There was a Lion-class design proposal of 60,300t displacement, with 12x 16" guns in four triple turrets in two superfiring pairs fore and aft, a secondary battery of either 8x or 12x 5.25" guns in either four or six twin turrets (I can't recall which) grouped around the superstructure, and a speed of 30kts. Very similar to Montana.
It actually would've had 9 guns. Not 12. But, there was a proposal for 12 guns, yes. But the 9 was selected. As for the secondary armament, it called for 8 of the 5 inch guns.
The 5.25" isn't a good AA secondary gun, the US 5"/38 or even 5"/54 outperformed the 5.25" in AA duties. But 5.25" is better than the 38s in surface engagement the 54s probably ties or a tad below 5.25" in anti surface
@@Starfleet8555 but what that sketch could be used for is a Lion Class successor just scale the size up and either keep the 8x2 5.25 or use 12x2 4.5 secondary’s then 3x4 16” guns would make for quite the capable Lion Class successors
I would like to hear more about the Montanas, especially compare/contrast them to the Yamatos and the other American 1940s battleships (North Carolinas, South Dakotas, and Iowas). Also, more about the Alaska class and what their intended purpose was.
Alaskas were intended to hunt cruisers. Since the last major naval battle in history was the Naval Battle of Leyte Gulf and Alaska was still on her shakedown cruise during it, you can begin to see why they ended up amounting to nothing. Most of the cruisers she was suppose to hunt were already at the bottom of the ocean when she became active.
He didn’t mention the dutch because they never had battleships or battleship designs like that of the other nations in this video. They had a few dreadnought designs before the Great War but none of them materialized. In the interwar period they had a few battlecruiser designs like the 1047. However those alone couldn’t really get the Dutch included in this video. At the end of the day they had no true battleships. Also regarding the Scharnhorst’s they were indeed battleships “fast battleships” to be specific just with smaller than average main caliber guns for that time. They were meant for hunting and killing cruisers but could also take on battleships and inflict damage on them, but also could tank through hits with their strong armor protection. They were quite tanky and rugged in construction and were basically downsized Bismarck’s in the way they were built. The Dutch 1047 “battlecruiser” design did not have the durability to stand up against other capital ships like that of the Scharnhorst’s.
The Netherlands never has BB. In this scenario. they MIGHT have one or two... De Zeven Provincien will become the name. though these might be entirely or partially imported assets. Again their concern would also be to protect Southeast Asian colony (particularly against Japan). they might have consider Alaska concepts of Cruiserkillers instead.
The Dutch plan was to build 3 battlecruisers much in the line of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and some light cruisers(they would become De Ruyter and De Zeven Provincien). All larger vessels, cruisers, destroyers etc were meant to serve in the East Indies, defense of the homeland was given to a few coast defence vessels and torpedo- and gunboats. They did see Japan as their major threat.
It feels weird to call ships like Iowas, Bismark and Littorio class ships "super-dreadnoughts". I always associated "superdreadnought" with the ships built before, during or right after WWI, that were still Dreadnought-like but much heavier. Ships that still have casemate guns (compromising their belt armour) instead of putting all of their secondary battery in armored turrets. So Nevada and New York class battleships. Nagato, Iron duke, Andrea Doria etc.
@@rustykilt Well the late WWI and early interwar period was the "Super Dreadnought" era, 1920 and forward was the beginning Washington Treaty and London Treaty battleships era. Although the "escalator clause" in the second London treaty could have made the Tillman "Super Battleships" possible.
this is a exercise in semantics, dreadnaught yea it is a name and class of ship but it also referred to any massive gunship even if it was built tomorow ..
A few things. The Scharnhorst twins would have gotten their 15 inch guns bringing them closer to parity with the O-Class, but with much better protection (because the Scharnhorsts were built as Battleships, not Battle Cruisers). Second, Project 1047 would probably have been built by the Dutch, and would have either been commandeered by the Germans when they invade, or escape to fight in the Free Dutch fleet (That or be sunk by Japanese air power if it was on colonial station). 1047 is similar to the Scharnhorsts, and they were planned to use the same guns (Possibly the exact same guns if the Dutch buy the old turrets after the 15 inch refit).
Escape?, 1047 hull was barely laid down, let alone the keel since projects was only finalized in late March, work haven't start yet expecting around June.
@@NguyenThanh-gs5zv Right and this scenario we are talking about is what other capitol ships would be built if the war didn't start till 1945. The first 1047 would be completed before this hypothetical war. Possibly 2 of them if their construction schedule is accelerated, and they buy the old Scharnhorst turrets. So either she's captured, or escapes, but she does exist in this hypothetical war.
I’d really like to see a video going into the whole process of how older battleships such as Warspite were modernised, ideally with any photographs or film that may exist (I’ve never seen any photos from her 1930’s modernisation that actually show her decks being opened up)
Britain intended to build a further two Lion class ships, which were never ordered. In addition, Vanguard may still have been built as a ship intended to serve in the far East. Sister ships to Vanguard may also have been constructed, utilising turret and magazine assemblies taken from the R class ships as they were scrapped.
