Drake's Drum

[lordroel]

So looking at the OTHER APPENDICES, Orders of Battle on DRAKE'S DRUM website i notice that there is a German Carrier active, ore it was until it sunk, that means construction of here had to begin earlier than it had in OTL to get here ready for active serice in 1940.

[stevep]

Jun 22, 2019 15:47:33 GMT lordroel said:

So looking at the OTHER APPENDICES, Orders of Battle on DRAKE'S DRUM website i notice that there is a German Carrier active, ore it was until it sunk, that means construction of here had to begin earlier than it had in OTL to get here ready for active serice in 1940.

  Yes the Graz Zeppelin was pretty effective sinking a modern French BB and Cruiser IIRC but lost out to I think it was HMS Courageous?  Guessing this would prompt more interest in carriers and naval air in all the powers.  Doubly so if the FAA, with more CV available manage a markedly bigger Taranto attack. [Licks lips at the idea. ]

[lordroel]

Jun 22, 2019 16:01:25 GMT stevep said:

Jun 22, 2019 15:47:33 GMT lordroel said:

So looking at the OTHER APPENDICES, Orders of Battle on DRAKE'S DRUM website i notice that there is a German Carrier active, ore it was until it sunk, that means construction of here had to begin earlier than it had in OTL to get here ready for active serice in 1940.

  Yes the Graz Zeppelin was pretty effective sinking a modern French BB and Cruiser IIRC but lost out to I think it was HMS Courageous?  Guessing this would prompt more interest in carriers and naval air in all the powers.  Doubly so if the FAA, with more CV available manage a markedly bigger Taranto attack. [Licks lips at the idea. ]

But the Graf Zeppelin would if we use this OTL date carried 42 aircraft as designed: 12 navalized Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive bombers, 10 Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters, and 20 Fieseler Fi 167 torpedo bombers, those would be more modern i guess than what HMS Courageous carried which was the Blackburn Skua, Gloster Sea Gladiator fighters and the Swordfish torpedo bombers.

[stevep]

Jun 22, 2019 16:48:28 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 22, 2019 16:01:25 GMT stevep said:

  Yes the Graz Zeppelin was pretty effective sinking a modern French BB and Cruiser IIRC but lost out to I think it was HMS Courageous?  Guessing this would prompt more interest in carriers and naval air in all the powers.  Doubly so if the FAA, with more CV available manage a markedly bigger Taranto attack. [Licks lips at the idea. ]

But the Graf Zeppelin would if we use this OTL date carried 42 aircraft as designed: 12 navalized Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive bombers, 10 Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters, and 20 Fieseler Fi 167 torpedo bombers, those would be more modern i guess than what HMS Courageous carried which was the Blackburn Skua, Gloster Sea Gladiator fighters and the Swordfish torpedo bombers.

  That would assume that the British a/c are unchanged in TTL, which might not be the case.  Britain has possibly a couple of Hood class converts into larger CVs, plus probably Coruageous and Glorious and quite possibly something like the OTL Ark Royal so more carrying capacity.  Plus with more influence for the navy they might get the FAA returned earlier which would enable them to develop  better a/c.

  Also Britain would still have more experience than the Germans, which is important in a complex field like carrier aviation so might get to use them better.  The Germans were probably lucky to do as much damage as they did being newcomers to the allied force.  Another factor might be even if the FAA a/c are no better than OTL they could have got a strike in on the GZ while the latter was busy attacking the French surface units.

[lordroel]

Jun 22, 2019 19:06:29 GMT stevep said:

Jun 22, 2019 16:48:28 GMT lordroel said:

But the Graf Zeppelin would if we use this OTL date carried 42 aircraft as designed: 12 navalized Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive bombers, 10 Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters, and 20 Fieseler Fi 167 torpedo bombers, those would be more modern i guess than what HMS Courageous carried which was the Blackburn Skua, Gloster Sea Gladiator fighters and the Swordfish torpedo bombers.

  That would assume that the British a/c are unchanged in TTL, which might not be the case.  Britain has possibly a couple of Hood class converts into larger CVs, plus probably Coruageous and Glorious and quite possibly something like the OTL Ark Royal so more carrying capacity.  Plus with more influence for the navy they might get the FAA returned earlier which would enable them to develop  better a/c.

  Also Britain would still have more experience than the Germans, which is important in a complex field like carrier aviation so might get to use them better.  The Germans were probably lucky to do as much damage as they did being newcomers to the allied force.  Another factor might be even if the FAA a/c are no better than OTL they could have got a strike in on the GZ while the latter was busy attacking the French surface units.

That is true, but would you consider loosing a carrier versus 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer a good trade off.

[stevep]

Jun 22, 2019 19:27:53 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 22, 2019 19:06:29 GMT stevep said:

  That would assume that the British a/c are unchanged in TTL, which might not be the case.  Britain has possibly a couple of Hood class converts into larger CVs, plus probably Coruageous and Glorious and quite possibly something like the OTL Ark Royal so more carrying capacity.  Plus with more influence for the navy they might get the FAA returned earlier which would enable them to develop  better a/c.

  Also Britain would still have more experience than the Germans, which is important in a complex field like carrier aviation so might get to use them better.  The Germans were probably lucky to do as much damage as they did being newcomers to the allied force.  Another factor might be even if the FAA a/c are no better than OTL they could have got a strike in on the GZ while the latter was busy attacking the French surface units.

That is true, but would you consider loosing a carrier versus 1 battleship, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer a good trade off.

