stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Feb 24, 2020 12:40:10 GMT
I recall it being mentioned a number of times, either on the BB board and/or the BC one, i.e. the BB v BB board or Bob Henneman's old site. There was a desire for some fast and large carriers and also some concern about the suitability of the Lexington's because of their thin armour. Possibly also a factor might be with the programme on drip feed from Congress some in the USN might have thought they would never get all six funded and possibly asking for a couple as CV converts might get some use out of the hulls. Possibly its a misreading of what you mentioned to Markp, i.e. (based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down)
It could be one of those things where there's been a misunderstanding and the result gets passed around or even that I've misunderstood when someone's mentioned what you said above.
I would agree that I can't see a carrier strike against Pearl in such a TL, at least not in Dec 41 unless there's a dramatic acceleration of carriers and their a/c to make up for the fact their some way behind. Although if a/c are somewhat more backwards might this delay the development of radar as they seem less of a threat. As you say things developed very rapidly in the late 30's and then further during the conflict itself.
One of the big problems as I understand it was that all the FAA people were automatically transferred to the new RAF. Which meant that the RN lose virtually all their expertise in terms of carrier a/c as well as local import as to what made a good carrier and their key advocates for naval air. At least other than as a scout and aid for longer ranged gunnery. I remember in one of my old books an a/c the RN introduced - checking it was built just before WWII but never put into production - which had an 8 hour endurance but a top speed of only 46 knots, designed as a long ranged fleet scout/shadower but would have been hopeless vulnerable to any air defence the enemy fleet had including a lot of AA fire. Also since those people were now in the RAF their career development depended on fitting in and aligning with the standard RAF doctrines, which would make naval air a somewhat unpopular backwater with little opportunity for advancement.
Steve
Now i thinking how a G3 would look like as a carrier.
Would depend on what stage the conversion is decided at. If you can take a bare hull and redesign it so that it doesn't need the armour of the G3 that would be a considerably different ship that one with G3's belt armour, let along with its deck armour as well as a lot of weight would be taken up with those while if the deck armour's in place it would restrict hanger space and ability to locate lifts for instance. Much better to redesign from scratch.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 24, 2020 12:47:22 GMT
Now i thinking how a G3 would look like as a carrier. Would depend on what stage the conversion is decided at. If you can take a bare hull and redesign it so that it doesn't need the armour of the G3 that would be a considerably different ship that one with G3's belt armour, let along with its deck armour as well as a lot of weight would be taken up with those while if the deck armour's in place it would restrict hanger space and ability to locate lifts for instance. Much better to redesign from scratch. Would it look like Courageous and Glorious. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 24, 2020 14:25:04 GMT
I recall it being mentioned a number of times, either on the BB board and/or the BC one, i.e. the BB v BB board or Bob Henneman's old site. There was a desire for some fast and large carriers and also some concern about the suitability of the Lexington's because of their thin armour. Possibly also a factor might be with the programme on drip feed from Congress some in the USN might have thought they would never get all six funded and possibly asking for a couple as CV converts might get some use out of the hulls. Possibly its a misreading of what you mentioned to Markp, i.e.
(based on the hull of one of the early battlecruiser concepts, not the 43,000 ton ships laid down)
It could be one of those things where there's been a misunderstanding and the result gets passed around or even that I've misunderstood when someone's mentioned what you said above.
I would agree that I can't see a carrier strike against Pearl in such a TL, at least not in Dec 41 unless there's a dramatic acceleration of carriers and their a/c to make up for the fact their some way behind. Although if a/c are somewhat more backwards might this delay the development of radar as they seem less of a threat. As you say things developed very rapidly in the late 30's and then further during the conflict itself.
One of the big problems as I understand it was that all the FAA people were automatically transferred to the new RAF. Which meant that the RN lose virtually all their expertise in terms of carrier a/c as well as local import as to what made a good carrier and their key advocates for naval air. At least other than as a scout and aid for longer ranged gunnery. I remember in one of my old books an a/c the RN introduced - checking it was built just before WWII but never put into production - which had an 8 hour endurance but a top speed of only 46 knots, designed as a long ranged fleet scout/shadower but would have been hopeless vulnerable to any air defence the enemy fleet had including a lot of AA fire. Also since those people were now in the RAF their career development depended on fitting in and aligning with the standard RAF doctrines, which would make naval air a somewhat unpopular backwater with little opportunity for advancement.
