I shall take a massive leap of faith at the start and say for me the biggest mistake at Washington was believing that everyone wanted peace no matter what and that everyone would accept the position that the treaty imposed on them.
Bravo Zulu. Maybe replacing the 14 inch guns on the KGV class for the 15/50 cal and made them into a Lion Class early design? how about replacing the R with Vanguards? even retaining the old guns with Greenboy or better shells could give the BRN a massive boost in capital ships
If only Canada had paid roughly the same per capita spending of Australia they probably could have several flotillas of sloops and destroyers and at least a full cruiser squadron and decently larger air and land forces
In the period 1922-1930, I think the biggest errors by any of the signatories to the Washington Naval Treaty were (1) US failure to build cruisers to give them a fast force to screen their slow battle fleet - while a Kongo will kill an 8in/10,000tW cruiser quickly, how about 4 or 6? Plus these can each have 4 scout planes to give a sizeable scout force so the carriers can prioritise strike (although hopefully not to the IJN extent!) (2) British Commonwealth/Empire cruisers and sloops… especially for the RN and Australia and Canada, later adding submarines in the 1930s for Australia and India for sloops (3) Japan - not reassessing their overall doctrine in light of their restrictions (4) France - need cruisers and sloops for Empire and a “battle fleet” to match/slightly overmatch the Italians (5) Italy - … not sure, by not too early in the 1920s they have Mussolini in power so sanity goes out of the window because at this stage Italy should be concentrating on industry and infrastructure other than their navy, they just need to be keeping what they’ve got ticking over
Cockatoo island in Sydney prepared their own heavy cruiser design based on a stretched Hawkins class but the then government decided it was cheaper to get County’s built in the UK.
I’d like to imagine someone in the 1920s coming up with the Atlanta class cruisers and being like alright this is our standard Destroyer since it fits the parameters, and the London naval treaties have to go around those.
Bravo Zulu! For Japan, the ideal play for replacing Amagi would have been to declare the Battlecruiser Takao (Amagi #4 and presumably the ship with the least amount of work done) as Amagi's replacement, preserving the '33,000 ton conversion tonnage. Draw out the construction to see what problems are cropping up with Akagi and what they can do to avoid those. Lexington and Saratoga? Let's put the 8" guns where they belong on a pair of purpose built cruisers (Let's call them Monmouth and Schuylerville) As for Lexington vs Colorado? I don't see the US going for discarding the almost complete Colorado and West Virginia here. It's just too hard a sell to the public but yes, a pair of Lexington Battle Cruisers would have been nice to see. For Britain and America? "CRUISERS ARE OUR FRIENDS!"
Bravo Zulu. I'm still wrapping my head around the Lexington carrier/battlecruiser combination force, in light of the battlecruiser's light armor, but I can see your point,. The thought of modernized Lexington battlecruisers with radar and up-to-date AA suites as fast escorts is intriguing. As for the F3s, from the time you mentioned them in another Washington Treaty-related video, not building them instead of the Nelsons was a huge missed opportunity. Especially since the RN, technically, had two opportunities to build them. The first opportunity was just after the Washington Treaty was signed. The second was before deciding to proceed with negotiations for the First London Treaty.
Bravo zulu. Quick thought on the Lexington/Colorado question. From a public perspective could having a strong battle fleet is better than a strong scout fleet. So if both options have their ups and downs, pick the one that makes you look better. Especially for a politician.
Australia had two problems though about having more than two County class cruisers. First, the Australian govt was always short of funding for their military. Secondly, the Australians always had a shortage of naval personnel. Quite a few of the personnel aboard their cruisers were actually Royal Navy sailors.
We did actually have times in the inter-war where we had more naval personnel than necessary since it was one of the only stable jobs during the Great Depression. Unfortunately, it was the Great Depression so we couldn’t afford to pay them or buy new ships. In terms of the personnel on board the RAN cruisers, the majority of the sailors and lower ranked officers were Australian and by WW2 the higher ranked officers were also Australian since the first class of officers trained at the RANC had by then reached command rank.
I agree with all of your mistakes and missed opportunities. But I would like to add possibly one about maybe making another hood class, Battle Cruiser, and to hood class carriers, as you have mentioned in a previous video
Dr Clarke please explain zig zagging to me. 1)your net speed point a to b is slower because of longer distance traveled 2)you use more fuel because of longer distance 3)half the time the firing solution is easier 4)your sailing range is less 5)you spend more time refueling when you are very vulnerable as you and your tanker vessel have to maintain constant course and speed 6) when in formation your chance of collision increases which would probably be a mission kill. This is much worse at night As I see it the only time zizzagging is beneficial is when you change course after the torpedoes are in the water. It seems this could be accomplished by hydrophones. Also how frequently time wise was a zig done.
As Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jackie Fisher said "The greatest enemy of the Navy is Treasury" The problem with building the F3's is that the British delegation argued that the US and Japan had 16inch gunned ships and they deserved to build equals. By arming the F3's with 15/50s kills that argument for building two new ships and the US and Japan may have refused to let them have these ships.
Is it possible to raise the average volume of the voice in future long format videos? Its not such an issue here where there aren't other sounds (for example UAD gunfire) to drown you out, but I do find I have to turn system volume up for this channel vs what I run for games or most other videos in order to hear. bravozulu is a great idea btw
I have no idea why this happens, because when recording my sister claims she can hear me in her office the other side of the wall & 3in of sound proofing... I actually then when formatting/editing the video put the sound up by 1.8x it and still it seems to come through in some cases too quietly... it's a conundrum I shall keep endeavouring to solve
Doc Alex, you should do a week in New York City, which will get you Intrepid, Growler, and New Jersey...if you feel flush do two weeks, and head up to Massachusetts and you get Battleship Cove and the Salem...it's a good sample set. Most of the others are scattered about as you know.
