https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... rs-instead
Good morning all,
Per ...
Note "The Dreadnought Revolution".
Note USN battlecruiser designs resembled modified ...
Note the article's WWII section's "...because the battleships could not keep up with the carriers".
The concluding "USN ought to have" is only for sages, fools, and fiction-writers. One of the 5 branches of western philosophy is - politics -. In the 12 years following the Washington Conference, the US failed to provide a building program even to replace obsolete vessels.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
-
ROLAND1369
- Member
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
This conveniently ignores the fact that the prewar carriers of the first generation, Lexington, Saratoga, German Graf Zepplin, and Japanese Akagi, Kaga all were equipped with 8 inch or 5.9 inch guns to defend themselves against enemy cruisers. this was the doctrine. As to Battlecruiser construction, I think it is apparent that the battlecruiser was thoroughly discredited by its performance a Jutland and the hood at the Bismark fight, as well as the development of the fast battleship, as typified by the Iowa class, as well as new types such as the AA cruiser, Atlanta and Dido class. To suggest building an expensive capital ship for the purpose of being a platform for AA defense is a terrible waste of resources that were unlikely to have been provided during the interwar years. In summation the approach sugested was neither politically viable nor tactically sound but would have produced a series of very expensive "One Trick Ponies".
-
OpanaPointer
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5666
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
I am completely shocked to learn that old ships can't keep up with new ones!
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
The author is completely inept in naval matters...
The Big Five were the Big Six. He forgot to include the USS Washington in his math, yet he included her keel-laying in 1919, The West Virginia's keel was laid in 1920. The WeeVee was completed, but the Washington, who's keel was laid in 1919, was not. So, it would be 1 was laid down in 1916, 2 were laid down in 1917 2 were laid down in 1919, and 1 was laid down in 1920.
The USN did not focus entirely on battleships, but dallied in Armored Cruisers. However, they were growing larger and just as expensive as battleships, but lacked the staying power of battleships.
The Dreadnought was hardly a "revolution.", she was just the first to actually be laid down. The Japanese Navy had already looked at building a battleship with uniform main armament, but proved to be to expensive at the time. While the Americans had already completed the design of the USS South Carolina, with uniform main armament, and something the Dreadnought did not have - all turrets on the centerline.
The battlecruiser Lexingtons had a rather feeble AA armament, even if they would be refitted in the inter-war period, the AA guns would still be the 5-inch/25s mounted on other battleships. The Lexington's would still only be the AA equal of the far less expensive to build & operate heavy cruisers. A major rebuild like that done to the California, Tennessee, and West Virginia, would have kept her out of action for the first few years of the war. Not to mention that the turning radius of the Lexington & Saratoga was roughly twice as great as other carriers, so she would have likely not done that well as an AA escort, although she would have made an additional target.
Also, this large turning radius, would have made it unlikely in the extreme that the Lexington battlecruisers would have operated with the cruiser groups at Guadalcanal.
Then, one would have to take into account the fuel situation, as the battlecruisers would more than likely have been fuel hogs, and at the time, the USN did not have that many fleet oilers to go around.
This makes for a fancy What-If, but like mos what-ifs, is almost completely disconnected from reality.
The Big Five were the Big Six. He forgot to include the USS Washington in his math, yet he included her keel-laying in 1919, The West Virginia's keel was laid in 1920. The WeeVee was completed, but the Washington, who's keel was laid in 1919, was not. So, it would be 1 was laid down in 1916, 2 were laid down in 1917 2 were laid down in 1919, and 1 was laid down in 1920.
The USN did not focus entirely on battleships, but dallied in Armored Cruisers. However, they were growing larger and just as expensive as battleships, but lacked the staying power of battleships.
The Dreadnought was hardly a "revolution.", she was just the first to actually be laid down. The Japanese Navy had already looked at building a battleship with uniform main armament, but proved to be to expensive at the time. While the Americans had already completed the design of the USS South Carolina, with uniform main armament, and something the Dreadnought did not have - all turrets on the centerline.
The battlecruiser Lexingtons had a rather feeble AA armament, even if they would be refitted in the inter-war period, the AA guns would still be the 5-inch/25s mounted on other battleships. The Lexington's would still only be the AA equal of the far less expensive to build & operate heavy cruisers. A major rebuild like that done to the California, Tennessee, and West Virginia, would have kept her out of action for the first few years of the war. Not to mention that the turning radius of the Lexington & Saratoga was roughly twice as great as other carriers, so she would have likely not done that well as an AA escort, although she would have made an additional target.
Also, this large turning radius, would have made it unlikely in the extreme that the Lexington battlecruisers would have operated with the cruiser groups at Guadalcanal.
Then, one would have to take into account the fuel situation, as the battlecruisers would more than likely have been fuel hogs, and at the time, the USN did not have that many fleet oilers to go around.
This makes for a fancy What-If, but like mos what-ifs, is almost completely disconnected from reality.
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Hello All ;
Mr. Takao wrote :
would have been less than useful. However, that is NOT the only equation you could make.
First, we should recall that, for the two decades of the 1920s and the 1930s, the USN had the SLOWEST battle line in the
World. The British were faster, the Japanese were faster, the Italians were faster, even the FRENCH were slightly faster,
and they, like the British and Japanese, had a ' Fast Wing ' of battlecruisers to augment their fleet. But, here in the U.S.,
we poked along at 20 - 21 knots, desperately hoping that if an Orange War broke out, we would not be 'Tsushima'd' by
a faster, more agile IJN.
Consider: As Mr. Takao has so cogently pointed out, the ' Big Five' were actually the ' Big Six '. At the time of the
first of these being laid down, the USN already had eight 12" gun dreadnoughts and was completing the three Idaho's,
which would give it nine more 14" gun super-dreadnoughts.
WHAT IF.... ( And, speaking as a Professional Engineer, these are the two most powerful words in the English Language ! )
What if.... Instead of building six more 21 knot slow-pokes, the USN had embarked on a program to build six BattleCruisers
instead ? These would NOT necessarily be of the Lexington type, but perhaps could be more modest. Instead of 180K
of Horsepower to achieve 33 knots, you could go for a smaller engineering plant, say 130K HP, giving you about 30 knots.
The armament of eight 16" guns would be kept, but a smaller secondary battery installed, and with a reduction in the USN's
traditional ' White Knight with all the Whistles and Bells " approach to warship design, you might get the ships in under
38,000 tons. In effect, you would have something like the North Carolina Class of 1941, but twenty years earlier !
