Postwar Royal Navy Battleships? (NOT including the Vanguard!)

[JFC Fuller]

.


JFC Fuller :


ADM 1/25853 does NOT contain turret work


NO design work was done, whether authorised or not.


NO REAL PLANS - just pipedreams.

Yes it does, there is a very clear line that states work, albeit at a low level, was ongoing in 1948. The effort to define an acceptable size and armament for the ships is design work in itself.

And again, the bits of evidence you have once again ignored: the redesign was authorised by the War Cabinet in 1944 with the intention of including the ships in 1945 estimates, they were then included in the 1945 estimates and Churchill wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicating his approval for the two battleships being in the 1945 estimates.

It was a real programme.

 

[phil gollin]

.


IF So (which it is not) - PLEASE provide details.


ADM 1/25853 and Admiralty wishes do NOT back up your claims.


.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Yes it is, I read that document just last weekend. That document also underlines the ongoing shell design work- theoretical or otherwise it was happening.

And once again you have completely ignored the 1944 redesign authorisation, the presence of the two ships in the original 1945 estimates and Churchill's seeming approval of that. I also note that you are ignoring the experimental work done to produce a 16" flashless charge.

As for claims, I have only ever stated that this was a real project, that the RN had very real plans to build new battleships and that they were in the preliminary stages of designing the ships and armament when the process was halted. All of which is true and has already been proved (and written about by multiple authors).

You on the other hand claimed the following:

There were NEVER any real plans to build two new battleships.

Which has been proven to be completely false.

 

[phil gollin]

.


You keep saying something WITHOUT evidence.


There is NO evidence of any Lion class re-design


There is NO evidence of any new battleship design work (only "back-of-the envelope" type studies which concluded a possible new design would be too big, too expensive and not required).


There is NO evidence of any new turret work (that document only notes required sizes)..

 

[JFC Fuller]

There is plenty of evidence, all of which you keep ignoring, not least the cabinet approval for the redesign and the inclusion of the ships in the original 1945 estimates as circulated to the cabinet.

There were design studies under-way, with the size issues being addressed by reducing the main armament- hence design X- a derivation of which is what D.K.Browne shows a conjectural image of. Gun, shell, flash-less charge and mounting designs were under way (that document does state that turret design was ongoing). That the design was cancelled as being too expensive is not up for dispute- entire swathes of RN ship construction was cancelled in 1945. However, you said:

There were NEVER any real plans to build two new battleships.

This is not just proved wrong by the preliminary design steps undertaken on ships and their armament but also by the fact that this was discussed and approved by the war cabinet in 1944 and included in the initial 1945 estimates as circulated to the cabinet in 1945. There is plenty of evidence for this including the conclusions of the relevant 1944 cabinet meeting and the presence of the original 1945 estimates as a memorandum to the cabinet in the 1945 cabinet conclusions file.

 

[Jemiba]

Folks, first let me congratulate, that you both have shown a remarkable degree of sobriety ! There
were no personal attacks nor insults in this discussion, although your attitudes to the theme obviously
are contrary. I wish, this could be said of all discussion here in this forum !

Nevertheless, since #34, I think, you are moving in circle, so perhaps it would be best either to agree to
disagree, or to search for new arguments supporting your respective opinion ?

 

[JFC Fuller]

I checked ADM 1/25853 again and it contains the following line:

Although design work on the new 16 inch turret is still going on slowly, a prototype mounting could not be produced in less than 5 years time...

And this is 1948, there are also a number of other files relating to the new gun programme which had it have continued would have produced a 16 inch MkIV gun in a Mk III turret. There is actually a relatively large amount of information about the gun, shells and charge work at Kew. What is missing is documentation about the Mk III turret.

The future building committee ran studies into the ideal armament and other characteristics in 1944. I am kicking myself at the moment as I realised only after I had left that the secondary armament study compared the 4.5" Mk.V against the 5.25" Mk.IV design- the latter of which has interested me ages as it seems to have been been considered for some of the wartime cruiser designs too and I didn't get any notes on its specs! Anyway, the conclusion was that given the air threat 24 4.5" in twelve twin turrets was better that 16 x 5.25" in eight twin turrets. Additionally, a DNO publication from April 1946 outlined the development that had been undertaken on an RPC.40 system for the Mk.III 16 inch turret.

Such was the RN's continued commitment to battleships that there were plans as late as 1953 to dock two of the existing ships for repairs and maintenance- unclear whether this included any planned modifications.

 

[Grey Havoc]

This may be of interest: http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3751

 

[covert_shores]

There may be a better thread for this but this wartime Popular Mechanics article shows two conceptual sketches from a British designer (main) and US designer (lower).

How different would the postwar battleship designs have been?

 

[ouroboros]

Do you have the opposite page showing the american whaleback dreadnaught?

