The first two USN battleships weren't completed until sometime after they commissioned and machinery problems weren't alleviated sufficiently for them to enter service until Dec 1941.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The first two USN battleships weren't completed until sometime after they commissioned and machinery problems weren't alleviated sufficiently for them to enter service until Dec 1941.The six 35,000 tons battleships were laid down October 1937 to February 1940, commissioned April 1941 to August 1942, the 4 completed Iowas February 1943 to June 1944. It certainly took time to build the heavy guns and their mountings, but for the US it was a few months longer than the time to launch the hull, which is what production scheduling would be trying to do. The first triple 6 inch/47 turrets were delivered in February 1942, the Cleveland class began launching in November 1941, the first triple 8 inch/55 turrets were delivered in December 1942, the first Baltimore launched in July 1942.
| Maintenance cost (annual) | Aircraft cost (annual) | Capital Cost (annualized) | Mid life Refit cost (annualized over life) | Total Cost (per annum) | |
| Single engine Airplane (Squadron of 16 A/C) | $ - | $ 862,745 | $ - | $ - | $ 862,745 |
| Twin Engined Airplane (Squadron of 16 A/C) | $ - | $ 2,000,000 | $ - | $ - | $ 2,000,000 |
| Four Engined Airplane (Squadron of 16 A/C) | $ - | $ 4,764,706 | $ - | $ - | $ 4,764,706 |
| Capital Ship | $ 1,519,607 | $ 169,118 | $1,507,353 | $ 268,627 | $ 3,464,705 |
| Cruiser Killer | $ 1,218,137 | $ 112,745 | $ 983,089 | $ 183,333 | $ 2,525,490 |
| Cruiser, Large | $ 916,667 | $ 112,745 | $ 458,824 | $ 98,039 | $ 1,586,275 |
| Cruiser, Small | $ 637,255 | $ 112,745 | $ 281,863 | $ 73,039 | $ 1,104,902 |
| Aircraft Carrier (80 A/C) | $ 1,875,000 | $ 5,073,528 | $1,488,971 | $ 165,441 | $ 8,602,939 |
| Aircraft Carrier (36 A/C) | $ 1,250,000 | $ 2,029,411 | $ 992,647 | $ 110,294 | $ 4,382,352 |
| Aircraft Carrier (15 A/C) | $ 784,314 | $ 845,588 | $ 796,569 | $ 95,588 | $ 2,522,059 |
| Destroyer Flotilla (J.Class - 8 Vessels) | $ 1,627,451 | $ - | $ 891,176 | $ 71,078 | $ 2,589,705 |
| Submarine (1000 tons) | $ 195,098 | $ - | $ 125,980 | $ - | $ 321,078 |
| Liberty Ship | $ 40,000 | $ - | $ 400,000 | $ - | $ 440,000 |
Ideal for taking on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The twins have more armour, but the faster and more heavily armed Alaskas have far superior fire control and radar. If the Renowns worried the twins the Alaskas would be worse.I don't know what the cost per unit - or for operation, of the Alaska was but a ship with 12" guns, 9" armor, and excellent anti-aircraft guns (12 x dual purpose 5" and 90 lighter AA cannon) and that can do 33 knots…
It is worth noting that the world's largest battleships were both sunk by air attack.Ideal for taking on Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. The twins have more armour, but the faster and more heavily armed Alaskas have far superior fire control and radar.
It is worth noting that the world's largest battleships were both sunk by air attack.
For the US if you don't need the 12in guns it didn't do anything the Baltimore's could not do.
The Baltimore's and Cleveland's had the same 5in AA battery and the Baltimore's only used 8 fewer 40mm guns.
You could provide fuel for 3 Baltimore's compared to 2 Alaska's.
All that sounds pretty impressive, but the thing is, they bombarded Henderson field multiple times. Mostly with smaller ships firing smaller guns. Only the heavy bombardment with the 14" guns really came close to shutting it down.