When the Washington Treaty diplomats convene, the USN agrees to scrap all eight of the 12" gun dreadnoughts, keeping
the nine 14" gun super-dreadnoughts, and demanding the right to complete the last of the six battlecruisers. Thus, the
USN of the roaring 20s and the dirty 30s would have consisted of fifteen front line warships, nine of them a slow battle
line, and six of them a very fast wing with a knock out punch of 16" guns. This would be enough to give the IJN pause,
as the four Kongo's would be outclassed, and the rest of the IJN line outnumbered, in each case by a factor of 1.5 to 1.
With the outbreak of the WW2, the six battlecruisers might end up being employed in the early period just as were the
North Carolina's, but with the advantage of numbers: With five large CVAs, and two CVLs at the start of hostilities, the
USN could have whipped up either six individual task forces, or three double sized groups, each with either one or two
carriers and one or two of the battlecruisers. The battlecruisers would have provided the ' ship of force' needed to protect
the carriers from enemy surface groups, bolstered their AA capability, and served as surface force flags to take some of
the administrative load off of the Admiral commanding the Carrier group.
If these battlecruisers had undergone modernizations such as the California and Tennessee, they might have made the
construction of the first six BBs of the USNs WW2 construction program unnecessary, and the USN could have gone directly
on to the Iowas, building six of them as battlecruiser 'replacements'. In any case, they could have had large numbers of
40mm and 20 mm AA guns added, and with the VT fuse, the 5" 25 becomes a significant threat to enemy aircraft.
Consider a Battle of Midway in which Spruance and Fletcher have three 16" gunned battlecruisers to fight off any
attempt by the Kongo's to come to grips with the USN. Three battlecruisers grouped with three or four of the
pre-war USN CAs or large CLs , plus destroyers, would have made a formidable fighting force.
So, my conclusion is that Professor Farley, who is a lecturer at the University of Kentucky and a visiting Professor
at the Army War College, appears to have an interesting idea in terms of a ' What if ? - What might have been '.
As for ' Inept in Naval Matters ', that title I would have to hand to the senior officers of the various Bureaus
responsible for the design of U.S. warships starting in the 1880s, and going up into WW2, who gave us decades
of SLOW ships.
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Mr. Takao wrote :
I have to disagree. Now, if you take the premise that the USN should have built two battlecruisers, then, yes, theyThe author is completely inept in naval matters...
would have been less than useful. However, that is NOT the only equation you could make.
First, we should recall that, for the two decades of the 1920s and the 1930s, the USN had the SLOWEST battle line in the
World. The British were faster, the Japanese were faster, the Italians were faster, even the FRENCH were slightly faster,
and they, like the British and Japanese, had a ' Fast Wing ' of battlecruisers to augment their fleet. But, here in the U.S.,
we poked along at 20 - 21 knots, desperately hoping that if an Orange War broke out, we would not be 'Tsushima'd' by
a faster, more agile IJN.
Consider: As Mr. Takao has so cogently pointed out, the ' Big Five' were actually the ' Big Six '. At the time of the
first of these being laid down, the USN already had eight 12" gun dreadnoughts and was completing the three Idaho's,
which would give it nine more 14" gun super-dreadnoughts.
WHAT IF.... ( And, speaking as a Professional Engineer, these are the two most powerful words in the English Language ! )
What if.... Instead of building six more 21 knot slow-pokes, the USN had embarked on a program to build six BattleCruisers
instead ? These would NOT necessarily be of the Lexington type, but perhaps could be more modest. Instead of 180K
of Horsepower to achieve 33 knots, you could go for a smaller engineering plant, say 130K HP, giving you about 30 knots.
The armament of eight 16" guns would be kept, but a smaller secondary battery installed, and with a reduction in the USN's
traditional ' White Knight with all the Whistles and Bells " approach to warship design, you might get the ships in under
38,000 tons. In effect, you would have something like the North Carolina Class of 1941, but twenty years earlier !
When the Washington Treaty diplomats convene, the USN agrees to scrap all eight of the 12" gun dreadnoughts, keeping
the nine 14" gun super-dreadnoughts, and demanding the right to complete the last of the six battlecruisers. Thus, the
USN of the roaring 20s and the dirty 30s would have consisted of fifteen front line warships, nine of them a slow battle
line, and six of them a very fast wing with a knock out punch of 16" guns. This would be enough to give the IJN pause,
as the four Kongo's would be outclassed, and the rest of the IJN line outnumbered, in each case by a factor of 1.5 to 1.
With the outbreak of the WW2, the six battlecruisers might end up being employed in the early period just as were the
North Carolina's, but with the advantage of numbers: With five large CVAs, and two CVLs at the start of hostilities, the
USN could have whipped up either six individual task forces, or three double sized groups, each with either one or two
carriers and one or two of the battlecruisers. The battlecruisers would have provided the ' ship of force' needed to protect
the carriers from enemy surface groups, bolstered their AA capability, and served as surface force flags to take some of
the administrative load off of the Admiral commanding the Carrier group.
If these battlecruisers had undergone modernizations such as the California and Tennessee, they might have made the
construction of the first six BBs of the USNs WW2 construction program unnecessary, and the USN could have gone directly
on to the Iowas, building six of them as battlecruiser 'replacements'. In any case, they could have had large numbers of
40mm and 20 mm AA guns added, and with the VT fuse, the 5" 25 becomes a significant threat to enemy aircraft.
Consider a Battle of Midway in which Spruance and Fletcher have three 16" gunned battlecruisers to fight off any
attempt by the Kongo's to come to grips with the USN. Three battlecruisers grouped with three or four of the
pre-war USN CAs or large CLs , plus destroyers, would have made a formidable fighting force.
So, my conclusion is that Professor Farley, who is a lecturer at the University of Kentucky and a visiting Professor
at the Army War College, appears to have an interesting idea in terms of a ' What if ? - What might have been '.
As for ' Inept in Naval Matters ', that title I would have to hand to the senior officers of the various Bureaus
responsible for the design of U.S. warships starting in the 1880s, and going up into WW2, who gave us decades
of SLOW ships.