 

[TomS]

It's the inset picture immediately above the text on the first page. The turrets don't seem to be able to traverse, judging by the illustration.

 

[Tzoli]

It's the inset picture immediately above the text on the first page. The turrets don't seem to be able to traverse, judging by the illustration.

They can, the turrets write a circle and that circle's angle is worked in the deck

 

[TomS]

It's the inset picture immediately above the text on the first page. The turrets don't seem to be able to traverse, judging by the illustration.

They can, the turrets write a circle and that circle's angle is worked in the deck

I don't think we're talking about the same design. I'm talking about the smaller drawing in Covert Shore's post, which is so crude that the turrets appear to blend straight into the superstructure.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I found yet more evidence showing how serious the 1944/45 battleship plans were today. A DNO publication from April 1946 outlined the development that had been undertaken on an RPC.40 system for the Mk.III 16 inch turret.

I think D.K. Brown mentions that development of the new 16" gun continued after (!) the post war pair of battleships (Cat & Saucy) were removed from the programming. A quick look at "Rebuilding the RN" indicates that the two ships were removed in "Autumn 1945" but development of the MK IV 16 inch system continued "slowly" until 1948. RPC development would continue as a key element of the gun system.

 

[JFC Fuller]

As I stated back in May 2013:

The War cabinet authorised the redesign of Lion and Temeraire in 1944, a staff requirement was raised and design studies undertaken through to mid-1945, those ships were then inserted into the original 1945 estimates and circulated to the cabinet- completion dates were planned for 1952. The design of the 16" gun mountings (as well as new 14", 15" and 16" shells) continued until 1948 and a flashless 16" charge was being developed in 1945.

To which we can now add the RPC.40 work for the Mk.III turret and Mk.IV gun combination.

Another interesting comment I found yesterday, apparently the desire was to engage six air targets simultaneously with the secondary battery which suggests six HA/LA directors controlling the twelve desired 4.5" Mk.VI turrets. Thats a 50% increase in HA/LA directors over both the King George Vs and Vanguard. The (speculative?) line drawing in Rebuilding the Royal Navy shows a ship with six directors (four visible), however the secondary layout does not match any of the documents I have found. That drawing shows eleven mountings whereas the documentary evidence I have seen to date refers to twelve, ten or eight 4.5" Mk.VI mountings.

I had always blindly assumed that when the RN was thinking of using the 4.5" for these ships it had the MkVI mounting as used on destroyers and frigates in mind, the speculative line drawing in Rebuilding the Royal Navy was clearly drawn with the same thought in mind and seems to run into the same issues I did in that actually locating all those turrets around the hull is challenging- the result on the line drawing is a turret superfiring over both A & B turrets. However, on reflection it seems much more likely that what was being considered was using the MkVII turret designed for the Malta class in an arrangement similar to that used for the Renown, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant modernisations.

Also, John Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two has some details on the design work undertaken by Vickers for the Mk.III 16" turret.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That drawing shows eleven mountings whereas the documentary evidence I have seen to date refers to twelve, ten or eight 4.5" Mk.VI mountings.

There could be 12 x 4.5" gun mounts in that drawing if the aftermost mount was actually two mountings with one on each beam. Which would make sense because there is lot of width there to use with no X main gun and to provide heavy fires high and aft.

The bigger (and better) carrier mounting makes sense as the battleship could absorb the extra space and weight needed compared to a destroyer. It would also look cool sailing around with 12 x cylindrical mountings.

 

[JohnR]

Would the Mk7 have been a cylindrical mount? Most images I have seen of sketches of the Malta's show cubic turrets as in the Mk6 and the information I've read says that it would have had an enlarged turret ring. I would therefore assume that the turret design would have been adapted/enlarged along the lines of the 5.25 mounts on the Vanguard, making working conditions in the turret easier.

It's a subject that intrigues me as information on the Mk7 is so scant, and I would love to see some hard facts.

Regards.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Many Malta CV drawings are post facto sketches made by enthusiasts who have just substituted a Mk 6 gunhouse for the proposed mounting. Actual RN and ex DNC (aka DK Brown) sourced drawings (see attachment) show the Malta CV’s Mk 7 with a cylindrical, flat top gunhouse for flightdeck edge deconfliction. Interestingly this gunhouse has a vertical cutout outboard of the barrels to create a flat face in this location. Probably to provide a window for local control.

Looking into the one good picture of the 1945 RN BB from DK Brown (Rebuilding the RN) it provides some additional, if vague, support for the Mk 7 argument. And a Mk 7 without a cylindrical, flat top gunhouse but a conventionally shaped one. Which of course makes sense as there is no need for the specialised flight deck edge shape and it would be more expensive to fabricate with its circular face.

