Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
This is after a WWI that was worse and saw more US involvement than in IOTL. IOTL US involvement saw enough african americans in the fighting that when they came home, they wanted to be treated better and that contributed to the red summer. In this...

Man, I almost feel bad for the South. They have to be dealing with the mother of all insurgency problems- back during this time, plenty of states in the south were majority african american still, especially in rural areas.

Quick question: will the UASR's military be integrated? Is there a version of the 761st Tank Battalion or the Tuskegee Airmen in this timeline's version of WW2? Does the UASR intervene to help Abyssinia when it gets invaded by italy, given how IOTL African-Americans really supported the Ethiopians and some volunteer soldiers from black communities in America and Europe actually made it to Ethiopia to fight against the Italians.

Further question: Just how fucked is the KKK and Jim Crow laws once the UASR wins? And what happens with decolonization in Africa?
The worker's and farmer's revolutionary military is fully racially integrated and while initially gender segregated up to the second world war; the realities of frontline combat in the eastern front end up bringing even those units together. Ethiopia is supported through arms, credit, and whatever volunteers can make it but the army isn't quite ready for a cross-oceanic war effort on the scale needed to beat Il Duce in one of his primary spheres of influence just yet. But in WW2 they do help with ending Italy's empire in east africa.

Racial integration at all levels of society is a big platform of the WCPA government and the KKK is treated as a terrorist organisation to be destroyed without mercy. Not just through arrests and gun battles but also through infiltration, deplatforming, stripping away their sources of funding, and driving wedges between them so that the KKK and similar organisations tear themselves apart to fight over what scraps of resources are left to them. Like how COINTELPRO OTL destroyed leftist and black power movements except with even greater thoroughness.

It's also the policy of Section 9 of the Secreteriat of Public Safety to destroy and discredit the idea of a singular "white" identity to further break up reactionary movements. After all the KKK can't organise effectively if they're killing other members for having Welsh ancestry or something equally obscene according to the most exclusionary forms of nationalism possible. Jim Crow is already less alive than OTL by this point if memory serves but the sentiment behind it is going to be actively combatted in a way the OTL US never would have committed to.

As for decolonisation; it's going to be a wild ride and Africa is definitely not going to be quiet TTL and major world influencing powers will arise there.
 
Last edited:
This is after a WWI that was worse and saw more US involvement than in IOTL. IOTL US involvement saw enough african americans in the fighting that when they came home, they wanted to be treated better and that contributed to the red summer. In this...

Man, I almost feel bad for the South. They have to be dealing with the mother of all insurgency problems- back during this time, plenty of states in the south were majority african american still, especially in rural areas.

Quick question: will the UASR's military be integrated? Is there a version of the 761st Tank Battalion or the Tuskegee Airmen in this timeline's version of WW2? Does the UASR intervene to help Abyssinia when it gets invaded by italy, given how IOTL African-Americans really supported the Ethiopians and some volunteer soldiers from black communities in America and Europe actually made it to Ethiopia to fight against the Italians.

Further question: Just how fucked is the KKK and Jim Crow laws once the UASR wins? And what happens with decolonization in Africa?
The US Army was de facto integrated during the Great War. As covered in the 1917 update, the Army could not accept the logistical strain of segregated units during high intensity combat operations, so began a policy of reinforcing units with whatever troops were available, and raising new units in an integrated fashion (something that was starting to occur Post-Normandy in WW2). The desegregation of the Army overseas becomes de jure in 1921, when President Wood signs a law ending legal segregation in federal employment, including the military.

Jim Crow in the South was already on its last legs by the beginning of the revolution. What's left of it is going to die screaming.
 
Coming soon: All about the primary show within a show this timeline will have to offer.
 
So, does this universe's version of Sci-fi still have to deal with all the racist bullshit that our universe's version of sci-fi supports and is surrounded by.
Depends on who's making it.

Franco-British Scifi is rather...yikes in its fondness for colonialism as you'd expect from a society that derives its power from its domination of western Europe and large stretches of the global south.

American SciFi sees Black Americans break into it much sooner than OTL as part of a renaissance of Black Culture spurred on by the local government of the New African Socialist Republic (probably not the exact name; the internal divisions of the Union of American Socialist Republics to come aren't quite set in stone) as well as by individuals; challenging the nascent colonial ideology of SciFi in its growing years.