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Well, this is a distortion of the truth. For the vast majority of the 20s and 30s, the Japanese and British battle lines were only slightly faster(23 knots and 22 knots respectively). The French and Italians were equal or slightly less. This would not change until the completion of the French battlescruisers and the modernization of old Italian battleships in the late 1930s.paulrward wrote: ↑05 Apr 2019, 03:28
First, we should recall that, for the two decades of the 1920s and the 1930s, the USN had the SLOWEST battle line in the
World. The British were faster, the Japanese were faster, the Italians were faster, even the FRENCH were slightly faster,
and they, like the British and Japanese, had a ' Fast Wing ' of battlecruisers to augment their fleet. But, here in the U.S.,
we poked along at 20 - 21 knots, desperately hoping that if an Orange War broke out, we would not be 'Tsushima'd' by
a faster, more agile IJN.
Problem is...The US had already agreed to scrap 4 of their eight 12" gun battleships, and retain the battleships Florida, Utah, North Dakota, and Delaware. Not to mention that two of these, North Dakota and Delaware were already slated to be scrapped upon completion of the two remaining Colorado class. Carrying this over, scrapping all 8 12" gunned battleships will only give you 4 new battlecruisers. Where are the other two going to come from?paulrward wrote: ↑05 Apr 2019, 03:28Consider: As Mr. Takao has so cogently pointed out, the ' Big Five' were actually the ' Big Six '. At the time of the
first of these being laid down, the USN already had eight 12" gun dreadnoughts and was completing the three Idaho's,
which would give it nine more 14" gun super-dreadnoughts.
WHAT IF.... ( And, speaking as a Professional Engineer, these are the two most powerful words in the English Language ! )
What if.... Instead of building six more 21 knot slow-pokes, the USN had embarked on a program to build six BattleCruisers
instead ? These would NOT necessarily be of the Lexington type, but perhaps could be more modest. Instead of 180K
of Horsepower to achieve 33 knots, you could go for a smaller engineering plant, say 130K HP, giving you about 30 knots.
The armament of eight 16" guns would be kept, but a smaller secondary battery installed, and with a reduction in the USN's
traditional ' White Knight with all the Whistles and Bells " approach to warship design, you might get the ships in under
38,000 tons. In effect, you would have something like the North Carolina Class of 1941, but twenty years earlier !
As I mentioned earlier, your two battlecruisers short. Further, you forget that the USN has to divide it's ship between the Atlantic and Pacific. Not to mention that the Japanese would very likely never agree to such a Treaty.paulrward wrote: ↑05 Apr 2019, 03:28When the Washington Treaty diplomats convene, the USN agrees to scrap all eight of the 12" gun dreadnoughts, keeping
the nine 14" gun super-dreadnoughts, and demanding the right to complete the last of the six battlecruisers. Thus, the
USN of the roaring 20s and the dirty 30s would have consisted of fifteen front line warships, nine of them a slow battle
line, and six of them a very fast wing with a knock out punch of 16" guns. This would be enough to give the IJN pause,
as the four Kongo's would be outclassed, and the rest of the IJN line outnumbered, in each case by a factor of 1.5 to 1.
Of course, without the CCs converted to CVs, you are two CVs short, but still, without the Lexington & Saratoga, the US could have more CVs and possibly no CVLs.paulrward wrote: ↑05 Apr 2019, 03:28With the outbreak of the WW2, the six battlecruisers might end up being employed in the early period just as were the
North Carolina's, but with the advantage of numbers: With five large CVAs, and two CVLs at the start of hostilities, the
USN could have whipped up either six individual task forces, or three double sized groups, each with either one or two
carriers and one or two of the battlecruisers. The battlecruisers would have provided the ' ship of force' needed to protect
the carriers from enemy surface groups, bolstered their AA capability, and served as surface force flags to take some of
the administrative load off of the Admiral commanding the Carrier group.
Again, the number of fast task forces would be limited by the number of fast oilers, of which there were few.
Very unlikely, no massive reconstruction of the Tennessees had been contemplated before the war, and the reconstructions that were contemplated were put off due to fiscal and operational requirements. Large numbers of 40mm was impossible, and production of the 1.1 quads was limited, such that old and new ships were late in getting them. Further, the VT fuse was not available until much later in the war, so this too is impossible when it is needed most. As others have pointed out more AA cruisers and destroyers is a much cheaper, not only in terms of construction, but operational, logistical, and manpower requirements) way to go.paulrward wrote: ↑05 Apr 2019, 03:28If these battlecruisers had undergone modernizations such as the California and Tennessee, they might have made the
construction of the first six BBs of the USNs WW2 construction program unnecessary, and the USN could have gone directly
on to the Iowas, building six of them as battlecruiser 'replacements'. In any case, they could have had large numbers of
40mm and 20 mm AA guns added, and with the VT fuse, the 5" 25 becomes a significant threat to enemy aircraft.
So, would a force of Tillman battleships...Further, the Kongos never made any such attempt at the US carrier fleet, not once in the whole war.paulrward wrote: ↑05 Apr 2019, 03:28Consider a Battle of Midway in which Spruance and Fletcher have three 16" gunned battlecruisers to fight off any
attempt by the Kongo's to come to grips with the USN. Three battlecruisers grouped with three or four of the
pre-war USN CAs or large CLs , plus destroyers, would have made a formidable fighting force.
And as always, What-Ifs have their own subforum, perhaps this should be moved there.
As for ' Inept in Naval Matters ', that title I would have to hand to the senior officers of the various Bureaus
responsible for the design of U.S. warships starting in the 1880s, and going up into WW2, who gave us decades
of SLOW ships.
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
[/quote]
They gave us decades of slow ships to maintain uniform speed. There was no momentous blunder such as Beatty at Jutland, where he outran his own fast battleships, and lost two of his five battlecruisers.
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Hello All :
Mr. Takao stated :
Not exactly true. The USN had three BBs in the line throughout the 20s and 30s ( New York, Texas, Oklahoma ) which had VTE reciprocating engines. These could give an initial, brief 'spint speed' of about 21 knots when they were new, but by the middle of the
1920s, they were aging, and the three ships were good for, at most, about 19 knots. The Arkansas and Wyoming, after they were 'bulged'
lost about 1 1/2 knots of speed, dropping them to about 19.5 knots. Thus, of the USN's fifteen battleships, five of them were not even
capable of making 20 knots under ideal conditions, and, with any bottom fouling, were even slower.
Add in the fact that the RN and the IJN each had a ' Fast Wing ' of Battlecruisers, and that the French built the Dunquerques, the Germans
the Deutschlands, and the Italian essentially reconstructed their four battleships, and you have a USN that is a tortoise among the rabbits.