The twelve inch guns in the Alaska's were quite potent and the armour put her in the ranks of a light battle cruiser.To Beezy's point, Gneisenau was rendered useless in harbor after mining and aerial bombardment, while Scharnhorst was sunk in action against a real battleship. I'd still take an Alaska over a Twin.
Of course air-power and missiles rendered all heavy ships limited to gun range obsolete ... later.
Engage the Japanese 'equivalent' of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (both sunk before the Alaska's got in service) or a left over Kongo.Define "need the 12in guns"...
The twelve inch guns in the Alaska's were quite potent and the armour put her in the ranks of a light battle cruiser.
As to escort duties, more lighter ships with AA and ASW capability would be better for use with carriers. The destroyers and
aircraft used against the IJN at Leyte drove off larger ships . In that fight it also became apparent that the Japanese gun laying
was out of date in concept on the larger ships as they used only manual calculations which were worked out for a world war one
scenario where ships would be travelling in lines with little to no deviation.
By 1944 ships were acting more independently and the constant changes of direction by individual ships made it very hard for the
larger Japanese vessels to use their main guns efficiently.
Engage the Japanese 'equivalent' of the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (both sunk before the Alaska's got in service) or a left over Kongo.
The 12in guns are "nice to have" but not needed for engaging 8in cruisers. The Baltimore's used the 335lb AP shell and had an advantage over the Japanese 8in cruisers, they also had better fire control in 1944 and having 3 Baltimore's instead of two Alaska's also gives an advantage. Also the 8in guns can fire about 1/3 faster.
As a side note the 8in guns lasted about twice as long. Granted you don't fire 12in AP very often (HE had a lower wear rate) but wearing out the guns and needing to be re-tubed is a consideration.
With the Baltimore's having 9 guns to the Japanese cruiser's 10 guns or anybody else's 8 guns the Baltimore's are either ahead or not giving up much.
All the evidence suggests otherwise, even more if the British have been at peace, the 1940/41 problems of night raids locating targets, the bomb tonnages required to hurt refineries in 1944/45, the accuracy of weather reports. The proposed Wellington strikes are twice the distance of the European ones and lots of over water navigation, depending on where the allied bases are. Throw in a steep learning curve of using modern aircraft in the tropics. The Japanese had more refining capacity in Japan than their local crude oil production as far as I am aware, even though Japan as a whole was using about the same amount of oil as Australia despite having 10 times the population.You put two 250 lb bombs on a Wellington, and probably half of the bomb bay has an extra fuel tank put in it. You send about 30 of those to bomb the docks in Batavia or Surbaya, or oil facilities somewhere on Java, striking at about 3:00 am... two or three times a week for a couple of months. The bombs may be light but the damage will be telling, I suspect.
Agreed they were not ready for a time after their official commissioning, the vibration problems (which were also reported to a lesser degree for the South Dakotas but were a big problem for the Atlantas) were never completely cured. The time issue was how long it took to make the armament, which was fitted post launch, the cranes lacked the precision to lower the heavy weights directly onto the ship, so at low tide a crane would lower the armament to near the deck and the rising tide would close the remaining distance. The armament production time in the US was made comparable to laid down to launch time, in the planning anyway, as far as I am aware.The first two USN battleships weren't completed until sometime after they commissioned and machinery problems weren't alleviated sufficiently for them to enter service until Dec 1941.
Interesting table but early 1930's with Liberty ships and Cruiser Killers? Early 1940's? Where the entries are comparable the dollars in the table are 4.9 times the pounds in the table I have. The single engine aircraft costs in the squadron are $53,922 each, the aircraft on the ships are $56,372.50, except for those in the 80 aircraft air group at $63,419.1 each. Sounds like the RCN received the same sort of offer as the RAN but updated.Re: Cost of Ships RN numbers from early 30s:
Man them guys at Rheem were strait grifters...
