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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
I think Italy would definitely atleast be building the 406mm ship design they had, possibly also building a modified design that the Spanish ordered as well. For France it would be interesting because they essentially had two designs after the richieleu: the 3x3 380mm ship and the 3x4 380mm ship. Both were referred to as alsace class and I think that atleast 2 of the 3x3 would be built, with the 3x4 (quad turret) variant being laid down as tensions rose. The scharnhorst and gneisenau of course would've had their guns upgraded to are competitive 380mm to atleast be able to fend off the renown and repulse. I do wonder if atleast some of the montanas would be armed with 18 inch guns had the us found out that yamato did have 460mm guns in time. It's also important to mention that the dutch would probably have their planned cruiser killer class built from Germany aswell.
One class of ship that would probably be built in this alternate timeline would be the Dutch design 1047 battlecruisers. The French Alsace-class battleship designed as counters to the Bismarck’s would probably also be built as well. The US Navy was holding on to the Tillman battleships in case Japan was building treaty-violating battleships, so some of those might be ordered if they find out about the Yamatos.
@@atfyoutubedivision955 The Tillman designs had around the same design speed as the Montanas and also called for a main battery of 18-inch guns. I believe it was the Tillman IV.2 Design that had 15 18-inch guns in 5 triple turrets.
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?
It's highly likely Britain would have responded to the huge H class design and Montana's being built. let's say the first 2 Lions's get built as designed but the last 4 [there were 6 planned, not 4] get built to a larger revised design. It is hard to know if they would follow the U.S with 12x 16" guns [although a design did exist]. They probably would have stuck with 9x16" guns but the ships are significantly larger with a better torpedo defense system and probably an upgraded armour protection scheme. With that you have Vanguard but, with the Revenge class scrapped you have their 15" turrets available to build cheaper [and quicker] fast battleships. Drachinifel covered this in one of his videos. So it is also possible that other ships of the Vanguard class are built. Britain would want to keep well ahead of Germany and Japan in modern capital ship production. We know Conqueror and Thunderer were the next 2 enlarged Lions so I am going to name the last 2 for my own sake [and for fun]. These would be Tiger and Magnificent.
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.
22:55 eventually Soviet would need to borrow Allies ships. AFAIK Brits did lend them two or four BBs. Im sure Soviet will follow Japanese BB design doctrines. since they couldn't reinforce these four fleets. The Strongest BBs will be built for BOTH Baltic AND Pacific fleets while Black Sea ones will have low priority because their potential rivals there could be weaker. I don't think each of their fleets can have FOUR BBs. the two most important fleets will get as many as 3 each. (And might be oversized as well because they have to meet strongest enemies there)
Hello Ryan. I think you nailed this premise other than the potential for an 18" armed Montana firing the super heavy 3850 lb shells once it became apparent that the Japanese had used 18s.. I have an alternate reality scenario for you. I've thought that the Med would have gotten very interesting if someone could have convinced Adolfo to refrain from attacking Poland until both Bizmarks and all 4 Littoros were finished and then send all of his heavy ships piecemeal in peacetime into the Med to work as a unified force to split the Empire from it's fuel and possessions. Fight the Atlantic with Uboats and the Baltic with light forces, AirPower and U boats. How badly do you think this would have affected the war for Britan and the allied powers?.
I know one things for sure the British would respond with fury. The moment the Bismarck’s are being constructed and by the time they see say 1 of the 2 Bismarck’s and 2 of the 4 Litorios getting near enough completed you can absolutely bet your butt that the Lion Class and Vanguard class rate of construction would be dialled up to 11. Heck if by then Yamato comes online the British would most likely develop a larger Capital ship. There was one version of the Lion class that was designed to be longer and armed 12 16” guns so it’s likely they would use that as a basis but scaled up slightly to build a larger class of battleships especially if there’s no war by then and the US would be bringing not only the Iowas but perhaps even the Montanas into service giving them even more of a reason. Alternatively there is always the option of them instead of going for perhaps 8 or 9 18 inch guns in either 3 triples or 4 twin mounts perhaps a modern version of the L2 but with a more KGV/Vanguard/Lion inspired design. I recon the French would’ve also tried to speed up their construction of the Richelieu class. Meaning you could have a very very interesting war interesting war. Admittedly of course some of that wouldn’t be completed but I’d say atleast 3 of the 6 lions and maybe 2 Vanguards could have been completed by the start of the war or early into the war if the construction was really really accelerated. Maybe 1 Richelieu but that’s far les likely due to the the French infrastructure not being nearly as good as the British.