WERE part of the 'Big Six' as you called it. So, instead of building two California BBs starting in Fiscal 1915, you build the first two
Battlecruisers. ( Jutland hasn't been fought yet, only the Falklands, so the Battlecruiser is not yet " discredited " ) Then, you start the
final four of the Big Six as four more battlecruisers, and, when the Treaty Negotiations start, you give up the first four 12" gunned
dreadnoughts, swap the Utah and Florida for the West Virginia BC , and the Arkansas and Wyoming for the Washington BC. Voila !
You have swapped all eight 12" gunned dreadnoughts for four 16" gunned battlecruisers !
( the Arizona's and Idaho's ) you put in the Pacific with three of the battlecruisers. The four oldest battleships ( New York's and Nevada's )
go in the Atlantic with the other three BCs. As the 20s and 30s develop, the BCs gradually are moved from their role as a fast wing
to the USN to being CV escorts.
was economically prostrate. I would recomend you go to:
https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_r ... v09e02.pdf
to read a brief overview of the situation in Japan starting in 1919. It wasn't good. So, the Admirals might have wanted their 8-8
fleet, but the money just wasn't there to build it. In fact, Japan was so broke that when the Kanto Earthquake wrecked the Amagi,
the Japanese did not have enough money to repair it, and instead had substitute the Kaga for carrier conversion. To give a further
glimpse into the situation, the twelve boilers that had originally been intended for the Tosa were divided up, and six were installed in
each of the Nagato and Mutsu to boost their speed from 24 knots to 26 knots. The Japanese would have liked to make both ships
entirely oil powered, giving them a speed of about 27 knots, but the money just wasn't there to buy the additional boilers !
As for rebuilds in this period: While it is true that the rebuilds experienced by the Tennessee and California were never considered during
the 1920s and 1930s, imagine the six battlecruisers given rebuilds such as the three Idaho's received. No more cage masts,
upgraded and improved 5" 25 AA. And, we must recall, the Idaho's were re-engined, going from appx 30000 hp ( 21 knots ) to 40000 hp
( 22-23 knots on trials ) A similar program on the Battlecruisers might have raised their top speed from 30 knots to 31.5 knots, especially
if we could keep the USN's ' Bulgers ' from fattening up the hulls !
And, as for AA guns: After the war started, before they were sent to the Pacific, the Idaho's had their AA suite augmented with lots
of 20mm singles. Later, all three ships received as many as 14 quad 40mm mounts. A similar series of wartime upgrades could have been
done to the battlecruisers, making them the AA equivalent to any of the USN's WW2 battleships. ( and making the first six of those battlships superfluous ! )
Well, with no CCs, and 135,000 tons to play with, what can I dooooooooo..... HMMMMMMM..... Well, lets build two Rangers. Then, after
testing them out, we build two Yorktowns. Then, we build four Wasps. And finally one more Hornet. That is nine CVs and CLs. You
now have a lot of choices. Make a task group out of one CV and two CLs, with two BCs as escort, ( Three large Carrier TFs ) or go with
either one CV or two CLs and one BC for a total of six smaller TFs. You could spend the latter part of the 1930s on the checkerboard floor
at Newport and in the Pacific doing Fleet Problems to see which works better.
the enemy and destroy it. This included the Haruna, Kirishima, and the Tone and Chikuma. This was later called off, and the
IJN retired. But, for a few hours, two of the Kongos were trying to close with and destroy the USN carriers at Midway.
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; FOR I INTEND TO GO IN HARM'S WAY !
Respectfully :
Paul R Ward
Mr. Takao stated :
Well, this is a distortion of the truth. For the vast majority of the 20s and 30s, the Japanese and British battle lines were only slightly faster (23 knots and 22 knots respectively). The French and Italians were equal or slightly less. This would not change until the completion of
the French battlescruisers and the modernization of old Italian battleships in the late 1930s.
Not exactly true. The USN had three BBs in the line throughout the 20s and 30s ( New York, Texas, Oklahoma ) which had VTE reciprocating engines. These could give an initial, brief 'spint speed' of about 21 knots when they were new, but by the middle of the
1920s, they were aging, and the three ships were good for, at most, about 19 knots. The Arkansas and Wyoming, after they were 'bulged'
lost about 1 1/2 knots of speed, dropping them to about 19.5 knots. Thus, of the USN's fifteen battleships, five of them were not even
capable of making 20 knots under ideal conditions, and, with any bottom fouling, were even slower.
Add in the fact that the RN and the IJN each had a ' Fast Wing ' of Battlecruisers, and that the French built the Dunquerques, the Germans
the Deutschlands, and the Italian essentially reconstructed their four battleships, and you have a USN that is a tortoise among the rabbits.
Numbers are simple things: The California and Tennessee are already in service by 1921, they are not part of the equation. But, theyProblem is...The US had already agreed to scrap 4 of their eight 12" gun battleships, and retain the battleships Florida, Utah, North Dakota, and Delaware. Not to mention that two of these, North Dakota and Delaware were already slated to be scrapped upon completion of the two remaining Colorado class. Carrying this over, scrapping all 8 12" gunned battleships will only give you 4 new battlecruisers. Where are the other two going to come from?
WERE part of the 'Big Six' as you called it. So, instead of building two California BBs starting in Fiscal 1915, you build the first two
Battlecruisers. ( Jutland hasn't been fought yet, only the Falklands, so the Battlecruiser is not yet " discredited " ) Then, you start the
final four of the Big Six as four more battlecruisers, and, when the Treaty Negotiations start, you give up the first four 12" gunned
dreadnoughts, swap the Utah and Florida for the West Virginia BC , and the Arkansas and Wyoming for the Washington BC. Voila !
You have swapped all eight 12" gunned dreadnoughts for four 16" gunned battlecruisers !
No, Mr. Takao, I have access to a thing called Google Earth ! You might want to check it out. Really cool. But, moving on: With fifteen front line ships, nine slow 14" gunned super dreadnoughts and six fast battlecruisers, you split them up. The five best battleshipsyou forget that the USN has to divide it's ship between the Atlantic and Pacific.
( the Arizona's and Idaho's ) you put in the Pacific with three of the battlecruisers. The four oldest battleships ( New York's and Nevada's )
go in the Atlantic with the other three BCs. As the 20s and 30s develop, the BCs gradually are moved from their role as a fast wing
to the USN to being CV escorts.