There was some work on larger guns than actually used during WWII. France had a 45cm (17.7") gun development effort. Do not know if they ever built one, though. They did come up w8ith a method that might have sped up their rate of fire: They took an old 34cm naval gun and rebuilt the breech assembly to be a large sphere with a vertical power-driven pivot. Through the sphere they put a horizontal hole large enough for 34cm AP shells and bag charges (though I think cartridge-cased propellants would probably have been substituted if this idea had been perfected). On each of the 90-degree -positions at right-angles to the hole, they put a large obturator gas-tight sealer to seal the breach. If they rotated the sphere 90 degrees from the hole, the gun would be sealed. If they rotated the hole to extend the barrel length, they could ram the projectile and powder into the gun (with a cartridge, this could be done in one ram extension). Thus, by controlling the rotation of the sphere, they could ram the gun to load it and, when the ram cleared the sphere on retraction, they could spin the sphere 90 degrees to seal the gun. Then the gun was elevated and fired and, as it was going beck to loading, the sphere would be revolved to put the hole in line with the barrel for the next loading ram. Simple mechanism with fewer moving parts and with cartridge powder to not need clearing the bore, a much faster loading cycle. It was never actually used on a ship, though. The US Navy had its actually built in the 1920s, but never fired in its original configuration,18" gun, later tested during WWII as the 18"/42 Mark "A" gun shooting enlarged 3850-pound shells similar to the 16" Mark 8. Japan actually built nd tested a 48cm (18.9") gun firing an enlarged version of their newest version of the 1931 Type 91 AP shell, the Type 1, which was also used in some of the WWII Japanese large-caliber guns. It was very similar to the Type 91, but had a slightly longer and more streamlined conical windscreen and reverted back to the British/US style of using one wide driving band, as they had with the British-designed AP shells of the 14" guns of th battle-cruiser KONGO, also built by Britain, and successors until the Japanese-only Type 91 AP shell was developed, with three narrow driving bands and a very streamlined shape for optimum range, replaced the older shells -- they must have had some dissatisfaction with the new multi-part driving bands (based on French or German designs). These shells had the break-away noses and super-long fuze delays to allow them to act like miniature torpedoes if they hit short of the enemy ship even quite some distance away at a range with angles of fall of between 17 and 25 degrees to hit the enemy battleship side hull below the lower edge of its main belt where most ships had very little armor. Note that all of the new and rebuilt Japanese battleships had lower belt armor additions to resist such hits and so did the US in its new battleships (perhaps they had found out about the post-British Japanese AP shell designs?). Germany actually built some 16" guns for the H battleships and converted them into coast defense guns -- their AP shells were enlarged versions of those of BISMARCK, though, interestingly, due to metal shortages during WWII, the AP caps were not soldered on, as had been done before, but held on by a very strong rubber cement that, when tested by the US Navy after WWII, was just about as strong as the regular solder the US Navy used to hold on its AP caps. German AP shells of the last type, "L/4.4", were unique in having a very lightweight aluminum windscreen. Larger guns were conceived of but none built for warships (though some railway guns of enormous size were made and actually used against Russia). Britain had also built around WWI and installed a single 18" gun on a warship, though it was quickly removed and put on a shore-bombardment monitor. This could have been used as the testbed for larger guns than the improved 16" being developed for the LION Class. No bigger guns were actually made, to my knowledge. I do not know anything about Italy or Russia concerning extra-large gun development.
@@matthayward7889 This was an experiment in an alternative to the interrupted-screw breech mechanism, which is rather complex. It seems to be much more suited to a sliding breechblock design, only instead of a wedge-shaped sliding door to press the brass cartridge into the gun to seal it, you have a wedge-shaped face on the sealing disk on the 90-degree-offset face from the loading hole. Indeed, this might actually be a good design for a fully automatic gun system for battleship-sized guns. The French were always coming up with "different" ideas!
@@NathanOkun As Ian from ‘forgotten weapons’ is fond of quoting “no one copies the French, and the French copy no one” The sphere must have been *huge* given the size of the projectile and bags/ cases. Would have been interesting to see what could have been made of it though!
@@matthayward7889 that's not entirely true. Everyone did copy the french when they invented smokeless powder or when they designed the Renault FT. Even if we stay within naval warfare, the Dunkerques for example were the first Battleships built with a fully dual purpose secondary battery. It is true however that they tend to... Innovate more than others. In both good and bad ways.
In this world, Shinano would have definitely been a battleship and not have been converted to a Aircraft Carrier and would have definitely lived more than 10 days. As for Akagi and Kaga, they probably would have been Aircraft Carriers. But by 1945, they probably would have been close to 19 years old.
It probably wouldn’t have been converted, but I’m not so sure about it making it longer than 10 days considering the US was going to have at least 18 fleet carriers and 14-15 new fast battleships by that time even if WWII had started later.
I'd really love to see Ryan to a video with Drachinifel on any subject WWII related. Russia had plans to build a BB fleet... this is along their plans to build a CV fleet. Neither would happen. They don't have the tech/infrastructure to actually do this. To this day, they still can't build a decent carrier that the US or UK would consider a reasonable threat. The one carrier the Russians have is classified as a training carrier, and requires a tug boat to be with it at all times, for reasons.
Mate, to be fair the engine troubles with the kutznetzov were bad due to non existent maintainance in the 90's and if it were not for said economic problems, they would have been fixed and or replaced by the Ulyanovsk class, Not to mention the several accidents that the carrier has suffered and its support facilities, it probably would be in working order by now as well
@@Hierachy it's rather sad to see the kutznetzov in such horrid condition, if maintained it seemed to be a capible design..seeing as the us and great Britain have far superior numbers in type of ship it poses little offensive threat, honestly I wouldn't even be mad if the u.s. decided to help fund her maintenance..
hard to tell which way they'd go, either a massive low radar visibility hull, basically a zimwalt with a pair of superfiring duel mount guns on the front and lots of missiles at the back, or basically a modern Alaska in the same vane as the russian/ussr Kirov class with a massive spam of vertical launchers with a pair of superfiring turrets
@@AsbestosMuffins I think your second supposition seems most likely. A Zumwalt looks like a small fishing boat on radar... which means a radar-reduced BB looks like a decent sized light cruiser or large DD... still a worthwhile target for a missile, thus you lose much of the stealth benefit. BBs aren't sneaky, and were never designed to slink about unnoticed. A pair of super firing triple turrets fore with a VLS farm aft is kinda similar to the missile BB conversion proposal for the Iowas, so the idea was already there... seems like that's the direction things would go.
It might be strange, but they could just decide to build a 5th Iowa, doing so would provide a number of spare parts that could put the others into better condition if the need arises for their reactivation. An Iowa class battleship cost about half of what it cost to build a Zumwalt class destroyer, so it may be simpler and cheaper to just build an Iowa.