The All Union government is also eager to boost works made by racial minorities and women in what is essentially propaganda to show the world of its egalitarianism; but this becomes self sustaining in the future once that propaganda becomes a normalised mindset. Especially by the time the first post-revolutionary generation grows up and starts to push the changes in culture even harder.

The "show within a show" I'll be touching on regularly throughout the timeline is in large part; a result of those policies due to its creators being two jewish people (one of them a woman) and a black muslim.
 
Last edited:
Depends on who's making it.

Franco-British Scifi is rather...yikes in its fondness for colonialism as you'd expect from a society that derives its power from its domination of western Europe and large stretches of the global south.

American SciFi sees Black Americans break into it much sooner than OTL as part of a renaissance of Black Culture spurred on by the local government of the New African Socialist Republic (probably not the exact name; the internal divisions of the Union of American Socialist Republics to come aren't quite set in stone) as well as by individuals; challenging the nascent colonial ideology of SciFi in its growing years.

The All Union government is also eager to boost works made by racial minorities and women in what is essentially propaganda to show the world of its egalitarianism; but this becomes self sustaining in the future once that propaganda becomes a normalised mindset. Especially by the time the first post-revolutionary generation grows up and starts to push the changes in culture even harder.

The "show within a show" I'll be touching on regularly throughout the timeline is in large part; a result of those policies due to its creators being two jewish people (one of them a woman) and a black muslim.

I banged out a socialist (well, more socialist) version of Star Trek for a GSRPG a few years ago; if @Aelita gives me the thumbs up I'd be happy to use it as a base for something produced in the Reds! universe.
 
We have ready been working on something, but we would be more than happy to compare notes. Do you have Discord?

I don't, but would be more than happy to exchange PM's (not just for Star Trek, but basically anything related to pop culture).
 
Ahhh, Star Trek, that's always a fun one to take a step back and massage the... America out of.

To Boldly Go... is pretty much us going, "What if? But Better tho?"
 
Oh neat.

And of course, you're obviously not bound by a general feeling that you should keep something of canon while reinterpreting it to make more sense and just tossing out the worst stuff. You can just start fresh.

Presuming it's still initiated by Roddenberry though.... is there still going to be a lot of "Oh Gene no"?
 
Oh neat.

And of course, you're obviously not bound by a general feeling that you should keep something of canon while reinterpreting it to make more sense and just tossing out the worst stuff. You can just start fresh.

Presuming it's still initiated by Roddenberry though.... is there still going to be a lot of "Oh Gene no"?
Gene is still Gene, both the good and the bad.
 
I am reminded that Gene was extremely proud of the Omega Glory and even personally submitted it for a consideration for an Emmy Award, it was also one of several scripts for the pilot and had it made over NBC's objections and if he had he his way it would have been apart of it for the first season of the original series.

He also by the next generation told the writers to write drama without all the little bits that make drama, drama because in his views 24th century man apparently should make Vulcans like emotional basket cases in comparison.
 
Presuming it's still initiated by Roddenberry though.... is there still going to be a lot of "Oh Gene no"?
In the future of Reds!, a lot of his more... avante-garde ideas (complete state secularism, post-scarcity economics) are practically mainstream. I just hope someone talks him out of making Jim Kirk wear the "skant"...
 
In the future of Reds!, a lot of his more... avante-garde ideas (complete state secularism, post-scarcity economics) are practically mainstream. I just hope someone talks him out of making Jim Kirk wear the "skant"...

That's not the sort of "Oh Gene No" I'm talking about > : V
 
Gene, helped by Robert Heinlein and Dallas "Mack" Reynolds
Heh. Okay, never mind Trek: I want to know what this timeline's answer to Starship Troopers looks like, because if that's the only book of his you've ever read then you get a very skewed idea of his politics in OTL. (Source: Got a massive bollocking off my dad for reading "fascist propaganda" -his words- when I picked up a copy because I was too young to get the film from Blockbusters.)
 
1960's is already late enough for the Strugatskys to be a thing in Russia. Also I can't remember the name of the guy who wrote Self-Discovery and never read anything else by him...I think he is Ukranian. The story is set in Ukraine anyway. But Self-Discovery is pretty good SF and to think it was written in 1967 in the OTL Soviet Union is pretty wild! Not just written there but published with regime approval I mean! There are plain if sidelong references to gulags and acerbic remarks about the established authorities never being the right people to handle something new with vast potential, two things I would not have guessed any Soviet editor would allow in sanctioned print.