Bravo Zulu. My overall knowledge is lacking. My watching this channel is trying to make up for that, I find your videos informative and entertaining. I think the US (my home) had been making a mistake with the lack of various cruisers long befor the Washington Navel Treaty, Too many, far flung interests and not enough coverage. I think a missed opportunity is not making a increase in speed of the battle line more of a priority with the newer battleship coming online.
Bravo Zulu!! Thank you for the for the video, Alex. I think the Lexington and Saratoga were essential to the U.S. Carrier doctrine development so their completion as Aircraft Carriers was very important. What would have been better if two or more of the other hulls were finished to their original Battle Cruiser plan. Have a great day.
well the option is of course is if you take the less far along hulls then they will be easier to convert to carriers, so Lexington & Saratoga would become the battle cruisers and Constellation & Ranger would become the carriers... but I agree the large carriers mattered to their doctrine & operational conception development.
Bravo Zulu. Well done doctor keep up the good work. The Lexington carrier/battle cruiser thinking about it works well and the formation along with crusiers (if congress pays for more) and destroyers would've been nice; would've liked to see them both types modernize could be interesting. And for the French this is why i sigh for them somehow in politcs they can't even do okay or decent it's either really good or really bad. I can see the logic and sense behind some of the choices however by asking specific questions prove that something wasn't thought through and not even the French thinking about it everyone wasn't thinking things through both amazing but disturbing.
Bravo Zulu. Your Sloop arguments for the RN and Dominion navies are certainly a mistake. The current gov should take notice of this regarding the UKs OPVs.
Re apartheid and ships, I wonder how much of the effect is the 'world unto itself' nature of a ship, and how much is the result of the calculations, weather and tides, increasingly advanced technology on a ship compared with infantry or cavalry. It would be an interesting comparison with a squadron of aircraft and engineers in the army.
Its not so much that 25 year olds don't realize submarines ever used anything other than nuclear, its that they think that submarines built before they'd even achieved stable fission in a reactor at a university or college, that they were building submarines with them already. These are the same sort who never connected to the internet, or went "online" to BBS systems using a dial-up modem. Here's a technology example for you. Twenty ish years ago my employer's office installed a T1 line to feed the network servers, at the time that was basically the fastest thing going for reliable commercial grade connections to the internet. The contract price was $700/mth (CAD), and it remained that price for twenty years. But its now one of the slowest options for commercial systems. Thanks to the pandemic and working from home, and the shift to pretty much everything being cloud based network centers, we no longer need the physical office space so we're closing it down. We need a single fiber line installed at the owners home to run the company mail server and thats about it. That T1 line is still in service though for another few weeks though, earning Telus another $700 for speeds that well, aren't very speedy.
Have you seen the price it cost merely to HIRE the equivalent of a low powered desktop computer in the 1980's? Now you could buy several better ones for that price.
Bravo Zulu. At a basic level, the idea of keeping the Lexingtons instead of the Colorados is intriguing, but i suspect the outcome of that push to have been two Colorados, two extant Lexingtons, and two conversions. A couple questions, though. 1: I have heard that the Standards were hideously expensive to send to sea. Were/would be the Lexingtons any better? And 2: What would the UK, and especially Japan, have demanded in return? Okay, maybe Japan gets all four Amagis, two extant and two converted. Makes for an interesting Pacific war scenario. Britain is tougher. Hood is already an orphan, so do you give them three of what became NelRod?
Bravo Zulu. I probably would have said: Tesla was a recluse loosing his mind if he was still alive in the 20's. I'm curious what the response would have been in '37 if FDR realized the treaty system was broken down. Would he have pushed Congress for more carriers? Could he have pushed for a cruiser squadron with full destroyer support in China, Philippines, and Pearl Harbor? Would it have been worth building US battlecruisers at that point? I would assume that one knock on effect would be that the army air core would expand with bombers and fighters to balance the navy's expansion, along with more tanks and artillery. An interesting thought would be if Congress realized we could use a couple of Naval squadrons not permanently based on carriers to be swapped out as needed. Plus enough operational funding for training - including night fighting. Imagine Lee in the late 30's getting some junior officers really excited about gunnery.
FDR was fighting the Republicans who were isolationist and wanted to cut all spending even the spending that was restarting the economy and cutting the unemployment. The nay wanted to expand but couldn't get in approved.
@@richardmeyeroff7397 Imagine if the fools in congress had approved building more ships (and assuming the army wasn't going to sit back and let the navy get all the funds, increase their size with more tanks and aircraft) what that would have done for GDP leading up to 40-41. Especially if the budgets had included money for training, especially night gunnery and flight ops. Imagine if Lee had half a dozen young officers become big gun club members, what that would have meant for the Guadalcanal campaign. If only the isolationists had thought we need to be strong so people will leave us alone.
On the topic of the Washington Naval treaty powers could have made destroyers as large as they wanted before the London Naval Treaty. Could they have grown to 5000 tons? or even Atlanta or Dido class size as long as they kept to 5 inch/5.1inch guns? Also how big could a destroyer be and still be effective at the anti-submarine role? I know Japan did try using some of their old light cruisers for ASW later in the role but I don't think they were very effective.
Bravo Zulu. My grandparents on my dad's side had a text that his uncle had worked on about how various industrialists had proded along both the UK and German government prior to WW1, it even had a story about how just after the war one of the Mps from I think Birmingham had approached with an inquiry about how soon they could expect the admiralty to start building 18 and 20 inch guns in Answer to the Americans Colorado and Lexington's. I suspect a lot of people looked at the Dreadnaught race and were seeing war conspiracy's everywhere. This lead to the public at least being more willing to defend defence spending.