When one brings the drawing of the 1945 RN BB into scale (using the length of X3 design which correlates with other features like the Bofors guns) with a Malta CV their respective 4.5” gunhouses have very similar lengths and heights. Which is in contrast to a similar scaled gunhouse of Mk 6 mountings. It isn’t very much but it does support the 1945 BB having 12 of the Mk 7 mounting rather than Mk 6s.

 

[Mike1158]

It seems that there are a number of people with opposing views, these views are stated as being factual. NO evidence is supplied for any of these 'opinions' that I can see and to be completely honest the whole thing comes across as hot air in a playground.

Perhaps the next big controversy/opinion/thread will be illuminated with some factual evidence but I cannot see it happening.

 

[Tzoli]

British Aircraft Carriers Design, Development and Service Histories by David Hobbs also shows round turrets somewhat similar to those of the Illustrious class of the Mark II BD mounts.

The sixteen 4.5in guns were to be mounted in eight turrets, two on each quarter as in previous fleet carrier designs, but
the requirement for them to fire across the deck was recognised as impractical and dropped. They would have been fitted
in Mark 7 turrets, internally similar to the Mark 6 fitted to the majority of postwar British destroyers and frigates, but with
a larger, 14ft-diameter roller path. Externally they would have been circular with a flat roof flush with the flight deck, like
those in Implacable and Indefatigable. Like these earlier ships they would have been strong enough for aircraft to taxi
over them or even to be parked with a wheel on the turret roof.

Navweaps also states that the Malta and 1945 Lions would had the RP41 Mark VII mounts:
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-45_mk5.htm

 

[JFC Fuller]

Bit puzzled by Mike1158's post, there are plenty of facts in this thread.

To add to Tzoli's post, the studies that survive in the UK archives discussing the secondary armament of the 1945 Lion design talks of siding the twelve twin 4.5" mountings suggesting the original plan did not involve any superfiring over the main armament though that may of course have changed through the design process.

Interestingly, the notes section of Friedman's British Battleships book describes design B (of the 1945 Lion series) as having a 36ft magazine space between the forward and aft machinery sets, Very rough thinking suggests thats sufficient length for the magazines of two twin 4.5" mountings which rather changes my thought on how the secondary arrangement may have looked. I had assumed a pair of centreline HA/LA directors (one fore/one aft) with the others sided as on Vanguard but perhaps the plan was for three pairs of twin turrets on either beam each with their own HA/LA director also sided; one pair of turrets each forward of the forward machinery set, between the fore and aft machinery set and aft of the aft machinery set....?

 

[JFC Fuller]

This was posted in another thread by Tzoli, the original 1945 Lion designs, Friedman mentions that these were followed by a subsequent series allocated the alphanumeric codes B, through to B7. The presence of quintuple torpedo tubes is very curious. Tzoli, do you know what file this table is from?

 

[Tzoli]

1944-45 Lion class Battleships DNC Cover ADM 138-730
Page or page number or how these books numbered inside: 31

 

[Grey Havoc]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

 

[ceccherini]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

Very interesting, especially the mention of the 60000 ton battleship design to be possibly built after Illinois and Kentucky. The displacement figure is consistent with Montana class but it is referred as a Gibbs private venture so it could be something completely different. The only post-Midway USN battleship's design activity I've ever heard of is the 106000 ton "super Iowa" conceptual study.

 

[World B4]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

Very interesting, especially the mention of the 60000 ton battleship design to be possibly built after Illinois and Kentucky. The displacement figure is consistent with Montana class but it is referred as a Gibbs private venture so it could be something completely different. The only post-Midway USN battleship's design activity I've ever heard of is the 106000 ton "super Iowa" conceptual study.

And, pray tell, can you please provide any sources or images related to this study?

 

[Tzoli]

Actually there was another post Montana study made by two University Students for a small Battleship from around 1942.

But this Gibbs & Cox proposal is new to me as well! This firm did produced battleships designs for the Soviets in 1936-39 so it's not impossible they continued to propose such for the USN when war broke out. Question is does this firm had any archives which survived the past 75 years?

That 106.000ton Super Iowa study you referring are a qucijk study of how large should the Iowa be to be basically unsinkable by torpedoes. Most of the extra tons went into underwater protection.

 

[ceccherini]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

Very interesting, especially the mention of the 60000 ton battleship design to be possibly built after Illinois and Kentucky. The displacement figure is consistent with Montana class but it is referred as a Gibbs private venture so it could be something completely different. The only post-Midway USN battleship's design activity I've ever heard of is the 106000 ton "super Iowa" conceptual study.

And, pray tell, can you please provide any sources or images related to this study?