So it seems as the canon has evolved through several iterations the idea of a three way Cold War, with the Soviets being pretty hostile to the American half of the Comintern, looks to be backed off from successively. Indeed if American influence works on the Soviet people I see no reason they would not insist on emulating many aspects of the UASR system at least to the point there is no deep policy split between the two Communist powerhouse regimes; the sort of backwardness Russia suffered from OTL in technology and productivity would not be nearly as much of a problem with a more effective system for combining Communist goals with due-process political liberalism and the sort of mindset that enables UASR production, particularly agricultural, to rival or surpass OTL capitalist potentials. Mind, obviously people of the Stalinist mindset would be upset at their privileged applecart being upset and being held accountable in any court but the one they control. But even in the older iterations where the Cold War (within the Comintern; with FBU it obviously would be a thing) was said to be a major thing, the main thing I figured that would motivate Russians to deny themselves the plain benefits of UASR approaches would be wounded nationalist pride. Now it was not crazy implausible to me that this could dominate and poison intra-bloc relations, but it seemed both petty and sad.

I've ventured the opinion more than once here that I'd anticipate a remaining split of sorts, in the form of Russians being more puritanical and making much of heroic sacrifice and toughing things out with half-baked resources. Fundamentally the US territory the UASR liberates is pretty lush and rich in resources after all; Soviet territory contains a lot of mineral wealth but embedded in forbidding terrain, climatically speaking, with far less development of infrastructure to reach it all; Siberia is just not prime family farm territory to be densely settled as a basis for the dense transport network and regional infrastructure the majority of US territory is. I live out in the mountain/Great Basin West where a lot of that is lacking of course!

Anyway the reasonable way I see it working, given that apparently Stalin falls down some stairs in the middle of the Great Patriotic War, is that good relations between the really large numbers of American troops operating on Soviet eastern fronts and more or less deeply committed Bolsheviks at the grass roots level serve as catalysts and solvents for the Soviets adopting aspects of UASR approaches to things like agriculture and industrial shop floor organization that dissolve the centralized command structures into proper bureaucracies facilitating and coordinating genuinely worker-controlled enterprises and the more liberal political structure, with people having rights and so forth, is possible and realized to an extent, and the outcome is both higher Soviet productivity with lower waste, a better morale despite some resentment of rich Yanks coming across sometimes as know-it-alls versus the sad heroism of the Soviet revolutionary process, and with it a basically cordial relationship across the Arctic between the two Red superpowers that involves considerable UASR sharing of investment and transfer of technology; I suppose the relationship might be arms-length and strained enough that each bit of investment and tech transfer is a bit stinted, a matter of separate policy debate each time, but the tendency is for the Americans to assist the Russians, at least until the two are on a rough pairity in terms of tech level per capita. The quarreling is largely a matter of mutual cultural one-upmanship, the stereotypical Soviet citizen making much of their probity and strictness and their superior deep souls; the Americans exaggerating their already wild libertinism and laid-back Wild West anarchy. It is sort of a teasing running joke between them but with bits of deeper seriousness about the gap. It is like a marriage where the two partners are nattering at each other all the time but fundamentally depend on each other and have each other's back when the chips are down, and no one can quite figure out in traditional pre-revolutionary terms, who the man is and who the wife is. Sometimes Russian puritanism turns into no joke, with this or that person being in serious trouble in their community, but some (not all--real asses and real counterrevolutionaries are not really welcome anywhere in the greater bloc) of that steam gets blown off in the form of these people emigrating to the UASR, and there is also a small scattered Yankee and Latino set of expats in Russia, some there to assist in some project who just kind of settled in, others there because they like the Russian attitude better.

All of this fanfictiony speculation subject to skewering or contradiction by the authors was prompted by my wondering how Star Trek ATL might benefit from a bit of cross pollination by the Soviet authors. Certainly the ATL Chekov expy character should be a major hitter in terms of regular role on the show. In fact in UASR and larger bloc fiction in general series shows like this should be more ensemble than OTL American TV norms (of the 1960s anyway) allowed; relative to OTL TOS episodes, the "stars" Kirk and Spock should be a bit more embedded down in background and the major hitter cast--McCoy (who was right on the cusp of top billing OTL), Scotty, Uhura, Sulu and Chekov, along with other types like Christine Chapel, should all stand forth more in their own right.

