Yorktown ships in series wrong

[Goldzeoranger]

Yes I search for this before posting about it.  As seen here say Yorktown ships in series 2 wrong there was three CV 6 Enterprise CV 5 Yorktown CV 8 Hornet, were the three in her classes.  Not two so wargaming mess up not mad just wanted to point it out. So what I am doing is just wanted show this and ask for it to be fix like small other things that were fix on ship modes. 

 

[fettsheir]

Seems like it might have been a Wiki-based mistake considering that there was also an Essex-class Hornet (CV-12).

[bremen_]

Originally there were only two, Yorktown and Enterprise.  Hornet was built as a stopgap in the leadup to war as it could be done quicker than it would take to build a CV of a new class (Essex).

 

That might be the source of the mistake.

[Goldzeoranger]

I understand I just have a book about the battle of midway and list those three as Yorktown called, Miracle at midway wirintg by Gordon W. Prange, Donald M. Goldstein and Katherine V. Dillon Page 140 CV 8 photo Page 435 order of battle and there is more. I have a hard copy of the book

[Crucis]

For what it's worth, the USS Wasp (CV-7) is considered a reduced size version of the Yorktowns. Not a true member of the class, and yet sorta-kinda a Yorktown.

[IronWolfV]

4 hours ago, bremen_ said:

Originally there were only two, Yorktown and Enterprise.  Hornet was built as a stopgap in the leadup to war as it could be done quicker than it would take to build a CV of a new class (Essex).

 

That might be the source of the mistake.

Wrong. WASP was the stopgap to fill up 15k tons of extra weight. Hornet was a full up Yorktown.

[Montana_Prussian]

1 hour ago, TalonV said:

Wrong. WASP was the stopgap to fill up 15k tons of extra weight. Hornet was a full up Yorktown.

This^^^^^

[bremen_]

3 hours ago, TalonV said:

Wrong. WASP was the stopgap to fill up 15k tons of extra weight. Hornet was a full up Yorktown.

I hate to burst your self righteous bubble, but nothing you wrote contradicts what I said.

 

Wasp being built to use up treaty tonnage in no way invalidates that Hornet was built solely because it could be completed quicker than a CV of a new class.  I also didn't say Hornet was not a Yorktown class ship.

[IronWolfV]

16 minutes ago, bremen_ said:

I hate to burst your self righteous bubble, but nothing you wrote contradicts what I said.

 

Wasp being built to use up treaty tonnage in no way invalidates that Hornet was built solely because it could be completed quicker than a CV of a new class.  I also didn't say Hornet was not a Yorktown class ship.

Hate to burst yours, but there were a couple of things called the Washington then London Naval treaties. USN wasn't allowed to build anything else under those limitations besides carriers.

 

Nice try.

[Hurlbut]

15 minutes ago, TalonV said:

Hate to burst yours, but there were a couple of things called the Washington then London Naval treaties. USN wasn't allowed to build anything else under those limitations besides carriers.

 

Nice try.

Just a reminder; Japan pulled out of the naval treaties in 1936.

[ForgMaxtor]

36 minutes ago, bremen_ said:

I hate to burst your self righteous bubble, but nothing you wrote contradicts what I said.

 

Wasp being built to use up treaty tonnage in no way invalidates that Hornet was built solely because it could be completed quicker than a CV of a new class.  I also didn't say Hornet was not a Yorktown class ship.

This is correct.

The original plan for the class was Yorktown + Enterprise, and then a sort of junior cousin ship in the unique Wasp which was basically a lighter, less well-protected version of the Yorktown that could be built within the remaining CV tonnage allotment available to the US under the Washington Treaty limits.  Note that Wasp was laid down after Yorktown and Enterprise, but before Hornet.  Originally, it had been hoped that the Yorktown design could be built light enough to allow three within the treaty limits but this proved impractical given the performance requirements.  So the USN settled for two big guys and a little brother.  So Wasp wasn't a "stopgap," she was "leftovers".