There are scarce notes about it in Garzke and Dulin "Battleships: US battleships in WW2". If the memory assist me, it was a 1944 contemplating a battleship of 1160 feet in length and 140 feet wide, approximately the maximum dimensions permitted by the planned '40s enlargement of Panama canal. The study combined main armament equal to Montanas (12*16") and speed equal to Iowas while I don't remember any mention regarding armor. As Tzoli said, the drive to dimensional increase was anti torpedo protection. There never were any intention to build battleships of such scale, especially at the end of the war, but the study reflects an ongoing internal debate on the future role of battleships.

 

[Nick Sumner]

Actually there was another post Montana study made by two University Students for a small Battleship from around 1942.

But this Gibbs & Cox proposal is new to me as well! This firm did produced battleships designs for the Soviets in 1936-39 so it's not impossible they continued to propose such for the USN when war broke out. Question is does this firm had any archives which survived the past 75 years?

That 106.000ton Super Iowa study you referring are a qucijk study of how large should the Iowa be to be basically unsinkable by torpedoes. Most of the extra tons went into underwater protection.

I'm intrigued by the funnels. That's either a lot of internal ducting or an unusual location for the engines.

 

[Tzoli]

Here is the armour layout:


There is an article about this design somewhere but I have to find it first.

 

[Dilandu]

Here is the armour layout:

Awwwww, she is so cute!

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

Actually there was another post Montana study made by two University Students for a small Battleship from around 1942.

But this Gibbs & Cox proposal is new to me as well! This firm did produced battleships designs for the Soviets in 1936-39 so it's not impossible they continued to propose such for the USN when war broke out. Question is does this firm had any archives which survived the past 75 years?

That 106.000ton Super Iowa study you referring are a qucijk study of how large should the Iowa be to be basically unsinkable by torpedoes. Most of the extra tons went into underwater protection.

Where are the stacks on the small BB? How much would she have weighed in at?

 

[Tzoli]

The funnels are those two protrusions on the aft. I've not yet find the document ( It is in one of the Warships 2008 or 2009 issues )

 

[Tzoli]

I've finally found the images my friend sent to me regarding this proposal:

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thanks Tzoli!

 

[Dragonfly64]

There may be a better thread for this but this wartime Popular Mechanics article shows two conceptual sketches from a British designer (main) and US designer (lower).

How different would the postwar battleship designs have been?

If the triple turrets (B&Y) were replaced with quads the middle twin could go away- the space & weight used for more AAA. I have seen this design in profile only before, interesting, but I believe that 'rounding the corners' to deflect bombs & shells is a bit
optimistic at best -- angling the exterior against radar would be more useful -- but they had not conceived of that yet!

There may be a better thread for this but this wartime Popular Mechanics article shows two conceptual sketches from a British designer (main) and US designer (lower).

How different would the postwar battleship designs have been?

 

[Tzoli]

It was from the Popular Mechanics issue 1940. Inspired by the KGV. I've made a drawing of it ages ago:

Data on the ship:
Displacement: 70.000tons
Engines: 252.000shp 6 shafts, Gas Turbine Drive
2x4,2x3,2x2 356mm cannons (14inch) (Mark VII)
12x2 133mm DP-AA Guns (5,25inch) (QF Mark I)
8x2 120mm DP-AA Guns (4,7inch) (QF Mark XI)
7x8 40mm Pom-Pom AA Guns (2-pdr Mark VIII)
6x4 12,7mm AA Machine Guns (MG Mark III)

 

[that_person]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

This link is essentially dead. Any chance someone has it archived?

 

[RyanC]

Shamelessly stolen from another thread:

Another thing to keep in mind is that at the time, an "All Weather" attack capability was still a ways away for aircraft carriers.

Yes, you had radar equipped Avengers and Helldivers at the time; but the fit was rather primitive, and they were thinking doctrinally about keeping one CV in a Fast Carrier TF equipped specifically as a night carrier; due to the problems of mixing day/night ops with 1945 technology.

For a clear weather attack; a Fast Carrier Task Force (FCTF) with the following ships and loadout:

[Numbers taken from the March attack on Kure Japan by TF58]

9 x CV (69 x VF, 4 x VF[N], 15 x VSB, 15 x VTB ea.)
1 x CV(N) (1 x VF, 36 x VF[N], 18 x VTB(N) ea.)
6 x CVL (24 x VF, 9 x VTB ea.)

766 x Fighters
72 x Night Fighters
135 x Dive Bombers
189 x Torpedo Bombers
18 x Night Torpedo Bombers

1,180 A/C total theoretical capacity

Would be able to generate an "alpha strike" of about 158 x Bombers escorted by 163 x Fighters [321 A/C] (the rest being held back for CAP and other duties).

If you assume that the 158 bombers are carrying a 1000 lb GP bomb each, that's about 80 short tons of boom boom you can send in the daytime.

If, however you force a night attack; then your offensive strike capability drops to just 15~ bombers; or 7.5 short tons of offensive night capability.