Bravo Zulu you do excellent work , just a thought that perhaps a mix of improved E Class and county's would have been very useful to Australia and New Zealand. Also have you and Drach considered doing any UK events?
Bravo Zulu... I'll limit myself to 3 things (take it as read. Yes always to more sloops). South Africa : Politics wasn't just split over black v white. A sizable portion of the population had sympathy with Germany in both Wars. A government prepared to build naval vessels for a German war threat would have found it difficult. Australia: Given the limited budgets, a sloop followed by a destroyer program, as a "Depression" job creation scheme is possible especially with the scrapyard flotilla rusting away. 15" Nel/Rod... Not sure the RN would go for it with the US and Japan already following the 16" route. However a faster Nel/Rod class built closer to the 35,000 ton limit even with 1920s propulsion technology could be a possibility.
Bravo Zulu. In regard to your New Zealand comments, New Zealand did not and still does not have the capability to build a sloop class warship. The two Acacia-class Veronica and Laburnum served well on the local station between the wars, so the need for local patrols was covered, along with the Castle-class minesweeper Wakakura that was used for reservist training. These were all WWI production vessels, and hence were cheap and available. The largest merchant vessels built locally were small vessels of generally wooden construction, and all larger vessels were generally imported from Britain. The real war fighting capability was the cruiser force, initially the Town-class Chatham, then the D-class Diomede and Dunedin for most of the interwar period, and finally the two Leander-class Leander and Achilles. During WWII the largest naval vessel built locally were the dozen Fairmile B motor launches. After WWII the largest steel hulled warships built locally were the Inshore Patrol Boat design of 86ft length in the 1980s, and then the 52m Lake Class of the 1990s. That is not to say something bigger could not be built, as the ANZAC frigate programme saw some modules built in Whangarei in the same yards as the Patrol Craft, but it is worth noting that the Project Protector of the 1990s built the OPVs in Australia rather than build up a slipway in New Zealand for what was seen as a one-off programme. If one looks back at the 1920s and 1930s industrial capability, there was a growing railways workshop in Dunedin, which was also a major ship repair facility thanks to its being the head office of the Union Steam Ship company until 1921 (the line was taken over by P&O in 1917). Besides that, the navy dockyard Calliope was and is based in Auckland, but that again is just a repair facility. Given the New Zealand Government's focus on local economic development throughout the interwar period, I don't see the will to build up a defence industry then or even now, beyond contributing to imperial defence programmes such as Singapore. Afterall, the belief was that Royal Navy would always be there and would remain a sure shield against all threats.
Sloops, being often less than 2000tons could be built in comercial yards, with appropriate item assistance from the UK - honestly this would a program to build such a capacity to ensure the ability to maintain them so that would be included...
Certainly, I agree with that sloops can be built in commercial yards. However, the point is that New Zealand had no commercial yards at the time capable of building a 2000 ton ship, and that is still true today. Even a Flower class corvette sized vessel was beyond the capability of local production until post-WWII, and even then all machinery and sophisticated components would and still needs to be imported. Further, the New Zealand Government policy was not at the time (and today is still not) about building local industrial capacity. There was a period of import substitution during the post-war to 1970s period that included some local steel production, but that never extended to shipping beyond a few tugs or trawlers from the 1960s or so. There was some railway steam engine production in Dunedin during the inter-war to post-WWII period, but even that become an assembly only operation only post-steam and an import only operation from the 1980s. Motor vehicles similarly were only ever assembled in New Zealand, from materials prepared off-shore in Britain initially and later also Australia and Japan sourced materials, or imported built-up; with local assembly ending completely from the 1990s. The New Zealand Government would rather import all items than take on the political risk of purchasing from local companies, as it is perceived that foreign companies from Britain during the interwar period, or others including the US in the post-war period, are able to be blamed in case of programme delays or mistakes, whereas the Government could not escape blame if it had selected a local supplier and would never receive credit for any success. Hence, in New Zealand, foreign suppliers are always preferred by government over local suppliers. There is just not the political will to build local capacity. It is not just about penny-pinching, which was and is rife in any case, but about the political incentives. There was also a lack of a private sector to create demand for shipping beyond small fishing operators. The Union Steam Ship Company was a major factor until being bought by P&O in 1917, yet they bought British built ships, and other shipping lines were British or foreign. There was local shipping until the 1970s when the Government deliberately destroyed the coastal trading companies (to eliminate competition to state-owned railways), but these firms only bought small wooden vessels locally or bought offshore (typically from Scottish yards) for larger vessels. Thus, the private sector was not a significant alternative source of demand from the Government, and Government policy dominated the economy. New Zealand was the imperial farm and was more than happy to sell everything it produced to Britain and to always buy British (an attitude that lasted largely until Britain joined the EEC in 1972 and cut New Zealand adrift economically). I would add that I consider this attitude to industrial development a key difference between New Zealand and Australia when analysing the two countries and their responses to similar strategic problems.
