War Service Fuel Consumption of U.S. Naval Surface Vessels

[Scout26]

From WWII.

A logisticians nightmare, especially the myriads of Battleships.  22 in 16 different "Classes", as some were in the same class, but had different machinery.

Anyway, interesting trivia and goes to show how sometimes Congress, with it's budgeting process usually makes things harder on the military at times.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/index.html

[French G.]

I have read that early in the Pacific campaign the battleships were kept on a short leash, or just hanging out at Pearl because at the end of the thousands mile long supply chain there was zero chance of keeping them fueled. Reduced our carrier effectiveness too because the task group commanders were reluctant to get too far from their areas to refuel.

I spent my last bit of active time on one of the last big boiler ships in the Navy. 40K gallons a day if we wanted to go fast. Still here because the 400 or so gallons that sprayed all over the boiler front did not ignite.

[Mannlicher]

so that's what led to global warming?   :)

Golly we used a lot of fuel then.

[MillCreek]

That was a really interesting read, and it brought home to me the importance of logistics and underway replenishment for a successful blue-water navy.  On that same point, I read an article yesterday how China is sending vessels to the Baltic Sea for exercises with Russia.  This is part of China building up blue-water experience, and they plan to have a 550 ship Navy within the next 20 years.

[French G.]

That was a really interesting read, and it brought home to me the importance of logistics and underway replenishment for a successful blue-water navy.  On that same point, I read an article yesterday how China is sending vessels to the Baltic Sea for exercises with Russia.  This is part of China building up blue-water experience, and they plan to have a 550 ship Navy within the next 20 years.

If we had any sense as a country we would all buy Raytheon stock and make lots more Harpoons. Oh look, targets. They have a long way to go to get a true blue water fleet.

One of the nicer things about a CVN is that they have an incredibly huge JP-5 capacity. In addition to keeping the planes fueled they can also top off their gas turbine powered escorts if getting somewhere faster than an oiler will go is required.

[K Frame]

One of the primary reasons why the BBs were kept on a short leash early in the war is most of them were unavailable due to damage at Pearl Harbor, and the ones that were sea worthy were mostly older ones that weren't ready for the challenges of modern naval warfare, nor could they keep up with the carriers.

The US went to the battles of Coral Sea and Midway without battleships for that reason.

The most modern US battleships, North Carolina was kept in the Atlantic at the start of the war to counter the threat from Tirpitz.

USS Washington didn't transit into the Pacific until later in 1942. Both participated in the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Solomons campaigns. Even so, these BBs still couldn't keep up with the fleet carriers then in service.

The next class of battleships to come on line were the four South Dakotas (Indiana, Alabama, and Massachusetts), none of which were ready for fleet duty until late 1942.

If you could keep the carriers fueled, you could keep the battleships fueled, and for the most part, the US was able to do that.

[French G.]

One or the other, not both BB and CV. One of the selling points of the Washington was that ship's of her type were less fuel hungry than the old wagons.

[K Frame]

"One or the other, not both BB and CV."

Then how do you explain combined carrier battleship operations off Guadalcanal and in the Eastern Solomons in late 1942? When battleships became available, about August 1942, they went with the carriers -- to Guadalcanal and to the Solomons, neither of which is particularly close to any fueling base. Yet the Navy operated both battleships and carriers in those operations.

None of the Pacific fleet battleships at Pearl Harbor were repaired in time to accompany the fleet before, IIRC, late 1942. The few battleships that were available after being hastily repaired at Puget Sound (Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Maryland) were held back and, during the battle of Midway, formed the core of the West Coast defense fleet.

They weren't held out of the Midway operation because the Navy couldn't fuel them. They were held back because they weren't fast enough to keep up with the carriers and cruisers and thus would have been a liability AND they were the only capital ships that were available to form a defensive barrier to a West Coast invasion in case Midway was just a feint. Remember, while Nimitz believed that the target of the Japanese operation was Midway alone, CNO Ernest King didn't agree and almost overruled Nimitz's plan to send carriers to defend Midway.

So yes, the Navy was more than capable of keeping both carriers and battleships at sea at the same time in the same operations and keeping them fueled.

Here's an interesting list of US Navy oilers during WW II. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-ao.html

At the start of the war, the Navy had roughly 30 oilers, the bulk of which were quickly shifted to the Pacific to support operations there. These, and the ships that came after, formed the backbone of the "Fleet Train" that made establishment of such forward bases like Ulithi possible. https://www.cfla-alfc.org/stories/2017/2/23/the-us-navy-fleet-train-in-ww2


Oh, and something else that I didn't know...

In November 1942 USS Maryland and USS Colorado formed the core of a battle group sent to the Fiji Islands area as a guard against Japanese incursions, and remained operational there for almost a year before they were rotated back.

For supposedly being kept on a short leash because of fuel concerns, that's a lot of operational time by those battleships, new and old, that were available in the Pacific.

[K Frame]

And what discussion of World War II Naval operations would be complete without this picture?

It's just staggering to consider that for part of 1942 the US had two fleet carriers available to cover the entire Pacific.

By the time this picture was taken in late 1944, the US had over 20 fleet carriers (CVs and CVLs) at its disposal. There's the capacity for nearly 500 aircraft in that picture (including the CVL to the left).

[RevDisk]

Meh. If we ever get rail gun tech working, I'd be fine with un-mothballing a battleship, slapping a nuclear reactor or two in the sucker, and sending it back out.