So there was a need to consider battleships for nighttime contingencies -- besides the AA support they provided to Fast Carrier TFs.

 

[RyanC]

How the United States Navy perceived the likely post-War line up (pre-Truman and Attlee):

History, Politics And Current Affairs • View topic - Post War Navies, March 16, 1945

This link is essentially dead. Any chance someone has it archived?

My dear that_person, I am the person in question who posted it there.

Post-War Navy, 1945; James V. Forrestal Papers, Box 135, Folder 3; Public Policy Papers, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library Collection: James V. Forrestal Papers Call Number: MC051 Box 135 Folder 1 to 3 Find it online: https://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/MC051/c04915

SECRET​

BRITISH-UNITED STATES POST-WAR NAVIES

British Empire​

The British Empire after the war (with completion of the present building program) will have 14 battleships and 1 battle cruiser, of which 5 battleships will be modern, high-speed ships:

Modern (5)​	Older Vessels (10)​
*VANGUARD HOWE ANSON DUKE of YORK KING GEORGE V * (Completes about December, 1945)	NELSON RODNEY MALAYA VALIANT QUEEN ELIZABETH WARSPITE RAMILLES RESOLUTION REVENGE RENOWN (Battle Cruiser )

The British Empire will have about 32 carriers if the present building program is carried out. At the present time the carrier force is 10 in number, and includes the following:

Fleet Carriers (6) (23,000 tons)​	Light Fleet Class (CVL) (3) (14,000 tons)​
ILLUSTRIOUS INDOMITABLE VICTORIOUS FORMIDABLE IMPLACABLE INDEFATIGABLE	COLOSSUS VENERABLE VENGEANCE
	Old Carrier (1)
	FURIOUS

The following British carriers (22 in number) are building. These include 11 carriers of the 14,000-ton COLOSSUS Class (to complete in 1945 and 1946);

8 carriers of the 18,310-ton HERMES Class (to complete in 1946, 1947 and 1948; and 3 carriers of the 33,000-ton ARK ROYAL Class (to complete in 1947 or later):

(11) COLOSSUS Class (14,000 tons)​	(8) HERMES Class (18,310 tons)​	(3) ARK ROYAL Class (33,000 tons)​
GLORY HERCULES LEVIATHAN MAJESTIC OCEAN THESEUS TRIUMPH WARRIOR MAGNIFICENT POWERFUL TERRIBLE	ALBION ARROGANT BULWARK CENTAUR HERMES MONMOUTH ELEPHANT POLYPHEMUS	ARK ROYAL EAGLE AUDACIOUS

The British Empire will have about 41 escort carriers, of which 35 were obtained through Lend-Lease from the United States.

The British will have 12 heavy cruisers, of which 10 are fairly modern.

They will have 57 light cruisers (six of them to complete in 1945 and 1946) of which 39 can be considered modern.

The Royal Navy will have about 376 destroyers (104 of these are building or are projected) of which only about 40 will be of some 2300 tons.

The Royal Navy will also have about 162 submarines (of which 45 are now building and 8 are now overage).

UNITED STATES​

The preliminary demobilisation study for the post-war Navy assumes two broad categories:

1. An active Navy in full commission.

2. A Navy in reduced commission in reserve.

I

Naval Facilities​

1. The active Navy will comprise three fleets, each consisting of:

5 carriers;
3 battleships;
8 cruisers (1 CB, 3 CA, 4 CL);
27 destroyers;

and auxiliaries comprising:

1 AR (Repair);
1 AD (Destroyer Tender);
3 AO (Oiler);
1 AH (Hospital);
2 AF (Provisions).

Attached to each active fleet will be 1 amphibious force, comprising:

1 Amphibious Brigade of Marines;
1 AP;
4 APA;
2 AKA.

Thus the active Navy will comprise, for planning purposes:

9 battleships;
15 carriers;
3 battle cruisers (Alaska Class);
9 heavy cruisers;
12 light cruisers;
81 destroyers.

and auxiliaries comprising:

3 AR (Repair);
3 AD (Destroyer Tender);
9 AO (Oiler);
3 AH (Hospital);
6 AF (Provisions);

and amphibious forces comprising:

3 Amphibious Brigades of Marines;
3 AP;
12 APA;
6 AKA.

2. In the second category, the Navy in so-called "reduced commission in reserve" will consist of 2 fleets, each having:

4 carriers (3 CV, 1 CVL);
3 battleships;
4 heavy cruisers;
4 light cruisers;
27 destroyers;

and auxiliaries comprising:

1 AR (Repair);
1 AD (Destroyer Tender);
3 AO (Oiler);
1 AH (Hospital);
2 AF (Provisions).

The totals for the Navy in so-called "Reduced commission in reserve" will therefore be:

