On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>> warships.
>>>
>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>
>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>
>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>> There's no oil there)
>>>
>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>> than any day before or since)
>>
>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>
> Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
> two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
> 100 carriers in commission.

Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a WWII
carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
amphibious carriers back then ?

Lynn

In article <t80a2p$h0v$4@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
> > <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
> >> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
> >> warships.
> >
> > Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
> > find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
> > fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
> >
> > Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
> > even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
> > US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
> > coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
> > levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
> > victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
> > would also expand at the historical rate)
> >
> > Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
> > Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
> > There's no oil there)
> >
> > On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
> > Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
> > "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
> > than any day before or since)
>
> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?

Battleships, yes (in fact, not all were built). However, several
carriers were added to the Essex class. Also, while the studies that led
to the Independence class of light fleet carriers had been done before
Dec 7, 1941, I suspect that the conversion of 9 "Cleveland" class light
cruisers wouldn't happen otherwise.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 6/10/2022 9:41 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more than
>> 100 carriers in commission.
>
> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a WWII
> carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
> amphibious carriers back then ?
>
Escort carriers (CVEs) were built on merchant ship hulls and were built
in relatively huge numbers primarily as convoy escorts. The Taffy task
forces that got mauled at the Philippines in 1944 were CVEs and their DD
and DE escorts.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:40:10 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>[1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>warships.
>
>Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.

What's not true? That the US turned warships out relatively quickly?
Or that the merchant/cargo were turned out much faster?

IIRC, it was basically a propaganda stunt, but they managed to turn a
cargo ship out in /one week/ at one point. Warships take longer; just
installing the weapon systems can take longer.

>Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>would also expand at the historical rate)

Except that the war would have ended in a negotiated peace leaving
Japan with its Co-Prosperity Sphere (ie, slave empire) intact and so
no such boats would have been needed (or built).

The European war would probably have gone much as it did, although, if
the Germans delayed it long enough, Berlin could have been the first
city to receive an atomic bomb.

>Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>There's no oil there)

And that wasn't, IIRC, part of the plan anyway. At least at first.
After a decade of so of "peace", who can say what their capabilities
might have been?

>On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>"Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>than any day before or since)

That's what it is to be famous.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>> warships.
>>
>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>
>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>
>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>> There's no oil there)
>>
>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>> than any day before or since)
>
>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?

I don't think /most/ were, although surely /some/ were.

For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
Battleship.

Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
do as well, if not better.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>> warships.
>>>
>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>
>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>
>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>> There's no oil there)
>>>
>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>> than any day before or since)
>>
>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>
>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>100 carriers in commission.

But how many of those were full-scale Aircraft Carriers and how many
were the smaller (and more numerous) Escort Carriers?

Still, the build-up was impressive. So impressive that the original
version of the game /U.S.N./ ended in 1943 because the publisher
simply wasn't willing to pay for the additional countersheets that
would have been needed to produce the 1943-45 US Navy.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:41:14 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>> Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>> two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>> 100 carriers in commission.
>
>Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a WWII
>carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
>amphibious carriers back then ?

If by "amphibious" you mean "able to crawl up on and move across
land", we don't have them now. And are unlikely ever to have them.

But, if you mean "specialized to support amphibious operations", I
think the answer is "no", although aircraft carriers did support them
in the Pacific simply because land-based air was often not available.
The whole point of the "island-hopping" was to extend logistics and
land-based air into the Pacific to ultimately support an invasion of
Japan. But the troops landing did not (IIRC) come from the carriers
but from other boats.

There were a lot of warship types over the years. Some early small
ones included a scout plane but were not aircraft carriers.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 5:38:24 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
> >> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
> >>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
> >>> warships.
> >>
> >> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
> >> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
> >> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
> >>
> >> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
> >> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
> >> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
> >> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
> >> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
> >> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
> >> would also expand at the historical rate)
> >>
> >> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
> >> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
> >> There's no oil there)
> >>
> >> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
> >> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
> >> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
> >> than any day before or since)
> >
> >Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
> >planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
> I don't think /most/ were, although surely /some/ were.
>
> For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
> was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
> Battleship.
>
> Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
> do as well, if not better.
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."
It appears that a Capital ship is still a capital investment, not something you buy as and when needed. A recent episode of the USNI proceedings podcast "Don't buy warships (yet)" covers a piece written by a junior officer saying

1) China may amass enough naval power over the next six years or so to make an invasion of Taiwan practical (not news in these circles)

2) Since the US has only six years to play with, there is no point trying to close this gap by building new ships. In this short time the best thing to do is to buy and deploy anti-ship missiles launched from aircraft and missile trucks on land (Air, Allies, Asymmetric).