Hornet was added as an additional Yorktown class  *after* the abandonment of the Washington Treaty in 1937, with the Yorktown class design being used again because the designs for the USN's next class of full-size fleet CVs (what would ultimately become the Essex class) weren't completed yet.  She was not part of the original build plan for the class.  Note that there is a nearly year and a half gap between when Enterprise is fully commissioned, and the keel for Hornet is even laid down.  So I do think it's accurate to classify Hornet a "stopgap," in the sense that she was an additional hull of an existing design, added in haste to the USN build plan to fill an imminent need since no newer design was ready yet.

[IronWolfV]

5 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

Just a reminder; Japan pulled out of the naval treaties in 1936.

USA did not.

[Hurlbut]

Just now, TalonV said:

USA did not.

You are aware the Hornet was laid down in 1939? 

[Doomlock]

Ahem. There were three Yorktown-class aircraft carriers, USS Yorktown (CV-5), USS Enterprise (CV-6), and USS Hornet (CV-8). USS Wasp (CV-7) is a shortened Yorktown and is considered her own class, a one off.

 

Hornet did have some different design and construction to the other two sisters which may be what they are going with here.

 

But yes, 3 Yorktowns, one Wasp.

[Hurlbut]

Okay I researched a bit, Hornet was a product of the Congress's Naval Expansion Act of 1938; "On 20 May 1938 Chairman Carl Vinson (D. Ga.) of the House Naval Committee, apparently with administration support, advocated an immediate appropriation for 12 ships, a dirigible and a "mosquito fleet" authorized by the billion-dollar Naval Expansion Act. The vessels include two light cruisers and a 20,000-ton aircraft carrier."

 

May this help you all to research more about the events in that period.

[ForgMaxtor]

28 minutes ago, TalonV said:

USA did not.

They didn't have to.  Japan's unilateral announcement that they were abandoning the treaty rendered it moot.  And in any event, the ship construction authorized by the Naval Act of 1938 (which authorized, inter alia, the contruction of the Hornet, the Iowa class BBs) far exceeded the Washington Treaty limits.

 

 

[IronWolfV]

2 minutes ago, ForgMaxtor said:

They didn't have to.  Japan's unilateral announcement that they were abandoning the treaty rendered it moot.  And in any event, the ship construction authorized by the Naval Act of 1938 (which authorized, inter alia, the contruction of the Hornet, the Iowa class BBs) far exceeded the Washington Treaty limits.

 

 

Yes however when Hornet was Authorized it was on the London Naval treaty, sure didn't get laid down till 39, but she was Authorized in 36.

[Hurlbut]

Just now, TalonV said:

Yes however when Hornet was Authorized it was on the London Naval treaty, sure didn't get laid down till 39, but she was Authorized in 36.

1938. She was authorized in 1938.

[IronWolfV]

7 minutes ago, Hurlbut said:

1938. She was authorized in 1938.

Thought it was 36, or was that Wasp? if it was all I can say is OOPS. But I still stand that Hornet was the result of the London Naval treaty. Cause otherwise, if the USA was seriously going to break the treaty, we'd of had the Essex instead of Hornet.

[Hurlbut]

Just now, TalonV said:

Thought it was 36, or was that Wasp? if it was all I can say is OOPS. But I still stand that Hornet was the result of the London Naval treaty. Cause otherwise, if the USA was seriously going to break the treaty, we'd of had the Essex instead of Hornet.

Um...the naval act of 1938 was just the start of a massive build up that got rolling by 1940, 1941. For the records, once Congress pass an act, it doesn't get implemented until next year (i.e. the ships allocated for by a naval act doesn't get laid down until next year after the act has been passed.)

