StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stuart wrote:So, of the Presidents, the only Democrat is portrayed in a very favorable light while the Republicans are portrayed as one favorable, one unfavorable and one unknown.

I suspect that such a perception might have to do with your treatment of John Kennedy; a lot of people revere him and don't really look at his legacy fairly. So seeing him get ripped into tends to upset their image of him as a golden boy who could do no wrong. If people were aware of more of his legacy than just the assassination then I suspect there would be less of an accusation of bias.

Stormbringer wrote:I suspect that such a perception might have to do with your treatment of John Kennedy; a lot of people revere him and don't really look at his legacy fairly. So seeing him get ripped into tends to upset their image of him as a golden boy who could do no wrong. If people were aware of more of his legacy than just the assassination then I suspect there would be less of an accusation of bias.

I didn't treat him, I killed him off. Actually, he's only a ghost presence in the stories as written, mention of his unfortunate accident, and him getting trounced by LeMay in a radio debate. Second hand mentions and references only.

I've got one shortish story "sort of" drafted that has him the commander of a river gunboat that gets trapped behind German lines and he has to get his crew out. Thus explaining his back injury.

I have a rather odd question about the USN in the TBOverse.

Did the push from The idea that the Battleship being the centerpeice of the fleet to the Aircraft carrier happen later in TBO? Since there was no attack of Pearl Harbor to show America the power of the aircraft carrier. When did that change in Naval thinking take place?

Instant Sunrise wrote:I have a rather odd question about the USN in the TBOverse. Did the push from The idea that the Battleship being the centerpeice of the fleet to the Aircraft carrier happen later in TBO? Since there was no attack of Pearl Harbor to show America the power of the aircraft carrier. When did that change in Naval thinking take place?

It's not an odd question at all.

The U.S. Navy was shifting from a battleship-centric force to a carrier-based force long before WW2. They'd already hit upon the idea of detaching the carriers from the battle line and operating them as independent task groups and had rehearsed that in the Fleet Problems (naval exercises) during the 1930s. The naval construction mobilization plans (dated 1940 but actually prepared up to a year earlier) put most emphasis on building carriers with battleships quite well down the priority list. All that took place before the PoD or so shortly after it that the plans must have existed before.

So, the U.S. Navy was already carrier-minded before the TBOverse American entry to WW2 in the late fall of 1942. What happened then was that the primary role of the U.S. fleet in the war (after the submarine menace was defeated) was going to be striking against Western Europe - in fact the carriers were pretty much the only way strikes could be carried out against western Europe given the equipment that existed in 1944. So, the carriers took center stage even though they did so in teh context of a different role - land attack rather than anti-ship. Note that in Winter Warriors, the tactics used by the American aircraft are adaptions of the ones they've been using against land targets.

Because of the need for carriers and the fact the war ran on past 1945, all the Essex class carriers have been completed (in OTL four were cancelled) and all six Midway (Gettysburg in TBO) class carriers are completing - with a second batch of six laid down. In contrast, the battleships are in low estate, although all six Iowas were completed, the Montanas were cancelled to clear the slips for CVBs. After all, the battleships simply are not that useful for the "pound on West Europe" role.

Wasn't the USS Arizona used for fire support during the siege of Archangelsk? Were other battleships similarly used?

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Wasn't the USS Arizona used for fire support during the siege of Archangelsk? Were other battleships similarly used?

Yeah she was, but the story also says all the other old BBs are either convoy escorts, being scrapped or in the Pacific. Overall naval gunfire can reach only a few areas of fighting, so the need for multiple battleships would be minimal. Historically the considerable majority of naval gunfire support missions could be accomplished by five and six inch gunfire anyway.

Still, I would dearly love to have a picture from the TBO-verse of the Arizona firing upon Germans in Archangel.

I'd like to mention that I read Changing The Guard and thought it was just awesome.

I loved the characters of Stalin/Beria/Zhukov.