Mr. Takao, the Japanese had NO CHOICE but to go along with the Washington Naval Treaty ! They were BROKE. Japan by 1922Not to mention that the Japanese would very likely never agree to such a Treaty
was economically prostrate. I would recomend you go to:
https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_r ... v09e02.pdf
to read a brief overview of the situation in Japan starting in 1919. It wasn't good. So, the Admirals might have wanted their 8-8
fleet, but the money just wasn't there to build it. In fact, Japan was so broke that when the Kanto Earthquake wrecked the Amagi,
the Japanese did not have enough money to repair it, and instead had substitute the Kaga for carrier conversion. To give a further
glimpse into the situation, the twelve boilers that had originally been intended for the Tosa were divided up, and six were installed in
each of the Nagato and Mutsu to boost their speed from 24 knots to 26 knots. The Japanese would have liked to make both ships
entirely oil powered, giving them a speed of about 27 knots, but the money just wasn't there to buy the additional boilers !
Very unlikely, no massive reconstruction of the Tennessees had been contemplated before the war, and the reconstructions that were contemplated were put off due to fiscal and operational requirements. Large numbers of 40mm was impossible, and production of the 1.1 quads was limited, such that old and new ships were late in getting them. Further, the VT fuse was not available until much later in the war, so this too is impossible when it is needed most. As others have pointed out more AA cruisers and destroyers is a much cheaper, not only in terms of construction, but operational, logistical, and manpower requirements) way to go.
As for rebuilds in this period: While it is true that the rebuilds experienced by the Tennessee and California were never considered during
the 1920s and 1930s, imagine the six battlecruisers given rebuilds such as the three Idaho's received. No more cage masts,
upgraded and improved 5" 25 AA. And, we must recall, the Idaho's were re-engined, going from appx 30000 hp ( 21 knots ) to 40000 hp
( 22-23 knots on trials ) A similar program on the Battlecruisers might have raised their top speed from 30 knots to 31.5 knots, especially
if we could keep the USN's ' Bulgers ' from fattening up the hulls !
And, as for AA guns: After the war started, before they were sent to the Pacific, the Idaho's had their AA suite augmented with lots
of 20mm singles. Later, all three ships received as many as 14 quad 40mm mounts. A similar series of wartime upgrades could have been
done to the battlecruisers, making them the AA equivalent to any of the USN's WW2 battleships. ( and making the first six of those battlships superfluous ! )
Of course, without the CCs converted to CVs, you are two CVs short, but still, without the Lexington & Saratoga, the US could have more CVs and possibly no CVLs.
Again, the number of fast task forces would be limited by the number of fast oilers, of which there were few.
Well, with no CCs, and 135,000 tons to play with, what can I dooooooooo..... HMMMMMMM..... Well, lets build two Rangers. Then, after
testing them out, we build two Yorktowns. Then, we build four Wasps. And finally one more Hornet. That is nine CVs and CLs. You
now have a lot of choices. Make a task group out of one CV and two CLs, with two BCs as escort, ( Three large Carrier TFs ) or go with
either one CV or two CLs and one BC for a total of six smaller TFs. You could spend the latter part of the 1930s on the checkerboard floor
at Newport and in the Pacific doing Fleet Problems to see which works better.
Wrong. After the initial debacle at Midway, Yamamoto ordered the surface units of the Kido Butai and the escorting fleet to pursueFurther, the Kongos never made any such attempt at the US carrier fleet, not once in the whole war.
the enemy and destroy it. This included the Haruna, Kirishima, and the Tone and Chikuma. This was later called off, and the
IJN retired. But, for a few hours, two of the Kongos were trying to close with and destroy the USN carriers at Midway.
To which I can only reply,They gave us decades of slow ships to maintain uniform speed
I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; FOR I INTEND TO GO IN HARM'S WAY !
Respectfully :
Paul R Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Good morning all,
I'm reading some good material here.
What I still do not understand was the resistance to the 1934 Vinson-Trammel Act - and the 1938 augmenting amendments by FDR.
Was domestic US politics involved ?
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
I'm reading some good material here.
What I still do not understand was the resistance to the 1934 Vinson-Trammel Act - and the 1938 augmenting amendments by FDR.
Was domestic US politics involved ?
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Hello Mr. South :
Ten million soldiers to the war have gone,
Who never shall return again.
Ten million mothers' hearts have broken,
For all the loved ones who have died in vain.
Head bowed down in sorrow in her lonely years,
I heard a mother murmur thro' her tears:
Chorus:
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier,
I brought him up to be my pride and joy,
Who dares to put a musket on his shoulder,
To shoot some other mother’s darling boy?
Let nations arbitrate their future troubles,
It’s time to lay the sword and gun away,
There’d be no war today,
If mothers all would say,
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier !
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Ten million soldiers to the war have gone,
Who never shall return again.
Ten million mothers' hearts have broken,
For all the loved ones who have died in vain.
Head bowed down in sorrow in her lonely years,
I heard a mother murmur thro' her tears:
Chorus:
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier,
I brought him up to be my pride and joy,
Who dares to put a musket on his shoulder,
To shoot some other mother’s darling boy?
Let nations arbitrate their future troubles,
It’s time to lay the sword and gun away,
There’d be no war today,
If mothers all would say,
I didn’t raise my boy to be a soldier !
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
-
OpanaPointer
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5666
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Wayne Cole's "Roosevelt and the Isolationists" would be a good read at this point.
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Good morning Paul,
===============================================================================================================================
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell
===============================================================================================================================
The maiden will never become a mother unless there is a security establishment.
As soon as the sword and gun are removed from the environment the maiden will have a calloused birth canal.
The soldiers' deaths were not in vain. This can be proven via objective criteria. Some of us are here and somewhat sheltered and well-fed.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Foot Note:
===============================================================================================================================
"The modern barbarian ... looks at the highly complex modern society and takes it to be a normal object. People think that fruit appears in the grocery store the same way it grows on trees. They don't perceive the highly complex social network that makes it possible. Nor do they appreciate that network's fragility." Jose Ortega y Gasset
================================================================================================================================
===============================================================================================================================
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell
===============================================================================================================================
The maiden will never become a mother unless there is a security establishment.
As soon as the sword and gun are removed from the environment the maiden will have a calloused birth canal.
The soldiers' deaths were not in vain. This can be proven via objective criteria. Some of us are here and somewhat sheltered and well-fed.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Foot Note:
===============================================================================================================================
"The modern barbarian ... looks at the highly complex modern society and takes it to be a normal object. People think that fruit appears in the grocery store the same way it grows on trees. They don't perceive the highly complex social network that makes it possible. Nor do they appreciate that network's fragility." Jose Ortega y Gasset
================================================================================================================================
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Hello All :
First, with respect to Japan's inability to complete the 8-8 program, the following article might be illuminating :
https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_r ... v09e02.pdf
To Mr. South :
They sent forth men to battle,
But no such men return'd;
But home, to claim their welcome,
Came their ashes, in an Urn.....