Doing it today? I'd expect something an awful lot like either a Kirov or a more modern take on Long Beach. I'm actually not sure what "modern battleship" means - battleships were meant to be essentially the ultimate argument in a surface engagement, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense these days. That said, a big missile-armed ship with a few guns bigger than anything currently has would be useful. What I'm not at all sure, is that anyone would dub that a battleship, rather than a cruiser or large cruiser - between displacement inflation (one Burke displaces as much as three Sumners, and those were big DDs by WW2 standards; a Kirov displaces only somewhat less than an Alaska) and role changes, I'd expect the modern heavy missile-armed combatant would be a CBG rather than a BBG. That said - what would a modern capital surface combatant built by the USN, with an eye toward "more guns than a Sovremennyy" look like? First up, propulsion. I'd vote for a combined nuclear and gas IEP system: four shafts driven by four 25MW electric motors (basically, double up the shaft/motor config of the Type 45 or Zumwalt), power provided by a single S9G or A1B nuclear reactor, plus two MT-30 gas turbines for extra sprint power all driving generators. Indefinite cruising at 22-26 knots, with the ability to kick it up over 33 when needed, plus enough electrical reserve for lasers, railguns and monster radars if needed. Second, steel is cheap and air is free - big hull. 26000 tons or better, and a little beamier than Long Beach or Des Moines to make room for more compartmentalization, more VLS, more future expansion, etc. Let's say 765 feet long, 88 feet in beam. Armament and combat systems - well, first those guns. There's only a few things guns do better than missiles. Those basically come down to cheap, fast-reaction defenses against boats, drones and low-slow-fliers, quick-reaction support for troops ashore and warning fire. Against big warships, or against hard targets ashore, there's no good reason not to prefer missiles. But guns still have a role, and I'd agree with the Marines that the current 5"/62 (or Italian 127mm/64) isn't quite skookum enough. So, dust off the old Mk 71 8" mount from the 70s and modernize it a bit - lengthen the tube, make the autoloader lighter and quicker, and automate the shell and powder handling as much as possible, then make it a twin. Mount two of these, three if there's room - that gets your rapid-reaction, high-volume fire support weapon with more range and more blam than a 5". The Des Moines class could coax 10 rounds/min/barrel out of their guns in the 1940s, maybe we can get that up to 15 or 20, leaving space for it to drop to 10 RPM with longer guided projectiles later. Back this up with four OTO Melara 76mm STRALES for swatting boats and drones and backup missile defense - the 76mm is beefy enough to hit shore targets with some authority too if needed. Doubly so if DART and VULCANO perform as advertised. If they do, get OTO Melara/Leonardo to develop a 203mm version of both to go in the 8" gun, too. Along with all this, add two 64-cell Mk 41 VLS fore and aft, another 32-cell block midships, plus another 32 cells worth of Mk 57 PVLS around the flight deck. Convert the ground-launched small diameter bomb that the Army has just devised for launch from VLS - chances are you can quad-pack them like ESSM. These would be great for fire support with the ability to do double-duty as a cheap anti-ship missile. Fill the rest of the cells with a mission-dependent mix of SM2, SM6, VLASROC, Tomahawk, LRASM, SM3 and ESSM. That flight deck? Make it essentially a scaled-up version of the midships flight deck on the Ticonderoga class, with an accordingly bigger hangar for 6 Seahawks. These could be replaced with Fire Scouts, too. Obviously, this platform gets Aegis and SPY-6, plus the usual electronic warfare suite, and a basic self-defense ASW setup (hull sonar and data links to get tracks from the Burkes/Connies in the strike group). If those hardkill anti-torpedo torpedoes work out, mount those too.
I think 🤔 you nailed it , btw my grandpa took me down to Portland as a young boy and we seen those 16 inch open up with a broadside, 38 yrs later and still the most awesome display of firepower I have ever witnessed 👍🏻my hats off the USN
I'd be curious to hear your 'dream battleship' - there must be sweet spots for speed, armour, gun calibre, turret configuration, secondary battery configuration etc. There's also a point like with these plans for a 'super yamato' that must weigh 90,000 tons where you should probably just build 2 treaty spec ships instead?
The South Dakota's where hands down the best designed treaty battleships balancing fire power, armor, and speed. That would be the best place to start.
@@patrickradcliffe3837 I'd like to see a compare and contrast between the _South Dakota_ and _Iowa_ classes. We had a neighbor when I was in jr. and sr. high who served aboard _Massachussets_ from just before the invasion of Okinawa until just before the decommissioning after the War. He really loved that ship.
9:44 always brings a smile to my face seeing videos of the Richelieu class. Would have been grand to see Clemenceau, Gascogne, completed and at least the keels laid for the Alsace class.
Trouble with the H-44s is that Germany couldn’t have physically built them. Only the US and maybe Japan had big enough dockyards, and only the US and Britain could fuel them.
@@Olympic.400 Possibly the H-39s, but it would have taken them years due to their lack of infrastructure to build ships that big. Also, Germany could barely scrape up enough fuel after 1941 for Tirpitz and Scharnhorst to raid in the North Sea, so the H-39s would have just sat around doing nothing for most of the war. Meanwhile, Britain and the US would have built the Lion and Montana classes in much greater numbers than Germany could.
At 5.40 you talk about the 2 North Carolinas, basically referring to the two ships of that 'class'. The fact of the matter is that there really were two North Carolina battleships per se. There was actually a hull laid down and named the USS North Carolina that was never finished and was scrapped in about 1922, because of treaty restrictions. Then in the late 1930s the hull was laid that was the finished USS North Carolina battleship that exists today. I have read the history and archives of the battleships and she is the only one that has that distinction. Pretty cool fun fact and nice video! Yall Take Care and be safe, John
Has anyone ever heard of a U.S Super carrier being planned around The Korean War? I watched a lecture on Korea where it was mentioned, but the only details the lecturer got into were that it would have no Island, and it would have been used to carry nuclear bombers.