I was on Amazon just now and I saw this review for TBO;

Pat D. Fahey (Oregon, USA) wrote:I greatly enjoyed this book. I've read many alternative histories of WWII and they all envolve changes in events after the US Entry.

Have the Conterfactual event happen at the begginning of the conflict,ie the Halifax Coup of the Churchill government leads to the unlikely outcome of the British being on the opposite from US. This is almost too much of a stretch.

The US performing a massive nuclear bombing of Germany was also unlikely because I can't imagine any US President (Dewey) restraining himself during the time it took to build the bombs.

There were several editing errors in the book and a few technical ones, Implosion bombs use Plutonium not uranium but these didn't lessen my enjoyment.

All in All I think this was a good book, very enjoyable

Presumably this person somehow misremembered 'plutonium isn't usable in practical gun designs' or 'the original US implosion design used plutonium' as 'implosion only works for plutonium'.

There's really only one alternative:

"The Middle One" -- We just nuked 50+ cities, including Berlin (12 devices alone) -- It's the only realistic alternative to The Big One, in that it can actually have a decent chance of forcing a German Surrender. I'd bet there was heavy pressure on Dewey to do this route as casualties mounted and our bomb inventory filled out.

Unto the Tenth Generation - Three

Winter Warriors - Twenty Two

Eye of the Deceiver One

Winter Warriors 24

My copy of TBO arrived today - I hope to read it over the weekend, but I see that in mid-1947 the Eastern front is still a stalemate. Don't the events of Winter Warriors re-align things somewhat - giving the US naval supremacy, and so forth? Doesn't the vast production superiority of Allied forces not provide a basis for advance over the next two years?

Androsphinx wrote:My copy of TBO arrived today - I hope to read it over the weekend, but I see that in mid-1947 the Eastern front is still a stalemate. Don't the events of Winter Warriors re-align things somewhat - giving the US naval supremacy, and so forth? Doesn't the vast production superiority of Allied forces not provide a basis for advance over the next two years?

I'm pretty sure after the High Seas Fleet is destroyed, Germany is able to pour more resources into aircraft and infantry, and is able to equalize the air power disparity over the eastern front.

Of course, I'm not Stuart.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm pretty sure after the High Seas Fleet is destroyed, Germany is able to pour more resources into aircraft and infantry, and is able to equalize the air power disparity over the eastern front.

On that note, is there a 'what if the Germans in the TBOverse had concentrated on building carriers instead of cruisers and battleships' thread somewhere (e.g. Hilter became convinced carriers were a wunderwaffen early on and plan Z featured 20 carriers instead of the BBs, BCs and heavy cruiers)? Even if there is, maybe the question could do with being reexamined in the light of the events in Winter Warriors. If all that German tonnage had been carriers with a destroyer escort the battle would presumably have been less one-sided.

Androsphinx wrote:My copy of TBO arrived today - I hope to read it over the weekend, but I see that in mid-1947 the Eastern front is still a stalemate. Don't the events of Winter Warriors re-align things somewhat - giving the US naval supremacy, and so forth? Doesn't the vast production superiority of Allied forces not provide a basis for advance over the next two years?

Thank you - enjoy.

The problem on the Russian Front is length. Its simply much, much longer than the original German bounce-off line (some six times longer once the front had stabilized along the great bend of the Volga) and there just isn't the manpower to do much more than hold it. To mass enough force at any one point to stage a breakthrough means that other areas of the front would have to be denuded and left vulnerable. So neither side really is able to launch a decisive offensive. Allied production (or rather American production with valuable assists from Russia, Canada and Australia) means that the allies can fight a rich man's war, but they can't overcome the basic lack of bodies to hold that incredibly long front.

This, by the way, is why ideas of using nuclear devices on the German front line are so futile. The front line is just that, a long thin line. Ifa section of it is blown out, the Germans can simply fall back, shorten teh front and the war reverts to stalemate again