Steve
Steve, When Goodall visited the US, he brought the plans for Hermes. The Bureau of Construction & Repair, having seen them, wanted a bigger carrier. At the time, pre-treaty, Friedman makes clear the bigger carriers were to be in addition to the Lexington BCs. I agree on Pearl Harbor. The USN's Fleet Problems showed just how vulnerable carriers were in the pre-radar era. They were operated singly, as they were likely to be taken out by enemy air strikes, and in a number of Fleet Problems, carriers found themselves under battleship guns. It's only with the onset of war and the increased operational tempo that USN carriers start to operate together, and even then it wasn't immediate. Agree, the RAF wedded to the manned bomber and controlling 'everything that flies' (sound familiar?) handicaps the sea service. Brown recounts in one of his books that it was an RAF officer that killed the RN development of a tachymetric AA firecontrol system in an RN meeting on the topic. He said level bombers were going to be the real threat.... Regards, |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 24, 2020 14:26:17 GMT
Would it look like Courageous and Glorious. With Eagle's superstructure. Two funnels to clear all that exhaust gas from those high-powered boilers....  Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 24, 2020 14:33:57 GMT
Would it look like Courageous and Glorious. With Eagle's superstructure. Two funnels to clear all that exhaust gas from those high-powered boilers.... Regards, Would a G3 type of carrier be bigger ore smaller Courageous. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Feb 24, 2020 14:42:17 GMT
With Eagle's superstructure. Two funnels to clear all that exhaust gas from those high-powered boilers.... Regards, Would a G3 type of carrier be bigger ore smaller Courageous.
Much much bigger. The Couragous class were about 20ktons in their initial design as "larger light cruisers" while the G3's were about 49ktons. True the latter has a hell of a lot of armour which would hopefully not be present in a CV version.
Couragous Length: 786 ft 9 in (239.8 m)
Beam: 81 ft (24.7 m)
G3
Length: 856 ft (260.9 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m)
So considerably bigger in space as well.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 24, 2020 14:46:41 GMT
Would a G3 type of carrier be bigger ore smaller Courageous. Much much bigger. The Couragous class were about 20ktons in their initial design as "larger light cruisers" while the G3's were about 49ktons. True the latter has a hell of a lot of armour which would hopefully not be present in a CV version.
Couragous Length: 786 ft 9 in (239.8 m)
Beam: 81 ft (24.7 m)
G3
Length: 856 ft (260.9 m)
Beam: 106 ft (32.3 m)
So considerably bigger in space as well. Steve
So what would be needed for the RN to get 2 Invincible- class (G3) carriers under the Washington Naval Treaty. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 24, 2020 15:27:08 GMT
Would a G3 type of carrier be bigger ore smaller Courageous. I have to agree with Steve. Much bigger. Probably two flying off decks like the Courageous and Furious early in their lives when biplane are predominant. So what would be needed for the RN to get 2 Invincible- class (G3) carriers under the Washington Naval Treaty. In my opinion, first we have to have no return of Fisher. Or his 'large light cruisers' get blocked so none are available for conversion. Argus and Eagle still get converted, and Hermes is still laid down. Second, we need the G3s to be further along. As I recall the RN contracted and nominally 'laid down' the four ships knowing they were going to be traded away at Washington. Finally, I think we need the Royal Naval Air Service to NOT be consolidated into the RAF. It would me a more attractive conversion if air power still resided within the RN. With the US and Japan converting two large hulls into carriers, the RN might want the same option, even with Eagle proceeding. My thoughts, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 24, 2020 21:30:15 GMT
Have read something interesting, when the Washington Naval treaty was signed on February 6th 1922, work stopped on Washington two days later with the ship 75.9 percent complete. The Navy stalled on her scrapping, however, and by the fall of 1924 she was the only warship slated for destruction under the treaty’s terms still in existence. When the Navy announced that she would be sunk as a target at the end of November 1924, a civilian clerk working for the Navy, William Baldwin Shearer, filed suit to stop the destruction.
Shearer argued that the ship had cost $35 million, and represented not only a significant investment of tax money but a vital asset to national defense. If she could not be completed as a battleship, she should instead be converted into an aircraft carrier. He obtained a temporary restraining order, but the Justice Department intervened to fight the suit while the Navy towed the hull into the Atlantic off the Virginia Capes. As soon as the court order was rescinded, demolition charges shattered the hull, and a few days later gunfire finished her off.
So how would a Washington look like as a carrier.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Feb 25, 2020 12:18:56 GMT
Have read something interesting, when the Washington Naval treaty was signed on February 6th 1922, work stopped on Washington two days later with the ship 75.9 percent complete. The Navy stalled on her scrapping, however, and by the fall of 1924 she was the only warship slated for destruction under the treaty’s terms still in existence. When the Navy announced that she would be sunk as a target at the end of November 1924, a civilian clerk working for the Navy, William Baldwin Shearer, filed suit to stop the destruction. Shearer argued that the ship had cost $35 million, and represented not only a significant investment of tax money but a vital asset to national defense. If she could not be completed as a battleship, she should instead be converted into an aircraft carrier. He obtained a temporary restraining order, but the Justice Department intervened to fight the suit while the Navy towed the hull into the Atlantic off the Virginia Capes. As soon as the court order was rescinded, demolition charges shattered the hull, and a few days later gunfire finished her off. So how would a Washington look like as a carrier.