We’re the USN thinking of something to follow the Montana’s. I’m talking before America’s entry into WW2. You had the WW1 era vessels. Or could they increase the Montana’s to a ten ship class?
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.
Why less power than Iowas? According to Wikipedia: 8 × Babcock & Wilcox 2-drum express type boilers powering 4 sets of Westinghouse geared steam turbines 4 × 43,000 hp (32 MW) - 172,000 hp (128 MW) total power
The U.S. would have given (or sold) those older ships to allies. They did give a lot of old WW1 destroyers to the UK and Russia during WW2. They also handed off a lot of tanks to various nations who did not have any
I personally think in this scenario Turkey would actually get one or two newer battleships and do their best to modernize Goeben/Yavuz more then they did in our timeline, because they would be in a situation with the Sovietsky Soyuz and the battlecruisers actually being built they would be facing 3-4 modern battleships and probably a modern battlecruiser in the black sea, and Stalin and other parts of the soviet leadership were not really happy with the Montreux Convention and the fact it let warships pass into the black sea, and the Turkish navy would not have been able to hold off the soviet battlefleet coming down to turkey to force with their only battlefleet ship being the outdated Goeben/Yavuz they really wouldn't have a chance to hold the soviet fleet off.
One question that went through my mind was that how much of the carrier tech was due to the war and therefore would not be there in 1945 if that is when the war started. I think that would partly dictate what went on with the battleships etc. I have no idea how you would work it out though.
If WW2 started in 1945 in stead of 1939. Wouldn’t the British have built the N3 and G3 class battleships and battle cruisers instead of the Nelson class and by extension the King George and Lion classes?
No, the N3 and G3 were cancelled by the Washington Naval Treaty in the early 1920s. While the G3 could have been very effective in WWII if modernized, ship design had come a long way in 20 years, and those were no longer the best available designs. Plus, if Britain was still trying to stick to the treaties, they were way over the displacement and caliber limits.
Hey Ryan, I know you're not a fan of the Kriegsmarine, but you're probably the most (or one of the most) qualified to talk about Plan Z given the scope of knowledge you have. I'd love to hear it from you!
Yeah the Video is inaccurate as 6 Vanguards, 6 Lions would be gotten so the British battle line would be 27 capital ships consisting of 24 battleships and 3 battlecruisers
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 ..
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)
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Germany wouldn't have finished plan Z. It's rearmament policy was overaccelerated to the point that it was invade Poland for money and resource purposes or stop/collapse. If they'd somehow chosen the latter, they'd spend those 7 years dealing with economic downturn.
@@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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Germany was ambitious, too bad their dockyards were nowhere near capable of making all of these ships. The Soviets had the same problem. Great ideas, not enough slipways.
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
I'd wager the RN would have dusted off the plans for the Battleships and Battlecruisers that got stymied by the Naval Treaties and updated them. I wonder what fate a refitted Hood would have met. Another tragedy or some Warspite like badassery?
A Refitted Hood would probably have a chance against a Bismarck and Tirpitz. Going after an H Battleship would be like Repulse fighting Bismarck = Suicide Hood would probably end up supporting carriers like HMS Renown and her AA guns provided by her massive deck space would prove more valuable than her main armament that in this alt 1945 WW2 scenario would have been made even more obsolete. HMS Hood should no way be even near the Pacific without a Lion class BB in its division.
I'd suggest that the Bismarck would have ended up against a pair of upgraded G3 battle cruisers, and the battle would not have gone well for Bismarck and Prinz Eugan.
plan z and the h class would be great for a vid
Is H class the imaginary Hanover from the WoWs event?
