New Years 2023 Naval History Questions till the Bru runs out...

He would center it on Clapp, Thompson, and Larkin, ideally with a well-chosen Argentine participant.

The treaty would have been much harder to settle because completed 18-inch ships would make smaller limits less attractive and make older battle lines look weak.

Public figures provide a safe, attributable baseline without exposing serving contacts or implying that sensitive specifications came from them.

Yes; a treaty could not work cleanly if other major and secondary naval powers remained free to build around it.

Target fixation is the likely reason: imaginative planning existed, but senior leaders could lock onto Midway and ignore nearby alternatives.

Potentially yes, if the recipients wanted them and the settlement allowed comparable ships elsewhere.

They might add more launchers or guns, but probably in addition to VLS rather than instead of it.

Five triple 12-inch turrets, more than 28 knots, six-inch secondaries, and four-inch anti-aircraft guns.

Use three triples, remove X turret, and apply the savings to ammunition and speed.

Not convincingly; full-speed operations and weak defensive capability both count against it.

They were distant ancestors rather than immediate predecessors.

It lost its carrier role first, but could remain useful on cruisers and other large surface ships.

Germany would face a functioning coalition rather than divided opponents.

Most probably could, especially Long Beach, though the Virginia class may be an exception.

Such docks would open a much broader fast-fleet program, including G3s and large carrier conversions from the remaining Admiral-class hulls.

A compact explanation traces how Russian, Ottoman, and Greek ship purchases drove one another.

Yes, although whether it is worthwhile depends on ship and mission requirements.

The main differences lay in force generation and in how pilots were trained and equipped.

Damage and grounding stopped her, not the captain's death alone.

He would push earlier battlecruisers, because Pacific operations against Japan needed scouting speed and maneuver more than extra conventional cruisers.

Not cheaply; the correction would effectively rebuild the hull and propulsion installation.

The encounter could change completely because extra speed alters positions and formations over hours.

The boilers were the greater concern, though the turbines also required maintenance.

Not on most current ships, because the gun and its support systems would require substantially more space than their hulls provide.

Generally yes, because their reactor spaces were less constrained and easier to reach.

Only at the cost of mobility and initiative, because fixed airfields let the enemy locate, concentrate against, and bypass Japanese airpower more easily.

There would probably be far more battleship and carrier construction, especially by the mid-1930s.

Yes, but Germany was a poor choice of trainer in 1937; properly trained Chinese crews and submarines could be serious, with the Dutch a more plausible model.

Probably, although the moral objection to sacrificing pilots may shape that tactical assessment.

The ship could threaten the Deutschlands, keep HMS Tiger in service for modernization, and draw stronger British battlecruiser support toward the Dominions.

They would likely serve as fast carrier escorts, making the two labels hard to distinguish in practice.

Yes, but the most awkward mismatch was often between American and British imperial standards because they looked equivalent while differing in practice.

No six-inch cruiser offered a comfortable guarantee; a retained heavy ship such as HMS Vanguard was a more convincing answer.

Too many central technologies changed together, leaving no mature integration baseline.

Probably yes, because its value would be large and defenders could deny it by destroying locks.

It did not re-form; remaining forces became part of ABDA command.

It would likely anchor the air-defense picket line.

HMS Tiger performed better than expected, while Queen Elizabeth-class mine protection improved underwater resilience.

He would fix the dual-purpose gun, build suitable destroyers, upgrade cruisers, alter KGV armament, and add sloops, fast tankers, and more Unicorn-type support ships.

Better communications could improve Dogger Bank and Jutland and alter postwar naval politics.

Yes; a nearby S-class submarine had an opportunity, though pursuit risked exposing it.

No; existing ships would keep their names, although those names might not be reused.

Politics favored capital ships, and a balanced fleet imposed wider operational burdens on Britain than submarines alone.

Yes; six twin four-inch mounts and slightly fewer 40 mm Pom-Poms would be a workable balance.

