont see a 12x18 inch montana based design being fast and armored enough for their needs.
We could see a genuine rise of super cruisers. As dubious as the germans following through on it to the letter, Plan Z called for 12 more panzershiffs, while the 3 deutchlands initially as their largest ships before Scharnhorst was acceptable especially in context of hood and the renowns, another 12 in conjunction with larger ships may convince the Royal navy to adopt a heavier cruiser type, possibly 12x9.2 or 6 to 9 x12 inch gun armed. The alaskas may be expedited and built in larger numbers and the Japanese may create a response. The theoretical large cruiser race may actually be realized. This could also allow japan to widen it’s surface fleet that supports their yamato and successor types. You cant have a decisive battle if you can be swarmed with impunity from all directions.
I could see greece turkey or one of the nordic nations ordering some large cruisers to get a capital ships adjacent vessel within their budget.
I feel that some R class battleships and the prestandard us ships may actually be scrapped or converted to training ships, the R class for the turrets for further vanguards and the US ships for cost reasons. Congress only loosed the purse strings as it did in 1940 and 1941 because of an ongoing war in Europe, and even to respond to renewed buildup on all sized, some token gesture to cost savings may be demanded. And with all this new construction but with say 2 of the r class being converted into aa training ships ala Utah as a way to remove their turrets, 2 of the less modernized queen elizabeths may be sent to canada or Australia.
I feel we would see a war with an overall more balanced cruiser to battleship ratio, the plan z cruisers may develop into something more rational (despite Germany’s best efforts), japan may develop a follow-on to the aganos with their older light cruisers becoming more obsolescent despite holding a vital role in their doctrine.
The USN did thoroughly test an 18"-45 cal gun in the 1930's and then relined it as a 16"-54 cal for additional testing. The result was the development of the 16"-50 cal super heavy 2800# 16" shell which was very similar to the 18"-45 in performance at most combat ranges. The USN found the 18" gun would have had a firing rate of 2 shells for every three 16" at best. It was larger, a lot heavier, and could only allow a twin turret in ships that had 16" triples. I also understand there would have been only 2 potential suppliers for the 18" shell complicating logistics. The super heavy shell evened performance out but gave up little in terms of firing rates. They would have stayed with 16"-50 cal guns.
@@jamesb4789 If Japan is launching 20" ships, then maybe the USN response would be 18" guns firing superheavy shells.
@@Knight6831you are correct, the main issue with a commerce raider without supporting bases is that almost any damage can be a mission kill, but in the context of the P-class deutchland successors of which 12 were planned, they would retain likely the 11 inch guns but whether they be 52 or 54.5 caliber is hard to find. But the main concern is the speed, planned for 33 knots instead of the deutchland’s 28 they could actually marginally outrun the County and Exeter class, and in an engagement where they could actually dictate the range, to some degree. While the slower firerate is a downside, being able to outrange the british cruisers in a gun fight, with the lower firing arc allowing for greater accuracy at the same range as an 8 inch gun, may cause the british to consider larger gun caliber cruisers of a new design to also cut down the speed advantage. Also having a total fleet of 15 of these cruisers in this admittedly unlikely scenario they would be a concern not in just a commerce raider scenario but also in hypothetical German fleet operations. The royal navy could handle 3 deutchlands, they had 3 battlecruisers which could outrun them and destroy them, but a 33 knot deutchland type could outrun (barely) all 3 battlecruisers and even the vanguards and lion classes. Something would be built to counter them, and I believe it may be likely they proceed with the 1938 designs for a 9x9.2 inch or 6x12 inch cruiser at about 33 knots.
@@jamesb4789yes absolutely they made the logical choice for the iowas and montanas in the context of the time, the 16 inch guns provided similar firepower at a great rate than 18 inch guns, but with the knowledge of yamatos and seeing the potential of yamato successors, 18 inch guns with superheavy shells may be deemed necessary to counter the increased armor of those vessels and to future proof against any further leaps forward in size they may commit to.