These are my favorites to watch on RU-vid. I love learning about these awesome ships. Who knew something so simple could be so informative. Awesome Job!!
@@theGovnr1 They did major work, replaced a large part of the steel at the waterline. This is a professional shipyard, that normally works on 1000 foot lake freighters (also called "boats" same as submarines), so Cod was no problem. They also replaced the anodes with freshwater ones, the original salt water anodes don't work well in fresh. Also cleaned up or closed off sea chests as needed. The diver/welder that posted the drydock videos is "amigodiver". Well worth viewing. Cod is the only US sub in original WW-II condition, and several of the engines can be run.
If you're out in the waters between Russia and Japan at night, and listen very carefully, you can still hear Admiral Rozhestvensky flinging his binoculars in to the ocean.
For Japan. they did plan for something bigger than Yamato. which appeared later in Leiji Matsumoto's mangas as Mahoroba which in his settings it saw action in Philliphines but not joining Operation Ten-go.
An interesting video would be a look at everything that was on the books, but cancelled by the Washington Treaty. As an idea of another one, a history of what the modernization plan was for the US battle fleet between the wars, starting with what was done to the Wyoming class as the earliest class that was still around when WW2 started, to the ultimate rebuilds of the Tennessee's (and West Virginia) when money was not a problem and a "full dream" no expense spared rebuild could be done. On a side note, do love videos like this on the channel, but there's naval history, and there's the history of BB-62. Almost want you to start another channel with the historians on the history of ships with big guns to share the knowledge.
The original Yamato class was looked at having either 8 in 4 twin or 9 in 3 triple but was considered too expensive and so they went with the 18.1 inch. Later they went back to the 20.1 inch as basically a Yamato with the 3 triple's replaced with 3 twins. Drachinifel believes it would have been a terrible idea because of reload rate as the 20inch has half the rate of fire of the 18inch based on Japanese testing data. So while Yamato could fire 18, 18inch shells every 60 seconds for a broadside weight of over 26 tonnes the 20inch guns would only have a 60 second broadside weight of 12 tonnes and with only 6 guns ranging shots would take longer outside of close range.
Something close to 50% of the Battleships and battlecruisers were sunk during WWII. About a quarter were salvaged, but the rest were not. Of those sunk, half were by air attack.
Numbers were a bit skewed by the Japanese losing three in July 1945 in various ports (Ise, Hyuga, and Haruna). They were legitimate kills to air attack but without fuel they were pretty useless and the war was almost over. They were all sunk in shallow water and could have been raised and repaired if anyone cared to.
I think that Ryan overemphasised the economic situation of the UK, and didn't mention the four G3 class battle cruisers with 3x3 16 inch guns and a 32 knot top speed, or the four N3 class battleships with 3x3 18 inch guns and a 23 knot top speed, though the design process would likely led to that having been increased. These two classes would have been built had the naval treaties not been a factor, and the Royal Navy having 8 ships of 49000 tons would have been a significant factor in other countries design processes and building decisions. Furthermore, the UK would have had a continued it's battleship and battle cruiser development in the interwar years, rather than watch the US build additional battleships up to parity as per the naval treaties.
+DERP Squad Yeah, in the end it was really time that caught the RN in the butt. Time, very diverse responsibilities and disadvantageous tactical and strategic conditions. While finite budget was indeed the main constraining issue, the problem they where trying to solve was more complex than the USN. I don't think calling it the economic situation is doing their situation justice, it was more a need to make more efficient choices, where budget, time and flexibility where important parameters in their programs. The RN always had to make sure they at the very least kept their sea lanes secure, so they automatically had to adopt more self-sufficient cruiser heavy task-forces. That coupled with the manpower needed to staff their essential RAF defense, their choices where always more limited. The Washington, London treaty's where really in the RN's favor on the strategic level, as helped to constrain the power of multi-national threats. And if you are trying to push that advantage, together with appeasement, the UK was kind of forced to also enact restraint on defense spending. The US loved to do the same, but they had 2 extra years to expand their military power. The results of the US defense build up only really started to show in late '43, early 44. In '41 they where still relying on P-40s, which while being a very good early modern fighter, was not of the same breed as a Me-109, Spitfire or Hurricane.
@@Tuning3434 Yeah Britain needed Destroyers, Corvettes, Sloops and Cruisers more than Battleships heck Britain had the Aircraft Carrier so why modernise the Queen Elizabeth at all when they're bordering on obsolescence so why not sell them off and better use and resources for what was needed
@@Tuning3434 However the way Ryan phrased his opinion suggested that the UK was almost bankrupt and had to cancel ship building programmes. While the UK government had spent a lot on WW1, it was far from destitute, and poured money into all kinds of programmes. Ship building wasn't a high priority, not because of the expense, but because the Royal Navy was still by far the most powerful navy in the world, and the second most powerful, the USN, wasn't ordering enough ships to threaten that position. Had the naval treaties not curtailed the building of battleships, the UK government would have restarted the battleship building programmes.
@@Knight6831 In the early 1920s when the Washington Treaty started, Britain didn’t really need many more destroyers and small ships than it already had. It needed new battleships and battlecruisers to stay ahead in that area, a few large cruisers (there were no “heavy” and “light” cruisers until the 1st London naval treaty), and a lot of small-medium cruisers for commerce protection, policing the colonies, and “showing the flag.” By the late 1930s, priorities really hasn’t changed that much except for the addition of carriers. Britain still needed fast battleships and cruisers. Of course it ended up needing a lot of destroyers and corvettes, but in the late 30s Germany didn’t have that many u-boats and didn’t have French ports from which to base them. So things changed unexpectedly. Also, destroyers and corvettes are relatively quick and easy to build, while a battleship takes at least 3-4 years plus the design period.
