Thanks for your patience, y’all.
This snippet takes place at the ARCADIA Conference in December 1941.
(Previous text snipped)
“Excellent. That’s one problem solved already. On the subject of the Sicily operation, Would the U.S. Navy be able to provide support for that? Unfortunately, both we and the Royal Navy had ships badly damaged by the recent Italian frogman attack on Alexandria.” Admiral Tucek looked at the American Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Harold Stark, as he spoke.
“I don’t see why we can’t. How bad was the damage?”
Admiral Pound answered first. “The bastards had quite the stroke of luck that night. They managed to plant mines beneath HMS Valiant and TNS Albuquerque, as well as a tanker, the Sagona. Valiant suffered serious damage below the waterline, with flooding in several compartments including one of the shell rooms and magazines for ‘A’ turret. She will be moved to a drydock for temporary repairs within the next few days. The tanker was fueling the destroyer Jervis at the time, so the Italians got two for one there.”
“Yeah, and Albuquerque is down for the count. That mine broke her back, and she’s only floating on her outboard hulls. We think they were actually going for Queen Elizabeth, but got confused because the two ships were moored next to each other so Admiral Buchanan could consult with Admiral Cunningham. Don't get me wrong, Sir Dudley, if it comes down to a choice between losing a light cruiser and losing a battleship the cruiser loses every time. But it still puts a cramp in our operations. Makes me wonder if the Japs and Italians actually coordinated their actions beforehand.”
“Indeed, Admiral von Stahlberg. Whether through luck or enemy planning, all this has put us on the back foot. This needs to change. Admiral Tucek, When will your carriers and heavy cruisers be available?”
“Well, we’ve expedited the overhauls on Galveston and Laredo as much as we can, it’s looking like they will be ready for trials in March of ‘42. Brownsville should be ready by April, and El Paso by May. On the upside, San Jacinto and Tampico will be starting trials for both the ships and their new air groups in mid January.
We also have a fair bit of new construction in the pipeline. The first batch of our new William B. Travis class carriers will be commissioning in February, with the Dallas class armored cruisers coming in March as well. That’s three of each, and we have four more of each that were launched last week. Those should be ready to go by Spring of 1943. And, of course, we’re building smaller combatants as quickly as we can.”
“I see why you need some of our ships to cover the gap. We should be able to send New York and her sister, Minnesota, over to the Mediterranean within the next month, along with an appropriate escort and possibly the carrier Ranger, assuming the situation in the Pacific doesn’t go further south. We should also be able to send Washington and Wasp, with escorts, to Britain by April to reinforce the fleet there.”
Admiral Pound’s sigh of relief was almost audible. “Thank you, Admiral Stark. That will be most incredibly useful.”
Copyright 2024 D.A. Brock
I suggest that you not name BB-35 (<>New York's sister) Minnesota, since that was a pre-dreadnought still in active service when BB-35 was laid down. Oregon would work, since she was decommissioned when BB-35 was laid down. That leavesMontana available for BB-40 (the historical New Mexico). Better to use a state name that was set aside for a ship that was never laid down, rather than rename a ship that was in commissioned service (or at least under construction) during BB-35's active lifetime.
ReplyDeleteHe could also use the Louisiana since BB-71 was never laid down ( she was ordered for construction in 1940 but was canceled by 1943 ) and since Louisiana borders Texas I imagine there’s jokes that could be made
DeleteThank you both for your comments. I had not realized that there was already a Minnesota in service at the time the New York class were built.
DeleteI like the idea of using Louisiana, but she was also in service then. She was another Connecticut class pre-dreadnaught, just like Minnesota.
Oregon and Montana don’t work either (again, already in use, darn it.)
Crud, this is going to be harder than it looks. Not only were there a bunch of state names in use for battleships in 1914, there were also the Pennsylvania and Tennessee class armored cruisers still in service. This is going to take some digging.
Yeah I forgot bb-35 was commissioned in 1914 and the original Louisiana ( bb-19 ) didn’t get stricken till 1923
DeleteAfter digging into this a little further it looks like ‘Montana’ will work if I assume that ACR-13 was renamed sooner than in OTL. That was one of the planned 1920 South Dakota class that got nuked by the WNT, and of course the later Montana class which also never happened.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fact that the USN renamed Pennsylvania to free up the name for BB-38, it's quite plausible. A couple of footnotes to explain the discrepancies, and Bob's your uncle! ;-)
DeleteShort answer: Oregon is available for BB-35, since she was decommissioned in the relevant time period. Montana is also available for BB-40, since what we know as the proposed Montana-class is decades in the future when BB-40 entered service.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Montana would be a fitting sister for Idaho.
I'll explain Oregon further when I'm at an actual keyboard.