When we think about stuff Roddenberry did at least halfway right, or tried to, a lot of it is not even necessary in the ATL. First interracial kiss on American TV? Been there and done that way back in the movies of the 1930s I'd think. Woman XO? Apparently a woman will be playing the Kirk role, ho hum!

I'm thinking the show might wind up spending that kind of edgy energy more on the intrabloc relations, with alternating clashes and reconcilations of the "Yank" type characters versus "Soviet" and perhaps via a somewhat expanded cast even work in allegories of the entire major Cold War division being patched over by having some FBU type characters who are 90 percent Communized but still show markers of a distinct cultural heritage, again as with the Soviet/Yankee split showing both strengths and weaknesses from this. Like say the Yankee type characters are suckers for Ferengi/Orion trader tricks despite their advanced economic theory, but the FBU heritage folks are onto such schemes, having had their own revolutionary transition more recently and involving even more tolerance and compromise with the old mindsets being somewhat tolerably perpetuated in their own zones. "You don't play a player." The FBU aligned Terrans (and analogous aliens) clash with the Redder group (and given American exceptionalism which I suppose is largely diluted but remains a real streak of American mentality, the Yanks think they are Reddest, with the Soviets dissenting and showing them up, and a bit of unfortunate hierarchal attitude of Yank mentality believing itself privileged over the other two, Soviets being in a middle place and FBU people being defensive because actually they are a bit underestimated and slightly mistreated) know a thing or two about chicanery and double dealing the "more evolved" Redder Federation types are suckers for and the show dynamic highlights this, with some subtlety and skill, much like the relationship between Sisko and Garick in DS9. Sometimes the FBU types show up as shockingly correct.

Roddenberry being Roddenberry is a bit ominous and I have to hope, for the sake of a solid overall show, he gets used to being sat on a lot. His drama about no drama in particular would strangle the show getting off the ground, and poison a "next generation" spinoff if by then he is either not reformed a bit or anyway prevented from having it all his way.

Anyway having a tradition within the show of also including both Soviet contributors and even some more ambivalent contributions from FBU mentality would be really cool.
 
US Navy Fleet Strength, Ship Specs
U.S. Navy Fleet Strength
Capital Ships
  • Nevada-class battleships
    • USS Nevada (BB-36)†
    • USS Oklahoma (BB-37)†
  • Pennsylvania-class battleships
    • USS Pennsylvania (BB-38)†
    • USS Arizona (BB-39)
  • New Mexico-class battleships
    • USS New Mexico (BB-40)†
    • USS Mississippi (BB-41)
    • USS Idaho (BB-42)
  • Tennessee-class battleships
    • USS Tennessee (BB-43)
    • USS California (BB-44)
  • Colorado-class battleships
    • USS Colorado (BB-45)
    • USS Maryland (BB-46)
    • USS Washington (BB-47)
    • USS West Virginia (BB-48)†
  • South Dakota-class battleships
    • USS South Dakota (BB-49)
    • USS Indiana (BB-50)
    • USS North Carolina (BB-54)
    • USS Iowa (BB-55)
    • USS Oregon (BB-56)
  • Lexington-class battlecruisers
    • USS Lexington (CC-1)
    • USS Constellation (CC-2)
    • USS Saratoga (CC-3)
    • USS Yorktown (CC-4)†
    • USS Constitution (CC-5)
  • United States-class battlecruisers
    • USS United States (CC-9)‡
    • USS Antietam (CC-11)‡
    • USS Constellation (CC-13)‡
† denotes ships placed in reduced commission for either treaty compliance or budgetary reasons.
‡ denotes ships under construction

Total: 17 active, 6 reserve, 3 under construction

Carriers
  • Langley-class
    • USS Langley (CV-1)†
  • Kitty Hawk-class
    • USS Kitty Hawk (CV-2)
    • USS Ranger (CV-3)
  • Gettysburg-class
    • USS Gettysburg (CV-4)‡
    • USS Shiloh (CV-5)‡
Total: 2 active, 1 reserve, 2 under construction

Other Ships:

Cruisers: 18 active, 6 reserve
Destroyers: 80 active, 27 reserve
Submarines: 55 active, 2 reserve
Mine warfare:
27 active
Auxiliary: 71 active



Specifications

Name: Lexington-class
Operators: US Navy
Preceded by: None
Succeeded by: United States-class
Built: 1916-1923
In service: 1919-1946
Planned: 8
Completed: 5