I built an alternate history something like this when I was a teenager, it wasn't very good, but even though I have no plans for using it, I've been gradually tinkering away at it for decades, getting rid of cringey bits and making it more historically plausible. This was a treasure trove of information, and also quite encouraging, since Ryan seems to have made the same predictions I have! As for Ryan's scenario, I think it's likely that after the first one or two H.39 class ships get delivered, Germany might heavily alter the design of the remaining H-class ships, for better performance, seaworthiness, etc. The H-class designs don't really have a good tactical purpose in a realistic German navy, but dictatorships love prestige projects! With Japan and the Soviet Union, it's important to realize that both countries were desperately struggling to catch up to the West in industrial capability and production. The A-150 class's 20.1-inch guns were entirely theoretical, and even if the capability to build them were achieved by the time Battleship 111 was nearing completion, practical experience with the Yamato-class's guns might have convinced the IJN to either retain the 18.1-inch gun or try instead to develop something like the American 16"/50cal and their "superheavy" AP shells. You see, one can't just keep raising the diameter of battleship shells by 2" every few years. The Inverse Square Law still applies. I refer you to Ryan's video where he's standing next to a USS NEW JERSEY main battery shell, and a replica of an IJN YAMATO shell. Every 2" increase in diameter results in a _progressively larger_ total increase in volume. This is why the Germans were fantasizing about only 17" or 17.5" guns as their upgrade. The British tried 18" guns in World War 1, and seem to have been quite disappointed in their performance. If nothing else, the shells begin to take up a prohibitive amount of space on a practical-sized battleship. I mentioned the Soviet Union... Stalin refused to inform himself about what his industrial base was, or would ever be, capable of. I posit only four Sovetskiy Soyuz-class battleships tops, and only in the Western fleets, although after the project's spectacular failure to reach its utterly unrealistic goals, somebody would have probably attempted some sort of practical solution if there was no German invasion. Perhaps purchasing some older ships, or even, with a high enough level of tension, some "leases" resulting in ships used up and left to rot, because all the people who knew how to properly maintain steel ships weren't politically pure enough to work in the navy or live outside Siberia. The latter actually happened. One trembles to think of Stalin's reaction to these failures... The only other idea I think it's worthwhile for me to add is that the British were still building, and planning for, straight-up battlecruisers at this point, using the same doctrine as in World War 1. This always seemed like a bad idea to me.
I had to chuckle when you illustrated the discussion of Soviet battleships with film of B-25’s raiding Japanese installations in the Pacific. Good discussion in all seriousness.
One thing is true Ryan, you certainly know you're facts, you are very knowledgeable about Capital ships. I absolutely love watching you're videos. Well done Ryan.
The German H-class battleships seem to be way too big for just 8 x 16 inch cannons but there´s a reason. They were not planned to be part of a battle line. Instead they should be used as giant commerce raiders and for this purpose they had a huge range, strong armor protection and all the facilities that you need for a long operation. They were planned with Diesel engines and would have been the first capital ships this size with those engines. So - I think it would have been way better to build 3 "Panzerschiffe" of the Deutschland-class with bigger engines for higher speed instead of 1 H-class, as they had better raider-qualities. The H-class was somewhat like a symbol for the confusion within the German Admiralty. They just wanted to have battleships but didn´t know how to use them. Same goes for aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers. It´s obvious that the geographical position of Germany is very special and in this case very dependent on the strength of the Royal Navy. But that requires a special strategy and I can´t see any - except the submarine warfare.
Off topic but does anyone besides myself wonder if advances in metallurgy over the past seventy years equate to an even more effective armor than what WW2 ships had? Not to mention things like Kevlar. Makes me think, what if an Iowa were to be built today, what would be different other than the armaments and technology?
With clouds gathering but war not actually looming I'm not convinced the British would have continued the rebuilds of the Queen Elizabeth class after the escalator clause was activated. The focus would have been on replacing them with larger vessels. Likewise with time clearly available replacing Renown and Repulse with modern battlecruisers/cruiser-killers would have been a priority. I suspect the British would have continued to arm these new battlecruisers with 15" guns even whilst everyone else used 11-13" but in a 4x2 to be bigger than others and reuse weapons from the older ships (unless they were made 14" for ease of supply alongside the 5 KGV). Given her size and reputation Hood would probably be modernised to join the 2 battlecruiser replacements plus the "Vanguard" hull in a fast squadron. With the extra years in which the Yamatos hit the water, the H-39 and Montanas are under construction I suspect we would see another class of British ship also coming in and taking advantage of the slips and facilities developed for the +40,000 ton battlecruisers and the Lions. By 1945 that gives them 6 Lions, 5 KGV, 4 very heavily armed and armoured battlecruisers, 2-3 of the extra large ships either in the water or well under construction, and (maybe) Warspite still pottering around after coming out of refit in 1937.
@@markam306 Probably 16 inch triples as they were already in the logistics system or 18 inch doubles to have a heavier broadside than competitors. It's also worth remembering that the G3 and N3 designs would probably have been iterated upon and likely that either a 16 or 18 inch gun would have become the standard for the Royal Navy, with the likelihood being the 18 inch gun as the Royal Navy had a doctrine calling for larger guns than the enemy had. E.g. 13.5 inch vs 12 inch and 15 inch vs 14 inch.
Without the war starting in 1939, I'm not sure the British would have built much of anything. Chamberlain would still have been PM, and appeasement would have appeared to have worked. Since they had peace in their time, why would they spend much money on preparing for a war that would never come?
@@markam306 Given the 2nd London Treaty surely that could only happen by cancelling most of the KGV class and moving straight to Lions with 16"? The problem for the British being the need to have modern ships asap and placing the orders before that treaty was ratified.
