Matrix Games Forums

What were some of the ships that never made from the drawing boards?

I know of the Lexington BC's, Montana's, South Dakota's (1920)

Japanese Amagi BC's

Brits had a some but don't remember their names.

Royal Navy

As far as I know there was one Battleship of the Queen Elizabeth class cancelled, and that was 'Agincourt'

Four ships of the Lion class were never completed:-
Lion
Temeraire
Conqueror
Thunderer


The Japanese KII class consisted of four 'Fast Battleships'
Kii - cancelled 1924
Owari - cancelled 1924
Hull 11 - Cancelled 1923
Hull 12 - Cancelled 1923

US Navy

Alaska class (Dreadnought battle-cruiser) six planned, Alaska & Guam completed.
Hawaii Not completed
Philippines Drawing board
Puerto Rico Drawing board
Samoa Drawing board


Iowa class six planned, Iowa, New Jeresy, Missouri & Wisconsin completed
Illinois Not completed
Kentucky Not completed


Colorado class (super-Dreadnought battleship) four planned, Colorado, Maryland & West Virginia completed.

Washington 75.9 percent complete, sunk as target 26 Nov 1924


Montana class (super-Dreadnought fast battleship) five planned, none completed.

Montana Drawing board ( not to be confused with the 'South Dakota' class BB of the same name, that was also not completed ).
Ohio Drawing board
Maine Drawing board
New Hampshire Drawing board
Louisiana Drawing board


Germany

The Kreigsmarine had 6 H-41 super battleships planned under the Z-Plan, two were laid down but scrapped in 1941, the other four never left the drawing board.

Italy

Vittorio Veneto class (Super-Dreadnought fast battleship) four planned, Vittorio Veneto, Littorio & Roma completed.
Impero Not completed

Germany also planned a number of aircraft carriers, but never completed the first one.

Bill

Following on from Empire's answer here are some ships not built for a number of reasons. Not an exhaustive list I'm sure - I have seen numerous versions of the Z-plan for example - but the main ones that could have been in WWII are here I think.

World War I and after

Royal Navy
Experience of Jutland meant that HMS Hood’s three sisters, although laid down, were never completed.

Washington Treaty doomed the four planned G3-type 16-inch gunned battlecruisers and four N3-type 18-inch gunned battleships.

USN
The Washington Treaty accounted for Six South Dakota-class 16-inch gunned battleships and an equal number of 16-inch Lexington-class battlecruisers (although two were turned into carriers).

IJN
Washington Treaty saw two 16-inch Kaga-class and four 16-inch KII-class battleships cancelled (one Kaga-class turned into an aircraft carrier. Four 16-inch Amagi and four 18-inch No.13-class battlecruisers cancelled (one Amagi turned into an aircraft carrier).

Regia Marina
Four Caracciolo-class 15-inch battleships were cancelled – I think more for economic reasons than directly due to Washington.

Post Washington

Royal Navy
Four 16-inch Lion-class battleships cancelled (two had been laid down in 1939)

One of the three Audacious-class aircraft carrier (laid down 1944)

Four Malta-class carriers (never laid down)

Two Surrey-class (versions of the 8-inch County-class cruisers) cancelled 1930 as RN wanted more 6-inch gunned vessels that could be built within tonnage restrictions.

Other Various 6 and 8-inch gunned cruisers cancelled during the war.

USN
Two of the six Iowa-class and all five Montana-class 16-inch gunned battleships

Four of the six Alaska-class battlecruisers

Three Midway-class aircraft carriers

Numerous 6 and 8-inch cruisers cancelled during the war

IJN
Two Yamatos (one completed as a carrier)

Two B64-type Heavy cruisers (approved in 1942 but never laid down)

Germany
The fanciful Z-plan!

Six 16-inch gunned battleships of the H-class (two laid down)

Three 15-inch P-class battlecruisers (never even laid down)

2 Graf Zeppelin aircraft carriers (one almost complete when work stopped)

One Seydlitz-class carrier

Six 8-inch gunned M-class cruisers (three laid down)

France
Two of the Four Richelieu-class battleships (1 laid down the other never started)

2 Joffre-class aircraft carriers (one laid down before June 1940)

Regia Marina
One of the four Littorio-class battleship (launched but not completed)

1 Aquila-class carrier (almost complete by the armistice) and 1 Sparviero-class

Soviet Union
4 Sovyetskiy Soyuz-class 16-inch battleships (3 laid down)

There is a whole forum devoted to never weres unfortunately it seems to need registration
http://www.phpbbplanet.com/forum/index. ... ipprojects

There are also several websites around about it.