Washington would have been less successful than a Lexington. Its smaller and much slower, the latter being important for a/c taking off although being less important with the smaller a/c of the 20's but would be more important as the size of such a/c increase. Also being so near completion it would have a lot of its armour and other infrastructure in place, much of which would need to be removed or be a burden rather than an asset. For instance that's a lot of weight that would be redundant for a CV while the deck armour and convention bridge structure and funnel for instance would need to be removed to allow a clear deck space.
The USN made the correct choice in selecting the two Lexington hulls, even if they had to breach/bend the rules to get them.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 25, 2020 12:25:34 GMT
Have read something interesting, when the Washington Naval treaty was signed on February 6th 1922, work stopped on Washington two days later with the ship 75.9 percent complete. The Navy stalled on her scrapping, however, and by the fall of 1924 she was the only warship slated for destruction under the treaty’s terms still in existence. When the Navy announced that she would be sunk as a target at the end of November 1924, a civilian clerk working for the Navy, William Baldwin Shearer, filed suit to stop the destruction. Shearer argued that the ship had cost $35 million, and represented not only a significant investment of tax money but a vital asset to national defense. If she could not be completed as a battleship, she should instead be converted into an aircraft carrier. He obtained a temporary restraining order, but the Justice Department intervened to fight the suit while the Navy towed the hull into the Atlantic off the Virginia Capes. As soon as the court order was rescinded, demolition charges shattered the hull, and a few days later gunfire finished her off. So how would a Washington look like as a carrier. Washington would have been less successful than a Lexington. Its smaller and much slower, the latter being important for a/c taking off although being less important with the smaller a/c of the 20's but would be more important as the size of such a/c increase. Also being so near completion it would have a lot of its armour and other infrastructure in place, much of which would need to be removed or be a burden rather than an asset. For instance that's a lot of weight that would be redundant for a CV while the deck armour and convention bridge structure and funnel for instance would need to be removed to allow a clear deck space. The USN made the correct choice in selecting the two Lexington hulls, even if they had to breach/bend the rules to get them.
But then again you never know what politicians will do, there could be some politicians from the State of Washington who argue that as the Washington was almost complete and that it also could be renamed the George Washington, it should be completed as a carrier. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Feb 25, 2020 12:29:00 GMT
Would a G3 type of carrier be bigger ore smaller Courageous. I have to agree with Steve. Much bigger. Probably two flying off decks like the Courageous and Furious early in their lives when biplane are predominant. So what would be needed for the RN to get 2 Invincible- class (G3) carriers under the Washington Naval Treaty. In my opinion, first we have to have no return of Fisher. Or his 'large light cruisers' get blocked so none are available for conversion. Argus and Eagle still get converted, and Hermes is still laid down. Second, we need the G3s to be further along. As I recall the RN contracted and nominally 'laid down' the four ships knowing they were going to be traded away at Washington. Finally, I think we need the Royal Naval Air Service to NOT be consolidated into the RAF. It would me a more attractive conversion if air power still resided within the RN. With the US and Japan converting two large hulls into carriers, the RN might want the same option, even with Eagle proceeding. My thoughts,
I like the idea of no follies. Possibly Dogger Bank goes differently, exposing some of the shortcoming of the RN BCs - yes I do have a TL with that happening - prompts a call for better protected ships. Also possibly post war Eagle AKA Almirante Cochrane was completed to its original design and returned to Chile along with its sister Canada/Almirante Latorre so its not converted. [Like with the Wasington although Eagle is even smaller it was a poor choice].