When i asked the question, I judged things slightly different than Alex did.......i agree that a missed opportunity is what he stated a chance to do something but you did not take it a the time. However a mistake to me would be an "obvious error" at the time.... such as choosing to build the "Bearn" the way the MN choose to do its carrier conversion or not getting rid of Beattie after Jutland as these are events which dont require hindsight....a "mistake in actualty" where as Alex's reasoning for a mistake is a "mistake in hindsight". So which of his answers do i disagree with.... ultimately all the answers are reasonably balanced. To me - Italy should have taken the opportunity to improve their infrastructure and QC, The US I agree with the comments being made about completing the existing Lexington's as BC's is valid...and building their carriers ground up as bespoke designs without the idiotic 8"guns For the Japanese it is difficult to assess, their carrier conversions are designs which could improved with a more efficient bespoke design. For the French its the Berne conversion could be both a missed opportunity and a mistake simultaneously
Even if the Dominions/Empire weren't willing to spend on the Counties and Parlament weren't willing to pay for RN crews you could have rotated the ships in and out of reserve to extend their service lives
Getting political are we? Yes, it is much as our governments in Britain have done. But not having productive work to do is bad for the soul and future usefulness.
@@20chocsaday No political statement at all. If you look at the age of sail and even up to WWI ships of a class were often laid up for long periods in reserve. This meant you had the numbers of ships needed for wartime but at much lower expense in peacetime. Ships in reserve had a small caretaker crew (or even a small group looking after multiple ships) while having some units of the type in service ensured that there was knowledge of the type in the fleet for a wartime expansion.
@@andrewcox4386 I take your point. I was thinking of peacetime work and productive industry, I think, rather than preparations for loss on the other side.
It seems to me the reason the opportunities were missed for all nations was money first. Exploiting loopholes requires national treasure. Also navies at this time we're all big guns. Having submarines don't usually have big guns. Subs don't show up well on parades or for dignitaries, and can't really do the presence mission.
The Hawkins class. Treaty cruisers are the descendents of light cruisers. The Hawkins class was the Royal Navy's latest and greatest light cruisers, and they were armed with 7.5 inch guns, so the Treaty was written to accomodate them. The old armored cruisers were kind of seen as obsolete capital ships, basically the battlecruisers of the pre-Dreadnought age, and no one really wanted to keep them around just like no one wanted to keep pre-Dreadnoughts around. They were too slow, their mixed-caliber armament and triple-expansion engines were obsolete, and refitting them to modern standards was way too costly.
@vonaxel78 sadly no, in fact the Washington Treaty discussions are interesting because everything that didn't count for Germany in the negotiations of Versailles, counted for the various nations at Washington
I still think cruisers should have been 10,000 tons and 10 inch guns, battleships being limited to one per year per person to X count and Y tonnage and Z tons of main gun (larger bore would lead to shorter barrels and limiting range), and regulation on torpedoes, if not destroyers (who could be concentrated as submarine hunters) As for carriers? Permit up to 8 deck guns up to cruiser calibre. And tonnage limits should wait for experience with the experiments being done.
Eventually someone would have installed rocket launchers in very large bore "guns". It might even be possible to find suggestions for such, but not on official papers. Rules are to be used as a way to avoid being caught.
So what if instead of not making heavy cruisers in the 20s the dominions took the middle ground and made your "favorite" heavy cruisers, the Yorks because they are supposed to be cheaper
Canada wanted to get rid of the navy in 1930s. Glad it wasn't. But let's say we cared and funded properly. Yeah, a few flotillas of frigates, corvettes, mine warfare ships around. A few seaplane tenders. More Tribals or some A-F Class destroyers. Get 1-4 Counties or Arethusa Class. East Coast is a no go zone for U boats and surface raiders. Edit/Addition- If we had two or more escort carriers would also be a benefit
Well the tesla car is a funny comment as one of the first cars was actualy an electric car even predating gasoline /petrol driven cars. and the first electric carriages where from the 1820s . just like the Hydrogen powercell in the 1830s . We think technologies are new but have been around for centuries , only to be abbandoned due to convienance and limited era of technology . Just like the submarine they have been around since 1620 . Aplication practicality and convienance often made them have a back seat to more practicle and easier methods .
Spening time with your family is fun and encourages unity...Hmmm. You haven't met my family. Christenings, weddings and funerals are an opportunity to engage in score settling with melees that would put a medievival siege army to shame. Putting money into an economy on usefull projects does seem to depend on sensible, logical political leaders as opposed to activities such as hearding cats, getting horses to micturate in unison etc.🙂
Bravo Zulu. To the Japanese mistake of the Kaga, how much better off would the IJN have been with a Myoko-hull based carrier instead? As you said, a smaller, but more efficient design. But would that have affected Japanese carrier design in future? I am not sure.
As much as I admire your earnest point that you are criticizing the decisions of governments, not the valour of a nation, I have to note that the Canadian gov’t was always responding to taxpaying citizens who have consistently, for generations, never been willing to adequately spend on infrastructure. Of almost any kind. We are sadly a country of utter cheapskates, and arguing for something unglamorous but important is something Canadian taxpayers never want to support. Regardless of any other political beliefs which they may have. (-_-)
I shall take a massive leap of faith at the start and say for me the biggest mistake at Washington was believing that everyone wanted peace no matter what and that everyone would accept the position that the treaty imposed on them.
I certainly believe that.
Thank you for including Canada! We are so used to being overlooked in broader discussions such as this one!
Bravo Zulu. Maybe replacing the 14 inch guns on the KGV class for the 15/50 cal and made them into a Lion Class early design? how about replacing the R with Vanguards? even retaining the old guns with Greenboy or better shells could give the BRN a massive boost in capital ships
If only Canada had paid roughly the same per capita spending of Australia they probably could have several flotillas of sloops and destroyers and at least a full cruiser squadron and decently larger air and land forces
Bravo Zulu. I watch the whole way through, always informative.
In the period 1922-1930, I think the biggest errors by any of the signatories to the Washington Naval Treaty were
(1) US failure to build cruisers to give them a fast force to screen their slow battle fleet - while a Kongo will kill an 8in/10,000tW cruiser quickly, how about 4 or 6? Plus these can each have 4 scout planes to give a sizeable scout force so the carriers can prioritise strike (although hopefully not to the IJN extent!)