  Its bloody expensive but depends on the details.  Possibly, if this is part of a Norway campaign where the Germans are winning as OTL land based air might have played a part.  Or the allies got careless or some other foul up occurred.  One factor I would assume is that GZ is probably the only CV the Germans have and then they no doubt lost most of their carrier experienced people with it so that could hurt them more proportionally than the heavier [in tonnage] losses that the allies suffered.  Also there might have been other Axis forces involved in the battle that were also lost or at least damaged.  In the longer term as well with a stronger RN surface fleet its probably better to lose the BB than a CV.  Plus to be totally ruthless those losses were overwhelmingly French and since France still falls while a tragedy to those who died and their kin its a minimal one to the longer term allied war effort overall as a result.  Unless more of the French fleet ends up joining the FF in TTL.

[nicksumner]

More warships from the world of Drake's Drum. These are Photoshopped images of the Amagi class battle cruisers, Atago and Takao. The top image shows Atago shortly after completion, the lower one after her re-construction in the early 1940s. www.drakesdrum.co.uk

[lordroel]

Jun 25, 2019 13:39:44 GMT nicksumner said:

More warships from the world of Drake's Drum. These are Photoshopped images of the Amagi class battle cruisers, Atago and Takao. The top image shows Atago shortly after completion, the lower one after her re-construction in the early 1940s. www.drakesdrum.co.uk

So two where build as battle cruisers, does that mean that Akagi was also completed as aircraft carrier like OTL.

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2019 13:43:14 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 25, 2019 13:39:44 GMT nicksumner said:

More warships from the world of Drake's Drum. These are Photoshopped images of the Amagi class battle cruisers, Atago and Takao. The top image shows Atago shortly after completion, the lower one after her re-construction in the early 1940s. www.drakesdrum.co.uk

So two where build as battle cruisers, does that mean that Akagi was also completed as aircraft carrier like OTL.

  There were 4 planned anyway so two might be so adopted.  OTL Japan and the UK were allowed to construct two large carriers, above the restrictions in the WNT, which IIRC was ~23kton displacement, to counter the Saratoga and Lexington, which the US were developing from a couple of their cancelled Lexington class BCs.  As it was Britain didn't take up the option.  Japan did but the 1923 earthquake did a lot of damage including trashing one of the two Amagi class hulls so the 2nd of the large Japanese CVs was converted from one of the cancelled BBs.  As such while a couple of the larger BCs hulls would be better given their greater size and the commonality you would have between the two it could be that all 4 hulls with be committed, i.e. 2BCs and 2CV so if any get destroyed by the earthquake the Japanese might have to go for a BB hull instead as OTL.

[nicksumner]

Stevep, that's pretty much what's happened in Drake's Drum. In real life, if you were going to build 2 Amagis as BCs, it might have made more sense to convert hulls that weren't as far along as Amagi and Akagi. But this is fiction so I'm trying to keep confusion to a minimum by (mostly) going with OTL names for ships that are the same as in OTL. Does that make sense?

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2019 15:32:55 GMT nicksumner said:

Stevep, that's pretty much what's happened in Drake's Drum. In real life, if you were going to build 2 Amagis as BCs, it might have made more sense to convert hulls that weren't as far along as Amagi and Akagi. But this is fiction so I'm trying to keep confusion to a minimum by (mostly) going with OTL names for ships that are the same as in OTL. Does that make sense?

  That makes sense and I assume that none of the class have been lost to the quake so both BCs and both large CVs are based on Amagi hulls?  They haven't had to substitute the Kaga BB hull as OTL?

[nicksumner]

No, the Kanto earthquake has taken place as in OTL so the carriers are Akagi and Kaga but due to curtailment of the submarine program (in the world of Drake's Drum submarines do not enjoy the perception of effectiveness they do in OTL and the capital ship is still viewed very much as the final arbiter of sea power) the Japanese have both sufficient money and treaty licence to complete Tosa, Atago and Takao as capital ships.

[stevep]

Jun 26, 2019 11:48:25 GMT nicksumner said:

No, the Kanto earthquake has taken place as in OTL so the carriers are Akagi and Kaga but due to curtailment of the submarine program (in the world of Drake's Drum submarines do not enjoy the perception of effectiveness they do in OTL and the capital ship is still viewed very much as the final arbiter of sea power) the Japanese have both sufficient money and treaty licence to complete Tosa, Atago and Takao as capital ships.

  Nick

  OK thanks for clarifying.  So they have the two CV converts of OTL plus 3 large 40kton plus modern ships [1BB and 2BC] as well as presumably Nagato and Mutsu?  That a sizeable increase on OTL but presumably both the USN and RN are larger as well.  Only aware of the 2 modified BCs design for the RN but presumably they have some treaty class BBs, equivalents of the Nelson's to match the US Washintons and the IJN Nagatoes. 

  Steve

[nicksumner]

"The design of the Caracciolo class battleships went through several phases and was even changed after the ship was laid down. The Italian Admiralty were unhappy with the placing of the mainmast in the early design, citing the problem of smoke interference from the forefunnel. The decision to move the conning tower and mainmast forward caused a rearrangement of the forward turrets. As well as this, ‘A’ turret was judged to be too near the end of the ship in a position where the movement of the hull in a lively sea would affect gunnery adversely. Also, the height of the turret rear (due to the height of the forecastle) meant that end on fire forward with B turret at 0 degrees elevation was impossible. When ‘A’ turret was moved aft it had little effect on internal arrangements but a two feet reduction in the height of A barbette was acheived because it was further back on the sloping focsle. A small increase in the height of ‘B’ barbette was also made. The photographs show the ship as she was in the late 1920s and after her reconstruction in 1944." www.drakesdrum.co.uk

[nicksumner]

The USN and RN's ultimate heavy cruiser designs. They were never built in our timeline, but in Drake's Drum they will sail the seas. Top: USS Rochester, based on the CA-B design of 1941 (One of the Alaska preliminaries). Below: HMS Warrior, based on Design III of the series of RN heavy cruiser designs of March 1941.