@@jimmymullen3016 In our timeline, when the KGVs were ordered the priority on speed of completion with the compromise of 14” guns was absolutely the best decision. Their time of entry into service was vitally useful for the RN. On a slightly different note, much discussion has been made postwar of the battleship being obsolete by the beginning of WW2. This statement does not hold up when the actions of the RN during the war are reviewed. In the Atlantic, Med, etc the RN battleships were constantly being used in decisive roles. The supremacy of aircraft only applied to daytime operations in good weather, which was a minority of the time in that theater.
Future plans is always great! I wish US had built the 2 extra Iowa class ships, 3 of the Montanas as planned and built the last 2 Montanas as 10 gun 18 inch versions instead of 12 gun 16 inch 50s.
This channel is amazing. i only wish a new mic is on the horizon somewhere, better audio quality would make it even better! Great work, Thanks for sharing! Cheers from Norway.
Good video , drachnifel had a good 3D model of what hms hood what look like if she had being modernised , but also it might have put hms vanguard in doubt. America could have easily accomplished what you said , Germany I think could not , the reason why I say that was that even before 1939, the German shipyards were already having hard time building existing ships , for example , the German lebreicht maas or 1935 ships were still under construction, with one taking 4 years to build!.overall the German shipyard production reflects the chaotic situation of Germany trying to rearm before World War Two began
Germany might have gotten two H-39s built before 1945, and perhaps started on the next two, but that’s about it. They didn’t have the naval infrastructure to build more than a couple of capital ships at once. So that’s the Scharnhorsts with their 15” upgrades, the two Bismarcks, two H-39s, the Graf Zeppelin, and maybe one more equally pointless carrier. And the Royal Navy would have just chortled and sunk them all within 3 months.
This is a really good video, it reveals how WW2 could have went differently at sea through allowing just a couple more years before the conflict. The only thing I would've added would be more about Renown, Repulse and Hood - by 1945 Repulse and Hood probably would have been reconstructed like Renown. However, these battlecruisers and the Kongous would likewise be limited by the proliferance of super-battleships with longer range, more guns and better armour for a similar or higher speed. So it would be interesting to consider the use of battlecruisers in modern (at least for then) warfare.
Under such scenario. Siam might even have a chance to get its first real Dreadnoughts. or maybe just one Dreads either newly built (Something similiar to Haruna or Nagato) or secondhands. and Taksin class cruiser might be finished and operational.
@@jakemillar649 I’d definitely rank the South Dakota’s over the NC’s, South Dakota itself had a pretty major failure at a critical time, but the rest of them served with distinction, especially Massachusetts. Although I’m pretty sure they had some treaty limitation lifted that they no longer had to adhere to that the other ships on this list didn’t get the benefit of if I remember right because Japan never ratified the 2nd London naval treaty
I really like these historical“what if” scenarios! I’ve always been really interested in the naval history “especially regarding battleships” during and between the world wars! Regarding the title of this video I wouldn’t really go as to labeling these ships as “super dreadnoughts” since the dreadnought age ended with the Great War in the early 1920’s. The battleships that were proposed in the later interwar period would be more along the lines of fast maneuverable modern battleships not the old slow lumbering dreadnoughts of the past.
just wanna make a slight correction on Ryan saying Fuso & Yamashiro Classes on 17:26 Fuso class consisting of Fuso & Yamashiro with the follow on Ise Class of Ise & Hyuga the Ise Class having some differences with the secondary battery, some differences in the magazine protection of the midships turrets, and being slightly longer and just a touch faster overall
The term super-dreadnought is first used with the Orion class built between 1909 and 1912 and decommsioned between 1922 and 1926. Her gunturrets along the centreline and 13.5 inch instead of 12 were the main renovations. Vanguard used 15 inch guns out of the stockpile of 180. Some may have been used on Glorious and Courageous, for sure I know one of her guns had seen use on Warspite. These 15 inch guns were used on the Queen Elizabeth class, R class, various monitors, the battlecruisers Renown, Repulse and Hood, Vanguard was the last to employ this gun.
Ryan, if the war had been delayed until 1945 or later, it raises several interesting possibilities that go far beyond ship fleets. It took Pearl Harbor to bring the US into the war officially, so would we have stayed out until 1947, letting London be bombed, etc.? The Manhattan Project was started in 1939 - would we still have started it then or waited? If we started in 1939, we'd have the Bomb in 1945. The war could have been over before it began, or it could have gone far, far deadlier. FDR died in 1945. Would he have lived longer without the stress of the war years, or would the war fall on his vice president (Truman or someone else)? Would they have been a strong ally to Churchill or an isolationist? Heck, would FDR have even gotten his 3rd & 4th terms without the war? And then there are the Duke & Duchess of Windsor. Regardless of whatever was going on behind the scenes, we've seen an openness between them and Hitler. They could have been used, willing or not, to bring the UK to its knees, as had been feared, before the US could react. Especially if the marriage question hadn't come to a head before things went sideways between Hitler & England. Churchill might not even have been Prime Minister. That said, I think who is in the White House and where we stood with the Manhattan Project, are huge factors in what the US is building between 1939 and 1945.
for british super battleship I would look at their idea/concepts/plans for a nuclear resistant BB/ship. Might serve as an inspiration also HMS Vanguard is britains last BB design so maybe an evolution of that ship.
Hood was an obsolete WWI battlecruiser in dire need of a refit. Of course it was at a disadvantage against a modern Fast battleship comissioned in 1941
@@Axel23410 Only proper Englishmen call Hood "obsolete".. it was the flagship of the Royal Navy.. + i can give you hundreds of examples for English press that call Hood a Battleship, a "Battlecruiser" was a fast Battleship - nothing else..