(2) British Commonwealth/Empire cruisers and sloops… especially for the RN and Australia and Canada, later adding submarines in the 1930s for Australia and India for sloops
(3) Japan - not reassessing their overall doctrine in light of their restrictions
(4) France - need cruisers and sloops for Empire and a “battle fleet” to match/slightly overmatch the Italians
(5) Italy - … not sure, by not too early in the 1920s they have Mussolini in power so sanity goes out of the window because at this stage Italy should be concentrating on industry and infrastructure other than their navy, they just need to be keeping what they’ve got ticking over
Cockatoo island in Sydney prepared their own heavy cruiser design based on a stretched Hawkins class but the then government decided it was cheaper to get County’s built in the UK.
I’d like to imagine someone in the 1920s coming up with the Atlanta class cruisers and being like alright this is our standard Destroyer since it fits the parameters, and the London naval treaties have to go around those.
Bravo Zulu! For Japan, the ideal play for replacing Amagi would have been to declare the Battlecruiser Takao (Amagi #4 and presumably the ship with the least amount of work done) as Amagi's replacement, preserving the '33,000 ton conversion tonnage. Draw out the construction to see what problems are cropping up with Akagi and what they can do to avoid those.
Lexington and Saratoga? Let's put the 8" guns where they belong on a pair of purpose built cruisers (Let's call them Monmouth and Schuylerville) As for Lexington vs Colorado? I don't see the US going for discarding the almost complete Colorado and West Virginia here. It's just too hard a sell to the public but yes, a pair of Lexington Battle Cruisers would have been nice to see.
For Britain and America? "CRUISERS ARE OUR FRIENDS!"
Bravo Zulu. I'm still wrapping my head around the Lexington carrier/battlecruiser combination force, in light of the battlecruiser's light armor, but I can see your point,. The thought of modernized Lexington battlecruisers with radar and up-to-date AA suites as fast escorts is intriguing. As for the F3s, from the time you mentioned them in another Washington Treaty-related video, not building them instead of the Nelsons was a huge missed opportunity. Especially since the RN, technically, had two opportunities to build them. The first opportunity was just after the Washington Treaty was signed. The second was before deciding to proceed with negotiations for the First London Treaty.
Bravo zulu. Quick thought on the Lexington/Colorado question. From a public perspective could having a strong battle fleet is better than a strong scout fleet. So if both options have their ups and downs, pick the one that makes you look better. Especially for a politician.
Australia had two problems though about having more than two County class cruisers. First, the Australian govt was always short of funding for their military. Secondly, the Australians always had a shortage of naval personnel. Quite a few of the personnel aboard their cruisers were actually Royal Navy sailors.
We did actually have times in the inter-war where we had more naval personnel than necessary since it was one of the only stable jobs during the Great Depression. Unfortunately, it was the Great Depression so we couldn’t afford to pay them or buy new ships. In terms of the personnel on board the RAN cruisers, the majority of the sailors and lower ranked officers were Australian and by WW2 the higher ranked officers were also Australian since the first class of officers trained at the RANC had by then reached command rank.
Bravo Zulu. The Americans were too fixated on battleships to substitute Lexingtons for the Colorados
I agree with all of your mistakes and missed opportunities. But I would like to add possibly one about maybe making another hood class, Battle Cruiser, and to hood class carriers, as you have mentioned in a previous video
Dr Clarke please explain zig zagging to me.
1)your net speed point a to b is slower because of longer distance traveled
2)you use more fuel because of longer distance
3)half the time the firing solution is easier
4)your sailing range is less
5)you spend more time refueling when you are very vulnerable as you and your tanker vessel have to maintain constant course and speed
6) when in formation your chance of collision increases which would probably be a mission kill. This is much worse at night
As I see it the only time zizzagging is beneficial is when you change course after the torpedoes are in the water. It seems this could be accomplished by hydrophones.
Also how frequently time wise was a zig done.
*Scrambles back after listening on the way home*
Bravo Zulu!
BZ Doc keep it up
As Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jackie Fisher said "The greatest enemy of the Navy is Treasury"
The problem with building the F3's is that the British delegation argued that the US and Japan had 16inch gunned ships and they deserved to build equals.
By arming the F3's with 15/50s kills that argument for building two new ships and the US and Japan may have refused to let them have these ships.
Is it possible to raise the average volume of the voice in future long format videos? Its not such an issue here where there aren't other sounds (for example UAD gunfire) to drown you out, but I do find I have to turn system volume up for this channel vs what I run for games or most other videos in order to hear.
bravozulu is a great idea btw
I have no idea why this happens, because when recording my sister claims she can hear me in her office the other side of the wall & 3in of sound proofing... I actually then when formatting/editing the video put the sound up by 1.8x it and still it seems to come through in some cases too quietly... it's a conundrum I shall keep endeavouring to solve
Doc Alex, you should do a week in New York City, which will get you Intrepid, Growler, and New Jersey...if you feel flush do two weeks, and head up to Massachusetts and you get Battleship Cove and the Salem...it's a good sample set. Most of the others are scattered about as you know.
Bravo Zulu. My overall knowledge is lacking. My watching this channel is trying to make up for that, I find your videos informative and entertaining. I think the US (my home) had been making a mistake with the lack of various cruisers long befor the Washington Navel Treaty, Too many, far flung interests and not enough coverage. I think a missed opportunity is not making a increase in speed of the battle line more of a priority with the newer battleship coming online.