@bertholdvonzahringen6799 At least with RN warships I'd like to provide a counter, now whilst the P class might have a slight superiority in terms of speed against RN heavy cruisers and faster capital ships, assuming their engines were capable of being reliable enough to do it, that isn't the whole story first off they're not fast enough at least against RN capital ships for them to be able to get away from their "reported" top speeds, not what those ships, and in this scenario we're dealing with a Hood who has had her rebuild, could do if they pushed themselves. They also don't out range the fast capital vessels and assuming the same holds true for cruisers, they can still be forced into a fight they'll inevitably take damage from. I think their margins are bit too thin to make them viable frankly.
Would the US have fixed their torpedoes by then? That would have dramatically changed the 1st 2 years of the Pacific war
Hello doc this was a really interesting topic...... Malta class laid down in 1942/43 ?? I could see that happening in response to the Essex and Midway's and just needing the room for the new generation of Fleet Air Arm aircraft development the Navy really want as apposed to what the Air Ministry what to give them and yes could see turbine engines and maybe jet's now that would be interesting.... As far as Australia and Canada yards getting big orders for Black Swan's to take pressure off the smaller yards so that they can contrate on destroyers and light cruiser for escort's for the new construction I could also see that happening but Cockatoo island would have to be expanded which would have to be done anyway to except the R class, happy days because I could see Devport in Auckland been expanded so that they can do limited run on Black Swan's as well
I doubt Maltas, but wouldn't be surprised if a variant of the Implacables with deck edge lifts come about, the British for political reasons will probably keep to a 27,000ton(standard) displacement till at least war breaks out...
Without being bombed with 1Kg armour-piercing bombs would they still think that the flight deck was the best one to cover with armour plate?
The Alaskas might be the Iowa replacements for carrier defence
The other issue is who is leading the RN, Dudley Pound might be jumped over for Andrew Cunningham, or Henderson, who is more likely to have lived because he would have been under a lot less stress
How many Implacables would the RN need/want before they start retiring Furious, Glorious, Courageous, & the other early carriers? 🤔
Two words: Australian Warspite
Next two words... Canadian Warspite... under the command of Harry DeWolf
Fascinating, yer would the world political situation support this. Japanese need for natural resources, the limit of German industrial capabilities...And the world social needs? Very interesting.
oh there are many factors against this, and as I alluded to there are several nations which might go bankrupt during this period, but it was still a fun thing to work through how the fleets might develop.
Yes, indeed!
All of you podcasts are awesome 👍
I don’t know…I can see the RCN getting expanded but to me it matters more on who the government is. If Mackenzie King and the Libs run the show as historically. Then limited liability, with an emphasis on air and naval forces will play up to the RCN expanding. The RCN top brass were never happy being the Sheepdog Navy in WW2, but even then they had problems selling a big ship navy to the politicians.
And if the Cons take power…all bets are off.
So I don’t know if Canada with 3500 sailors in 1939, even by 1944 is going to have the capability to handle a couple of battlewagons plus cruisers and destroyers and escorts without war being on.
Plus would the Flowers even get ordered until 1943 in this scenario?
I can see an expansion for sure
Getting the RCN to 12000 personnel is maybe doable without War. Maybe
Flowers were ordered/started construction in 1939, design had been selected in 1938... somewhere on here there is a whole video explaining how the war time emergency build is just gloss put on by Churchill for him to justify the capital ship/carrier pause he ordered before even getting briefed that unlike WWI, the RN already had the escort orders in hand. They were ordered then so that they would be worked up for duties with the fleet in 1942, which was the point the RN had to be fully ready for war. The RN in this scenario get two more bonus years after their focus date.
Frankly, I doubt Italy would build a carrier before 1944. Poor coordination between Regia Marina and Regia Aeronautica aside, Italy itself (plus its islands) is a massive carrier, and Italian naval operations would never be far from land-based aircraft range.