Type: Battlecruiser
Displacement: 42,450 tonnes (standard)
48,700 tonnes (full load)
Length: 270 meters (886 ft)
Beam: 32.1 meters (105 ft)
Draft (full load): 10.8 meters (35 ft 5 in)
Installed power: 132,120 kW (180,000 shp)
Propulsion: Turbo-electric, four shafts, 16 boilers
Speed: 60 km/h (32 knots)
Range: 22,000 km at 19 km/hr
Complement: 1600
Armament: 4 x 2 - 16-inch/45 caliber Mark 1
8 x 2 - 6-inch/53 caliber Mark 12 guns
6 x 1 – 57mm/60 caliber Mark 8 AA guns
2 x 1 – 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes
Armor: Belt: 127 - 305 mm (5 - 12 in)
Barbette: 127 - 305 mm (5-12 in)
Conning tower: 76 mm (3 in)
Turret: 280 - 381 mm (11 - 15.1 in)
Deck: 76-105 mm (3 - 4 in)
Bulkheads: 152 mm (6 in)
Ships
Lexington (CC-1)
Constellation (CC-2)
Saratoga (CC-3)
Yorktown (CC-4)
Constitution (CC-5)
United States (CC-6) (12 percent complete, scrapped)
Ranger (CC-7) (17 percent complete, scrapped)
Enterprise (CC-8) (cancelled before keel-laying)

With the entry of the United States into the Great War, the General Board was confronted with the problem of German commerce raiders, of which existing cruisers were inadequate to counter. The possibility of a German battlecruiser breaking out into the North Atlantic to disrupt supply convoys gripped the imagination of the public, the United States Congress and the Admiralty alike.

Conceptual work on battlecruisers had been done since the concept first debuted with HMS Invincible, but the General Board had hitherto shown no serious interest in procurement. The new reality of American military involvement on the Continent jumpstarted major development of an American battlecruiser beginning in October 1914.

With funding to produce a battlecruiser second to none provided by the US Congress, the Lexington-class would be one of the largest capital ships hitherto conceived. Mounting eight 16-inch Mark 1 guns like her cousins the Colorado-class, and capable of 34 knots on 180,000 SHP, Lexington would be able to outgun anything she could not outrun, and outrun anything she could not outfight.

She and her sister ships were laid down a month before the Battle of Jutland as accelerated war builds. Unfortunately, like the Admiral-class she paralleled, she was practically obsolete. New information streaming in forced repeated modifications to the ships in construction, including the addition of thicker belt and turret armor. Three were fitting out, and another two nearing completion when the Armistice was signed, slowing down the pace of their commissioning.

Following sea trials and the cutting of the US Navy's construction budget, the last three ships United States (CC-6), Ranger (CC-7) and Enterprise (CC-8) were selected for scrapping in mid 1919.

The Lexington-class can be be best compared to the Admiral-class of the British Royal Navy. Both ships were designed for speed but forced to give expensive compromises to defense when the realities of naval strategy refuted much of the doctrine behind the battlecruiser. Like all battlecruisers, she would be too large and expensive to be attached to the scouting wings of the fleet like a proper cruiser, and yet also have serious weaknesses standing in a protracted engagement with other capital ships.

The long, fine hull of the Lexington enabled efficient cruising and very high top speeds, especially compared to her contemporaries. But the additional weight in mid-construction refit gave the ship a much lower than desired freeboard and compromised seakeeping in rough seas.

The choice of a turbo-electric drive improved maneuverability, allowing her four screws to be utilized to assist her rudders. The surplus electrical power provided by the arrangement allowed the inclusion of amenities like air conditioning and refrigeration, highly important to crew morale on extended voyages.

Nonetheless, the Lexington had a number of strengths over her British counterpart. In keeping with American naval architecture philosophy, she concentrated all armor around vital systems (engineering, magazines, armament, command and control) in an armored raft that had sufficient reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat even if the ends were totally flooded.

Her main belt, 12-inch thick face-hardened Class A armor, was inclined outward ten degrees to enhance horizontal protection. While inadequate against her own guns, it did provide an adequate protection zone against the 14-inch class guns that were the most common in extant world navies.

Underwater protection was insufficient. The rapidity of her construction outpaced important research on protecting capital ships against torpedoes. Her very minimal torpedo bulges gave little more protection against underwater explosions than normal cruisers. Several refit proposals were studied in the 1920s to improve this protection, but rejected due to budgetary constraints

In terms of armament, like most of her contemporaries her primary armament was quite sufficient, but secondary armament was quite lacking. The eight 16-inch Mark 1 guns were mounted in four twin turrets in a two fore, two aft arrangement. The turret mountings, drives and shell hoists were identical to those of the Colorado-class battleships that were laid down contemporary with her. The turret armor was reduced in thickness to save weight.