My memory of the end of the Honorverse arc is pretty sketchy, but I seem to remember a similar dilemma after a surprise attack on Manticore systems that destroyed a good proportion of their industrial base - I think the recovery started with missile production.

I am also reminded of the importance of an industrial base for a navy, and as an illustration the fact that one of the very few things that counted as High Treason in the uK was to commit arson in a naval dockyard.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:30:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:40:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 00:06:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Scrooby
>><frank.scrooby@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I've read reports (again can't remember the provider) of Russians dying of exposure, literally freezing to death during the nights. If true it would seem that Putin is prepared to commit ever single mistake that the Nazis did when they invaded the USSR in WW2.
>>
>>Not to defend the Nazis, but they /did/ attack in the Summer and
>>expected to take Leningrad and Moscow before the mud arrived in the
>>Fall. Giving them plenty of time to supply the garrison with winter
>>clothing and other items. By the time supplying such things arrived,
>>the supply system was (I suspect) too busy sending food and
>>ammunition. Or the troops too dispersed to be issued winter clothing.
>
>While 22 June 1941 was definitely summer it was not EARLY summer.

The original plan was to attack as soon as the ground hardened. It was
delayed a couple months by Yugoslavia.

>I remain mystified about what might have been in Yugoslavia or Greece
>(much less Crete which was 7 weeks after the attack on Greece) that
>was of such immense value to the Third Reich.

There was a regime change in Yugoslavia: what /was/ a reliable Axis
proto-ally (or Pro-Axis Neutral in the game "War in Europe") suddenly
became ... a lot less pro-Axis. Since it had a border with Austria, it
was a possible threat to the lines of communication for the attack on
Russia, and had to be suppressed.

>>Putin doesn't have that excuse. It was winter when he attacked.
>>
>>As to the exposure -- apparently, some units took to sleeping
>>/outside/ their vehicles, not wishing to be inside when a drone took
>>the vehicles out in the night. If they were intended to be inside,
>>this might explain the lack of proper clothing.
>
>During WW2 it was common for Soviet tankers to sleep UNDER their
>parked tanks at night.

That worked because there were no drones and nightime aerial
operations were not well developed until late in the war -- and then
mostly for the Strategic Bombing Campaign, not tank-busting.

Time has marched on.

>>As to the Germans, it wasn't just clothing. The game /War in Europe/
>>has an interesting rule: if the Russian Player, in the first Winter
>>after the German attack, gets a bad combat result (one which would
>>destroy most or all of his units), he can /cancel the combat and
>>return to the start-off point without penalty/.
>
>I don't remember that rule and I'm sure I spent 1000+ hours on that
>game in the day. My copy of WiE now lives in a plastic tub in my
>basement after the kids got into it and the counters went all over.
>I'm sure I recovered almost all of them. Haven't played it in years
>but remember having the whole 50 sq ft of the map for that spread out
>on my bedroom floor in my undergraduate days though very much remember
>the time when thanks to our cat 2 SS panzer divisions ended up in the
>English channel! (Good times!)

I think I managed that once myself. I know I did with the first
edition War in the East.

I didn't notice the rule myself until it popped unexpectedly in the
computer version. I was on a now-defunct listserv and it was pretty
well established that this was in the original game (with the SPI
errata applied, which may matter).

>>The reason for this appears to be that, during that first winter, the
>>German artillery (and related equipment) did not have lubricants which
>>would work in weather that cold and so could not fire. There were, it
>>appears, several instances where the Russians successfully pulled out
>>of an attack once they realized that it wasn't going to go their way.
>
>What >I< remember from WiE was that they had separate winter rules for
>1941 vs all other winters of the war (since 1941 was a minimum 10
>degrees colder than the other winters - particularly in the campaign
>around Moscow)

The "Living Rules" for the Windows computer game has this entry under
"Barbarossa Special rules":

Also during that first Axis winter in Russia, when Russian units
attack they may substitute an attacker retreat for any combat result.

My copy of the original is also unavailable for reference.