There were three Revenge class hulls that were never completed, slots were used for Renown amd Repulse IIRC

I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier.

ORIGINAL: melspence

There were three Revenge class hulls that were never completed, slots were used for Renown amd Repulse IIRC

warspite1

HMS Resistance was the eighth ship - fortunately she was cancelled....

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/index.html

A bit about Plan Z and the battleships plus plans for carrier/light carrier conversions like Project Jade and the french cruiser De Grasse.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier.

I can easily imagine them with a carrier. After all the effort and resources poured into their surface fleet finishing Graf Zeppelin would have been a minor matter.

I cannot imagine WW2 era Germany conducting effective operations with a carrier (I suspect you were thinking along these lines also).

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier.

I can easily imagine them with a carrier. After all the effort and resources poured into their surface fleet finishing Graf Zeppelin would have been a minor matter.

I cannot imagine WW2 era Germany conducting effective operations with a carrier (I suspect you were thinking along these lines also).

IIRC from college (military history minor) The original German war plan called for the initiation of hostilities in 1946, with several aircraft carriers, a much larger surface fleet, and 2 or 3 times the number of U-boats they had in 1939. Hitler was in a hurry and didn't put too much "stock" in the kreigsmarine, so when he thought the army was pretty much ready he decided he could go ahead and risk war.

In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help".

In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help".

Without Hitler - and the disgraceful behaviour of France, England in 30's etc- i don't think that would have been a war.
The rise of Hitlers reputation with German people was made on his gambling with Allies in 30's always paying off despite de advices in contrary of his generals. This meant that the generals were too weak politically at end of the decade to resist the war decision. Before war start Hitler was already able in 1938 to disband the Reichkriegminister and form the OKW.

Hitler was brilliant at outfoxing his opponents early in his career, but he never established victory conditions. There was never "enough".

Germany was also a continental power. They could build very good ships, but a blue water surface navy was never a serious priority. Controlling a large ocean was just way down the list of priorities. They could get just about everything they wanted with land forces.

France and the Soviet Union were also continental forces. Both had navies, but they rarely fought and when they did, they tended to lose.

Japan and Great Britain are the world's two greatest pure naval powers. Survival of their empires depended on having giant navies to protect their assets. The Netherlands was also a naval power. Imperial Japan had a large army, but they had to rely on naval transport to get anywhere. The IJA even maintained its own naval vessels to move its troops around. Their troops also lost effectiveness the further they got from a friendly port because their supply trains were dependent on naval support.

I've read Hitler's big mistake in the invasion of France was thinking like a continental power when fighting a naval one. At Dunkirk, Hitler figured he had the BEF bottled up and he would deal with them as soon as he was done with France. For a continental power, being backed up to the sea is being trapped, but for a naval power, it's an opportunity to extract your forces, which the British did.

The US has been history's only dual continental and naval power.

Bill

ORIGINAL: Dili

In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help".

Without Hitler - and the disgraceful behaviour of France, England in 30's etc- i don't think that would have been a war.
The rise of Hitlers reputation with German people was made on his gambling with Allies in 30's always paying off despite de advices in contrary of his generals. This meant that the generals were too weak politically at end of the decade to resist the war decision. Before war start Hitler was already able in 1938 to disband the Reichkriegminister and form the OKW.

warspite1

I think that is more than a little unfair to say the least. France and Britain were democracies, their leaders desperate to avoid a repeat of the carnage of WWI. Its easy to criticise with hindsight, but against that background they tried their utmost to contain Hitler - not realising until too late that his demands could never be satisfied. Yes, the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was a sorry episode, but again was done in a last bid to avoid a wider war.

ORIGINAL: wadail

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I just cannot imagine WW2 era Germany with a carrier.

I can easily imagine them with a carrier. After all the effort and resources poured into their surface fleet finishing Graf Zeppelin would have been a minor matter.

I cannot imagine WW2 era Germany conducting effective operations with a carrier (I suspect you were thinking along these lines also).

IIRC from college (military history minor) The original German war plan called for the initiation of hostilities in 1946, with several aircraft carriers, a much larger surface fleet, and 2 or 3 times the number of U-boats they had in 1939. Hitler was in a hurry and didn't put too much "stock" in the kreigsmarine, so when he thought the army was pretty much ready he decided he could go ahead and risk war.

In many regards, Hitler was the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help".

warspite1

It was 1944.

As for Hitler being "the best general the allies had and the Germans could have lasted 3 or 4 more years without his "help". Not sure what this means. Had Hitler gone with the original Case Yellow and not Manstein's variant for example I suspect the war would have taken a very different turn.