As designed, the 16-inch Mark 1 could fire a 2,100 lb armor piercing projectile at 2,600 ft/s. With a maximum elevation of 30 degrees, this translated to a maximum range of just over 34,000 yards. With the limits of sighting and her mechanical gun directors, doctrine initially focused on engagements at half this range.

The secondary armament was more disappointing. Unlike the rest of the US Navy battle line, the Lexington mounted a new type of 6-inch gun in her secondary mounts. The heavier shells were expected to extend engagement ranges and improve lethality against enemy destroyers, but the trade-off with rate of fire would prove too costly.

The Lexington-class would also be one of the first in the US Navy to be commissioned with dedicated anti-aircraft guns, six navalized variants of the US Army's 57mm M1918 quick-firing guns, with timed airbursting fuzed shells.

Name: South Dakota-class
Operators: US Navy
Preceded by: Colorado-class
Succeeded by: Monitor-class
Built: 1918-1923
In commission: 1921-1946
Planned: 8
Completed: 5
Cancelled: 3

Type: Battleship
Displacement: 43,200 tonnes (standard)
48,900 tonnes (full load)
Length: 208 meters (682 ft)
Beam: 32 meters (105 ft)
Draft: 11 meters (36 ft)
Installed power: 45,000 kW (61,000 shp)
Propulsion: Turbo-electric drive, four shafts, two turbogenerators, 12 boilers
Speed: 43 km/h (23 kts)
Range: 15,000 km at 19 km/hr
Armament: 4 x 3 - 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 2 guns
8 x 2 – 6-inch/53 caliber Mark 13 guns
4 x 3 - 3-inch/50 caliber Mark 17 dual purpose guns
8 x 1 – 57mm/60 caliber Mark 8 AA guns
Armor: Belt: 356 mm (14 in) on 19 mm (¾ in) STS, inclined at 15 degrees
Barbette: 114-356 mm (4.5 - 14 in)
Conning tower: 406 mm (16 in)
Turret: 305 - 457 mm (12 - 18 in)
Deck: 127 - 178 mm (5 - 7 in)
Bulkheads: 356 mm (14 in)
Ships
South Dakota (BB-49)
Indiana (BB-50)
Montana (BB-51) (12 percent complete, scrapped)
Massachusetts (BB-52) (cancelled)
New York (BB-53) (cancelled)
North Carolina (BB-54)
Iowa (BB-55)
Oregon (BB-56)

The South Dakota-class were an evolution of the "Standard-type" battleships that formed the core of the American line-of-battle during the Great War. The Standard-type, thirteen ships spread across five classes, reflected a naval philosophy emphasising a homogenous line-of-battle composed of ships with nearly identical maneuvering capabilities.

Based on research conducted during the rapid naval buildup before the Great War, naval architects and planners developed a coherent doctrine concerning naval forces. The Standard-type doctrine emphasised, in order of importance: protection, firepower and maneuver. While other battleships in this era adopted various banded armor schemes, with different levels of protection in different areas of the ship, the Standards adopted a schema of "all-or-nothing" protection. All vital ship systems, such as machinery, magazines, weapons or command-and-control, would be concentrated in a single protected zone. This zone would have a uniform level of armor protection at expected combat ranges, preventing the possibility of the exploitation of weak points.

This protected zone would also be an armored raft with enough reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat should the rest become totally flooded. Thus, even if totally immobilised, so long as the armored citadel remained intact the ship could fight.

The previous battleship class, the Colorado, had traded out twelve 14-inch guns for eight 16-inch guns in response to British and German 15-inch guns entering production, but in other respects remained true to the Standard-type.

The South Dakota was envisioned as the lead of a new Standard-type that would eventually replace the old line. Consequently she was a third more massive than the Colorado. The major increase in displacement enabled the mounting of twelve 16-inch/50 caliber Mark 2 guns in four triple turrets. The heavier Mark 2 had improved muzzle velocity as well as a maximum inclination of 45 degrees to exploit over-the-horizon plunging fire guided by radio and spotter plane.