>>>You'd think people would learn from history. Maybe History is just not a very good teacher.
>
>I had the good fortune of having a high school history teacher who
>being a Canadian was seconded to British military intelligence then
>following VE Day being a major was given command of a battalion on the
>Elbe who was relieved to be eventually relieved since he had 3 Soviet
>DIVISIONS on the other side of the river and was unsure whether they
>were friendly or not and knew with that balance of forces that if the
>balloon went up his role would be "speed bump"
>
>(And a math teacher in the adjoining classroom who 35 years earlier
>had been an International Brigader so their students knew those two
>had often had political squabbles!)
>
>>But some things don't change -- like the climate in the Ukraine. Putin
>>definitely failed there. And not just because of 1941; Napoleon made
>>the same mistake -- and /he/ managed to take Moscow. A fair number of
>>strategic and operational principles work as well today as they ever
>>did -- a false retreat to sucker the enemy into a trap, for example,
>>probably still works -- as long as the units forming the trap are
>>well-concealed and so cannot be detected from, say, orbit.
>
>The French also attacked Ukraine in 1812 but didn't go east of Kiev.
>As you say their main army was the one which went to Moscow.
>
>>>> One wonders what will happen when the ground dries out and it gets ...
>>>> quite quite warm. And moist.
>
>One would think by the second week of June we'd be there by now no?

Maybe we are.

Then again -- Climate Change.

June in the Seattle area can be described as ... soggy.

Not entirely unheard of, but not the usual either. IIRC, we set a
record two or three days ago for amount of rain received that day.

OTOH, the Southwest apparently was in the furnace again recently.
Also, apparently, unusual in June.

>As for Napoleon, he invaded Russia June 23, 1812, Hitler invaded June
>22, 1941 - climatically surely about the same? In 1812 the Russians
>withdrew from Moscow, in 1941 they fought extremely hard for it. Of
>course in 1812 the French never pushed beyond Riga therefore St
>Petersburg was never seriously threatened which is definitely not
>Leningrad 1941!
>
>(Ironically St Petersburg is why my family adopted Facebook since in
>2008 my eldest took a Russian language course there and sent her
>pictures home via an Internet cafe and Facebook so the whole family
>signed up to see them)
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>100 carriers in commission.
>
> But how many of those were full-scale Aircraft Carriers and how many
> were the smaller (and more numerous) Escort Carriers?

If I count correctly, 104 US carriers commissioned between Pearl Harbor and
the end of World War II of which 19 were fleet carriers (27k-45k tons).
US escort carriers were in the 8k-11k tons range...closer to a pre- or
early-WWII heavy cruiser.
From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_World_War_II>

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

Lynn McGuire wrote:

>On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more
>>than 100 carriers in commission.
>
>Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a
>WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
>amphibious carriers back then ?

Wikipedia sez, with two references:

By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
"fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
1,000 tons or greater.

Brian

On 6/11/2022 9:57 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 5:38:24 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>> I don't think /most/ were, although surely /some/ were.
>>
>> For one thing, the Navy was still of the opinion that the Battleship
>> was the key weapon and that the decisive battles would be Battleship v
>> Battleship.
>>
>> Then Pearl happened and it turned out that the Aircraft Carriers could
>> do as well, if not better.
>> --
>> "I begin to envy Petronius."
>> "I have envied him long since."
> It appears that a Capital ship is still a capital investment, not something you buy as and when needed. A recent episode of the USNI proceedings podcast "Don't buy warships (yet)" covers a piece written by a junior officer saying
>
> 1) China may amass enough naval power over the next six years or so to make an invasion of Taiwan practical (not news in these circles)
>
> 2) Since the US has only six years to play with, there is no point trying to close this gap by building new ships. In this short time the best thing to do is to buy and deploy anti-ship missiles launched from aircraft and missile trucks on land (Air, Allies, Asymmetric).
>
> My memory of the end of the Honorverse arc is pretty sketchy, but I seem to remember a similar dilemma after a surprise attack on Manticore systems that destroyed a good proportion of their industrial base - I think the recovery started with missile production.
>
Missile production by their former enemy now ally, Republic of Haven. :D

> I am also reminded of the importance of an industrial base for a navy, and as an illustration the fact that one of the very few things that counted as High Treason in the uK was to commit arson in a naval dockyard.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/11/2022 9:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:40:10 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>> warships.
>>
>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>
> What's not true? That the US turned warships out relatively quickly?
> Or that the merchant/cargo were turned out much faster?
>
> IIRC, it was basically a propaganda stunt, but they managed to turn a
> cargo ship out in /one week/ at one point. Warships take longer; just
> installing the weapon systems can take longer.
>
IIRC the publicity stunt was to do a Liberty ship in one _day_. A bit
over a week was normal by the end of the war I think.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>> two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more
>>> than 100 carriers in commission.
>>
>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a
>> WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>
> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>
> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
> major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
> "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
> 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
> 1,000 tons or greater.
>
>
> Brian

Thanks !