There was actually a sketched idea for an enormous sized ship however it was one of the later lion class designs it was going to be about 1000 feet long and weigh about 100,000 tones. I found out about this on Drachinifles video on the lion class battleships. Perhaps they would be built as a new class to be the equivalent to the Montana’s Yamato’s, and H41s. Edit: the British had been planning for an 18 Inch armed Capital Ship for decades at that point the Royal Navy would definitely have a Lion Class successor armed with either 12x 16 inch guns or 9x 18 inch guns
@@atfyoutubedivision955 I believe they still would have been built because you be damned sure the British wouldn’t let the Germans have super battleships and they wouldn’t remember what happened in the 1900s when Germany tried challenging Britain
There was a video in the past you hinted at some sort of conceived "Battle Carrier" idea, I'd love to hear more specifically about these types of ship ideas!
Here are 2 videos for you: Battleship in carrier conversion: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oOF9lQwzNfU.html Battle carrier conversion: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SR1ZXOjMsW4.html
I think that the largest battleships that were actually built, were approaching the theoretical limit for such a weapons system. The blast from the main armament is becoming unmanageable when you get to ships with 16'' and 18'' guns. Realistically the Yamato's and Montana's are probably where it ends. I think that the Royal Navy would have had to come up with some sort of response the the Yamato's and Montana's, though I have no idea what it would have looked like. I also think that the Royal Navy might have used the gun mountings of the R class battleships, to build a class of Vanguard like battleships. This would have been a very tempting short cut, given their lack of resources relative to the US Navy.
Content is spectacular and def go with a plan Z video....one small critic, not positive if it's the mic, but it's positioned too close to your throat and you hear the swallowing harshly. Again this content is awesome. On the video itself, Japan would of broken the bank assuming some 100ton Super Battleship would win the war for them. Just to have it be useless in the actual war haha.
I think, when it comes to the Germans, had war not come until 1945 and "Plan Zed" come to pass (in some way or another), you also would have had a refit of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to hold the 15" guns being developed for the Bismark and Tirpitz. That was always intended but the war broke out and found the two Scharnhorsts stuck with their 11" guns that were installed.
@@mtlbstrd...the whole premise was "what if" war had not commenced until 1945, like Hitler had assured his admirals. So yes...if war had not broken out or commenced until 1945, the Germans had intended to up-gun the Scharnhorsts. I get the irony, but not every German admiral or general was privy to Hitler's plans or "logic."
The Scharnhorsts definitely would have received their gun upgrades, but there’s no way Germany could have completed more than a couple of H-39s by 1945, with a couple more under construction, much less the planned battlecruisers and H-41s. They just didn’t have the shipyards and infrastructure to build more than that. Britain and the US could outbuild them 3-1 (each). I also seriously doubt any of the planned German ships would have been a match for either an Iowa or a Lion class. Mainly because they still retained that silly armor scheme that left too much vital equipment exposed above the armor deck.
Hi Ryan, congratulations for your videos. I would only add a couple of things. Fascist Spain had in 1939 a quixotic plan to build 4 Littorio class battleships (among many other ships). But with their economy bankrupt after the Civil War and huge logistical problems for such an undertaking (lack of money, skilled manpower, technology, expertise, docks...) I think the plan was probably just building castles in the air. But you never know. They may have managed to build one by divine intervention :) On the other hand, if you include the Alaskas large cruisers in the list, I think we could include also the 3 Dutch 1047 battlecruisers, authorised in 1940. They very likely would have been around by 1945.
Given that it was a term actually applied to ships like the USS Texas (the one that is currently a museum ship) and others from this same time period, i.e. ww1. Super-duper dreadnought might be more accurate when talking interwar and early ww2 designs.
Very interesting premise for a “What if…” . I would suggest that of the classes mentioned, only the US and UK would have the shipbuilding infrastructure capable of completing their battleship programmes, whilst the German programme is pie in the sky, they never had the slip-space and infrastructure back-up. The French and Italian ideas were aimed at control of the Mediterranean, so they would be good ships, but neither had the available build space, so again unlikely to be completed by 1945. As to Japan, they had already acknowledged they were unable to match any potential world wide enemies in construction level, so they built ships of greater individual strength and size, and history shows how that resulted for them. The nett result of this possible timeline would probably finish with the US and the UK having the largest navies (as historically panned out), with the US putting most of its battle line in reserve and disposing of the oldest, and the UK giving a lot of its battle line to various Empire/commonwealth navies as a kickstart to their postwar fleets, and again disposing of the oldest ships. Pretty much a played out in the historical timeline of the 20th century. But it would have been very interesting to see the results of the designs once completed.
Correct, but it took virtual elimination of the USN's BB fleet at Pearl Harbor for their Admirals, like a drowning man reaching for a life ring, to endorse and promulgate aircraft carrier doctrine, which was subsequently validated at Midway. Significant internal political resistance and differences in opinion between the up-and-coming Carrier mafia and the hidebound Battleship mafia would simply have significantly delayed the US epiphany that BB's, while important, were just very well-armed targets. The Japanese, with the same doctrinal challenges, were ahead of the US in the doctrinal use of aircraft carriers, at that time. The US would still have out produced them, but the likelihood was that a significant amount of that production would have spent(squandered?) on an important/expensive, but ultimately non-critical class(vs aircraft carriers) of warship by 1945.
@@ejohnson2720 That is far from what was actually happening in the US Navy. The US had already authorized no less than 13 Essex Class carriers in 1940 to go along with the Lexingtons and Yorktowns. Even if the US built no other carriers before 1945, that’s still 18 fleet carriers. Japan would have needed until the 1950s to match that, and even then they couldn’t have fueled and manned them and their aircraft. The Japanese were ahead in their doctrine on how to use carriers for air strikes, but not in the realization that air power would be very important in future wars. Also, by 1945, Allied anti-aircraft weapons and fire control were excellent, and aircraft could very seldom break through a USN/RN’s AA fire. And of course they’d have air support too. Battleships didn’t go out of fashion because they were “expensive targets.” Carriers were much easier targets. But carriers could strike from hundreds of miles away instead of 20-25 miles away. That said, battleships were still important to protect carriers from air attack and from other battleships/cruisers which may have gone undetected (which sometimes happened), and for actions in bad weather and at night. Now, you may be right that it might have taken longer for the USN to develop the doctrine to effectively use all those carriers, but with 18 fleet carriers, it would have had a lot of room for error. And odds are that someone would have figured it out by then anyway.