Definitely like the idea of the RNAS not being absorbed by the RAF  but that would need an earlier and significant POD. However even without that, if Eagle and the three follies weren't available and if the USN and the IJN were both producing very large carriers I could see the RN arguing for a couple of the G3 hulls to be converted into comparable CVs for them and possibly winning the argument. Given how early they were in the production they would hopefully be better than either the US or Japanese versions. It would also be a more efficient use of tonnage - albeit only having two large CV [and as you say probably Hermes] instead of 4 larger ones, and that might mean some Ark Royal version could be ordered in the late 20's perhaps.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 25, 2020 13:07:14 GMT
I like the idea of no follies. Possibly Dogger Bank goes differently, exposing some of the shortcoming of the RN BCs - yes I do have a TL with that happening - prompts a call for better protected ships. Also possibly post war Eagle AKA Almirante Cochrane was completed to its original design and returned to Chile along with its sister Canada/Almirante Latorre so its not converted. [Like with the Wasington although Eagle is even smaller it was a poor choice]. If we have BC actions at Heligoland Bight and during the Scarborough Raid, there could be some BC losses. Lion could well have been lost at Dogger Bank. Even more telling of battlecruisers would be a hit on Lion at Dogger Bank like that which Francis Harvey won the (posthumous) VC for. If Lion explodes, what does that say about Courageous, Glorious and Furious? That's a distinct possibility of no HMS Eagle. The name India had been allocated to Admiral Cochrane, she could very well be completed as a battleship. Not to drag us off-topic, but what does Chile having two 14in armed battleships do to the South American balance of power? Would Brazil and Argentina be tempted to procure additional, more powerful battleships? I don't think it would be much of an argument. The US and Japan were both converting a couple of large capital ships to carriers, I doubt they would have a problem with the RN doing the same. My thoughts, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Feb 26, 2020 16:49:08 GMT
I like the idea of no follies. Possibly Dogger Bank goes differently, exposing some of the shortcoming of the RN BCs - yes I do have a TL with that happening - prompts a call for better protected ships. Also possibly post war Eagle AKA Almirante Cochrane was completed to its original design and returned to Chile along with its sister Canada/Almirante Latorre so its not converted. [Like with the Wasington although Eagle is even smaller it was a poor choice]. If we have BC actions at Heligoland Bight and during the Scarborough Raid, there could be some BC losses. Lion could well have been lost at Dogger Bank. Even more telling of battlecruisers would be a hit on Lion at Dogger Bank like that which Francis Harvey won the (posthumous) VC for. If Lion explodes, what does that say about Courageous, Glorious and Furious? That's a distinct possibility of no HMS Eagle. The name India had been allocated to Admiral Cochrane, she could very well be completed as a battleship. Not to drag us off-topic, but what does Chile having two 14in armed battleships do to the South American balance of power? Would Brazil and Argentina be tempted to procure additional, more powerful battleships? I don't think it would be much of an argument. The US and Japan were both converting a couple of large capital ships to carriers, I doubt they would have a problem with the RN doing the same. My thoughts,
Definitely agree. I was thinking of Dogger Bank with Lion avoiding the OTL hit so the battle continues and it goes boom plus followed by say an I class a bit later and a narrowly missed 3rd boom by something like an Harvey incident. Those losses not only call both the follies and the recently ordered Renown and Repulse into question but with Beatty dead it both gives more incentive for an investigation [since he's become a national hero] and means he's not around to cover his arse about ammo handling and the like. However something could happen earlier during the Scarborough Raid.
Was thinking there is a serious rethink and the Renown's, possibly more of them eventually emerge as proper fast battleships, using small tube boilers, and other lessons learnt to be a slightly slower but better protected Hood, possibly with more changes to the design after an ATL Jutland which goes somewhat better for the RN. Those new Renown's don't see service during WWI but would affect negotiations for any naval treaty.
I'm a bit surprised at the idea that an HMS Eagle which was completed as a BB being called India as we already had a BB called Emperor of India, one of the very recent Iron Duke class. Would have thought there might be too much danger of confusion with two similar names. When I've toyed with the idea I've normally called it HMS South Africa, as the only dominion that didn't have a capital ship named after it. However could be a reason for giving it the name India.
Suspect if Chile had two ships it would prompt some response from their rivals, although didn't both have two ships on order/under construction/completed? Brazil from the UK and Argentina from the US. Plus after WWI ended I'm not sure any of the southern cone powers had the combination of will and cash for new ships.
There was a lot of political opposition to just about any spending so it might be delayed but could see a couple of the G3 hulls, if they weren't built being used in such a way and that could both give a better use of tonnage and useful experience in handling markedly large air groups, which is something that the RN OTL lacked.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,031
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 28, 2020 14:58:04 GMT
Would smaller powers like the Netherlands, Brazil,Argentina and so on also try to build more ships than they did OTL if there is no naval treaty, ore is that only for the Big Powers.
|
|
but that would need an earlier and significant POD. However even without that, if Eagle and the three follies weren't available and if the USN and the IJN were both producing very large carriers I could see the RN arguing for a couple of the G3 hulls to be converted into comparable CVs for them and possibly winning the argument. Given how early they were in the production they would hopefully be better than either the US or Japanese versions. It would also be a more efficient use of tonnage - albeit only having two large CV [and as you say probably Hermes] instead of 4 larger ones, and that might mean some Ark Royal version could be ordered in the late 20's perhaps.