Lynn

On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more
>>>> than 100 carriers in commission.
>>>
>>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a
>>> WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
>>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>>
>> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>
>> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
>> major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
>> "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
>> 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
>> 1,000 tons or greater.
>>
>>
>> Brian
>
> Thanks !
>
And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:41:14 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>> Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>> two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>> 100 carriers in commission.
>
>Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a WWII
>carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
>amphibious carriers back then ?

You can count them here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_World_War_II>

24 Essex class--these were purpose-built carriers, not "a heavy
cruiser with a flat top".

9 Independence class

11 Bogue class (plus 34 sent to UK)

50 Casablanca class

11 Commencement Bay

We started the war with 2 Lexingtons, 3 Yorktowns, Wasp, and Ranger.
And there were some other one-offs built during the war.

Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:

>>>Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>>
>>>By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly
>>>1,200 major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft
>>>carriers, eight "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old"
>>>battleships[6] totaling over 70% of the world's total numbers and
>>>total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater.

>>Thanks !
>>
>And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*

Which is why the Kornbluth story "Two Dooms" didn't make a lot of
sense. The only thing stopping the US at that point was someone else
getting the bomb first.

Brian

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 17:11:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nope.  When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>>>> two more under construction.  When the war ended the US had more
>>>>> than 100 carriers in commission.
>>>>
>>>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ?  Seems unreal even though a
>>>> WWII carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top.  Did we have
>>>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>>>
>>> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>>
>>> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200
>>> major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft carriers, eight
>>> "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships[6] totaling over
>>> 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of
>>> 1,000 tons or greater.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Thanks !
>>
>And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*

Yep. People don't really seem to understand today the massive
disparity in production capacity between the US and anybody else in
the world that was present at the end of WWII.

Oh, the atomic bomb production line was just about ready to start
rolling.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:41:18 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>> warships.
>>>>
>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>
>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>
>>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>
>>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>100 carriers in commission.
>
>But how many of those were full-scale Aircraft Carriers and how many
>were the smaller (and more numerous) Escort Carriers?
>
>Still, the build-up was impressive. So impressive that the original
>version of the game /U.S.N./ ended in 1943 because the publisher
>simply wasn't willing to pay for the additional countersheets that
>would have been needed to produce the 1943-45 US Navy.

What kind they were doesn't really matter, as the Japanese discovered
the hard way in the Battle Off Samar.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:36:01 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:40:10 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>[1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>warships.
>>
>>Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>
>What's not true? That the US turned warships out relatively quickly?
>Or that the merchant/cargo were turned out much faster?
>
>IIRC, it was basically a propaganda stunt, but they managed to turn a
>cargo ship out in /one week/ at one point. Warships take longer; just
>installing the weapon systems can take longer.
>
>>Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>would also expand at the historical rate)
>
>Except that the war would have ended in a negotiated peace leaving
>Japan with its Co-Prosperity Sphere (ie, slave empire) intact and so
>no such boats would have been needed (or built).

Bullshit. That stunt got the American public good and truly pissed
off. They were out for blood.

>The European war would probably have gone much as it did, although, if
>the Germans delayed it long enough, Berlin could have been the first
>city to receive an atomic bomb.

If the US signed a negotiated peace with Japan instead of going to
war, there would have been no US participation in the European war and
no atomic bomb. Selling the public on the idea of going to war with
the Germans when they hadn't done anything to us and letting the
Japanese who attacked us off the hook would be a very hard sell even
for Roosevelt.

>>Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>There's no oil there)
>
>And that wasn't, IIRC, part of the plan anyway. At least at first.
>After a decade of so of "peace", who can say what their capabilities
>might have been?
>
>>On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>"Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>than any day before or since)
>
>That's what it is to be famous.