— Aeschylus, Agamemnon.
The fact is, after WW1, the majority of the American people had serious questions as to the motives, reasoning, and justifications for
our entry in what many saw as a foreign war to preserve the British and French Empires. In the post WW1 environment, the US imposed
a steady series of increased tariffs, and the entire nation became more isolationist.
When the Depression started, many men who were veterans found themselves unemployed, and with households having little or no
disposable income, the idea of a large government spending project to build warships that might never be used ( as the US Navy was
little used in WW1 ) seemed a trifle extravagant.
Many saw in the rise of military spending the lengthening shadow of a hereditary military class, increasing in numbers and political
power, which would ultimately involve the United States in endless overseas wars that would sap our wealth and destroy the cream of
American youth. Remember, if you have a large number of military ' Chiefs ', they will each want their own set of ' Indians ' . And,
as we all know, every boy who builds an army of tin soldiers, inevitably starts playing war with his ' toys ' .....
So, in my opinion, this was why the Vinson Trammell Act was opposed. And, we must recall, in 1941, the Draft Extension Act was
passed in the House by only one vote, and President Roosevelt was making speeches in which he pledged to America's Mothers that
their sons would NOT be sent overseas to die in foreign wars.
Lots of people opposed our intervention into WW2 up until Pearl Harbor. The left ( people like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger ) were
singing songs on the radio against the U.S. going to ' fight for the British Empire ', at least until the day the Hitler invaded Russia. On
the right, Charles Lindbergh was a leading member of the ' America First Committee ', and gave lectures on why the US should stay
out of the war.
To sum it up, many people in the U.S. felt that if you denied the Generals and Admirals the men and equipment they needed to
fight a foreign war, then it would make a foreign war less likely.
Mr. South, when the sword and the gun are placed in the hands of those who are only too willing and eager to use it, and who have
spent their entire adult lives training to do nothing else, there is the tragic history of those swords and guns being used all
too readily for causes that have nothing to do with the preservation of freedom, liberty, or independence. Recall, if you care to,
the mottos, " Remember the Maine ! " and the " Domino Theory " . ( and I almost hesitate to mention
" Weapons of Mass Destruction " ) The fact is, the United States is now approaching twenty years of what appears
to be a 'Forever War' in the Middle East, with no resolution in sight and nothing to show for it except the imposition of police
state practices here at home that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago.
I do have hope, however. There is NO DRAFT. And, with each passing year, it is becoming more and more difficult for the U.S.
Military to fill it's ranks. Young kids coming out of High School have heard of how the US Military is treating the front line soldiers.
Soldiers are being called back while on active reserve, then again when they are on inactive reserve, soldiers are being 'Stop-Lossed',
all because the Armed forces cannot get their numbers. Eventually, the soldiers in combat units will begin to react as their fathers
and grandfathers did in Viet Nam, and the 'Fraggings ' will start. And that will be the end of the Gulf War.
I'm wondering if the Wall with all the names on it that they will build in Washington will be black again this time, or if they will go
with another color ? Hmmmmmmm....
Now, Mr South, I have no doubt that some simpleton will accuse me of being a pacifist. To this I can only reply:
War is bad, heaven knows, but slavery is far worse...
— Walter Stone Poor , 1861
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
First, with respect to Japan's inability to complete the 8-8 program, the following article might be illuminating :
https://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_r ... v09e02.pdf
To Mr. South :
They sent forth men to battle,
But no such men return'd;
But home, to claim their welcome,
Came their ashes, in an Urn.....
— Aeschylus, Agamemnon.
The fact is, after WW1, the majority of the American people had serious questions as to the motives, reasoning, and justifications for
our entry in what many saw as a foreign war to preserve the British and French Empires. In the post WW1 environment, the US imposed
a steady series of increased tariffs, and the entire nation became more isolationist.
When the Depression started, many men who were veterans found themselves unemployed, and with households having little or no
disposable income, the idea of a large government spending project to build warships that might never be used ( as the US Navy was
little used in WW1 ) seemed a trifle extravagant.
Many saw in the rise of military spending the lengthening shadow of a hereditary military class, increasing in numbers and political
power, which would ultimately involve the United States in endless overseas wars that would sap our wealth and destroy the cream of
American youth. Remember, if you have a large number of military ' Chiefs ', they will each want their own set of ' Indians ' . And,
as we all know, every boy who builds an army of tin soldiers, inevitably starts playing war with his ' toys ' .....
So, in my opinion, this was why the Vinson Trammell Act was opposed. And, we must recall, in 1941, the Draft Extension Act was
passed in the House by only one vote, and President Roosevelt was making speeches in which he pledged to America's Mothers that
their sons would NOT be sent overseas to die in foreign wars.
Lots of people opposed our intervention into WW2 up until Pearl Harbor. The left ( people like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger ) were
singing songs on the radio against the U.S. going to ' fight for the British Empire ', at least until the day the Hitler invaded Russia. On
the right, Charles Lindbergh was a leading member of the ' America First Committee ', and gave lectures on why the US should stay
out of the war.
To sum it up, many people in the U.S. felt that if you denied the Generals and Admirals the men and equipment they needed to
fight a foreign war, then it would make a foreign war less likely.
Mr. South, when the sword and the gun are placed in the hands of those who are only too willing and eager to use it, and who have
spent their entire adult lives training to do nothing else, there is the tragic history of those swords and guns being used all
too readily for causes that have nothing to do with the preservation of freedom, liberty, or independence. Recall, if you care to,
the mottos, " Remember the Maine ! " and the " Domino Theory " . ( and I almost hesitate to mention
" Weapons of Mass Destruction " ) The fact is, the United States is now approaching twenty years of what appears
to be a 'Forever War' in the Middle East, with no resolution in sight and nothing to show for it except the imposition of police
state practices here at home that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago.
I do have hope, however. There is NO DRAFT. And, with each passing year, it is becoming more and more difficult for the U.S.
Military to fill it's ranks. Young kids coming out of High School have heard of how the US Military is treating the front line soldiers.
Soldiers are being called back while on active reserve, then again when they are on inactive reserve, soldiers are being 'Stop-Lossed',
all because the Armed forces cannot get their numbers. Eventually, the soldiers in combat units will begin to react as their fathers
and grandfathers did in Viet Nam, and the 'Fraggings ' will start. And that will be the end of the Gulf War.