@@dggarb that is based on h44 so yes just on the extreme end of the designs
@@dggarb H39 mentioned in the video is the teir 9 BB F.der.grosse. also pommern is a mangled version of h39 as well.
@@stormlord1177 Inspired on H-class, Hannover isn't H-44 since her hull is longer and narrower, armor protection also different.
It is my historically significant opinion that you need to turn the gain on your mic down a notch or three.
us poors watching this on a phone appreciate this comment
but as it were, we greatly appreciate ryan as well
True
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
The Lion class was basically a cross between KGV and Washington. Vanguard was essentially a Loin with her 3x3 16" turrets replaced with 4x2 15"/42
I would like to here more about the Planned german H41's. thanks for your content. As an ex - RAN sailor, i really enjoy it.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
That would've been the USS United States (CVA-58)
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.
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.
22:21 Oh they would certainly try. The cursed voyage proved that.
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.
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?
Yeah... Maybe we could get Ryan to play and stream some "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought" It would be great fun seeing him build some huge BBs!
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.
@@dalecomer5951 just was at battleship cove to visit big mamie, awesome museum!
@@valentinebauer6985 I should put it on my bucket list.
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.
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
Follow on to the Montanas, Same hull style but 9x18" in 3 three gun turrets. Would be awesome to see a broadside of 34K pounds!
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.
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
I think Italy would definitely atleast be building the 406mm ship design they had, possibly also building a modified design that the Spanish ordered as well. For France it would be interesting because they essentially had two designs after the richieleu: the 3x3 380mm ship and the 3x4 380mm ship. Both were referred to as alsace class and I think that atleast 2 of the 3x3 would be built, with the 3x4 (quad turret) variant being laid down as tensions rose.
The scharnhorst and gneisenau of course would've had their guns upgraded to are competitive 380mm to atleast be able to fend off the renown and repulse.
I do wonder if atleast some of the montanas would be armed with 18 inch guns had the us found out that yamato did have 460mm guns in time.
It's also important to mention that the dutch would probably have their planned cruiser killer class built from Germany aswell.
One class of ship that would probably be built in this alternate timeline would be the Dutch design 1047 battlecruisers. The French Alsace-class battleship designed as counters to the Bismarck’s would probably also be built as well. The US Navy was holding on to the Tillman battleships in case Japan was building treaty-violating battleships, so some of those might be ordered if they find out about the Yamatos.
Why order those when you have Montana's?
@@atfyoutubedivision955 The Tillman designs had around the same design speed as the Montanas and also called for a main battery of 18-inch guns. I believe it was the Tillman IV.2 Design that had 15 18-inch guns in 5 triple turrets.
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.
Video for you: ua-cam.com/video/UudGYuRcSFc/v-deo.html
@@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?
I'm a little late and might sound grouchy, but it was not 4 Fuso-class ships, it was Fuso's and 2 Ise's
I always wanna play HOI4 when i watch your vids... I should queue up a game and a playlist from you to play on the side... Oh yes....
Please do a video on Plan Z!
It's highly likely Britain would have responded to the huge H class design and Montana's being built. let's say the first 2 Lions's get built as designed but the last 4 [there were 6 planned, not 4] get built to a larger revised design. It is hard to know if they would follow the U.S with 12x 16" guns [although a design did exist]. They probably would have stuck with 9x16" guns but the ships are significantly larger with a better torpedo defense system and probably an upgraded armour protection scheme. With that you have Vanguard but, with the Revenge class scrapped you have their 15" turrets available to build cheaper [and quicker] fast battleships. Drachinifel covered this in one of his videos. So it is also possible that other ships of the Vanguard class are built. Britain would want to keep well ahead of Germany and Japan in modern capital ship production. We know Conqueror and Thunderer were the next 2 enlarged Lions so I am going to name the last 2 for my own sake [and for fun]. These would be Tiger and Magnificent.
the phrase "super dreadnought" just sounds badass
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.