It would have been interesting to see the Montana class slightly redesigned to try and keep pace with the Yamatos by incorporating 18-inch guns in 4 or 3 twin turrets.
Perhaps the British would in this circumstance either use the guns of the R class to build more Vanguards to gain another fast squadron quickly or they might revisit the G3 design. As to the Nelsons they had a hull optimised for 30kts(being based on that of the G3's)but their two shaft design would probably limit them to around 80000SHP so a speed of 27 or 28kts which would still have been useful
Ryan, If we go with your scenario, what do you think would have happened with aircraft carriers, especially for the US, UK and Japan? Especially since in the 1945 scenario, we never see the proof of concept for aircraft carriers at Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea and Midway.
Hey Ryan. Seeing the ships launched in this video reminded me of a question I always had about that launching process. Obvioisly this is not a topic specific to the launching of the Iowas or even other battleships. What was the last mechanism of release? What did it sound like when a 40000 plus ton ship was sliding down the ways? Also what was the angle on which ships were built and the safety mechanism that (gasp) would prevent a ship from prematurely launching? I doubt that ever happened but these are some out-of-the-box questions that I had.....and I'm someone that doesn't know squat about shipbuilding.
@@BattleshipNewJersey also did they not paint that part of the hull that would slide along the way? Did they not bother or did they just wait to paint it again when it reached drydock?
Colorado ripped her bottom open by running onto a rock during WW2 while doing gunnery practice in Hawaii. She was patched at Pearl and returned to the West coast where she was extensively modernized since she was armed with 16-45s.
Australia is another nation that may have ordered a UK built Battleship (almost certainly a KGV), there was plans for a Battleship in the late 30s as well as Dido cruisers and 8 Tribal class Destroyers.
Interesting to compare modern aircraft carriers as well. The production capacity of US yards may have meant the USN would have started a 1945 war with the largest fleet though the number of fleet carriers the RN had close to completion and had planned they could have had more. Either way, combined they would have started such a war with more than double every other navy put together.
The two New Yorks were supposed to be scrapped when the North Carolinas were built but rising tensions ment that these old ships were kept in commission. Along with Arkansas.
You have an impressive knowledge of the battleships of many different nations, Ryan! Great job! I've loved naval vessels since an early age as my dad was in the Navy during my youth in the 1950's up to 1961. (I served in the Navy in 1970-1971 as a HN; my brother served many years later as a chaplain.) My greatest interest is in Pearl Harbor history. I got interested in this in the mid-1950's while my family was stationed on Oahu. We were there again, 1959-1961, when I became extremely interested in Pearl Harbor and U.S. entry into WWII. I've been seriously researching Pearl Harbor since October 1983. (An essay I wrote last fall is on the Station HYPO blog for the first week of December 2021.) Keep up the great work! Hopefully we'll meet someday. Andy McKane, Maunaloa, Molokai, Hawaii.
I wonder if Japan in this alternate scenario would have carried out their 8 by 8 plan? I cant remember all the details but I want to say it would have saw the construction of the Amagi class battlecruisers and the Tosa class battelships
Not in _this_ alternate history, because the point of departure here is about 20 years too late - the _Amagi_ and _Tosa_ classes were canceled in the early 20s, so they were all scrapped or converted to CVs long before 1939.
Delayed, lol. Sorry, I was imagining some guy saying to the generals, "Hey, Hans, you know the invasion of Poland, right?" Hans: "Yeah?"Well, I've been thinking how about we just delay it." I think you guys mentioned France's Alsace class, which actually would've called for 3x4 15-inch guns. Those would've been in quadruple turrets, not triple. There were also the Gascogne class, which was follow-up design of the Richelieus. they would've carried the same Armament as the Richelieus but carried in a more conventional arrangement that would've had 2x4 15-inch guns. Though there were design proposals that had triple 16 inch guns, I think 15-inch guns was selected. (Correction): Gascogne class not Clemeancu class.
Realistically the Royal Navy had 2 big problems leading into WW2 1. lack of escort ship hulls 2. manpower shortages Realistically the Royal Navy could get away with the 5 KGV, 2 Nelson and 5 QEs and 5 R they had as the money was needed elsewhere
Fantastic alternate history thought!! I think I pretty much agree with your thoughts on battleships. However, I'm wondering what the carrier situation would look like by the time of your alternate time line. Cruiser and destroyers I wonder where they would be on those as well.
Small comment regarding the french Alsace-class: while it is true that they were supposed to have 3x3 15inch guns, that was mostly because they were ordered as a response to the german H class, and, by the time the ships were ordered, the french Intel weren't aware of the full specifications of the new german Battleships, and believed them to be less capable than what was actually being built. In this hypothetical scenario, I believe it's fair to assume that their real specification would've been discovered eventually as and the alsace-class would've been revised into the 3rd proposal with 3x4 15inch guns. This is definitely in the realm of possibility as french docks were in the process of being expanded by 1939 and the quadruple turret design was already done.
Plans existed in the British navy to use turrets from the R class as they were retired to create additional Vanguard class ships.....at least thats whats written in Garzke and Dullin's Allied battleships
I know battleships are your focus, but in the case of Germany, Admiral Raeder was disappointed that by starting the war too early, Germany had not had time to build enough submarines. With a substantially larger submarine fleet, the war may have been very different.
Just watched the video again. A while back Dr. Clarke said that there were plans to retire the R class and use the turrets to build further Vanguards giving the UK up to ten 32 knot ships. That would have been scary. Also the South American dreadnoughts were a lot of use. They prevented any but the dumbest from turning pirate, and maintained a certain balance of bored terror in the region. That they never fought a war makes them successful warships IMHO, along with the most successful warships of all time, the Swedish Sverige class.
