8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!!!!

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!!!!

#1

Post by Andy H » 27 May 2012, 18:26

Hi

Whilst looking up some information about British BB's in Richard Worths Fleets of World War 2, he mentions on Pg96:-
A peculiar clandestine scheme arose during the war when a high ranking American official proposed trading 8 American heavy cruisers (presumably CA24-31,33 & 35) for the BB Duke of York!. The British recovered from their surprise and expressed some interest, but they lacked the manpower to crew 8 new ships. Inspiring more curiosity than enthusiasm, the scheme faded away.
Number of questions:

1. Just who is this American official?
2. When was this proposal put forward?
3. Why would the Americans make the offer?
4. Why would the RN swap a modern BB for 8 CA's of the Pensacola, Northampton and Portland classes?

I have no information regarding 1
I can hazard a guess that it was early 1942 for No 2
If it was early '42, the USN would be short of BB's after PHarbour, but so were the British after the losses of Singapore, in relation to No3.
The RN was short of CA's come 1942, but not sure they would want a modern BB taken from their fleet!

So any help or reference(s) would be helpful

Regards

Andy H

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#2

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 28 May 2012, 11:31

I have no idea who it was, But I fathom it was some "hysterical" politician - US senator or representative, just trying to pander votes for his next election following the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor. As nobody knowing anything about naval matters, except for an anglophile stooge, "working a scheme" 8-) , would have traded 8 of the best CA's at the time, for one foreign battleship.

I hope you find out who it was. So we can disparage him further.


User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#3

Post by mescal » 28 May 2012, 12:46

Hello,

I remember this matter has been discussed on the warship board.
The thread is here

The most interesting reference wrt this question is to be found in Raven & Roberts :
On 13th February 1941, the Prime Minister asked the First Sea Lord if he would like to exchange Duke of York for eight US 8-inch gun cruisers. On the following day, the Director of Plans was asked to look into the matter and give an opinion. He reported that the eight cruisers would provide a marked increase in the ability of the Fleet to deal with raiders, as it would mean four hunting groups in exchange for one. Assuming the USA would send the ship to the Pacific, the reduction in capital ship strength was just acceptable. There was, however, the problem of finding the necessary crews. The eight cruisers could be manned over a staggered period, ending in 1942 or 1943, and two could be taken on at any time, by paying off three of the old 'C' or 'D' class cruisers into dockyard control. The First Sea Lord sent the following note to the Prime Minister on 28th February: "If we could obtain eight US cruisers in exchange for Duke of York I think that at the present time we would be wise to do so. It is clear, however...that the vest we could do would be to man two 8-inch cruisers in the summer of 1941 and the remainder would have to wait and it could even involve paying off the 'C' and 'D' class cruisers. On this bases I do not consider the exchange worthwhile."
No more was heard of the matter. What prompted the Prime Minister's suggestion is at present unknown--it may have been his own idea; however, it is probable that the Americans knew of the idea, and may even have suggested it. (When the authors were researching for photographs of British ships in the United States Archives one of the lists received contained numbers for photographs of the battleship Duke of New York!)
British Battleships of World War 2, p 310.
(See the post by "Electric Joe" in the thread linked above)

Thus according to these authors it seems it originated from the British side, and earlier than PH.
It's to be noted that at the time it was envisionned, the RN had not yet suffered the losses of late 41 - 5 BBs sunk or crippled within a month, which would have made such proposal in 1942 a no-go.

The interest for the British was to increase the number of raider-hunter groups at a time when Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were at large, and when there were enough BB to deal with the German & Italians.

Note that if the date given in R&R are correct, the RN would be trading a BB under construction for existing CA.
Which would be advantageous to the RN, and may be for the USN, as they could equip the BB with some of their equipment from the start and avoid a lot of undo/re-do.

Anyway, given the scarcity of references it seems that the idea died a quick death.

