Bruships 139: Books will be Attempted, Questions will be Answered

Probably, because continuous cruiser-design experience, operational requirements, and pressure for efficiency would favor a better use of the displacement.

Yes, especially with a later standardization date, but global maintenance and logistics strongly favored proven machinery.

The Chinese electromagnetic-gun project is compared with the American railgun approach, followed by a caution about publicity for weapons tests.

The Falklands War illustrates the gap between weapons-sales claims and actual combat results.

Hawkeye warning and sensor data explain why Aegis works as part of a wider air-defense system.

Yes; a ship such as HMS Victory would possess an overwhelming technological and firepower advantage.

Probably not directly, because Britain did not share those design studies; Nelson is a more plausible influence.

Nelson and Rodney are strong examples: formidable ships whose speed and battle-line concept did not fit emerging mobile task-force needs.

Tall pagoda structures supported a Japanese preference for maximum visual range and accurate long-range engagement.

Possibly not; combined British-Japanese naval strength could make intervention too risky for Mussolini.

Surprise let Washington close, and the short range maximized accuracy, penetration, and damage before an effective reply.

The designs served different concepts; extra displacement could plausibly buy a larger 15-inch battery and perhaps slightly more speed.

Not universally: aircraft would still favor 18-inch weapons, destroyers 21-inch weapons, and larger types would create costly handling and supply problems.

They would likely begin around 2,000 tons and grow by stages toward roughly 3,000-ton Daring-sized ships.

Requirement meddling, though it is closely connected to the political assumptions behind wars of choice.

Rate of fire, potentially through six automatic 14-inch guns rather than a slower larger-caliber battery.

Probably not; it more likely would have increased priority for the twelve-16-inch-gun Montana class.

Far smaller populations would be available in the proposed scenario.

Possibly, if the redesign also improved the hull and machinery; the larger benefit would be a faster ship standardized around an improved 15-inch gun.

Roughly 10,000 yards or less, with about 5,000 yards or less treated as point-blank range.

Some current authors do ignore the hardships, but earlier writing also overemphasized them, and commanders differed in their methods.

Both interpretations miss the main tradeoff: specialization fit Japan's narrower strategy but left too little flexibility when ships were unavailable.

The available reporting suggested point defense, reinforcing the value of a final defensive layer while the exact target and engagement sequence remained uncertain.

Political labels require definitions, with Italian fascism and the Roman fasces used to explain why fascism did not originate with the Nazis.

It would remain an unwelcome battleship opponent; its speed, range, and operational capabilities would determine the full threat.

Probably: new, relatively inexpensive patrol ships could be kept while costlier ships were withdrawn.

Add Sea Wolf and close-in guns while retaining stronger gun armament alongside Sea Dart.

Not necessarily as a ship, but adopting 14-inch guns could give Japan major leverage by locking rivals into the same treaty caliber.

More investment in the relevant industrial infrastructure and its maintenance.

Hood by a wide margin; Iowa was a fast battleship, while Hood's design and intended combat role remained those of a battlecruiser.

Probably not in this counterfactual: Britain could cover the Atlantic approaches with a much stronger fast force.

The public information does not establish what got through; an automatic Phalanx mount can detect and react before the crew understands the contact.

It could have sustained British tilting-train development instead of allowing the research to be sold and later bought back in developed form.

Yes, but they still require reactor monitoring, maintenance, and a reduced specialist crew.

Continuous module production and a rigidly enforced standard interface.

Yes in functional terms, though they were not shortened into the later NATO-style letter codes.

The earlier King George V class, before the Queen Elizabeths.

About a thousand tons, while a postwar 16-inch conversion would be financially implausible.

Because current expected use rarely justifies the extra cost and maintenance, although demanding gun roles could reverse that tradeoff.

Cold shutdown does not remove the need for monitoring and daily inspection, though the watch can be smaller than an operational crew.

About forty aircraft, perhaps twenty-four Harriers and sixteen Sea Kings in several roles.

A historical Bismarck would be badly disadvantaged, though G3 construction would probably have changed German design choices too.

Renown with triple turrets is preferred as a basis, but carrier aviation makes a new fast battleship the more sensible choice.

Three quadruple turrets could retain twelve guns with a saving in weight, although a four-quadruple Crown Colony is also considered.