The idea that the German general staff was a paragon of virtue and that all the German mistakes were down to Hitler's meddling is simply nonsense.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Hitler was brilliant at outfoxing his opponents early in his career, but he never established victory conditions. There was never "enough".

Germany was also a continental power. They could build very good ships, but a blue water surface navy was never a serious priority. Controlling a large ocean was just way down the list of priorities. They could get just about everything they wanted with land forces.

France and the Soviet Union were also continental forces. Both had navies, but they rarely fought and when they did, they tended to lose.

Japan and Great Britain are the world's two greatest pure naval powers. Survival of their empires depended on having giant navies to protect their assets. The Netherlands was also a naval power. Imperial Japan had a large army, but they had to rely on naval transport to get anywhere. The IJA even maintained its own naval vessels to move its troops around. Their troops also lost effectiveness the further they got from a friendly port because their supply trains were dependent on naval support.

I've read Hitler's big mistake in the invasion of France was thinking like a continental power when fighting a naval one. At Dunkirk, Hitler figured he had the BEF bottled up and he would deal with them as soon as he was done with France. For a continental power, being backed up to the sea is being trapped, but for a naval power, it's an opportunity to extract your forces, which the British did.

The US has been history's only dual continental and naval power.
Bill

What about the former Soviet Union? If they weren't they did a pretty good impression of one. [:D]

The Soviet Union was a continental power. They had a navy, but it was always secondary to the Red Army. The navy was predominantly a submarine force with a number of small surface ships. Their surface navy was predominantly a coastal defense force.

Submarines don't control seas, they deny someone else from controlling a body of water. What controls a large body of water is a predominant force of surface ships/carriers. The USSR had a navy that could have caused trouble for the USN, even sunk a lot of US shipping, but could never have controlled a large body of water.

Bill

The Dutch 1047 class would have been interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser

They would have been roughly equivalent to the Schranhorst class.

In terms of AA defense they also would have been among the best protected ships in Dec 1941. 12x140mm dp guns, 14x40mm and 8x20mm cannons.
And at 28,000 tons they would of had room to 'grow' as AA ships.

I have seriously considered adding them to my custom Ironman scenario. I may do it if I can find someone to do the artwork.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Hitler was brilliant at outfoxing his opponents early in his career, but he never established victory conditions. There was never "enough".

Germany was also a continental power. They could build very good ships, but a blue water surface navy was never a serious priority. Controlling a large ocean was just way down the list of priorities. They could get just about everything they wanted with land forces.

France and the Soviet Union were also continental forces. Both had navies, but they rarely fought and when they did, they tended to lose.

Japan and Great Britain are the world's two greatest pure naval powers. Survival of their empires depended on having giant navies to protect their assets. The Netherlands was also a naval power. Imperial Japan had a large army, but they had to rely on naval transport to get anywhere. The IJA even maintained its own naval vessels to move its troops around. Their troops also lost effectiveness the further they got from a friendly port because their supply trains were dependent on naval support.

I've read Hitler's big mistake in the invasion of France was thinking like a continental power when fighting a naval one. At Dunkirk, Hitler figured he had the BEF bottled up and he would deal with them as soon as he was done with France. For a continental power, being backed up to the sea is being trapped, but for a naval power, it's an opportunity to extract your forces, which the British did.

The US has been history's only dual continental and naval power.
Bill

What about the former Soviet Union? If they weren't they did a pretty good impression of one. [:D]

The Soviet Union of the cold war had the worlds largest submarine fleet and while they did have a powerful surface fleet, they had only one mission...prevent the US from resupplying Europe. The USSR was a continental power, they need only practice the art of denying the sea lines of communication to win. Their strategy was built around this concept, which is why they had so many SSNs.

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

The Dutch 1047 class would have been interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_1047_battlecruiser

They would have been roughly equivalent to the Schranhorst class.

In terms of AA defense they also would have been among the best protected ships in Dec 1941. 12x140mm dp guns, 14x40mm and 8x20mm cannons.
And at 28,000 tons they would of had room to 'grow' as AA ships.

I have seriously considered adding them to my custom Ironman scenario. I may do it if I can find someone to do the artwork.

Well, they weren't planned to be completed before 1944, at the earliest.

It might be interesting to consider the Dutch battleship plans of World War I and how they could have been updated had they been built. The designs considered were between 26,000 and 28,000 tons, armed with 8 X 14" guns, with a speed of 22 kt. Except in speed, they would have been comparable to the IJN Kongo class.