@@whyjnot420 omega dreadnaught
@@_tertle3892 No, that comes later. :P
22:55 eventually Soviet would need to borrow Allies ships. AFAIK Brits did lend them two or four BBs.
Im sure Soviet will follow Japanese BB design doctrines. since they couldn't reinforce these four fleets. The Strongest BBs will be built for BOTH Baltic AND Pacific fleets while Black Sea ones will have low priority because their potential rivals there could be weaker.
I don't think each of their fleets can have FOUR BBs. the two most important fleets will get as many as 3 each. (And might be oversized as well because they have to meet strongest enemies there)
Hello Ryan. I think you nailed this premise other than the potential for an 18" armed Montana firing the super heavy 3850 lb shells once it became apparent that the Japanese had used 18s..
I have an alternate reality scenario for you. I've thought that the Med would have gotten very interesting if someone could have convinced Adolfo to refrain from attacking Poland until both Bizmarks and all 4 Littoros were finished and then send all of his heavy ships piecemeal in peacetime into the Med to work as a unified force to split the Empire from it's fuel and possessions. Fight the Atlantic with Uboats and the Baltic with light forces, AirPower and U boats. How badly do you think this would have affected the war for Britan and the allied powers?.
I know one things for sure the British would respond with fury.
The moment the Bismarck’s are being constructed and by the time they see say 1 of the 2 Bismarck’s and 2 of the 4 Litorios getting near enough completed you can absolutely bet your butt that the Lion Class and Vanguard class rate of construction would be dialled up to 11.
Heck if by then Yamato comes online the British would most likely develop a larger Capital ship.
There was one version of the Lion class that was designed to be longer and armed 12 16” guns so it’s likely they would use that as a basis but scaled up slightly to build a larger class of battleships especially if there’s no war by then and the US would be bringing not only the Iowas but perhaps even the Montanas into service giving them even more of a reason.
Alternatively there is always the option of them instead of going for perhaps 8 or 9 18 inch guns in either 3 triples or 4 twin mounts perhaps a modern version of the L2 but with a more KGV/Vanguard/Lion inspired design.
I recon the French would’ve also tried to speed up their construction of the Richelieu class.
Meaning you could have a very very interesting war interesting war.
Admittedly of course some of that wouldn’t be completed but I’d say atleast 3 of the 6 lions and maybe 2 Vanguards could have been completed by the start of the war or early into the war if the construction was really really accelerated.
Maybe 1 Richelieu but that’s far les likely due to the the French infrastructure not being nearly as good as the British.
Plus, Space Force detection of Submarine and ship movements with Offensive weapons from Space against Air and Sea
Special request for space battleship Yamato bby-01 please Ryan and thanks again
We’re the USN thinking of something to follow the Montana’s. I’m talking before America’s entry into WW2. You had the WW1 era vessels. Or could they increase the Montana’s to a ten ship class?
could you do a vid on the russsian battleships programs in the intterwar period or more specificly the sovetzy soyuz class
I love these longer form videos.
That would be a great video on the Plan z and H class ships
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.
@@Philistine47 And they would have gone bankrupt doing it in either time frame. Nor could they have fueled them.
Why less power than Iowas?
According to Wikipedia:
8 × Babcock & Wilcox 2-drum express type boilers powering 4 sets of Westinghouse geared steam turbines 4 × 43,000 hp (32 MW) - 172,000 hp (128 MW) total power
The U.S. would have given (or sold) those older ships to allies.
They did give a lot of old WW1 destroyers to the UK and Russia during WW2.
They also handed off a lot of tanks to various nations who did not have any
Definitely want to hear more on all the discussed
I personally think in this scenario Turkey would actually get one or two newer battleships and do their best to modernize Goeben/Yavuz more then they did in our timeline, because they would be in a situation with the Sovietsky Soyuz and the battlecruisers actually being built they would be facing 3-4 modern battleships and probably a modern battlecruiser in the black sea, and Stalin and other parts of the soviet leadership were not really happy with the Montreux Convention and the fact it let warships pass into the black sea, and the Turkish navy would not have been able to hold off the soviet battlefleet coming down to turkey to force with their only battlefleet ship being the outdated Goeben/Yavuz they really wouldn't have a chance to hold the soviet fleet off.