The increase in armament came with a major increase in protection. The main belt was thickened to 14-inches. Protection was further improved by the adoption of a fifteen degree outward incline to increase horizontal protection. The face-hardened belt was backed by a ¾ in structural member made from Special Treatment Steel. This new and expensive high tensile steel alloy had identical ballistic characteristics to Navy Class B armor.

Based on the experienced gleaned from the Battle of Jutland, vertical protection was nearly doubled, to seven inches at the thickest. While this was developed as an answer to increasing practical gunnery ranges and the resulting danger of plunging shell fire, it would also improve resistance against aerial armor piercing bombs.

The biggest difference from the previous ships was the adoption of a comprehensive underwater protection system developed after Great War cooperation with the Royal Navy. The torpedo belt consisted of a honeycomb pattern with an outer air space and inner buoyancy space, filled either with water or oil, terminating at a 2-inch thick steel bulkhead. The system was tested as proof against a 750 pound torpedo warhead.

The South Dakota also improved aerial protection with the addition of twelve 3-inch dual purpose guns as well as 57 mm anti-aircraft guns. While considered more than adequate when the ships were ordered in the summer of 1918, they became quickly obsolete as aircraft technology advanced.

Eight ships were initially ordered, matching the accelerated build table of eight Lexington-class battlecruisers. But with the close of the Great War and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, funding was put in jeopardy. New fiscal realities as well as negotiations for a comprehensive naval arms treaty suspended construction on three of ships. Ultimately, only the five furthest along in construction would be completed.

Name: Kitty Hawk-class
Operators: US Navy
Preceded by: USS Langley (CV-1)
Succeeded by: Gettysburg-class
Built: 1923-1930
In commission: 1926-1943
Planned: 2
Completed: 2

Type: Aviation cruiser
Displacement: 15,000 tonnes (standard)
18,220 tonnes (full load)
Length: 222.1 meters (waterline)
234.4 meters (overall)
Beam: 24.4meters (waterline)
33.4 meters (overall)
Draft: 6.8 meters
Installed power: 40,000 kW (55,000 shp)
Propulsion: two shafts, two geared steam turbines, six boilers
Speed: 54 km/h (29 kts)
Range: 19,000 km at 28 km/hr
Armament: 8 x 1 – 125 mm/40 caliber Mark 18 guns
8 x 1 – 57mm/60 caliber Mark 8 AA guns
12 x 2 – 12.7 x 99 mm M1921 machine guns
Armor: Belt: 51 mm
Conning tower: 100 mm
Deck: 25 mm (3rd deck)
Bulkheads: 51 mm
Aircraft: 75
Aviation facilities: 2 catapults
3 aircraft elevators
Ships
Kitty Hawk (CV-2)
Ranger (CV-3)

Following the success of the converted collier Langley, the US Navy secured funding for a purpose built aviation cruiser. The new ship would be built on a cruiser style hull of approximately the same displacement as the Langley, but envisioned as a complement to the fast cruiser wings of the fleet.

CV-2 was not envisioned as a capital ship, but rather as an integral part of the scouting wing that would support the battle line of heavy dreadnoughts in a fleet engagement, both by denying access to enemy scout planes as well as tracking enemy fleets. Design iterations emphasized speed over protection, envisioning her planes acting as over the horizon spotters for long range battleship gunnery.

Kitty Hawk would be laid down in the Fall of 1923. Initially conceived as a flush deck carrier like her predecessor, she would displace just over 18,000 tonnes at full load, significantly heavier than her original drafts. With two shafts and a modest 54,000 horsepower geared steam turbine propulsion, she would manage just over 29 knots in her sea trials.

Initial testing resulted in a number of innovations in command and control, but she failed to perform to the Navy's expectations. Her sister ship, Ranger, would be modified with an island structure during fitting out based on the recommendations to the General Board, a refit which Kitty Hawk would soon gain.

Both ships participated in a number of Fleet Problems in the early 30s. With the Navy hemorrhaging money, and construction on the United States battlecruisers now occurring in fits and starts, the relative success of the new aviation cruisers, combined with British and Japanese developments would ultimately secure the conversion of two of the battlecruisers as a "cost-saving" measure.
 
Ah, America naming ships the Enterprise since 1775 with 8 naval ships named and another on the way along with 5 non naval ships, a civil war observation balloon, two spacecraft and a propposd spacecraft and a entire naval training facility.

I think the only people who have had named more ships with that name is the british navy with nineteen ships though only 15 were commissioned warships.
 
Back
Top