What is perhaps surprising is that Fleets of WW2 & British Battleships ... are at odds wrt which side made the initial proposal.

Perhaps you should send an PM to tiornu.


Hope it helps...
Olivier

User avatar
waldzee
Banned
Posts: 1422
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 04:44
Location: Calgary Alberta

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#4

Post by waldzee » 06 Jun 2012, 10:44

ChristopherPerrien wrote:I have no idea who it was, But I fathom it was some "hysterical" politician - US senator or representative, just trying to pander votes for his next election following the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor. As nobody knowing anything about naval matters, except for an anglophile stooge, "working a scheme" 8-) , would have traded 8 of the best CA's at the time, for one foreign battleship.

I hope you find out who it was. So we can disparage him further.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The last board I was on would have claimed a 'Rooseveldt conspiracy'- as every 'occurance' was a 'Rooseveldt conspiracy'.
No doubt someone with either shipyard or oil interests. Battleships are notorious fuel hogs.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#5

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 06 Jun 2012, 16:23

waldzee wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:I have no idea who it was, But I fathom it was some "hysterical" politician - US senator or representative, just trying to pander votes for his next election following the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor. As nobody knowing anything about naval matters, except for an anglophile stooge, "working a scheme" 8-) , would have traded 8 of the best CA's at the time, for one foreign battleship.

I hope you find out who it was. So we can disparage him further.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The last board I was on would have claimed a 'Rooseveldt conspiracy'- as every 'occurance' was a 'Rooseveldt conspiracy'.
No doubt someone with either shipyard or oil interests. Battleships are notorious fuel hogs.
Yep and other half of the "conspiracy" was Churchill :) . And I have no doubt if Churchill had asked for 8 US CA's, Roosevelt would have given them away.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#6

Post by mescal » 06 Jun 2012, 16:51

waldzee wrote:No doubt someone with either shipyard or oil interests. Battleships are notorious fuel hogs.
Actually, when one looks at the consumption per ton, battleships are far more fuel efficient than smaller ships.

Thus the use of 8 CA would have costed more bunker oil than one battleship.

As an illustration, you'll find below some data from US warships
ship_consumption.jpg
ship_consumption.jpg (104.16 KiB) Viewed 3147 times
Olivier

User avatar
Paul_G_Baker
Member
Posts: 429
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 17:59
Location: Arundel, UK.

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#7

Post by Paul_G_Baker » 07 Jun 2012, 19:45

Went through the Appendixes to Books 2 and 3 of WSC's Second World War last night - nothing specific found; unless the reference to 'seven cutters' at New York is code for CAs (5 Apr 41). What does come across is that WSC didn't like the KGV designs very much!!
Paul

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#8

Post by Terry Duncan » 04 Jul 2012, 15:42

The rumour had done the rounds before Tarrant or the 2007 discussion on Warships1, there was an earlier discussion maybe about 7-8 years before on one of the earlier incarnations of the site if the pages still exist, that was less bogged down in UK vs US rhetoric but still didnt get closer to coming up with an answer.

The offer/suggestion does seem to have been real though, as does the RN refusing the offer because it did not have the extra 6,500 trained crew to operate the cruisers that would have been needed.
What does come across is that WSC didn't like the KGV designs very much!!
Must be why he got one sunk in a futile operation only he saw any value in! He didnt like having smaller guns on them, but refusing to accept that high speed, thick armour, as well as big guns was not going to fit inside a 35,000 ton design wouldnt change reality. Nor would changing the design to the Lion have helped as if that had been done there would have been no modern battleships in the RN to oppose and breakout by the new German battleships such as Bismarck when they completed. The King George V class were far from perfect, but they gave good war service, indeed more than any other modern battleship class from other nations. Then again Churchill always did have a strange attitude to things that he felt failed him, his comment on Gallipoli was that 'they never gave my idea a chance' and his post war attitude to Bomber Command is well documented, so a ship that sunk when put in a bad position was unlikely to have raised his already poor but unrealistic opinion.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#9

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 04 Jul 2012, 23:10

Terry Duncan wrote: The King George V class were far from perfect, but they gave good war service, indeed more than any other modern battleship class from other nations.
Nope; That claim to fame would reside with the North Carolina/South Dakota Class BB's.