Britain would keep useful ships that proved themselves, while other naval powers would probably seek comparable units.

American, British, and French nuclear fleets rely on exacting operator training that Australia would have to reproduce.

They could have remained with the force and enabled a multi-axis attack, though Holland might still have chosen his historical sectional engagement.

Probably with much the same construction as historically, since French infrastructure constrained the available response.

Not automatically; larger ships could survive more hits and carry heavier weapons, while small ships would remain more vulnerable.

British doctrine provides a framework that commanders adapt to the circumstances.

It could carry four twin medium-caliber mounts, around ten torpedoes, and more practical reload systems.

Britain would enter the treaty era with a huge 16-inch advantage, forcing American catch-up and a substantially different settlement.

They were the readily viable industrial choice, but larger foreign guns would create pressure to go bigger at the cost of time and effort.

It could accelerate teardrop-hull and machinery development, but practical derivative boats would probably not appear until 1941-42.

Computers and combat systems add equipment whose main purpose is to keep the ship's other capabilities operating.

No; Hawkeye provides the essential capability without the huge ship and infrastructure penalty.

British AEW helicopters mainly operate from carriers, in part because the fleet has only a limited number.

A Soviet demand for naval parity would trigger matching claims from Japan and pressure Britain and America to expand again.

There is not enough real performance data to answer precisely because the guns and ships were never completed and exercised.

Yes, with perhaps 300-400 personnel through modern machinery and weapon automation; a recruitment benefit is uncertain.

They represented a possible technological summit after which the qualitative race could end and resources could shift elsewhere.

Yes; their internal magazine and handling system could accept missiles transferred aboard.

Singapore becomes a forward Allied base, supporting a northward land campaign and a much stronger naval position in Southeast Asia.

Yes, though solving the problems would take time and operational learning.

A reliable answer would require the full redesign and simulations; gun caliber alone cannot establish the result.

Yes; after an interim constrained design, Germany would be pushed toward much larger capital-ship guns.

It would be warmer and more populous, but more exposed to Iberian competition and less able to avoid permanent armed forces.

No; isolated saint names were possible, but a full class would be culturally and politically out of character.

Japan is predicted to lose one of its super-battleships; another suggested effect on its forces is unclear in the captions.

No; the term normally means a steep descent, roughly 45-90 degrees and sometimes down to about 30 degrees.

Capturing the whole class is unlikely. One captured ship might reinforce German capital ships once Germany had crewed and supported it.

An underwater hit is plausible, but it should not be classified as plunging fire.

They could produce more powerful British fighters earlier, including improved land and naval aircraft.

The selected fit reflected the design, available budget, and the greater weight of the automatic turrets.

No single design was uniquely doomed, but any isolated capital ship would be unlikely to survive a concentrated fleet and carrier attack.

Not always, although dragon-inspired motifs appear frequently.

Dutch yards lacked the established capability for such large, complex warships, making foreign construction an alternative to building that capability from scratch.

No; it also aimed to grow the Royal Navy toward a battle fleet of twenty or more ships.

It would remain recognizably a County but become larger and might adopt a heavier dual-purpose secondary battery.

Britain would recall available ships, accelerate Renown and Repulse, and keep future operations closer to the Grand Fleet.

Heavy battlecruiser losses could favor protection and twelve 15-inch guns over Hood's higher speed.

Beatty's death or removal after Dogger Bank opens different paths for Hood, Wemyss, and Madden.

Possibly, but it more likely meant the navy needed a Hood-like capability through that period, whether from Hood or a replacement.

Probably, because modular construction needs clearance for receiving, storing, lifting, and positioning large hull sections.

Possibly, but with one example to study, it is uncertain how quickly the discoveries could become useful.

Quite plausible, because town and county names created constituencies that helped protect large ship orders.

It would greatly expand Allied strategic reach, threaten European oil infrastructure, and ease long-range attacks on Japan.

Probably; 28 knots already exceeded Yamato, though modest lengthening or more power might target about 30 knots.

Likely yes, although other navies might push to round the ceiling up to 10 inches.

Different British and American operational settings shaped the use of carriers alongside fast capital ships.

Because the Royal Navy needed new cruisers for global presence and fleet renewal, regardless of one specific threat.