The planned Indian Ocean fleet based in Mogadishu would have likely consisted in light cruisers and destroyers.
It's likely Italy would have further developed light cruisers and destroyers
Oh the entire reason if they did would be Il Duce competing for ego points with Hitler... agreed on the problems, but as technically the Minister for Air & Minister for Navy, he could in theory force it through...
I think Australia would want Lion’s instead of old WW1 era capital ships.
If Mussolini wants to 1 up the H class 16", do you see the Italians going for 18" or just more 16" than the H?
If the Italians go 18", what do the RN & MN do?
If WW1 had been delayed for 5 years I doubt if there would be any experience of small aircraft suitable for offence.
I expect there would be some able to take off from a short prepared airstrip but I don't know enough to talk about landing on a deck.
We use a hook and a wire now but could a ship go fast enough for a fragile aircraft to be plucked out of the air as it drifted slowly past.
If there had been a demand for it, I am sure that several useful proposals would have been put forward. If.
Thats actually where the History gets really interesting, the work that leads to sopwith cuckoo is actually traced to 1913, and the work that led to Hermes can be documented back to 1912. Furthermore the RN was really interested in something to shoot down Zeppelins as well, so honestly I would not be surprised at something loaded with 12/12 or 18/18 fighter/torpedo bomber mix, appears in 1917/8 - and if the British follow their usual habbit they'd probably build 3-4 of them. Looking at these potential ships is something I've considered for Christmas series or hoped might be a patreon suggestion as it really becomes interesting. There is also the fact that Japan is heading down that route as well, in fact, there is a real chance in this scenario that they end up having a qualitative race with each other and the other qualitative race members join in.
@@DrAlexClarkewell I guess I found my next suggestion.
@@DrAlexClarke Thank you. I had not realised that British military thinkers thought much of aircraft at that time.
I know a USA officer wanted one of the Wright brothers to take him up but he landed fatally.
Wing Commander Cave-Browne-Cave is a good example of the British officers en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cave-Browne-Cave, there are several more like him...
@@DrAlexClarke I see, an engineer. By 1st July 1914 he was Fl Lt (E) so he was in a military plane by then.
How effective they would become I don't know but if they could assist in the accurate delivery of 15" shells and reduce the amount of steaming by the fleet it would be worth it.
Watching this now and realising Dr Clarke used intriguing the highest level of sarcasm allowed by an academic before they start shaking you angrily and asking why did you do this for German-plans at the 3 minute mark. Oh no this is not going be fun for them.
Discussing the British Empire I do wonder if in 5 years if India is still part of that or has spun off and whatvan intresting wrench in the gears that produces
Probably not it this scenario, historically that was 1947 and a lot of issues accelerated that, most of which were a result of the war so unlikely...
As I've discussed before Britain had a plan for dominionisation of the entire empire and India was transiting along that route... Britain was cautious about such things because they worried the legacy of empire/rule by force could lead to unstable dictatorships arising if not enough attention was paid & time taken in the transition.
@DrAlexClarke you might see a course where the elements of the British empire remain under British control for foreign policy and cooperation on defense but have independent control of domestic policy
Thinking carefully. HMS New Zealand had such plot armour, if the Colonies get obsolete vessels like old war veterans and given Warspites own plot history...
HMS Warspite ends up based out of Auckland and Wellington, and certain artifacts are gifted to her Captain in memory of the service of her fellow from Jutland.
When Battle is done Warspite wades through combat with an unblemished hull and getting Golden Pea alpha strikes with the latest gunlaying computers and makes the British fleet look silly.
Because we just added Plot Armour to Main Character talent and the nation of Egypt somehow ends up a New Zealand Colony due to misunderstandings and the fact no one dares fight Warspite.
The scary bit is the roaming fleets of Tribals hunting surface raiders and disappearing into south America and coming back from somewhere with tank tracks and becoming Semi Amphibious and declaring Warspite their favorite Flagship.
@@glenmcgillivray4707You had me laughing too hard to type for a while.
Good one.
@@20chocsaday it takes twelve years for the crown Colony class and their following successors to track down the roving packs of Tribals from their goal to hunt all the navies of the world for a scrap, and finally peace is found. The British ask for Warspite back presuming it'll be due for scrapping, unfortunately it found its way to a fresh water port... Lake Taupo, and is thus free of the usual rust problems, how precisely it got upstream from the Hooker Falls remains a mystery to most, but the Locals blame the local Taniwha, while the Tribals whisper that Warspite merely glared at the waterfall till it permitted access.
Rumours of spottings of Warspite in various international lakes slowly begin to accrue over the years despite assurances that everyone believes the crew and ship are safely parked in the Caldera of a dormant Megavolcano keeping her hull warm ready for the next conflict.
For a 1919 ww1 we need Franz Ferdinand to survive or dodge the assassination.
the RN will have the full QE, R, and mark 1 Admiral class added to the fleet. I see no reason for carriers not to be developed with the RN leading the way.
Japan will continue building as historically but won't get the economic boost from selling weapons to Tarest Russia. they'd probably be second to start carrier development, not sure were funding comes from.
Us will continue build matching the RN, they'd make a carrier in response to Japan making one if nothing else.
France will probably get a carrier, if the scratch build it should be serviceable, if conversion then its a Bearn.
Italy is getting the Francisco Caracciola, not sure if they'd try for a carrier or go we don’t need one.
Germany will make at least one carrier to prove they can. And continue a more modest building of its navy at the armys insistence.
The last three will change on how ww1 is delayed if Franz survives the attempt.
Austria-Hungary will get its ursats-yorks (spelled that wrong) but might fall apart before it can finish anything else. As partisans domestic or foreign may start rebellions.
Russia and the Ottoman Empire could follow a similar path finishing their current naval builds and getting distracted.
WW1 is then a set of smaller bite-sized but still terrible wars.
If he dodges the assassination attempt this leads him open to latter attempts starting WW1. 1919.
For ground warfare i see a armored car doctrine replacing calvary to some extent during the intervening years.
Maneuver warfare may remain in vogue until terrain or technology stops the armored cars leading to the tank as we saw it.
Oh this is what im talking about
A silly thought Dr Alex - can I propose a live house-warming party once you are properly installed in Casa di Clarke and you have yourself set-up properly? Your followers gathering together of an evening or a weekend afternoon with a drink of something that pleases them and perhaps something tasty and rejoice in the successful move and hopefully your recovery from your current malaise? Cocktails and Naval history sounds nice to me - people's tastes can vary....
Germany would have had aircraft carriers, a fleet of Bismarck/Tirpitz class battleships, stealth submarines. Not to mention those bigger battleships
Where do I start with my comment…Your PoV on German Submarine technology and capabilities of our timeline, does not really match the capabilities actualities of German technology in the mid 1940’s as established in both the Type XXI and XXIII classes.
So let me help with a few facts on the problems as I have actually been on board U2540 in Bremerhaven which is the sole remaining Type XXI and have partially read a translation using google lens of the technical data; so here goes :
1- The production of sub-assemblies could not match the required level of accuracy to make a viable and reliable vessel. Reasons as to why are usually put down to a combination of the use of slave labour in German production, Sabotage in production and the fact that Germany was calling up a proportion of its skilled labour capable of meeting the needed standard …. to fight in the war.
2- The lack of specialists’ steels and other alloys needed towards the end of WWII, which were needed for some components
3- This only relates to the Type XXIII - if you combine the 2 issues above with the uses of 90% Hydrogen Peroxide (Catalyst) and Hydrozine (fuel) in the Walther Turbine the components had 1 better fit and 2 be made from the right stuff as the reaction of these materials are Hypergolic and its lethal when it goes wrong because it will simultaneously try to dissolve your body and set it alight. This was the problem in Germany that they could not meet the needed standards to do this.
Now you may recognise this ….its the fuel combination which powers the Me163 Komet- get this wrong in an enclosed metal tube like say a small submarine, what you have is a supersized “pipe bomb”.
So this is the scale of the issue, and it perfectly mirrors all the issues of the governance of “Mr Moustache” and his fat friend Herman. Yes the design of the XXI did have some excellent idea’s but Germany was not capable of executing these in our timeline efficiently and the results hardly count as a "SUPER SUBMARINE"
@@steveclarke6257 Your arguements are invalid, as it is set out that these requirements would be fulfilled before the beginning of the conflict. I am going in the assumption that everything works perfectly, just as it was planned. Just like it would have been for the Jumo 004 jet engine if it were to have been developed and built before the conflict. So, any weaknesses, or defects do not count in this "If" scenario. We go for 100% reliabilty and quality.
In many ways the Type XXI were brought about as a desperate attempt to increase the survivability of their Uboat fleet, after it had been devastated by the improving tactics and resources of the allies. There is no guarantee there would be the impetus to design them pre-war at all; I suspect they will focus more on range and possibly size (aircraft carrier subs perhaps, like the Japanese) than on super stealth during that period
@davidmarkwort9711 no it is your comments that are invalid, handwaving at this does not hide the systemic issues of German production in wartime; because you fail to understand the requirements of engineering in wartime.
Germany always has the same characteristics with its engineering......German engineers mantra is precision whixh is fine in peacetime.
But in wartime what is needed is mass production- is all about good enough and having quality control measures on production amd raw materials( the steel and alloys)...and that is the important thing in wartime. Germany could never do this because good enough is the enemy of perfection in their eyes.
You say well it's all sorted out in peacetime. Well in peacetime they designed and built mostly excellent equipment (,we will ignore the Konigsbergs, everyone gets things wrong-see the mk 14 torpedo etc). But as wartime started Germany could never produce enough equipment to meet the long-term need of a wartime army; three reasons for this.
1- Germany fails to design equipment which is capable of being good enough for true mass production by semi-skilled workers.
2- Germany fails to fully utilise its whole workforce, it does not use women in male roles in engineering.
3- the British blockade denies Germany with all those" special materials" it needs in mass production quantities to make those special steels and alloys it needs. Making that equipment less less effective than its allied counterpart (heavier, less robust etc)
This is why you can't hand- wave the problem away...
.. all that and I haven't even got to say specifically just how useless "Fatso" Goring was, as "minister for procurement and production" for Germany in WWII. It's his dislike for the Navy means it never gets what it needed from him.
So not is not until Speer takes over is their any political movement to change in policy and whilst he is an improvement, it's not saying much when you were already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
So before you next post on this subject, I suggest you go and do some actual reading on German production and economics "in wartime" first.
@@steveclarke6257 this is an „if“ scenario, everything is perfect
How dare you question warspites ability to always win 😂
Hard to think the British Empire keeps going along with wwii in 1944 with India still pressurizing.
the pre-WWII vs the post-WWII path to independence was very different, for better or worse - think of India more as going through a process of Dominionisation, like Australia, Canada & New Zealand, and the Indian political class was honestly mostly onboard with that as it was considered a safe step to independence until they had established themselves. It was the wartime changes in the global order brought on by WWII which changed their calculations and made the jump to straight independence more attractive. Hope that answers your query... Whats interesting is whilst the leadership of the independence movement doesn't change, views of their supporters, major indian industrialists and traditional leaders which evolved.
Don’t forget that we were all still dealing with the consequences of the Great Depression, either…
My next question takes this concept and twists it, but needs a heap of research.
What if the treaties in Europe, in an effort to avoid another devastating World War One nations of Europe pledge to curtaintale their tank production and development... But leave wide open expanding Naval development Except Not Submarines.