On 6/11/2022 9:33 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:41:14 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2022 10:35 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2022 11:40 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:22:48 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] OK, the USA turned them out relatively quickly in WW2, but the
>>>>>> ships turned out really quickly were merchant cargo ships, not
>>>>>> warships.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true - if you look at US production of warships in WW2 you would
>>>>> find that US production in 1943-44 was larger than the entire Pacific
>>>>> fleet as of Dec 7, 1941.
>>>>>
>>>>> Over in soc.history.what-if we once had a debate when I proposed that
>>>>> even if the Japanese in December 41 / January 42 had destroyed EVERY
>>>>> US ship it the Pacific (and that includes the North American west
>>>>> coast and Panama) with zero losses to themselves that historical
>>>>> levels of production in 1943-44 would have still resulted in US
>>>>> victory no later than VJ Day + 1 year. (I assumed the Japanese fleet
>>>>> would also expand at the historical rate)
>>>>>
>>>>> Logistically Japan was not capable of taking either Australia or New
>>>>> Zealand with a force large enough to retain them. (And why would they?
>>>>> There's no oil there)
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>>>>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>>>>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>>>>> than any day before or since)
>>>>
>>>> Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>>> planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>>>
>>> Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>>> two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>>> 100 carriers in commission.
>>
>> Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a WWII
>> carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
>> amphibious carriers back then ?
>
> You can count them here:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_World_War_II>
>
> 24 Essex class--these were purpose-built carriers, not "a heavy
> cruiser with a flat top".
>
> 9 Independence class
>
> 11 Bogue class (plus 34 sent to UK)
>
> 50 Casablanca class
>
> 11 Commencement Bay
>
> We started the war with 2 Lexingtons, 3 Yorktowns, Wasp, and Ranger.
> And there were some other one-offs built during the war.

I've been aboard the current USS Wasp, an amphibious carrier. Very
impressive. They were showing her off in New Orleans in 2012, at the
200 year anniversary of the War of 1812. We just walked up and they
gave us a guided tour throughout the entire ship that lasted about three
hours. The bunks for the 2,000+ Marines were a little close for my taste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(LHD-1)

On 6/11/2022 7:33 PM, Default User wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 3:19 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2022 4:31 PM, Default User wrote:
>
>>>> Wikipedia sez, with two references:
>>>>
>>>> By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly
>>>> 1,200 major combatant ships, including ninety-nine aircraft
>>>> carriers, eight "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old"
>>>> battleships[6] totaling over 70% of the world's total numbers and
>>>> total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater.
>
>>> Thanks !
>>>
>> And just to scare you, by mid-1945 the ship builders were only just
>> starting to hit their stride in the US. *evil grin*
>
> Which is why the Kornbluth story "Two Dooms" didn't make a lot of
> sense. The only thing stopping the US at that point was someone else
> getting the bomb first.
>
If I've read the story I've long since forgotten it. If the invasion of
North America is ~1965 or later, after the Third Reich has assimilated
its conquest of Europe and Japan has done same with their Co-Prosperity
Sphere I can see it could succeed without nuclear weapons.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:37:47 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>> On the other hand Percival (at Singapore) was even less prepared than
>> Kimmel at Pearl Harbor. (I find it interesting that the Google search
>> "Who was US commander at Pearl Harbor" knew I meant 7 Dec 1941 rather
>> than any day before or since)
>
>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?

Planned yes, under construction no.

Point is it was a 'wartime production schedule' NOT what the US
actually planned to build had she still been at peace by then.

Militaries of all nationalities have plans to cover all sorts of
contingencies many completely implausible.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:35:35 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Weren't most of the capital ships already under construction (or least
>>planned) prior to 7 Dec 1941?
>
>Nope. When the war started the US had 8 carriers in commission and
>two more under construction. When the war ended the US had more than
>100 carriers in commission.

Quesition: were any of the so called "Jeep carriers" (i.e. merchant
ships refitted with flight decks and typically able to handle no more
than 20-30 planes - as opposed to the large fleet carriers carrying
100-120 planes like the Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet etc) even conceived
of before Pearl Harbor?

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:41:14 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>Got any backup on that number of 100 ? Seems unreal even though a WWII
>carrier was just a heavy cruiser ? with a flat top. Did we have
>amphibious carriers back then ?

100 would definitely be true if you included the CVE / CVL ships.

If you're just counting the big carriers like Enterprise, Wasp,
Hornet, Yorktown etc then no 100 would be a huge exaggeration.

Carriers were considerably more than stripped down heavy cruisers (CA
class) and some of the lighter ones were simply merchant ships with a
flight deck and method for storing planes etc. Typically these had
20-30 planes at max.