The best WWII BritIsh BB's were the QE class from WWI.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#10

Post by Terry Duncan » 04 Jul 2012, 23:37

Nope; That claim to fame would reside with the North Carolina/South Dakota Class BB's.
Actually what I wrote is correct. Look up the individual service records of the ships to see where they served and what they did, both length of service and actions. The fact you name two separate classes of US battleships doesnt help, but neither class beats the KGV's record for WWII.
The best WWII BritIsh BB's were the QE class from WWI.
Not at all sure where you get the idea they were the best from? The USN rated the British 15" gun the best heavy gun for many reasons, but other than that 'best' is difficult to define. They were the best value for money and saw extensive service, which rather like the older ships of most navies, exceeded the service of modern ships, and were the most used capital ships of WWII.

I would not say the KGV's were the 'best' capital ships of WWII if that is what you thought I meant, the South Dakota's might well be best suited to that claim.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#11

Post by Takao » 05 Jul 2012, 04:20

Terry,

What you wrote was argumentative, and not necessarily correct. Cases for giving "good war service" could be made for the USS North Carolina(15 battle stars), USS Washington(13 battle stars), and the USS South Dakota(13 battle stars), and while they spent most of their time in the Pacific, all three served some time in the Atlantic.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#12

Post by Terry Duncan » 05 Jul 2012, 20:10

Terry,

What you wrote was argumentative, and not necessarily correct.
There was no intent to cause argument, and whilst the British didnt award battle stars it is possible to check the active involvement of all the ships. Maybe you would have prefered the following version of my original comment - alteration highlighted;
The King George V class were far from perfect, but they gave good war service, indeed more war service than any other modern battleship class from other nations.
Good service may indeed be hard to quantify in a manner to get agreement from all, and I wrote nothing to disparage any other nations ships.
Cases for giving "good war service" could be made for the USS North Carolina(15 battle stars), USS Washington(13 battle stars), and the USS South Dakota(13 battle stars), and while they spent most of their time in the Pacific, all three served some time in the Atlantic.


Yes, these US ships did give good war service, but they are of two seperate classes, where my comment was about the KGV's having done the most as a single class and nothing more. The KGV's also served in the Pacific for what its worth, though I would agree they did not do as much there as most of the US ships.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#13

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 Jul 2012, 22:40

Terry Duncan wrote:


Yes, these US ships did give good war service, but they are of two seperate classes, where my comment was about the KGV's having done the most as a single class and nothing more. The KGV's also served in the Pacific for what its worth, though I would agree they did not do as much there as most of the US ships.

Please realize that the Nouth Carolina/South Dakota class were the same ship design; Except, for one "flagship version" and the attendant small variation in SECONDARY armament for ONE of those 6 ships (2-5in gun mounts :roll: ). If you want to exclaim this hair-splitting difference as a totally different BB design class , no matter, please realize no other battleship design(s) did better in WWII , . The US built enough BB"s to have "flagships", obviously the British could not afford such "variations".

And also realize the QE class did far more for England than those dud ass KGV class ships. Chasing one crippled German BB with help of the two most powerful navies in world and the air power of the US, or sailing around the fighting the Italian Navy in the Med hardly accounts for nothing. And as far as that goes, in the Med, the QE class did better service.

