I suggested 12k and 15k and yes, the ACs can't fire that far. Which is the point I'm making. The 12" gun is better in some respects to the 9.2"Heh 15-19 km? AC's cant fire that far.
Yup, the US could afford only 1 fleet at that time. That's why there was such importance placed on the Panama Canal.Given the vast distances and the existing fleets it seems likely the US would have deployed almost every AC it possessed to the Pacific (after having no doubt secured suitable treaties with the major European powers to protect the Atlantic coast)...
... but it strikes me that dirigibles and heavier than air recon would have shown itself to be far too useful not to be used. Whether that would have taken the form of hurriedly established air- and sea-plane stations on suitable islands or reliance on airship technology I can't say but probably the former and also probably with an ad-hoc mish-mash of seaplane tenders and possibly short-deck "take off only and land at the nearest island" carriers like Campainia. In short, pretty much what Britain was doing in WWI in the N sea aviation wise.
The problem with zeps is that they required a large supporting infrastructure; IOW, dedicated zep bases. Huge hangars, gas generation and/or storage facilities, all the ground tackle, etc. Creating them from scratch was the contemporary equivalent of building the B29 bases in WW2. As such, zeps really couldn't accompany the fleet across the ocean. The fleet would have to get there first and build a base for them. Then on top of that, zeps were very vulnerable to weather. So, after operating several in the 20s and 30s, the USN decided zeps were more trouble than they were worth.
Thus, the USN was more focused on airplanes, and from a very early point. For instance, the 1916 Program's CLs (the Omahas) were designed with a catapult from the get-go, which was altered to 2 during construction. BBs originally had RN-style flying-off platforms which were soon replaced by catapults. This is also why the USN was keen to build proper aircraft carriers.
As for island-hopping, the US Pacific strategy focused on the islands the US already owned: Guam and the Philippines. The idea was to build ships capable of getting to Guam, which would serve as the advanced base to recapture the Philippines. The Philippines couldn't be made invasion-proof, but hopefully they could slow the Japanese down enough to allow the fleet to get to Guam.
The Von der Tann's machinery did revolutions for 26kn at Jutland, attaining only 23kn due to the hull damage received earlier in the action, and that was with very bad coal. You can check Campbell for that.
I would love to see the sources for your statement that the KM designed its ships for coastal use only.
Part of iVon der Tann's testing was oceanic cruising. When less than 6 months old, she was sent on a cruise to South America. She left on 20 Feb 1911 and returned to Kiel on 6 May, so call it 10 weeks away from German dockyards. At the end of this, on the last leg of the voyage home, from the Canaries to Helgoland, she averaged 24 knots over 1900-odd miles. So I figure she held up well on this deployment.Ive read the piece, that level of forcing might get you 26 knts on trials in the bath but the VdT never was able to sustain those speeds on operations whilst the Invicible had no trouble, the Moltke you will notice could only also could only make 23 knts did it have damage also? The Invincible was the quicker ship in service. Anything by Tirpitz is a pretty good source
Would a ship on a long cruise like this have been run with a reduced complement to make things more comfortable? Or would they have been packed in in case war broke out and they suddenly had to become raiders?Part of iVon der Tann's testing was oceanic cruising. When less than 6 months old, she was sent on a cruise to South America. She left on 20 Feb 1911 and returned to Kiel on 6 May, so call it 10 weeks away from German dockyards. At the end of this, on the last leg of the voyage home, from the Canaries to Helgoland, she averaged 24 knots over 1900-odd miles. So I figure she held up well on this deployment.
You're speaking to somebody who has served in destroyers, has lived for months in holes in the ground under enemy fire, and today is on call 24/7 with the local fire department. From my POV, if you're wearing the uniform, you follow the standards whenever and wherever. As such, for troop comfort, a destroyer in a severe storm beats a hole in the ground in a severe storm, so a battlecruiser, no matter how cramped, must be luxurious by comparison .Would a ship on a long cruise like this have been run with a reduced complement to make things more comfortable? Or would they have been packed in in case war broke out and they suddenly had to become raiders?
None of which answers my question. What did the Germans do in 1911? I know that at various times US warships were run on reduced crews for budgetary reasons, with the intent that crews would ramp up in size if war broke out.You're speaking to somebody who has served in destroyers, has lived for months in holes in the ground under enemy fire, and today is on call 24/7 with the local fire department. From my POV, if you're wearing the uniform, you follow the standards whenever and wherever. As such, for troop comfort, a destroyer in a severe storm beats a hole in the ground in a severe storm, so a battlecruiser, no matter how cramped, must be luxurious by comparison .
The Imperial German Navy was chronically short of seamen. Most of VdT's plank-owners were moved over from the decommissioned predread Rheinland, so it's possible VdT was shorthanded on her South American cruise. But OTOH, this cruise was "showing the flag" more to the RN than to the Brazilians. This was the 1st world-class German ship of the dreadnought era (the contemporary Nassaus really didn't count due to their low speed). Thus, I'd imagine the Germans tried hard to make everything look as perfect as possible. Having a skeleton crew aboard would have been noticed and derided by RN attache's in the ports of call.None of which answers my question. What did the Germans do in 1911? I know that at various times US warships were run on reduced crews for budgetary reasons, with the intent that crews would ramp up in size if war broke out.
Simple curiousity. I've read a number of mentions of how cramped and uncomfortable German ships were since they were designed to fight close to home, and idly wondered if a way to alleviate that was to simply sail with the number of men needed to sail the ship, rather than the number needed to fight her.So the answer is we don't know. Not that I'm being critical, but actually we do not know if she sailed with a full war complement or fewer men.
On the other hand I'm unsure what asking that question is trying to draw out. I'm confident RN ships also bumbled about the globe in peacetime with fewer crew than a wartime complement.
Was she closed up for action like operations, it was peace time so she had the best coal, she was only six months old, what was the weather like. On operations you cant run propaganda exercises like peacetime. Give VdT anything faster than 24 kts as top speed is very generous. Ships touched more than their design speed in emergencies giving that as their defitinitve speed is nonsense, The Invincible could run 25 knts in any weather for days on end it was the faster ship.Part of iVon der Tann's testing was oceanic cruising. When less than 6 months old, she was sent on a cruise to South America. She left on 20 Feb 1911 and returned to Kiel on 6 May, so call it 10 weeks away from German dockyards. At the end of this, on the last leg of the voyage home, from the Canaries to Helgoland, she averaged 24 knots over 1900-odd miles. So I figure she held up well on this deployment.