This is super interesting but please fix your microphone/audio :(
and for some reason the french build 10 Surcouf's because they thought heavy submarine cruisers were cool
One question that went through my mind was that how much of the carrier tech was due to the war and therefore would not be there in 1945 if that is when the war started. I think that would partly dictate what went on with the battleships etc. I have no idea how you would work it out though.
Very interesting video, thanks!
This week we enter the battleship multi-verse!
As Captain Vasily Borodin said...
I would have liked to have seen Montana.
Ryan, you’ve mentioned that you have a stateroom on the New Jersey - do you ever sleep overnight on the ship?
no
How about the Dutch BCs and the rumored Polish BC?
I think he needs to do a video on the most awesome battleship we could build now. 12 20" guns, nuclear powered and all chrome.
How about 20 12" guns, all chromed and solar powered.
Probably something vaguely Lider looking but with a couple railguns and lasers. And chrome, obviously.
:-)
If WW2 started in 1945 in stead of 1939. Wouldn’t the British have built the N3 and G3 class battleships and battle cruisers instead of the Nelson class and by extension the King George and Lion classes?
No, the N3 and G3 were cancelled by the Washington Naval Treaty in the early 1920s. While the G3 could have been very effective in WWII if modernized, ship design had come a long way in 20 years, and those were no longer the best available designs. Plus, if Britain was still trying to stick to the treaties, they were way over the displacement and caliber limits.
Hey Ryan, I know you're not a fan of the Kriegsmarine, but you're probably the most (or one of the most) qualified to talk about Plan Z given the scope of knowledge you have. I'd love to hear it from you!
good video
I believe you meant to say 'Japan ' @17:57
Yeah the Video is inaccurate as 6 Vanguards, 6 Lions would be gotten so the British battle line would be 27 capital ships consisting of 24 battleships and 3 battlecruisers
Interesting!
Do a series on Plan Z
I could listen to Ryan talk about a rock for 20 minutes and I would still enjoy it.
Depends on the rock. If it was the U.S.S Rock and it service in the pacific as a campfire guard, then that would be perfect.
...that about sums up his current narrative skills.
Geologists don't find anything weird about this
I say, talk rock around the clock.
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.
You forgot the Dutch! They had a few battlecruiser designs around sort of like the Scharnhorsts but meant to operate in the Pacific.
Josh,
You beat me to this comment by 2 hours! Bravo.
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 1047 would be better armored than O-class but not the Alaskas
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.
Dreadnaught class definitely a class on its own.....as would be Iowa class
Thanks to the washington naval treaty, these super dreadnoughts would have been built and would have been period appropriate.
@@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 ..
and the iowa class would qualify as a super dreadnaught
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)
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).
Agreed.
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 It probably would have been finished in 1945.
@@Atlasworkinprogress first ship scheduled to be finish in late 1944, as in peace time.
@@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.
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.
sound breaking up set too high on the mic today,ryan must be excited
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..
They were supposed to before COVID
You can see that paper commie fleet at WOWS 😅
@@ME262MKI "It's a totaly fair and balanced game, no Russian bias at all;" said no one except the russians. Stopped playing that game a long time ago.
Would definitely like to see a video on Plan Z, always thought the H44s would be cool to see.
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.
@@bluemarlin8138 Maybe they would build the h-39s and h-41s instead.
@@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.
@@bluemarlin8138 So the h-41 is a big nono?
Can you review the kriegmarine's Plan Z for WW2
Let’s say the US Navy decided today to build a new class of battleships. I would love to see a video based on this concept!
Me too
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.
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.
I wish the LION, MONTANA, the German O and H Class, and all six IOWA class ships had of been built.
This is the first I've heard of the proposed Japanese ship with 20-inch guns holy cow!
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.
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.
I thought that the video was canceled. Now I suspect that it was the battleship building that was canceled.