I saw Canada in the thumbnail and had to watch
Bravo Zulu!! Thank you for the for the video, Alex. I think the Lexington and Saratoga were essential to the U.S. Carrier doctrine development so their completion as Aircraft Carriers was very important. What would have been better if two or more of the other hulls were finished to their original Battle Cruiser plan. Have a great day.
well the option is of course is if you take the less far along hulls then they will be easier to convert to carriers, so Lexington & Saratoga would become the battle cruisers and Constellation & Ranger would become the carriers... but I agree the large carriers mattered to their doctrine & operational conception development.
Bravo Zulu. Well done doctor keep up the good work. The Lexington carrier/battle cruiser thinking about it works well and the formation along with crusiers (if congress pays for more) and destroyers would've been nice; would've liked to see them both types modernize could be interesting.
And for the French this is why i sigh for them somehow in politcs they can't even do okay or decent it's either really good or really bad. I can see the logic and sense behind some of the choices however by asking specific questions prove that something wasn't thought through and not even the French thinking about it everyone wasn't thinking things through both amazing but disturbing.
Bravo Zulu. Your Sloop arguments for the RN and Dominion navies are certainly a mistake. The current gov should take notice of this regarding the UKs OPVs.
Re apartheid and ships, I wonder how much of the effect is the 'world unto itself' nature of a ship, and how much is the result of the calculations, weather and tides, increasingly advanced technology on a ship compared with infantry or cavalry. It would be an interesting comparison with a squadron of aircraft and engineers in the army.
Its not so much that 25 year olds don't realize submarines ever used anything other than nuclear, its that they think that submarines built before they'd even achieved stable fission in a reactor at a university or college, that they were building submarines with them already. These are the same sort who never connected to the internet, or went "online" to BBS systems using a dial-up modem. Here's a technology example for you. Twenty ish years ago my employer's office installed a T1 line to feed the network servers, at the time that was basically the fastest thing going for reliable commercial grade connections to the internet. The contract price was $700/mth (CAD), and it remained that price for twenty years. But its now one of the slowest options for commercial systems. Thanks to the pandemic and working from home, and the shift to pretty much everything being cloud based network centers, we no longer need the physical office space so we're closing it down. We need a single fiber line installed at the owners home to run the company mail server and thats about it. That T1 line is still in service though for another few weeks though, earning Telus another $700 for speeds that well, aren't very speedy.
Have you seen the price it cost merely to HIRE the equivalent of a low powered desktop computer in the 1980's?
Now you could buy several better ones for that price.
Bravo Zulu.
At a basic level, the idea of keeping the Lexingtons instead of the Colorados is intriguing, but i suspect the outcome of that push to have been two Colorados, two extant Lexingtons, and two conversions. A couple questions, though. 1: I have heard that the Standards were hideously expensive to send to sea. Were/would be the Lexingtons any better? And 2: What would the UK, and especially Japan, have demanded in return? Okay, maybe Japan gets all four Amagis, two extant and two converted. Makes for an interesting Pacific war scenario. Britain is tougher. Hood is already an orphan, so do you give them three of what became NelRod?
Bravo Zulu. I probably would have said: Tesla was a recluse loosing his mind if he was still alive in the 20's.
I'm curious what the response would have been in '37 if FDR realized the treaty system was broken down. Would he have pushed Congress for more carriers? Could he have pushed for a cruiser squadron with full destroyer support in China, Philippines, and Pearl Harbor? Would it have been worth building US battlecruisers at that point? I would assume that one knock on effect would be that the army air core would expand with bombers and fighters to balance the navy's expansion, along with more tanks and artillery. An interesting thought would be if Congress realized we could use a couple of Naval squadrons not permanently based on carriers to be swapped out as needed. Plus enough operational funding for training - including night fighting. Imagine Lee in the late 30's getting some junior officers really excited about gunnery.
FDR was fighting the Republicans who were isolationist and wanted to cut all spending even the spending that was restarting the economy and cutting the unemployment. The nay wanted to expand but couldn't get in approved.
@@richardmeyeroff7397 Imagine if the fools in congress had approved building more ships (and assuming the army wasn't going to sit back and let the navy get all the funds, increase their size with more tanks and aircraft) what that would have done for GDP leading up to 40-41. Especially if the budgets had included money for training, especially night gunnery and flight ops. Imagine if Lee had half a dozen young officers become big gun club members, what that would have meant for the Guadalcanal campaign. If only the isolationists had thought we need to be strong so people will leave us alone.
Bravo Zulo
On the topic of the Washington Naval treaty powers could have made destroyers as large as they wanted before the London Naval Treaty. Could they have grown to 5000 tons? or even Atlanta or Dido class size as long as they kept to 5 inch/5.1inch guns? Also how big could a destroyer be and still be effective at the anti-submarine role? I know Japan did try using some of their old light cruisers for ASW later in the role but I don't think they were very effective.
Bravo Zulu. My grandparents on my dad's side had a text that his uncle had worked on about how various industrialists had proded along both the UK and German government prior to WW1, it even had a story about how just after the war one of the Mps from I think Birmingham had approached with an inquiry about how soon they could expect the admiralty to start building 18 and 20 inch guns in Answer to the Americans Colorado and Lexington's. I suspect a lot of people looked at the Dreadnaught race and were seeing war conspiracy's everywhere. This lead to the public at least being more willing to defend defence spending.
Bravo Zulu you do excellent work , just a thought that perhaps a mix of improved E Class and county's would have been very useful to Australia and New Zealand.
Also have you and Drach considered doing any UK events?
I did watch to the end, but have no answers to your question, so can I just signal BZ instead?
BZ, good sir!
Bravo Zulu...
I'll limit myself to 3 things (take it as read. Yes always to more sloops).