[IronWolfV]

1 minute ago, Hurlbut said:

Um...the naval act of 1938 was just the start of a massive build up that got rolling by 1940, 1941. For the records, once Congress pass an act, it doesn't get implemented until next year (i.e. the ships allocated for by a naval act doesn't get laid down until next year after the act has been passed.)

Yeah I know.

[ForgMaxtor]

1 hour ago, TalonV said:

Thought it was 36, or was that Wasp? if it was all I can say is OOPS. But I still stand that Hornet was the result of the London Naval treaty. Cause otherwise, if the USA was seriously going to break the treaty, we'd of had the Essex instead of Hornet.

Yes, in the sense that the USN didn't really start to design a "post treaty" heavy fleet CV to succeed the Yorktown class until after the Japanese and Italians left the treaty in 1936.  As a result, when the naval arms race resumed in earnest in the late 1930s and it became pretty obvious that the USN would need to build more Fleet CVs (and fast!) if they were going to be able to fight a two-ocean war, the ship design bureau was caught a little flat-footed wrt CVs. So they had to fall back on an earlier "treaty" design, at least for the first CV hull built post-treaty.

I think the most accurate way of describing it is that Hornet is a treaty design, built post-treaty.

[ForgMaxtor]

It's also worth noting that the Yorktown class was a "failed" treaty design in the sense that it didn't achieve the desired weight limit.  The USN was allowed 135,000t of CV hulls under the treaty, part of which was already taken up by existing CVs (Lexington, Saratoga, and Ranger; I'm not sure whether Langley counted or not at this point -- she may have already been converted to a seaplane tender).  So what the USN wanted was design which would allow three more CVs to be built under the treaty limits.  But they also wanted the design to be fast, carry a large air wing, and be reasonably well-protected.  In the end, naval technology of the day just couldn't deliver on all of this and they had to compromise somewhere.  So they built two CVs at ~20,000t standard (Yorktown and Enterprise) that more or less achieved all of the design goals, and a third "runt" hull at ~15,000t standard (Wasp), which could carry about the same air group but was slower and considerably less well-protected.

In the end, the USN got the third "full" Yorktown class hull anyway in Hornet, so in this sense you could say that she was always a planned (or at least desired) member of the class, just postponed until after the treaty limits were lifted.

[Mesrith]

2 hours ago, TalonV said:

Yes however when Hornet was Authorized it was on the London Naval treaty, sure didn't get laid down till 39, but she was Authorized in 36.

 

2 hours ago, TalonV said:

Thought it was 36, or was that Wasp? if it was all I can say is OOPS. But I still stand that Hornet was the result of the London Naval treaty. Cause otherwise, if the USA was seriously going to break the treaty, we'd of had the Essex instead of Hornet.

 

The United States was already at the treaty tonnage cap after Wasp, which is the only reason Wasp existed in the form that it did.  There was no room for Hornet under the treaties.  Hornet was laid down in 1939 because the US had already moved beyond the treaties, but new designs don't spring up overnight, hence a new Yorktown.

[IronWolfV]

4 hours ago, ForgMaxtor said:

Yes, in the sense that the USN didn't really start to design a "post treaty" heavy fleet CV to succeed the Yorktown class until after the Japanese and Italians left the treaty in 1936.  As a result, when the naval arms race resumed in earnest in the late 1930s and it became pretty obvious that the USN would need to build more Fleet CVs (and fast!) if they were going to be able to fight a two-ocean war, the ship design bureau was caught a little flat-footed wrt CVs. So they had to fall back on an earlier "treaty" design, at least for the first CV hull built post-treaty.

I think the most accurate way of describing it is that Hornet is a treaty design, built post-treaty.

 

3 hours ago, Mesrith said:

 

 

The United States was already at the treaty tonnage cap after Wasp, which is the only reason Wasp existed in the form that it did.  There was no room for Hornet under the treaties.  Hornet was laid down in 1939 because the US had already moved beyond the treaties, but new designs don't spring up overnight, hence a new Yorktown.

Well gents all I can say is "oops".