8 carriers (6 CV, 2 CVL);
6 battleships;
8 heavy cruisers;
8 light cruisers;
54 destroyers;

plus auxiliaries, as follows:

2 AR (Repair);
2 AD (Destroyer Tender);
6 AO (Oiler);
2 AH (Hospital);
4 AF (Provisions).

3. Associated with these fleets there will be:

(a) 3 detached task forces, each

2 carriers;
4 light cruisers;
18 destroyers;

plus the following auxiliaries:

1 AO (Oiler);
1 AD (Destroyer Tender);
1 AF (Provisions),

The totals in these task forces will therefore be:

6 carriers;
12 light cruisers;
54 destroyers;
3 AO (Oiler);
3 AD (Destroyer Tender);
3 AF (Provisions).

(b) 3 submarine and anti-submarine units, each comprising:

30 SS;
2 AS (submarine Tender);
20 DE;
2 CVE;
6 Submarine Chasers (110');
6 Submarine Chasers (173');
12 Motor Torpedo Boats;
1 AO (Oiler).

The totals for the submarine and anti-submarine units will therefore be:

90 SS;
6 AS (submarine Tender);
60 DE;
6 CVE;
18 Submarine Chasers (110');
18 Submarine Chasers (173');
36 Motor Torpedo Boats;
3 AO (Oiler).

(c) 3 Mine Divisions, comprising:

1 CM (Minelayer);
2 DM (Light Minelayer);
6 AM (Minesweeper);
2 AN (Net Layer).

The totals for the Mine Divisions will therefore be:

3 CM (Minelayer);
6 DM (Light Minelayers);
18 AM (Minesweepers);
6 AN (Net Layer).

Recapitulation​

4. Heavy units of the whole naval establishment will therefore comprise:

15 battleships;
29 carriers;
3 battle cruisers;
17 heavy cruisers;
32 light cruisers.

The lighter combatant vessels will consist of:

189 destroyers;
60 destroyer escorts;
6 escort carriers;
90 submarines.

The total auxiliaries will consist of:

5 AR (Repair);
8 AD (Destroyer Tender);
21 AO (Oiler);
5 AH (Hospital);
13 AF (Provisions);
3 AP (Transport);
12 APA (Transport, Attack);
6 AKA;
6 AS (Submarine Tender);
18 PC (Submarine Chaser, 110');
18 SC (Submarine Chaser, 173');
36 PT (Motor Torpedo Boat);
3 CM (Minelayer);
6 DM (Light Minelayer);
18 AM (Minesweeper);
6 AN (Net Layer).

II

Marine Corps​

The Marine Corps will comprise 2 combat divisions and 5 amphibious brigades, in addition to the Fleet Marines, Guards, and Air, for a total of 131,000.

III

Air​

Total operating planes are projected at 8,302 with a 50 percent reserve of spares of 4,151, making a total of 12,453.

IV

Personnel​

For planning purposes two alternatives have been selected for manning of the Navy.

1. The first assumes all active ships and stations and other auxiliary units are to be manned at full war complement, with the ships in reduced commission at 20 percent of war complement.

2. The second assumes all active ships manned at 75 percent of war complement with ships in reduced commission at 20 percent of war complement.

Both assumptions include such personnel for the Air Arm as may be necessary for efficient operations and for maintenance of fleets on an efficient basis.

Under (1) the officers and men required would total 612,178. Of this number 64,093 would be officers, of whom 23,000 would be candidates for officers’ commissions.

Under (2) the requirements would be 509,401 officers and men of whom 39,114 would be officers, including 18,000 officer candidates.

V

Financial Requirements​

1. The annual outlay under the second assumption (75 percent of war complement for the active Navy and 20 percent for ships in reserve - Paragraph IV(2)) would be $4,549,000,000.

2. Under the first assumption (Paragraph IV(1)) the amount would be somewhat over $5 billion.

VI

Lay-Up Facilities​

If we are to keep the number of ships involved under these assumptions substantial additional berthing facilities will be required.

VII

Discarded Vessels​

If we take these assumptions as the maximum Navy which the nation can keep and maintain after the war we shall have to provide for the scrapping or disposition otherwise of the following ships in the various classes:

Battleships​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. BB-66 KENTUCKY 2. BB-65 ILLINOIS 3. BB-64 WISCONSIN 4. BB-63 MISSOURI 5. BB-62 NEW JERSEY 6. BB-61 IOWA 7. BB-60 ALABAMA 8. BB-59 MASSACHUSETTS 9. BB-58 INDIANA 10. BB-57 SOUTH DAKOTA 11. BB-56 WASHINGTON 12. BB-55 NORTH CAROLINA 13. BB-48 WEST VIRGINIA 14. BB-44 CALIFORNIA 15. BB-43 TENNESSEE	1. BB-46 MARYLAND 2. BB-45 COLORADO 3. BB-42 IDAHO 4. BB-41 MISSISSIPPI 5. BB-40 NEW MEXICO 6. BB-38 PENNSYLVANIA	1. BB-36 NEVADA 2. BB-35 TEXAS 3. BB-34 NEW YORK 4. BB-33 ARKANSAS

Note: WEST VIRGINIA, CALIFORNIA and TENNESSEE have been modernized and equipped with 5”/38 double purpose, hence their selection over MARYLAND and COLORADO.