South Africa : Politics wasn't just split over black v white. A sizable portion of the population had sympathy with Germany in both Wars. A government prepared to build naval vessels for a German war threat would have found it difficult.
Australia: Given the limited budgets, a sloop followed by a destroyer program, as a "Depression" job creation scheme is possible especially with the scrapyard flotilla rusting away.
15" Nel/Rod... Not sure the RN would go for it with the US and Japan already following the 16" route. However a faster Nel/Rod class built closer to the 35,000 ton limit even with 1920s propulsion technology could be a possibility.
BZ is Berliner Zeitung, one of the German Sun equivalents 🙈
Bravo Zulu.
In regard to your New Zealand comments, New Zealand did not and still does not have the capability to build a sloop class warship.
The two Acacia-class Veronica and Laburnum served well on the local station between the wars, so the need for local patrols was covered, along with the Castle-class minesweeper Wakakura that was used for reservist training. These were all WWI production vessels, and hence were cheap and available. The largest merchant vessels built locally were small vessels of generally wooden construction, and all larger vessels were generally imported from Britain.
The real war fighting capability was the cruiser force, initially the Town-class Chatham, then the D-class Diomede and Dunedin for most of the interwar period, and finally the two Leander-class Leander and Achilles.
During WWII the largest naval vessel built locally were the dozen Fairmile B motor launches.
After WWII the largest steel hulled warships built locally were the Inshore Patrol Boat design of 86ft length in the 1980s, and then the 52m Lake Class of the 1990s.
That is not to say something bigger could not be built, as the ANZAC frigate programme saw some modules built in Whangarei in the same yards as the Patrol Craft, but it is worth noting that the Project Protector of the 1990s built the OPVs in Australia rather than build up a slipway in New Zealand for what was seen as a one-off programme.
If one looks back at the 1920s and 1930s industrial capability, there was a growing railways workshop in Dunedin, which was also a major ship repair facility thanks to its being the head office of the Union Steam Ship company until 1921 (the line was taken over by P&O in 1917). Besides that, the navy dockyard Calliope was and is based in Auckland, but that again is just a repair facility.
Given the New Zealand Government's focus on local economic development throughout the interwar period, I don't see the will to build up a defence industry then or even now, beyond contributing to imperial defence programmes such as Singapore. Afterall, the belief was that Royal Navy would always be there and would remain a sure shield against all threats.
Sloops, being often less than 2000tons could be built in comercial yards, with appropriate item assistance from the UK - honestly this would a program to build such a capacity to ensure the ability to maintain them so that would be included...
Certainly, I agree with that sloops can be built in commercial yards. However, the point is that New Zealand had no commercial yards at the time capable of building a 2000 ton ship, and that is still true today. Even a Flower class corvette sized vessel was beyond the capability of local production until post-WWII, and even then all machinery and sophisticated components would and still needs to be imported.
Further, the New Zealand Government policy was not at the time (and today is still not) about building local industrial capacity. There was a period of import substitution during the post-war to 1970s period that included some local steel production, but that never extended to shipping beyond a few tugs or trawlers from the 1960s or so. There was some railway steam engine production in Dunedin during the inter-war to post-WWII period, but even that become an assembly only operation only post-steam and an import only operation from the 1980s. Motor vehicles similarly were only ever assembled in New Zealand, from materials prepared off-shore in Britain initially and later also Australia and Japan sourced materials, or imported built-up; with local assembly ending completely from the 1990s.
The New Zealand Government would rather import all items than take on the political risk of purchasing from local companies, as it is perceived that foreign companies from Britain during the interwar period, or others including the US in the post-war period, are able to be blamed in case of programme delays or mistakes, whereas the Government could not escape blame if it had selected a local supplier and would never receive credit for any success. Hence, in New Zealand, foreign suppliers are always preferred by government over local suppliers.
There is just not the political will to build local capacity. It is not just about penny-pinching, which was and is rife in any case, but about the political incentives.
There was also a lack of a private sector to create demand for shipping beyond small fishing operators. The Union Steam Ship Company was a major factor until being bought by P&O in 1917, yet they bought British built ships, and other shipping lines were British or foreign. There was local shipping until the 1970s when the Government deliberately destroyed the coastal trading companies (to eliminate competition to state-owned railways), but these firms only bought small wooden vessels locally or bought offshore (typically from Scottish yards) for larger vessels. Thus, the private sector was not a significant alternative source of demand from the Government, and Government policy dominated the economy.
New Zealand was the imperial farm and was more than happy to sell everything it produced to Britain and to always buy British (an attitude that lasted largely until Britain joined the EEC in 1972 and cut New Zealand adrift economically).
I would add that I consider this attitude to industrial development a key difference between New Zealand and Australia when analysing the two countries and their responses to similar strategic problems.
Hope the revision is useful for all in attendance.
When i asked the question, I judged things slightly different than Alex did.......i agree that a missed opportunity is what he stated a chance to do something but you did not take it a the time.
However a mistake to me would be an "obvious error" at the time.... such as choosing to build the "Bearn" the way the MN choose to do its carrier conversion or not getting rid of Beattie after Jutland as these are events which dont require hindsight....a "mistake in actualty" where as Alex's reasoning for a mistake is a "mistake in hindsight".
So which of his answers do i disagree with.... ultimately all the answers are reasonably balanced.
To me -
Italy should have taken the opportunity to improve their infrastructure and QC,
The US I agree with the comments being made about completing the existing Lexington's as BC's is valid...and building their carriers ground up as bespoke designs without the idiotic 8"guns
For the Japanese it is difficult to assess, their carrier conversions are designs which could improved with a more efficient bespoke design.