My Grandma-in-Law worked as a welder's helper in Portland, OR.All the evidence suggests otherwise, even more if the British have been at peace, the 1940/41 problems of night raids locating targets, the bomb tonnages required to hurt refineries in 1944/45, the accuracy of weather reports. The proposed Wellington strikes are twice the distance of the European ones and lots of over water navigation, depending on where the allied bases are. Throw in a steep learning curve of using modern aircraft in the tropics. The Japanese had more refining capacity in Japan than their local crude oil production as far as I am aware, even though Japan as a whole was using about the same amount of oil as Australia despite having 10 times the population.
Agreed they were not ready for a time after their official commissioning, the vibration problems (which were also reported to a lesser degree for the South Dakotas but were a big problem for the Atlantas) were never completely cured. The time issue was how long it took to make the armament, which was fitted post launch, the cranes lacked the precision to lower the heavy weights directly onto the ship, so at low tide a crane would lower the armament to near the deck and the rising tide would close the remaining distance. The armament production time in the US was made comparable to laid down to launch time, in the planning anyway, as far as I am aware.
Interesting table but early 1930's with Liberty ships and Cruiser Killers? Early 1940's? Where the entries are comparable the dollars in the table are 4.9 times the pounds in the table I have. The single engine aircraft costs in the squadron are $53,922 each, the aircraft on the ships are $56,372.50, except for those in the 80 aircraft air group at $63,419.1 each. Sounds like the RCN received the same sort of offer as the RAN but updated.
The aircraft costs do tie into a long ago seen figure of 2 or so squadrons of Wellingtons to the King George V.
It looks like the Liberty ship lifetime is considered around 5 years. In terms of the ship yards, when it comes to Liberty ships, (EC2-S-C1), the following applies, table is ship yard, ships delivered, average cost,
Alabama / 20 / 1,958,000
Bethlehem-Fairfield / 361 / 1,755,000
California / 306 / 1,858,000
Delta / 128 / 1,939,000
Jones-Brunswick / 85 / 1,993,000
Jones-Panama City / 66 / 2,020,000
Kaiser-Vancouver / 2 / 2,703,000
Marinship / 15 / 3,012,000
New England / 228 / 1,892,000
North Carolina / 126 / 1,544,000
Oregon / 330 / 1,643,000
Permanente-Richmond #1 / 138 / 1,875,000
Permanente-Richmond #2 / 351 / 1,667,000
Rheem / 1 / 7,191,000
St Johns / 82 / 2,099,000
Southeastern / 88 / 2,043,000
Todd-Houston / 208 / 1,833,000
Walsh-Kaiser / 10 / 3,923,000
Firstly showing the advantages of mass production but also the efficiencies of the different yards. If you take a minimum of 50 ships delivered as the cut off point then costs vary between 1.5 and 2.1 million dollars each, a rather significant difference. It is clear the US expansion was so great that it could not manage, during the course of the war, to bring the spread of ship building costs down to a more reasonable figure. Or alternatively it was prepared to pay a premium for rapid delivery. It would require a breakdown of average build time by yard to see exactly what was being done.
Naval shipyards would also have varying costs for the same type of ship, but not as extreme, during peacetime anyway.
On the off chance this isn't a joke, see Wright's law Learning curve - Wikipedia Experience curve effects - Wikipedia
They made only one, so it was bound to cost more compared to somebody who had streamlined their processes over many ships.
All the evidence suggests otherwise, even more if the British have been at peace, the 1940/41 problems of night raids locating targets, the bomb tonnages required to hurt refineries in 1944/45, the accuracy of weather reports. The proposed Wellington strikes are twice the distance of the European ones and lots of over water navigation, depending on where the allied bases are. Throw in a steep learning curve of using modern aircraft in the tropics. The Japanese had more refining capacity in Japan than their local crude oil production as far as I am aware, even though Japan as a whole was using about the same amount of oil as Australia despite having 10 times the population.