I'm wondering if the Wall with all the names on it that they will build in Washington will be black again this time, or if they will go
with another color ? Hmmmmmmm....
Now, Mr South, I have no doubt that some simpleton will accuse me of being a pacifist. To this I can only reply:
War is bad, heaven knows, but slavery is far worse...
— Walter Stone Poor , 1861
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Good morning Paul,
I'm at somewhat of a loss as to how to address the several paragraphs above - less the prohibited current events like "now approaching 20 years...Middle East" and the current US military recruitment programs.
We must not discuss current events. I do, however, recommend - at least for the record - Bruce Nussbaum's 1983 "THE WORLD AFTER OIL".
Your several points have validity as to the basic facts. Yet these facts are only tiles in the mosaic. The mosaic presents something different.
Did post-Versailles US become more isolationist because of the evils of the imperial system's colonialism or because of other reasons ? Recall the arguments on Philippine agriculture products entering the US mainland in competition with eg California-grown products.
Yes, there was the hereditary military class. Primogeniture was brought here via our colonial experience. A United States of America with a new international canal through Nicar...er...through Panama... and a new central bank - Federal Reserve System - that started to replace London as the world's world trade and international finance center and generated US involvement in overseas wars. The "our wealth" is too vague a term. I also do not understand "American youth" ( ? euthanasia ? ). Since colonial times the US has always had a "military class", a "bankers' class", a farmers' class, religion associations, legal associations, ......
After the fall of France, apparently "America's mothers" still remained uneducated - except for the educated.
The US was already participating in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. The "British empire" had a US counterpart. USMC General Smedley Butler wrote a popular book about this.
My rhetorical question: In re "Many people in the US felt if you denied ... foreign wars less likely"; Were any of these people affiliated with any of the big banks of Wall Street, the the Standard Oil Co, pre Ida Tarbell, the Texas Railroad Commission, United Fruit Company, RCA, Johnson and Johnson,...?
I do not view you as a pacifist. The correct word is "idealist".
Paul, you're writing and flavoring US history as an Oberammergau passion play. A short area trip to locales around Orange County, California will allow for a refocus. Just stay within the naval gunfire fan.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
I'm at somewhat of a loss as to how to address the several paragraphs above - less the prohibited current events like "now approaching 20 years...Middle East" and the current US military recruitment programs.
We must not discuss current events. I do, however, recommend - at least for the record - Bruce Nussbaum's 1983 "THE WORLD AFTER OIL".
Your several points have validity as to the basic facts. Yet these facts are only tiles in the mosaic. The mosaic presents something different.
Did post-Versailles US become more isolationist because of the evils of the imperial system's colonialism or because of other reasons ? Recall the arguments on Philippine agriculture products entering the US mainland in competition with eg California-grown products.
Yes, there was the hereditary military class. Primogeniture was brought here via our colonial experience. A United States of America with a new international canal through Nicar...er...through Panama... and a new central bank - Federal Reserve System - that started to replace London as the world's world trade and international finance center and generated US involvement in overseas wars. The "our wealth" is too vague a term. I also do not understand "American youth" ( ? euthanasia ? ). Since colonial times the US has always had a "military class", a "bankers' class", a farmers' class, religion associations, legal associations, ......
After the fall of France, apparently "America's mothers" still remained uneducated - except for the educated.
The US was already participating in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor. The "British empire" had a US counterpart. USMC General Smedley Butler wrote a popular book about this.
My rhetorical question: In re "Many people in the US felt if you denied ... foreign wars less likely"; Were any of these people affiliated with any of the big banks of Wall Street, the the Standard Oil Co, pre Ida Tarbell, the Texas Railroad Commission, United Fruit Company, RCA, Johnson and Johnson,...?
I do not view you as a pacifist. The correct word is "idealist".
Paul, you're writing and flavoring US history as an Oberammergau passion play. A short area trip to locales around Orange County, California will allow for a refocus. Just stay within the naval gunfire fan.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Hello All ;
To Mr. South :
I read Nussbaum's book back in the mid 80s. Only confirmed what was in " Limits to Growth ", which I had read while in college
more than ten years earlier, and Harry Harrison's " Make Room, Make Room ", which I had read in middle school. Remember, in
a real emergency, your neighbors are EDIBLE !
When discussing military efficiency, one must always consider whether the rank and file are volunteers or conscripts. Historically,
the U.S. Army was a volunteer force during times of peace, and only imposed the draft during times of war. The creation of the
draft in 1940 was met with significant opposition, and it's re imposition in 1948 was perceived by some as a move towards what one
retiring president would later call a ' Military Industrial Complex '. The end of the draft in 1973 was widely hailed as a positive
move in the light of the end of the VietNam conflict, and, despite the return to a requirement for Selective Service Registration
and the post 9-11 environment, a recent poll showed that, if they were drafted, some 29% of the young men polled stated that they
would resist or avoid the draft.
Primogeniture has NOTHING to do with a military class in the United States. Primogeniture is the doctrine in which the eldest male
child received the inheritance in the form of the landed estate. the second went into the Church, the third to the Army, the fourth to
the Navy, and subsequent sons were entered into the Trades. The real reason for a hereditary class in the Service Academies, and
in the Non Commissioned ranks, has more to do with the fact that, as they grow up, the children of Service members are uprooted and
moved around the country so often that they never establish any firm connections in the form of friendships. As they end their
high school years, their only social and psychological safety net is the Armed Forces. The sons of officers try to become officers, using
their parents connections, while the sons of enlisted ranks have to settle for slots in the rank and file.
I could add a bit here about the Boy Scouts, but I won't unless pressed.......
Were America's Mothers 'uneducated' after the Fall of France. Well, a VERY well educated individual, who had graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote to a friend that, above all, the U.S.should
endeavor to stay OUT of the War. As he put it in his letter, " The Nazis are killing the Commies. What, Me Worry ? " To
put it bluntly, aside from the moral dimension, absent an attack on Pearl Harbor, what did the U.S. have to gain by entering into WW2 ?