Each successor would probably become larger, with the change carrying through even to the cut-down Type 42.

No; Alaska better fits the carrier-screen role, while Iowa belonged to the fast battle response force.

Yes. Speed was secondary to the later missions for which the Iowas were returned to service.

Probably, but it imposed a substantial weight cost; the cut-price York design shows how little was saved by accepting less capability.

It depends on the iceberg and conditions. Cold can preserve the ice, while rough salt water can erode it and break it into smaller pieces.

Yes. Ongoing orders provide replacements for ageing ships, increasingly including earlier Arleigh Burkes.

Broadly yes. Rival hulls and weapons would also grow, leaving similar relative problems at a larger scale.

As quickly as it recognized the historical 8-inch Counties, beginning with their construction rather than waiting to see their guns in action.

More would help, but starting Type 83 air-defense destroyers may take priority because that capability is scarcer.

National requirements produced different Type 26 ambitions, while Britain's small fleet constrained major hull extensions.

Manufacturer proposals could favor existing hull ideas even while the Royal Navy had reasons to seek a different shape.

No; it was plausible, and the small difference from an eight-gun mounting gave Britain little reason to bluff about it.

British ships would kill many more attacking aircraft, and the pom-pom might outperform Bofors without VT fuzes.

Because it costs less capability, construction effort, and crew than losing a full-size fleet carrier.

There was no universal formula; twins or triples often balanced target coverage, fire density, and survivability best.

No; Britain possessed the technology, industrial capacity, and budget to build the planned ships.

British-built carrier sections are distinguished from imported machinery and the separate dispute over support-ship construction.

A third Queen Elizabeth is preferred. Three dock-equipped LHDs would be a different case because they add an amphibious capability.

It would weaken Allied supply and manpower and reshape convoy operations, but Germany might still collapse under blockade by 1918-19.

It has reduced the initiative to build and offer complete designs, encouraging firms to meet the minimum of an existing requirement.

Yes, the arrangement is judged viable and broadly similar to an existing fit.

Britain's proposed capital ships are compared with American gun development, Japanese yards, and normal British ordering practice.

It could, but building more Type 26, Type 31, or Type 83 ships would avoid duplicating roles and support systems.

Augustus is expected to rebuild his fleet and return, with Antony losing the next encounter.

Several months or possibly years, depending on the number and location of torpedo hits.

They could, but a builder would need someone prepared to take the ship because governments dislike privately held warships.

The explanation offered favors oversight during the presidential transition, citing the difficulties the cutoff created for both countries.

The older comparison largely concerns privately owned merchant ships hired for wartime naval use; no company-by-company prediction is offered.

In this assessment, the immediate constraint is the deliberately slow contracted pace. Expanding output and finding crews would still take time.

Probably not, because Japanese cruisers would likely carry 9.2-inch or 10-inch guns in the same scenario.

They based the limit on existing ships, with Hawkins the most recent cruiser class.

The carrier diesels are recalled as Finnish-built, while their standard design supports an international parts supply.

No. The figures given are relatively close, although standard and full-load displacement differ.

Italian sinkings and the disposal of surviving ships ended the fleet, while an attempt to give it away failed.

Ticonderogas first, then older Burkes after the new design is established, with Burke construction continuing for some time.

No; useful light cruisers could remain much smaller when their operational role did not require heavy-cruiser capabilities.

Some cruiser commonality might be possible, but different theater needs would make capital-ship and carrier standardization contentious.

Britain would likely approach the war with many more armored fleet carriers and some smaller specialist carriers.

They would probably say navies had built cruisers and chosen to call them destroyers.

Probably not without an operational need; light cruisers were meant to provide useful numbers and a supportable overseas presence.

With a 9.2-inch heavy cruiser after the war, or possibly a 14-inch battlecruiser if the requirement emerged before it.

The larger allowances would permit further construction, but each country's political and industrial constraints would remain.

Size alone is not expected to change the chance much; altered resistance to mine damage and return to service would matter more.

Possibly, although lasers and other directed-energy defenses are likely to expand at the same time.

No; they were primarily Soviet status units, though their prestige effect helped prompt Iowa reactivation.

Yes; two British 15-inch guns are displayed outside the Imperial War Museum in London.