Yes, if modernized; a large cruiser-sized hull could carry new systems such as VLS even after losing front-line relevance.

An early Trinity or Trinity Royal is a plausible answer, but the result changes with the definition of a royal or naval warship.

Roughly four to four-and-a-half times her original displacement, because the modern equivalent of her role is a much larger first-rate escort.

Probably yes; newer surface combatants are unlikely to repeat its forward-and-aft VLS arrangement.

Producing and rolling the enormous quantity of steel and armor plate the ships required.

Missiles such as Sea Dart or Sea Wolf could replace the 4.5-inch positions, provided the installation respected flight-deck and airflow constraints.

It would be a logical complement, though not necessarily a direct follow-on.

Louis XIV is the leading candidate, although the answer is presented as a judgment rather than a complete count.

Britain and Japan would respond, and the treaty system would face additional pressure.

Start from strike-cruiser concepts rather than treating the replacement as merely another destroyer.

Not solely because of crew size, since Philippine personnel costs are lower than comparable British or American costs.

A modern one would resemble an enlarged Type 45; an earlier one, an enlarged Type 82.

Because four-inch guns and their mountings did not weigh enough to make the twin installation prohibitively demanding.

Yes; its technology was broadly carried into the Sea King AEW conversion, where it continued the same warning role from a new airframe.

He rejects the lack-of-backup claim and points to extensive redundancy and automated damage control, while acknowledging low manning.

Possibly, but the operation would be costly and politically difficult because losses were unavoidable.

US forces would verify the sighting, disperse and alert aircraft, and mass fighters at dawn, turning the raid into a likely trap.

Its nuclear icebreaker and warship programs reinforce a shared industrial and technical base.

Hull shaping and weight redistribution preserved balance while broadening the boat's tactical role.

A Black Swan-class sloop or Hunt-class escort destroyer.

Use the Ford reactor because it is designed for a surface ship rather than submarine constraints.

The Super Étendards could have been intercepted much farther away and before weapon release.

Yes; political will and funding, rather than technology, are the barriers.

Large docks and industrial facilities, supported by expanded railways and canals.

Cost and the difficulty of training and retaining nuclear-qualified personnel.

No; lack of crew does not itself mean abandonment.

Not generally; lower landing speeds did not justify the cost, and many accidents had other causes.

The idea could make strategic sense, but Western navies are unlikely to pursue it soon.

The Dutch would likely intern the ship while possibly releasing the crew later.

Rail wear was real but overstated by old test materials; inadequate shipboard power generation and energy storage were the deeper obstacles.

The Type 31 frigate is a plausible eventual replacement.

They used arresting barriers and multiple nets; angled decks would not eliminate every such accident.

Yes; by limiting construction, the treaties directly reduced the volume of naval shipbuilding work.

Only with difficulty; their position and loadout were unfavorable, and they still needed reliable scouting and contact.

It was reliable, and newer alternatives did not improve enough to justify their cost.

It is a defensible current path that can evolve toward faster or high-speed terminal designs.

It pairs a conventional hull form with a Zumwalt-derived integrated electric plant.

An advanced version already exists, and further development is plausible, though the system receives little attention.

It learned not to impose the same kind of rebuild on the Midway-class carriers.

Sea Cat remained because it was available; Sea Dart and lightweight Sea Wolf would provide a stronger layered defense.

Probably not; other trimarans work well, suggesting an LCS-specific problem.

Probably yes, although the Navy is likely to postpone the shift as long as it can.

Containment is the concern: liquid can migrate, making safe storage and handling harder to guarantee.

Yes; it is a sound large hull, though a modern ship would still require a new internal design.

Primarily with British forces monitoring the North Atlantic, with possible Far East service.

HMCS Haida qualifies through the Tribal class's super-destroyer role, while HMS Caroline illustrates the adjacent light-cruiser lineage.

Use the 16-inch guns from Nelson and Rodney.