Needed? Na. Useful? Maybe, but not really. One could argue the same for the number of carrier groups we currently are running.

[RevDisk]

What I found interesting on my recent Wiki wonder was just how lopsided the war was.

Shouldn't start a war with America when you're dependent on slave labor.

Hell, carrier scene still hasn't changed much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier#Supercarriers_in_service

We currently field only supercarriers, 11 of them in active service. This doesn't count our ten amphibious assault ships, which are practically carriers on par with the flag ships of most other countries.

[Scout26]

What I found interesting on my recent Wiki wonder was just how lopsided the war was.

US Ships:
Type    Number in Service   Number Sunk
CV                 24                        5
CVL                9                         1
CVE               48^#                        6^#

BB                  24                       2^!
CB                    2^@                      0

CA                  35                       7
CL                   79                      3

DD                  278^#                   77^#
DE                  377 ^#                   12 ^#                                


Japanese:
Type             Number in Service                   Sunk
CV                           11                                 10
CVL                          9                                    5^%
CVE                         10                                   9

BB                           8                                     5
BC^$                          4                                     0

CA                          18                                    16^{^}
CL                          26                                     23

DD                         169                                   138^%
DE                          0                                       0














! - Both losses occurred during the Pearl Harbor attack. Arizona and Oklahoma.  Oklahoma was righted and refloated, but foundered and sank as it was being towed to the US West Coast for further repairs.

@-The Navy insisted that the 2 Alaska Class were "Large Cruisers", which they were. But the more closely fitted the description of "Battle Cruisers".

#- Some of these ship fought and sank in the Atlantic theather.  But I wasn't digging that deep.   I did see something that 19 of the DD's were sunk by the Germans, but I have no way to confirm that.   Only one CVE lost in the Atlantic.

$- The four Kongo class Battlecruisers were reconstructed before the war into BB's.

%- Four of the Japanese CVL's were used as training ships but tied up in home waters for lack of fuel and planes.   14 of the 31 surviving Japanese DD's were pre-WWI ships used for training.

^- The two surviving CA'S were both damaged and unable to return to Japan for repairs and Japan was unable to get the needed materials to Singapore to repair them. Both were surrendered to the British after the war and sunk.  Myoko was scuttled and Takao was used as target ship.

[K Frame]

Meh. If we ever get rail gun tech working, I'd be fine with un-mothballing a battleship, slapping a nuclear reactor or two in the sucker, and sending it back out.

Needed? Na. Useful? Maybe, but not really. One could argue the same for the number of carrier groups we currently are running.

I don't believe that the Navy has any mothballed battleships.

And I suspect that it would be FAR cheaper to build a new ship from scratch than try to adapt a battleship.

[K Frame]

"What I found interesting on my recent Wiki wonder was just how lopsided the war was."

You think that's a lopsided figure?

Try reading the economic and production figures on this page: www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

The one that really strikes me?

In the first 4 and a half months of 1943, the United States launched more merchant shipping tonnage than the Japanese did in their SEVEN years of war (1939-1945).

[RevDisk]

I don't believe that the Navy has any mothballed battleships.

And I suspect that it would be FAR cheaper to build a new ship from scratch than try to adapt a battleship.

I would agree, except for government procurement inflation that magically turns a $25-50 million dollar helicopter into a $500 million dollar helicopter. So, yes, in theory it'd be far cheaper to build from scratch. But by the power of the government, it would take two decades, cost ten times as much, and deliver a fraction of the existing functionality. But there would comply with five thousand government regulations.

Iowa and Wisconsin. They're museum ships now, but National Defense Authorization Act 2006 ordered they be kept and maintained in a state of readiness where they could returned to active duty. New Jersey would take some work, but it's in surprisingly good shape. They run pretty much everything off internal systems. They didn't let me in the main gun turrets or engine room, but the secondaries, CIWS, and cruise missile launchers look good.

I'm not remotely saying it's needed, a good idea or operationally efficient. Neither are the Zumwalt-class destroyers, which cost $4.4 billion a pop and are virtually worthless. The Littoral Combat Ships are generally not shown much promise either, at $704 million first ship cost, and allegedly $360 million per afterwards. The Ford-Class carriers are unsurprisingly going over cost and underperforming for the price tag. If we're going to have expensive, not exceptionally useful ships, we might as well have awesome ones.

[French G.]

Eh, if you're going to do gunboat diplomacy bring more than a 5/64. Beirut noticed when Ronnie parked one of those things off the coast. At least half the world's population would be in range I imagine.

[RevDisk]

Eh, if you're going to do gunboat diplomacy bring more than a 5/64. Beirut noticed when Ronnie parked one of those things off the coast. At least half the world's population would be in range I imagine.

"Dear God, see what happens when you mothball your battleships? Next thing you know, every tin-penny wog monarch on the planet feels free to imprison Americans for not kissing royal arse." - Tam K

Again. Not remotely saying it is a smart or practical idea. But if we HAVE to waste money on below performance ships, which apparently we do, why not get nifty ships instead of embarrassing ones? Nuclear battleships would make the admirals feel suitably impressive, I'm sure there'd be plenty of graft for the contractors, politicians from the same name states could have photo ops. It's even possible by accident that they might be useful. That's not likely to happen with the current next-gen Navy ships. Meanwhile CVN's, AEGIS cruisers and Burke destroyers can show the flag to the wogs while our subs actually do the job of protecting the US.