Would it not have been more profitable to stay on the sidelines and sell Britain and Russia weapons and trucks until they ran out of
money, and then sit tight while working on the Manhattan Project ? If things had worked out right, we might have ended up with a
destroyed Germany, a destroyed Russia, and a destroyed British Empire. As they say, " Triple Yatzeeee ! "
As you can see, I am NOT an idealist. I am a pragmatist. That is why I always opposed the Draft. After all, once upon a time, they
were trying to conscript ME ! And, as a wise men once said, " Conscription is like Boiling Water to a Lobster: It may
be his finest hour, but it isn't his FIRST CHOICE ! "
I've been to Orange County. It has changed recently, " Donde esta la Biblioteca ? "
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Eastern Montana, American Redoubt
To Mr. South :
I read Nussbaum's book back in the mid 80s. Only confirmed what was in " Limits to Growth ", which I had read while in college
more than ten years earlier, and Harry Harrison's " Make Room, Make Room ", which I had read in middle school. Remember, in
a real emergency, your neighbors are EDIBLE !
When discussing military efficiency, one must always consider whether the rank and file are volunteers or conscripts. Historically,
the U.S. Army was a volunteer force during times of peace, and only imposed the draft during times of war. The creation of the
draft in 1940 was met with significant opposition, and it's re imposition in 1948 was perceived by some as a move towards what one
retiring president would later call a ' Military Industrial Complex '. The end of the draft in 1973 was widely hailed as a positive
move in the light of the end of the VietNam conflict, and, despite the return to a requirement for Selective Service Registration
and the post 9-11 environment, a recent poll showed that, if they were drafted, some 29% of the young men polled stated that they
would resist or avoid the draft.
Primogeniture has NOTHING to do with a military class in the United States. Primogeniture is the doctrine in which the eldest male
child received the inheritance in the form of the landed estate. the second went into the Church, the third to the Army, the fourth to
the Navy, and subsequent sons were entered into the Trades. The real reason for a hereditary class in the Service Academies, and
in the Non Commissioned ranks, has more to do with the fact that, as they grow up, the children of Service members are uprooted and
moved around the country so often that they never establish any firm connections in the form of friendships. As they end their
high school years, their only social and psychological safety net is the Armed Forces. The sons of officers try to become officers, using
their parents connections, while the sons of enlisted ranks have to settle for slots in the rank and file.
I could add a bit here about the Boy Scouts, but I won't unless pressed.......
Were America's Mothers 'uneducated' after the Fall of France. Well, a VERY well educated individual, who had graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote to a friend that, above all, the U.S.should
endeavor to stay OUT of the War. As he put it in his letter, " The Nazis are killing the Commies. What, Me Worry ? " To
put it bluntly, aside from the moral dimension, absent an attack on Pearl Harbor, what did the U.S. have to gain by entering into WW2 ?
Would it not have been more profitable to stay on the sidelines and sell Britain and Russia weapons and trucks until they ran out of
money, and then sit tight while working on the Manhattan Project ? If things had worked out right, we might have ended up with a
destroyed Germany, a destroyed Russia, and a destroyed British Empire. As they say, " Triple Yatzeeee ! "
As you can see, I am NOT an idealist. I am a pragmatist. That is why I always opposed the Draft. After all, once upon a time, they
were trying to conscript ME ! And, as a wise men once said, " Conscription is like Boiling Water to a Lobster: It may
be his finest hour, but it isn't his FIRST CHOICE ! "
I've been to Orange County. It has changed recently, " Donde esta la Biblioteca ? "
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Eastern Montana, American Redoubt
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Re: USN's battleships versus cruisers philosophy
Good morning Paul,
I don't know much about the accuracy of national numbers like 29%" but do accept you're an expert in living areas ! Eastern Montana is super.
The focus is more to - disasters - and not emergencies as to when cannibalism gets activated.
Nussbaum - and that darn oil depletion allowance - .........
In the US and a few other nations, the term "military efficiency" incorporates major political components. Thus, for example, when the Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the US, President Jefferson and Congress authorized building a fleet for Med service. Naval construction was allocated to the several seaport cities of the new US. Efficient from a purely economic perspective ? From a non-purely perspective, it was efficient because of the disbursements. This type of thinking continued. It did work.
"Historically", the US meandered between volunteers and conscripts - with enough of a blend to require some research to determine true "volunteerism".
I believe the Eisenhower concept of "military industrial complex" eclipsed conscription. Ike addressed the national complexion and its viability to further the nation. His position lost.
Primogeniture is a concept modified in US usage. It relates to the US socio-economic class system. It involves the inheritance laws and regulations. Note why the wife became fem sole of her own separate estate as late as the 20th century in some places. There were reasons appropriate to discuss elsewhere.
Boy Scout history indirectly related to all above but believe the organization has since been disestablished or , at least, reconfigured.
I cannot list whether the US had "to gain by entering WW2". The US western Atlantic defense had some relationship with the Panama Canal and the US territorial sea and the transit of cargo on Atlantic routes. I can only guess that defense of the Panama Canal generated some revenue streams to the US, to wit: Wall Street, LaSalle Street, ..not the US rural south, not the US insular possessions.
I do not have access to records to determine if it would have been more profitable for the US to stay on the sidelines. I'll ask Montagu Norman for his opinion.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA
I don't know much about the accuracy of national numbers like 29%" but do accept you're an expert in living areas ! Eastern Montana is super.
The focus is more to - disasters - and not emergencies as to when cannibalism gets activated.
Nussbaum - and that darn oil depletion allowance - .........
In the US and a few other nations, the term "military efficiency" incorporates major political components. Thus, for example, when the Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the US, President Jefferson and Congress authorized building a fleet for Med service. Naval construction was allocated to the several seaport cities of the new US. Efficient from a purely economic perspective ? From a non-purely perspective, it was efficient because of the disbursements. This type of thinking continued. It did work.
"Historically", the US meandered between volunteers and conscripts - with enough of a blend to require some research to determine true "volunteerism".
I believe the Eisenhower concept of "military industrial complex" eclipsed conscription. Ike addressed the national complexion and its viability to further the nation. His position lost.
Primogeniture is a concept modified in US usage. It relates to the US socio-economic class system. It involves the inheritance laws and regulations. Note why the wife became fem sole of her own separate estate as late as the 20th century in some places. There were reasons appropriate to discuss elsewhere.
Boy Scout history indirectly related to all above but believe the organization has since been disestablished or , at least, reconfigured.
I cannot list whether the US had "to gain by entering WW2". The US western Atlantic defense had some relationship with the Panama Canal and the US territorial sea and the transit of cargo on Atlantic routes. I can only guess that defense of the Panama Canal generated some revenue streams to the US, to wit: Wall Street, LaSalle Street, ..not the US rural south, not the US insular possessions.
I do not have access to records to determine if it would have been more profitable for the US to stay on the sidelines. I'll ask Montagu Norman for his opinion.
~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA