Cye Fischer ,AKA James1976, sent an e-mail to Mark recently asking some questions. After a discussion between Mark, myself, Cye and Shane I've been asked to post some of the questions here and our replies for more comments.
Cye's Question :
II. Montana Class
A) Most (all?) of the studies that led to the Montana were titled BB65-#.
B) After the passage of the Vinson-Walsh Act, the SECNAV ordered that most new ships duplicate those already on order. As a result Illinois & Kentucky were ordered on September 9th as repeat Iowas.
C) Given the above, it may be possible that the Illinois & Kentucky would be ordered to one of the BB65 designs from the outset and not as repeat Iowas.
Im not sure how that would affect the material situation, but it seems like a good question.
Mark's Reply :
COMMENT: Another very interesting question. The IJN loss of what the Allies believe to be two Kongo class and the USN discovery beyond any doubt that the new IJN BB are 18 monsters has generated questions relating to the Montana class and Iowa class which we have not been able to resolve. If the answer actually lies in the V-W Act and there are already 4 Iowas and 2 Montanas building, then this is pre-solved. OK, there will still be problems with steel, but that is not something which would have affected the nature of the V-W Act in 1940!
Russ's Reply :
Comment: The Montana's are tied to the two-ocean Navy treaty as are the Essex class Carriers. Assuming there are no delays the orders for the Montana's should still go through as Historical. Only issues with lack of shipyard spaces ( yards being upgraded ) will delay there initial laydown date. As for steel, with the USSR not entering the war in 1941 and needing steel shipped ot them, things will be a lot better. Also the better situation in the UK not having to repair all those damaged ships from the Murmansk convoys will also be a great help. The "Steel Shortage" was not a shortage. It was a miss allocation of steel that was stripped out of the system to send it to Russia. Russian Lend lease orders did not go through commitee. They were approved by FDR and Mr Hopkins would have the material removed from the system without consulting other boards and send it to the Transportation command. Result was that many Production board plants that were to use the steel were not able to be used and some steel shipments were delayed to various other programs. Thus a perceieved steel shortage was seen. This even carried over to the UK where a perceived steel shortage was seen but in fact steel deliveries to the sites were the issue, the steel was available ( 1942 , 98% of order steel delivered with 6% stuck in transport: 1943, 104% of steel delivered with 8% stuck in transport: 1944, 99% of steel delivered with 12% stuck in transport ). With the USSR not an issue in FFO to May 1942 and the UK in a better position I feel the 2 Montana's will be laid down in September 1941( the two repeat Iowas would have also been put on the Books but not laid down yet). As the Main oponents of the Montana's were the carrier arm of the Navy it is possible that a compromise could be found on the Montana's. Changing her engines to the 50000 or 65000 SHP Westinghouse engines at 600 PSI she could do 30+ kts instead of 28kts which would allow her to operate with the Carriers. Lengthening her hull and going for a hull form like the Iowas could add another 2 kts on top of that but you'd end up with a behemoth similar to the #8 design which I don't see them doing. The engine option would be the best compromise. It would also allow the engines to be developed for the Midways ( or whatever they will be called in FFO). If the Montana's are laid down in September 1941 with the steel that didn't go to the UK and the USSR then she will be well on her way to being available by late 1943 early 1944 ( if King doesn't screw around with there priorities maybe even sooner). Also as there is no killing blow in 1942 by US carriers as per OTL Midway and Admiral King would be more on a leash because of his Anglophobic tendencies he would not be able to screw around with the Battleship priorities ( Iowa's or Montana's). He frequently went in and changed there priorities from a 1 or a 2 to a 5 or a 6 ( which was not his job ) which many feel added almost 3 to 6 months onto the wartime construction part of those ships. With the losses in the Slot to USN BB's in FFO this would be even harder for him to justify. As for issues with the Montana's after the IJN's unveiling of the Yamato. Not an Issue, investigation of the North Carolina will show that the 18" shells are similar to the USN's 16" shells so the Iowa's have almost as much throw weight as the Yamato and the Montana's would have had a heavier broadside overall, at 32,400 pounds vs. 28,800 for Yamato. They are the only USN BB's that could face the Yamato's currently available in the short term and would be further expedited IMHO.
(The next set of posts are a point counter point in an e-mail)
Mark's Reply :
Iowas. I agree that 4 would be the extent of the program.
Russ's Reply :
Well as the usually knee jerk reaction, when war starts some Iowas or Montana's above what is listed could be ordered or the 2 that would have been ordered before the war BB65 and BB66 may actually again get laid down. Whether any of them are finished is highly questionable.
Mark's Reply :
Montanas. I agree that 2 would be laid down. I suspect that the 28 knot version would be built because the fast carrier issue is using hindsight not available when the ships are laid down. Ill add something else too. The idea that a 28 knotter is barely capable of keeping up with the carriers is nonsense. Most of the time, carriers, like everything else, are tooling around at circa 15 knots: economical cruising speed. The only time they really use full power is in low-wind conditions, to get a strike off. This does not happen too often. In any kind of a seaway they cannot use their high speed because the escorts (DD) cannot keep up, they are more affected by seastate than bigger ships. Trust me, I was trained as a Seaman Officer on Type 12 DE in the RAN (YES! I am a Leanderthal!)
Russ's Reply :
Oh I agree. The Carolina's and Dakota's all worked perfectly with the carriers as far as I'm concerned. It was the Navy Carrier lobby that set that limit and because of circumstances were able to make it stick.
Mark's Reply :
And you normally keep a 5 knot reserve in high speed steaming anyway, so a 33 knotter is actually doing 28.
Now, I think you are being a little optimistic in in-service dates, Russ. Friedman refers to industrial bottlenecks delaying their being laid down in 1941 (Friedman, US BB p.342). I suspect that the bottlenecks were in plant (turbine blade?) and main armament manufacture at that date. Now, he goes on to state that the steel shortage caused Roosevelt to cancel them in April 1942. Now, he appears to have had personal reasons for that, and King is reported by Friedman not to have liked the design as it achieved too little on the tonnage. He appears to have wanted a ship the same tonnage as the Iowa, which implies a true slow BB.
Russ's Reply :
I'm not sure about being optomistic. Both the Montana and Ohio were to have been laid down in January 25th 1941 but the upgrades to the Philadelphia Navy yard were not complete to lay down her till after August 1941. The excuse then was that steel was needed to be shipped to the UK and the USSR. Both the Montana and Ohio's guns were completed by November 1941and were swapped in as spares for the Iowas after the war. The only thing that prevented there being laid down after the war started was that King kept changing there priorities ( which he was not suppose to do and got him investigated for doing so, which FDR squashed ) and the perceived steel shortage. In FFO the steel is available and thus the main excuse that delayed them being laid down in September 1941 is removed. So unless some other driver or Political issue could be found they should be laid down then as far as I'm concerned. As for Kings wants, that would not be an issue. He was on the board that designed the Montana, that chose her design and he will not be in a position to do anything about her till March 1942 when he's made Chief of Naval operations (As commander in chief US fleet he coudn't have done anything but complain). Which if she is laid down in 1941 would be moot and he will have to deal with it ( he's only commander of the USN east coast fleet then ). That's another question. Does Stark get removed in March and sent over to Europe because he can deal with the English better or in FFO because of the closer working relationship with the MN and RN does he remain as Chief of Naval Operations and King ( a Known Anglophobe ) just remain Commander and Chief US Fleet?
Mark's Reply :
SO I think that a laydown date in early 1942 is appropriate, from the information I have available. Call is January-February 1942. Amazingly, this might just see them in service by the end of the war.
Russ's Reply :
According to Yard records if the Iowas were left at a #2 expedite level for material and labour priority they could have been done during the war in 24 months. Iowa ~32 months, New Jersey ~32 months, Missouri ~41 months, Wisconsin ~40 months.
Mark's Reply :
Admiral King: See above too. I think the delays will still occur. By the look of it, he did it because he could and because he did not like the type. There is nothing to stop this, but there are reasons now to ease it a little after they find out about the 18.1 guns.
Russ's Reply :
Umm I think there is, I question whether King will be given the Job of Chief of Naval operations.
Mark's Reply :
Interestingly, the IJN 18.1 shell heavyweight program should see them using a 3700lb AP shell. So the USN gets a boost and their Montana program gets a lift, while the IJN learned from that action the secret of the USN long 16 shell. FFO surprise! This gives broadsides of Yamato 33,300, Montana 32,400.
Russ's Reply :
Umm but what timeline are we looking at for that kind of shells development? Will it be moot if it takes a year or so?
Cye's Comments:
II. Iowas
With a slightly different V-W Act, does the USN freeze designs to the degree that it did in OTL? If yes, them Illinois & Kentucky are ordered as repeat Iowas. If not, then what we're calling the Montana class could actually become the Illinois class. So to my mind it's really a matter if the Fall of France triggers the same design freeze. I honestly don't know
enough about this period in FFO to say.
III. Montanas
If I'm reading Mark correctly, you're thinking that what was basically the 45k ton, four-turret South Dakota is what would be laid down early 1942 and not the 60k-ton monster that was intended in OTL?
Russ's Reply :
II.As per above.
III. I think he's talking about the final 1941 design of the Montana as per
OTL.
That's it! Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?
Russ / Roller007
Cye's Question :
II. Montana Class
A) Most (all?) of the studies that led to the Montana were titled BB65-#.
B) After the passage of the Vinson-Walsh Act, the SECNAV ordered that most new ships duplicate those already on order. As a result Illinois & Kentucky were ordered on September 9th as repeat Iowas.
C) Given the above, it may be possible that the Illinois & Kentucky would be ordered to one of the BB65 designs from the outset and not as repeat Iowas.
Im not sure how that would affect the material situation, but it seems like a good question.
Mark's Reply :
COMMENT: Another very interesting question. The IJN loss of what the Allies believe to be two Kongo class and the USN discovery beyond any doubt that the new IJN BB are 18 monsters has generated questions relating to the Montana class and Iowa class which we have not been able to resolve. If the answer actually lies in the V-W Act and there are already 4 Iowas and 2 Montanas building, then this is pre-solved. OK, there will still be problems with steel, but that is not something which would have affected the nature of the V-W Act in 1940!
Russ's Reply :
Comment: The Montana's are tied to the two-ocean Navy treaty as are the Essex class Carriers. Assuming there are no delays the orders for the Montana's should still go through as Historical. Only issues with lack of shipyard spaces ( yards being upgraded ) will delay there initial laydown date. As for steel, with the USSR not entering the war in 1941 and needing steel shipped ot them, things will be a lot better. Also the better situation in the UK not having to repair all those damaged ships from the Murmansk convoys will also be a great help. The "Steel Shortage" was not a shortage. It was a miss allocation of steel that was stripped out of the system to send it to Russia. Russian Lend lease orders did not go through commitee. They were approved by FDR and Mr Hopkins would have the material removed from the system without consulting other boards and send it to the Transportation command. Result was that many Production board plants that were to use the steel were not able to be used and some steel shipments were delayed to various other programs. Thus a perceieved steel shortage was seen. This even carried over to the UK where a perceived steel shortage was seen but in fact steel deliveries to the sites were the issue, the steel was available ( 1942 , 98% of order steel delivered with 6% stuck in transport: 1943, 104% of steel delivered with 8% stuck in transport: 1944, 99% of steel delivered with 12% stuck in transport ). With the USSR not an issue in FFO to May 1942 and the UK in a better position I feel the 2 Montana's will be laid down in September 1941( the two repeat Iowas would have also been put on the Books but not laid down yet). As the Main oponents of the Montana's were the carrier arm of the Navy it is possible that a compromise could be found on the Montana's. Changing her engines to the 50000 or 65000 SHP Westinghouse engines at 600 PSI she could do 30+ kts instead of 28kts which would allow her to operate with the Carriers. Lengthening her hull and going for a hull form like the Iowas could add another 2 kts on top of that but you'd end up with a behemoth similar to the #8 design which I don't see them doing. The engine option would be the best compromise. It would also allow the engines to be developed for the Midways ( or whatever they will be called in FFO). If the Montana's are laid down in September 1941 with the steel that didn't go to the UK and the USSR then she will be well on her way to being available by late 1943 early 1944 ( if King doesn't screw around with there priorities maybe even sooner). Also as there is no killing blow in 1942 by US carriers as per OTL Midway and Admiral King would be more on a leash because of his Anglophobic tendencies he would not be able to screw around with the Battleship priorities ( Iowa's or Montana's). He frequently went in and changed there priorities from a 1 or a 2 to a 5 or a 6 ( which was not his job ) which many feel added almost 3 to 6 months onto the wartime construction part of those ships. With the losses in the Slot to USN BB's in FFO this would be even harder for him to justify. As for issues with the Montana's after the IJN's unveiling of the Yamato. Not an Issue, investigation of the North Carolina will show that the 18" shells are similar to the USN's 16" shells so the Iowa's have almost as much throw weight as the Yamato and the Montana's would have had a heavier broadside overall, at 32,400 pounds vs. 28,800 for Yamato. They are the only USN BB's that could face the Yamato's currently available in the short term and would be further expedited IMHO.
(The next set of posts are a point counter point in an e-mail)
Mark's Reply :
Iowas. I agree that 4 would be the extent of the program.
Russ's Reply :
Well as the usually knee jerk reaction, when war starts some Iowas or Montana's above what is listed could be ordered or the 2 that would have been ordered before the war BB65 and BB66 may actually again get laid down. Whether any of them are finished is highly questionable.
Mark's Reply :
Montanas. I agree that 2 would be laid down. I suspect that the 28 knot version would be built because the fast carrier issue is using hindsight not available when the ships are laid down. Ill add something else too. The idea that a 28 knotter is barely capable of keeping up with the carriers is nonsense. Most of the time, carriers, like everything else, are tooling around at circa 15 knots: economical cruising speed. The only time they really use full power is in low-wind conditions, to get a strike off. This does not happen too often. In any kind of a seaway they cannot use their high speed because the escorts (DD) cannot keep up, they are more affected by seastate than bigger ships. Trust me, I was trained as a Seaman Officer on Type 12 DE in the RAN (YES! I am a Leanderthal!)
Russ's Reply :
Oh I agree. The Carolina's and Dakota's all worked perfectly with the carriers as far as I'm concerned. It was the Navy Carrier lobby that set that limit and because of circumstances were able to make it stick.
Mark's Reply :
And you normally keep a 5 knot reserve in high speed steaming anyway, so a 33 knotter is actually doing 28.
Now, I think you are being a little optimistic in in-service dates, Russ. Friedman refers to industrial bottlenecks delaying their being laid down in 1941 (Friedman, US BB p.342). I suspect that the bottlenecks were in plant (turbine blade?) and main armament manufacture at that date. Now, he goes on to state that the steel shortage caused Roosevelt to cancel them in April 1942. Now, he appears to have had personal reasons for that, and King is reported by Friedman not to have liked the design as it achieved too little on the tonnage. He appears to have wanted a ship the same tonnage as the Iowa, which implies a true slow BB.
Russ's Reply :
I'm not sure about being optomistic. Both the Montana and Ohio were to have been laid down in January 25th 1941 but the upgrades to the Philadelphia Navy yard were not complete to lay down her till after August 1941. The excuse then was that steel was needed to be shipped to the UK and the USSR. Both the Montana and Ohio's guns were completed by November 1941and were swapped in as spares for the Iowas after the war. The only thing that prevented there being laid down after the war started was that King kept changing there priorities ( which he was not suppose to do and got him investigated for doing so, which FDR squashed ) and the perceived steel shortage. In FFO the steel is available and thus the main excuse that delayed them being laid down in September 1941 is removed. So unless some other driver or Political issue could be found they should be laid down then as far as I'm concerned. As for Kings wants, that would not be an issue. He was on the board that designed the Montana, that chose her design and he will not be in a position to do anything about her till March 1942 when he's made Chief of Naval operations (As commander in chief US fleet he coudn't have done anything but complain). Which if she is laid down in 1941 would be moot and he will have to deal with it ( he's only commander of the USN east coast fleet then ). That's another question. Does Stark get removed in March and sent over to Europe because he can deal with the English better or in FFO because of the closer working relationship with the MN and RN does he remain as Chief of Naval Operations and King ( a Known Anglophobe ) just remain Commander and Chief US Fleet?
Mark's Reply :
SO I think that a laydown date in early 1942 is appropriate, from the information I have available. Call is January-February 1942. Amazingly, this might just see them in service by the end of the war.
Russ's Reply :
According to Yard records if the Iowas were left at a #2 expedite level for material and labour priority they could have been done during the war in 24 months. Iowa ~32 months, New Jersey ~32 months, Missouri ~41 months, Wisconsin ~40 months.
Mark's Reply :
Admiral King: See above too. I think the delays will still occur. By the look of it, he did it because he could and because he did not like the type. There is nothing to stop this, but there are reasons now to ease it a little after they find out about the 18.1 guns.
Russ's Reply :
Umm I think there is, I question whether King will be given the Job of Chief of Naval operations.
Mark's Reply :
Interestingly, the IJN 18.1 shell heavyweight program should see them using a 3700lb AP shell. So the USN gets a boost and their Montana program gets a lift, while the IJN learned from that action the secret of the USN long 16 shell. FFO surprise! This gives broadsides of Yamato 33,300, Montana 32,400.
Russ's Reply :
Umm but what timeline are we looking at for that kind of shells development? Will it be moot if it takes a year or so?
Cye's Comments:
II. Iowas
With a slightly different V-W Act, does the USN freeze designs to the degree that it did in OTL? If yes, them Illinois & Kentucky are ordered as repeat Iowas. If not, then what we're calling the Montana class could actually become the Illinois class. So to my mind it's really a matter if the Fall of France triggers the same design freeze. I honestly don't know
enough about this period in FFO to say.
III. Montanas
If I'm reading Mark correctly, you're thinking that what was basically the 45k ton, four-turret South Dakota is what would be laid down early 1942 and not the 60k-ton monster that was intended in OTL?
Russ's Reply :
II.As per above.
III. I think he's talking about the final 1941 design of the Montana as per
OTL.
That's it! Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?
Russ / Roller007