So Europe starts a naval arms race, Russia starts building shipyards to print something not dissimilar to the early T series, numerous but not great, Germany and Japan spending their whole economies on building super battleships, while Britian just invests in Shipyards across empire and printing Destroyers with more torpedos and guns and Raw battleship power... And Congress mostly sitting back and talking big but denying naval budgets because the arms race is a European thing and America never signed that treaty.
Instead of 'what if they built whatever they wanted' What could their nationa economy actually produce with only Air, and Naval focuses.
Irrelevant conversations about what didn’t happen,if you agonize about what Might have happened If this occurred you’ll never know.
The Germans getting an aircraft carrier is both a blessing and a curse. If they build the Graf Zepplin then they either have to order several of them, or only have the one, and then cannot order more until they figure out how the first one works. Either way, you either get multiple Bearn-level carriers, or only one, and then have multiple “fixed” carriers on order that aren’t built in time.
I think the biggest problem is that the Germans will keep opting for quantity over quality, but as a result, completing much less than suggested, as they will constantly be reacting to UK construction and “re-working” ships in progress on the slipways, leading to increasing delays. So, by 1944, I’d imagine the Bismarks get finished, and maybe a pair of H39s, but everything after that is unfinished because they keep making changes.
I think Japan actually undergoes economic collapse by 1942. The oil embargo and cost of the Sino-Japanese war likely causes the Army dominated gov’t to collapse if it can’t declare war. At which point the militants likely try another coup, fail, and then the military gets purged, after which, perhaps it leaves the Axis.
@@juicysushi Ultimately academic.
Germany had to invade when it did because it was almost out of money.
They had to loot and pillage and export their inflation or they'd be kaput.
To answer your question, I am not sure what happens if WW1 is delayed 5 years. Does Russia have a revolution in the meantime, leading to Austria getting a free pass to attack the Balkans? Does a Germany that’s abandoned the naval race 5 years before become more reluctant to violate Belgian sovereignty?
Could wind up with a situation where late-WW1 happens because of the communist revolution(s), as opposed to causing it, with all the other powers jumping in to stop communism a la the French Revolution. Naval wise it would probably be pretty boring, unless it's Britain that goes Red and Europe is teaming up against her. That could be an interesting hypothetical - Red Britain has the biggest stick, they're in a position that makes it difficult for their opposition to concentrate, but there's probably been significant purges in the officer corps. Is the 1919 Red Navy (assuming that the whole thing goes over, and we don't wind up with the Med. Fleet supporting the Royalists or something) enough to stand off all the rest of Europe on its own?
@@ericfletcher36I think Britain is possibly the least likely European power to have a revolution for a combination of cultural and economic reasons. Were it to happen, though, England would suddenly be much weaker as the colonies would be unable to be held together. Red Britain could not reclaim its imperial holdings in the way the Russians did to many territories of the former Russian empire during their civil war.
I could see an Austrian-Balkan war being guaranteed, but without a Russia “defending the Slavs” there is no cycle of escalation dragging in Germany and France. I could see a potential German-Soviet war due to Soviet support for German socialists trying to incite a revolution inviting a German response. But France and the UK would not be coming to the USSR’s aid in the scenario.
@@ericfletcher36 The countries most likely to have revolutions are Russia, the many counties in the Balkans, and Austro-Hungry, and not necessarily communist except for maybe in Russia, but you need something to spark the powder keg and the long privations as well as the bloodshed of the war is was sparked that.
@@PeteOtton oh, agreed, except I'd probably add the Turks to the list (unless they're part of the Balkans?) Something like the Ottomans collapsing into civil war, and everyone picking sides to support seems much more plausible, but Crimean War 2.0 (now with more players!) is boring from a naval alt-history perspective. Maybe we'd get to see 'Voyage of the Russian Pacific Squadron 2: Indian Ocean Boogaloo', which entertains in cringe comedy style, but that's about it. I don't see a plausible arrangement of land powers that also makes for something interesting on the naval side. I suppose if the British stay out of it something interesting might happen, but that seems unlikely if the other Great Powers are throwing down.