Battle Cruisers​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. CB-3 HAWAII 2. CB-2 GUAM 3. CB-1 ALASKA	None​	None​

Heavy Cruisers​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. CA-153 2. CA-152 3. CA-151 4. CA-150 5. CA-149 6. CA-148 7. CA-143 8. CA-142 9. CA-141 10. CA-140 11. CA-139 12. CA-138 SCRANTON 13. CA-137 NORFOLK 14. CA-136 CHICAGO 15. CA-135 LOS ANGELES 16. CA-134 DES MOINES 17. CA-133 TOLEDO	1. CA-132 MACON 2. CA-131 FALL RIVER 3. CA-130 BREMERTON 4. CA-129 TULSA 5. CA-128 KANSAS CITY 6. CA-127 BRIDGEPORT 7. CA-126 CAMBRIDGE 8. CA-125 NORTHAMPTON 9. CA-124 ROCHESTER 10. CA-123 ALBANY 11. CA-122 OREGON CITY 12. CA-75 HELENA 13. CA-74 COLUMBUS 14. CA-73 ST. PAUL 15. CA-72 PITTSBURGH 16. CA-71 QUINCY 17. CA-70 CANBERRA 18. CA-69 BOSTON 19. CA-68 BALTIMORE	1. CA-45 WICHITA 2. CA-38 SAN FRANCISCO 3. CA-37 TUSCALOOSA 4. CA-36 MINNEAPOLIS 5. CA-35 INDIANAPOLIS 6. CA-33 PORTLAND 7. CA-32 NEW ORLEANS 8. CA-31 AUGUSTA 9. CA-28 LOUISVILLE 10. CA-27 CHESTER 11. CA-25 SALT LAKE CITY 12. CA-24 PENSACOLA

Light Cruisers​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. CL-159 * 2. CL-158 * 5. CL-157 * 4. CL-156 * 5. CL-155 * 6. CL-154 * 7. CL-147 8. CL-146 VALLEJO 9. CL-145 ROANOKE 10. CL-144 WORCESTER 11. CL-121 FRESNO 12. CL-120 SPOKANE 15. CL-119 JUNEAU 14. CL-118 CHATTANOOGA 15. CL-117 CHEYENNE 16. CL-116 TALLAHASEE 17. CL-111 WILMINGTON 18. CL-110 BUFFALO 19. CL-109 NEW HAVEN 20. CL-108 NEWARK 21. CL-107 HUNTINGTON 22. CL-106 FARGO 23. CL-105 DAYTON 24. CL-104 ATLANTA 25. CL-103 WILKES-BARRE 26. CL-102 PORTSMOUTH 27. CL-101 AMSTERDAM 28. CL-98 TUCSON * 29. CL-97 FLINT * 30. CL-96 RENO * 31. CL-95 OAKLAND * 32. CL-94 YOUNGSTOWN *	1. CL-93 GALVESTON 2. CL-92 LITTLE ROCK 3. CL-91 OKLA. CITY 4. CL-90 ASTORIA 5. CL-89 MIAMI 6. CL-87 DULUTH 7. CL-86 VICKSBURG 8. CL-83 MANCHESTER 9. CL-82 PROVIDENCE 10. CL-81 HOUSTON 111. CL-80 BILOXI 12. CL-67 TOPEKA 13. CL-66 SPRINGFIELD 14. CL-65 PASADENA 15. CL-64 VINCENNES 16. CL-63 MOBILE 17. CL-62 BIRMINGHAM 18. CL-60 SANTA FE 19. CL-58 DENVER 20. CL-57 MONTPELIER 21. CL-56 COLUMBIA 22. CL-55 CLEVELAND 23. CL-54 SAN JUAN * 24. CL-53 SAN DIEGO *	1. CL-49 ST. LOUIS 2. CL-48 HONOLULU 3. CL-47 BOISE 4. CL-46 PHOENIX 5. CL-43 NASHVILLE 6. CL-42 SAVANNAH 7. CL-41 PHILADELPHIA 8. CL-40 BROOKLYN 9. CL-15 MEMPHIS 10. CL-12 MARBLEHEAD 11. CL-11 TRENTON 12. CL-10 CONCORD 13. CL-9 RICHMOND 14. CL-8 DETROIT 15. CL-7 RALEIGH 16. CL-6 CINCINNATI 17. CL-5 MILWAUKEE 18. CL-4 OMAHA

Notes: Asterisks indicate the so-called AA-type cruiser.