For the French its the Berne conversion could be both a missed opportunity and a mistake simultaneously
Even if the Dominions/Empire weren't willing to spend on the Counties and Parlament weren't willing to pay for RN crews you could have rotated the ships in and out of reserve to extend their service lives
Getting political are we? Yes, it is much as our governments in Britain have done.
But not having productive work to do is bad for the soul and future usefulness.
@@20chocsaday No political statement at all. If you look at the age of sail and even up to WWI ships of a class were often laid up for long periods in reserve. This meant you had the numbers of ships needed for wartime but at much lower expense in peacetime.
Ships in reserve had a small caretaker crew (or even a small group looking after multiple ships) while having some units of the type in service ensured that there was knowledge of the type in the fleet for a wartime expansion.
@@andrewcox4386 I take your point.
I was thinking of peacetime work and productive industry, I think, rather than preparations for loss on the other side.
It seems to me the reason the opportunities were missed for all nations was money first. Exploiting loopholes requires national treasure. Also navies at this time we're all big guns. Having submarines don't usually have big guns. Subs don't show up well on parades or for dignitaries, and can't really do the presence mission.
In the 1920s-1930s, Italy has a garrison in Shanghai/Hunan Province China to support.
Why was 8 inch gun chosen as the maximum armament of heavy cruisers when the RN had armoured cruisers with 9.2 inch guns?
to stop the creation of 12"+ mini capitals. essentially to close a loop hole
The Hawkins class. Treaty cruisers are the descendents of light cruisers. The Hawkins class was the Royal Navy's latest and greatest light cruisers, and they were armed with 7.5 inch guns, so the Treaty was written to accomodate them. The old armored cruisers were kind of seen as obsolete capital ships, basically the battlecruisers of the pre-Dreadnought age, and no one really wanted to keep them around just like no one wanted to keep pre-Dreadnoughts around. They were too slow, their mixed-caliber armament and triple-expansion engines were obsolete, and refitting them to modern standards was way too costly.
I’ve always wondered why cruisers had a 10,000 ton limit put on them.
Hawkins class... it's the same for 8in guns
It was due to the British Hawkins class cruisers that were about 10,000 tons along with it being a nice round number
I always thought they took that from the Versailles Treaty Naval Clauses as the diplomatic standard.
@vonaxel78 sadly no, in fact the Washington Treaty discussions are interesting because everything that didn't count for Germany in the negotiations of Versailles, counted for the various nations at Washington
Bravo Zulu Dr. Clarke
A hearty Bravo Zulu!
I still think cruisers should have been 10,000 tons and 10 inch guns, battleships being limited to one per year per person to X count and Y tonnage and Z tons of main gun (larger bore would lead to shorter barrels and limiting range), and regulation on torpedoes, if not destroyers (who could be concentrated as submarine hunters)
As for carriers? Permit up to 8 deck guns up to cruiser calibre. And tonnage limits should wait for experience with the experiments being done.
Eventually someone would have installed rocket launchers in very large bore "guns".
It might even be possible to find suggestions for such, but not on official papers.
Rules are to be used as a way to avoid being caught.
BZ Dr. Clarke.
So what if instead of not making heavy cruisers in the 20s the dominions took the middle ground and made your "favorite" heavy cruisers, the Yorks because they are supposed to be cheaper
They're just cruisers until 1930.
Bravo Zulu sir
Canada wanted to get rid of the navy in 1930s. Glad it wasn't.
But let's say we cared and funded properly. Yeah, a few flotillas of frigates, corvettes, mine warfare ships around. A few seaplane tenders. More Tribals or some A-F Class destroyers. Get 1-4 Counties or Arethusa Class.
East Coast is a no go zone for U boats and surface raiders.
Edit/Addition- If we had two or more escort carriers would also be a benefit
Bravo Zulu :)
Bravo zulu
Bravo Zulu!
Yes to Family, No Tom Taylor Swift... 😊
Bravo Zulu.
Mistake not to ban all submarines and have them all scrapped.
Bravo Zulu
bravo zulu
Google translation: "Well done Zulu".
Well the tesla car is a funny comment as one of the first cars was actualy an electric car even predating gasoline /petrol driven cars. and the first electric carriages where from the 1820s . just like the Hydrogen powercell in the 1830s . We think technologies are new but have been around for centuries , only to be abbandoned due to convienance and limited era of technology . Just like the submarine they have been around since 1620 . Aplication practicality and convienance often made them have a back seat to more practicle and easier methods .
Bravo Zulu.
Spening time with your family is fun and encourages unity...Hmmm. You haven't met my family. Christenings, weddings and funerals are an opportunity to engage in score settling with melees that would put a medievival siege army to shame.
Putting money into an economy on usefull projects does seem to depend on sensible, logical political leaders as opposed to activities such as hearding cats, getting horses to micturate in unison etc.🙂
A boring recitation about an interesting subject
Bravo Zulu. To the Japanese mistake of the Kaga, how much better off would the IJN have been with a Myoko-hull based carrier instead? As you said, a smaller, but more efficient design. But would that have affected Japanese carrier design in future? I am not sure.
As much as I admire your earnest point that you are criticizing the decisions of governments, not the valour of a nation, I have to note that the Canadian gov’t was always responding to taxpaying citizens who have consistently, for generations, never been willing to adequately spend on infrastructure. Of almost any kind. We are sadly a country of utter cheapskates, and arguing for something unglamorous but important is something Canadian taxpayers never want to support. Regardless of any other political beliefs which they may have. (-_-)
Yep
bravo zulu
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu.
bravo zulu
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu.
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu.
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu
Bravo Zulu