If you want to laud the KGV BB class as giving the the best performance of any BB class in WWII, then I guess you must exclude the HMS Prince of Whales. A few worse rotter BB's as an example of a class, have been seen. And yes , I know the SoDak class had an electrical problem at Savo island :)

IMHO, any trade for more than 2 US HVY CA's for one of those KGV's, would seem like a horrendous bs trade to me, even discounting for dealing with the massive operational problems/costs for both navies in supporting/operating logistically "alien" warships.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 05 Jul 2012, 23:22, edited 4 times in total.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#14

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 Jul 2012, 23:11

And no, I am not bashing you or "limeys" in general :lol: . I just think the two(or three :wink: ) best classes of BB in WWII,as far service records go, were the US NC/SoDak class, followed by the UK QE class. I think the record bears this out.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: 8 Heavy US cruisers for the RN Battleship Duke of York!!

#15

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Jul 2012, 02:05

Please realize that the Nouth Carolina/South Dakota class were the same ship design; Except, for one "flagship version" and the attendant small variation in SECONDARY armament for ONE of those 6 ships (2-5in gun mounts :roll: ). If you want to exclaim this hair-splitting difference as a totally different BB design class , no matter, please realize no other battleship design(s) did better in WWII , .
So far in error as to make it difficult to discuss things further as it exposes serious misconceptions from the outset and you compound this later with similar flaws in knowledge about other nations ships.

The same design except for the 48ft difference in hull length, the extra funnel, the 9,000SHP difference, the armour differences etc. You seem to be confusing the fact that South Dakota was built as a flagship from the South Dakota class and thus differed from the other members of that class as well as to the North Carolina and Washington which were indeed a very different class. Wikipedia gives enough detail and photos for people to spot the differences;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Caro ... battleship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dako ... %281939%29

Norman Friedman, probably recognized as the leading naval design expert in the world today, manages to consider them two separate classes and list them as such in all his works. Then again, what does he know? :roll:
The US built enough BB"s to have "flagships", obviously the British could not afford such "variations".
The British did have ships fitted for flagship duties, have a look at their construction details and operational activities, the South Dakota was fitted as a fleet flagship in a manner to Friedrich de Grosse in WWI, a rather pointless concept that other navies operated perfectly well without taking, and which highlights the rather obvious question of what operates as fleet flagship when the 'special flagship' is having a refit or repair?
And also realize the QE class did far more for England than those dud ass KGV class ships.
Have I said otherwise? The QE's were probably the most successful battleships ever built, and this is usually the conclusion when the subject is discussed on the internet too. The KGV's were far from duds though.
If you want to laud the KGV BB class as giving the the best performance of any BB class in WWII
You may have trouble with the concept that most is not always best, but I actually said they gave more service than any other modern warship class and that is correct.
And yes , I know the SoDak class had an electrical problem at Savo island :)
Idiot crewmen can happen anywhere, it is not a design issue though.
IMHO, any trade for more than 2 US HVY CA's for one of those KGV's, would seem like a horrendous bs trade to me, even discounting for dealing with the massive operational problems/costs for both navies in supporting/operating logistically "alien" warships.
With the majority of the US Pacific Fleet's capital units either sunk or badly damaged, getting hold of a modern fast capital unit is not an unreasonable idea. A ratio of 3 -1 or 4 - 1 is the most often agreed on ratio when this is discussed, though many people cannot see the attraction of large numbers of heavy cruisers, a type the RN did not need as badly as other types.
And no, I am not bashing you or "limeys" in general :lol: . I just think the two(or three :wink: ) best classes of BB in WWII,as far service records go, were the US NC/SoDak class, followed by the UK QE class. I think the record bears this out.
Given you are so far out of your expertise area, 'bashing' would be ill advised. The record does bear out which class of modern warships performed the most service in WWII, even if you do not like it, but that has nothing at all to do with which ships were the 'best' ships or even the most effective. I know 'best' and 'most' must be hard for you to differentiate, but please do try as it will solve this misunderstanding easily! :milwink:

If you actually look back through my posts you will see that I said that the South Dakota class had a very good claim to being the best class of modern warship in WWII, but that does not inflate their length of service operations and therefore qualify them as the ones who gave most service as a class. :milwink:

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”