It clearly says: "cancelled battleships" in the title
@@sadams12345678 I first saw and was fixated on the big red CANCELED.
Yes, battleships have been cancelled... they got caught on video groping a carrier inappropriately.
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.
Please do a video on what Germany had planned.
Germany wouldn't have finished plan Z. It's rearmament policy was overaccelerated to the point that it was invade Poland for money and resource purposes or stop/collapse. If they'd somehow chosen the latter, they'd spend those 7 years dealing with economic downturn.
USS Cod is back in Cleveland. Looks good. Their diver posted some excellent videos in the Erie drydock.
It's finished already? I assume they didn't have to do much work to it?
@@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.
Note that the tug, Manitou, is older than Cod, built as icebreaker USCGC Manitou in 1942.
@@SteamCrane Thanks for the info, I am gonna search for those videos
Can you guys do a video ranking the treaty battleships limited to 35000 tones best to worst?
I would say:
1. Nelson
2. North Carolina
3. South Dakota
4. Littorio
5. Richelieu
6. Scharnhorst
@@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
@@chasemytaillights Agree. The SoDak’s incorporated improvements from the NC’s, and we’re more like smaller Iowa’s. The NC’s were up gunned 14” BB’s.
@@billbrockman779 yep. They did very well even still though
@@jakemillar649 Both the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were superior to the Nelsons. The Nelsons were more or less equivalent to the Colorados.
Do we want to hear Ryan talk about Plan Z? Considering the responses when he was talking about paint colors, I'd guess YES WE WANT THAT.
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.
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.
And don't forget HMS Chudistan, 83,949 tns, 12 18.9 in guns, 37-39 knts. Not completed.
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.
The French spherical breech 45cm gun sounds fascinating!
@@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.
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.
Change your microphone position FFS
Not only i can hear you swallow inside my brain, but your voice is too loud for the microphone.
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.
@@DERP_Squad yeah but they would have started on the ships they needed more which were the Corvettes, Cruisers, Destroyers and Sloops
@@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.
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?
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.
These are great videos, but some like this one, have trash sound. Outstanding content in the videos.
I'm seriously surprised that you haven't already done a Plan Z video yet.
realistically even if WW2 holds off the battleship will still get usurped by the Aircraft Carrier
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 odds are the UK would have figured that out already
@@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.
One of the paper potential Litorrio follow ons was basically a Litorrio with a 4th turret (a proposed but not built design)
gonna the source chief, as far i know Italian aren't very keen to keep many guns on their ship, they limiting barrels up to 9 on their battleships.
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.
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.
How funny. You speak of German plans potentially being affected by the “war breaking out”?!
@@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.
A discussion of Plan Z and the H Battleships would be interesting.
Sad F.DEE GROSSE and G.KURFURST noises
Do the shell hoists still work? It would be cool to pass a camera around like a shell and see the process of loading it
They do not work, unfortunately
Did you try hitting em and swearing?
With the biggest hammer we could find
Germany was ambitious, too bad their dockyards were nowhere near capable of making all of these ships. The Soviets had the same problem. Great ideas, not enough slipways.
Yeah the allies were very successful in ensuring that German infrastructure could not produce a rapid fleet build up
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
They weren't scetched up until 1944 or 45, so they wouldn't be built.
@@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
I'd wager the RN would have dusted off the plans for the Battleships and Battlecruisers that got stymied by the Naval Treaties and updated them. I wonder what fate a refitted Hood would have met. Another tragedy or some Warspite like badassery?
A Refitted Hood would probably have a chance against a Bismarck and Tirpitz. Going after an H Battleship would be like Repulse fighting Bismarck = Suicide
Hood would probably end up supporting carriers like HMS Renown and her AA guns provided by her massive deck space would prove more valuable than her main armament
that in this alt 1945 WW2 scenario would have been made even more obsolete. HMS Hood should no way be even near the Pacific without a Lion class BB in its division.
I'd suggest that the Bismarck would have ended up against a pair of upgraded G3 battle cruisers, and the battle would not have gone well for Bismarck and Prinz Eugan.