Aircraft Carriers, Large​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. CVB-57 2. CVB-56 5. CVB-43	1. CVB-42 CORAL SEA 2. CVB-41 MIDWAY	None​

Aircraft Carriers​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. CV-55 2. CV-54 3. CV-53 4. CV-52 5. CV-51 6. CV-50 7. CV-47 8. CV-46 9. CV-45 VALLEY FORGE 10. CV-40 TARAWA 11. CV-39 LAKE CHAMPLAIN 12. CV-38 SHANGRI LA 13. CV-37 PRINCETON 14. CV-36 ANTIETAM 15. CV-35 REPRISAL 16. CV-34 ORISKANY 17. CV-33 KEARSARGE 18. CV-32 CROWN POINT 19. CV-31 BON HOMME RICHARD 20. CV-21 BOXER 21. CV-20 BENNINGTON	1. CV-19 HANCOCK 2. CV-18 WASP 3. CV-17 BUNKER HILL 4. CV-16 LEXINGTON 5. CV-15 RANDOLPH 6. CV-14 TICONDEROGA 7. CV-13 FRANKLIN 8. CV-12 HORNET 9. CV-11 INTREPID 10. CV-10 YORKTOWN 11. CV- 9 ESSEX	1. CV-6 ENTERPRISE 2. CV-4 RANGER 3. CV-3 SARATOGA

Aircraft Carriers, Small​

Assuming:

A.​	B.​	C.​
Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an "out of commission" status:​	Recommended we scrap:​
1. CVL-49 2. CVL-48 3. CVL-30 SAN JACINTO 4. CVL-29 BATAAN 5. CVL-28 CABOT	1. CVL-27 LANGLEY 2. CVL-26 MONTEREY 3. CVL-25 COWPENS 4. CVL-24 BELLAU WOOD 5. CVL-22 INDEPENDENCE	None​

Aircraft Carriers, Escort​

At the end of the war (assuming completion of the present construction program and assuming no further losses) we will have a total of 98 escort carriers. Under the proposed plan 6 escort carriers will be retained in active commission, leaving 92 to be disposed of by:

(a) Laying up,

(b) Sale for appropriate merchant marine uses;

(c) Scrapping.

It is recommended that the escort carriers (a) to be retained in active commission, and (b) in a laid-up status, be selected from the following (at present 28 in number):

CVE-26 to CVE-30, inclusive, and
CVE-105 to CVE-127, inclusive, plus any built subsequent to CVE-127.

Destroyers​

At the end of the war (assuming completion of the present construction program and assuming no further losses) we will have a total of 524 Destroyers.

Under the proposed plant

1. Retain in active commission . . . . . . . . . 135
2. In "Reduced commission in reserve" . . . . .54

This will leave 355 destroyers to be disposed of by:

(a) Laying up; or

(b) Scrapping.

It is recommended that the destroyers to be retained in:

(a) Active commission;

(b) "Reduced commission in reserve," and

(c) Laid-up status

be selected from ships numbered DD-351 to DD-850, inclusive, and that destroyers prior to DD-351 (now 39 in number) be scrapped.

Destroyer Escorts​

At the end of the war (assuming completion of the present construction program and assuming no further losses) we will have a total of 366 destroyer escorts.

Under the proposed plan,

60 destroyer escorts will be retained in active commission, leaving

306 destroyer escorts for disposal by laying up or scrapping.

Submarines​

At the end of the war (assuming completion of the present construction program and assuming no further losses) we will have a total of 319 submarines.

Under the proposed plan

90 submarines will be retained in active commission, leaving

229 submarines for disposal by:

(a) laying up; or

(b) Scrapping.

JF:HCO
3-16-45

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recapitulation​

Assuming:

​	A.​	B,​	C​	D.​
​	Maximum on hand at end of war (*)​	Retention in full and reduced commission of:​	Laying up in an “out of commission” status​	Recommended we scrap:​
BB​	25​	15​	6​	4​
CB​	3​	3​	0​	0​
CA​	48​	17​	19​	12​
CL​	74​	32​	24​	18​
CVB​	5​	3​	2​	0​
CV​	35​	21​	11​	3​
CVL​	10​	5​	5​	0​
DD​	524​	189​	296​	39​
DE​	366​	60​	306 (#)​	0​
CVE​	98​	6​	22​	70​
SS​	319​	90​	229 (#)​	0​

Notes:

* – Assuming completion of present building program and assuming no further losses.

# – Recommend scrapping of such DE's and SS’s as suitable survey Boards may determine are beyond economical repair and upkeep.