Glorious, Courageous, and Furious: Canceled

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Admiral Beez		#21	[-]
Posts: 4497 (25-Apr-2008 16:40:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'd like to think that such big Admiral-class carriers would be designed with very large bunker fuel and avgas capacity to allow the ships to operate in the deeper regions of the Empire. With long endurance and a capability to embark Beaufort torpedo bombers along with hopefully the development of a good, long range fighter, the Admirals would rule the seas.
Zen9		#22	[-]
Posts: 3471 (25-Apr-2008 23:48:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You said the other Hood class had been laid down, is that correct? As for the rest that depends bunkerage would be small compared with the 1952 effort but likely large compared with Ark Royal I suspect. What was the range of the Hood class again? I would imagine they'd be built with an open hanger though considering the weather they might actualy be closable off from inside to keep the worst of the weather out. Where next is the key question once new CVs are on the cards? BTW one option I've not considered is that the UK agrees to the US 80,000ton proposal and completed just two Hood types as 40,000ton carriers. Question, could a Beaufort bomber operate from a carrier? A long range fighter would open up a very vexed question, twin or single engine? But it could produce the idea of a standing CAP during periodes of high danger to the fleet, though they really need radar to make it work. This could change the RN perspective on the usefulness of the Armoured Carrier concept. On the other hand these Hood type CVs might be victims in similar fashion to the Axis powers as the real world CVs.
PMN1		#23	[-]
Posts: 3485 (26-Apr-2008 00:00:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You said the other Hood class had been laid down, is that correct? Well, Whitley says they were laid down.. Anson 9th November 1916 Howe 16th October 1916 But all suspended 9th March 1918. I would imagine they'd be built with an open hanger though considering the weather they might actualy be closable off from inside to keep the worst of the weather out. I cant see them being any diffent to an enlarged Glorious/Courageous BTW one option I've not considered is that the UK agrees to the US 80,000ton proposal and completed just two Hood types as 40,000ton carriers. Since it has more than two fleets that will need carriers...... Last Edited By: PMN1 26-Apr-2008 00:03:05. Edited 1 times.
Zen9		#24	[-]
Posts: 3475 (26-Apr-2008 00:52:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If the UK goes for all four is that assured they will all become carriers? After all Hood was continued with as a big gun warship, which would leave the RN with just three hulls, combined to 120,000tons. Planning is definately 5 CVs. Decades later I note the Davenport limited carrier studies tend to 35,000tons standard load, and are much shorter than the Hood, though wider. Could we see Study Y types being produced rather than an lengthened or new drydock? After all at this time length is less an issue, even the Ark Royal of the 1930s could have been made narrower and longer, but they did'nt go that route. So they might view these conversions of the Hood type as overlarge aberations, and focus on more compact designs.
Admiral Beez		#25	[-]
Posts: 4498 (26-Apr-2008 04:47:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zen9 wrote: Question, could a Beaufort bomber operate from a carrier? It shouldn't be impossible. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufort the Beaufort has a loaded weight of 21,230 lb (9,629 kg), with 2 x Bristol Taurus 14-cylinder radial engines 1,130 hp each, and a wingspan of 57 ft 10 in, and length of 44 ft 2 in. This compares reasonably well with the later single-engined (but what a great engine!) Grumman TBF Avenger, which had a loaded weight of 17,893 lb (8,115 kg), and with a length of 40 ft 11.5 in and wingspan of 54 ft 2 in. Of course, if the Sea Hornet and Grumman Tigercat could operate from large CVs, then some sort of twin-engine torpedo strike aircraft should be feasible for 1939'ish.
NewGolconda		#26	[-]
Posts: 3303 (26-Apr-2008 05:22:05) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This is all on the wrong track. Courageous and Glorious were good interwar carriers with 1930's types. Furious to a lesser extent. They gave the RN good experience with operating fast carriers with fairly large airgroups, sometimes operating together in groups! Any 1920's conversion of a WWI battle cruiser is going to be unsatisfactory in several respects. The interwar opportunity for the RN was that they were entitled to treat Argus/Hermes/Eagle/Furious as experimental types and replace them with purpose built ships. In reality they delayed and dithered over the first new carrier so long that Ark Royal was not ordered till 1934, and the armored fleet carriers (2) in 1937. The RN could have built 3-4 new carriers before the armored fleet carriers and entered the war with at least five modern ships in 1939, four under construction and two planned. The reason they did not was the tenuous financial situation, and some problems in organisation and doctrine. Once you build the ships you then need airgroups, reserve airgroups, aircraft and pilots and a large scale training programme. Through much of the early and mid 1930's, operational naval aircraft were roughly in the 220-240 machine range, including cruiser float planes and including reconnaissance dedicated aircraft on the carriers where the USN was filling that role with land based sea planes. A powerful 300+ operational aircraft FAA in the early 1930's is almost a must for a large offensive RN carrier force in 1940-42. Building it will face serious impediments from financial, doctrinal, interservice rivalry and political reasons. Prime Ministers in the 1930's were convinced that future wars would be fought and won by bombers over a period of weeks or months. Disarmament was a political necessity before 1936. The spectre of a 1930's military air treaty like Washington was very real and the RAF could argue wasting 250 machines of their 1000 or 1250 machine quota would hopelessly cripple Great Britain against a European air force without provision for naval types. Interestingly, the carrier air arms that expanded in the 1930's, Japan and the US did not face a realistic bomber threat.
NewGolconda		#27	[-]
Posts: 3304 (26-Apr-2008 05:31:04) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Beaufort was a marginal machine. The Taurus version had almost no chance of maintaining height with one engine shut down, unless the plane was brand new. Even the Twin Wasp version could only just climb one one engine brand new. The botha was worse. In effect it was a single engined bomber with twice the chance of failure. Strengthening for accelerated take offs and arrested landings will add pounds to a machine with little more than a 2500lb offensive payload, then there is a wingfold. Then add in the problems experienced with maintaining early Taurus engines and you then have appalling servicability to the list. It was late and protracted in development. It was certainly better than nothing as a land based machine for coastal reconaisance and torpedo attack. It is still highly vulnerable to enemy fighters and particularly so in the torpedo run.
Joshua Kintner		#28	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 407 (26-Apr-2008 09:58:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As alternatives to the Glorious class and Furious, how would full length coversions of the four Hawkins class cruisers come out, if they have been cancelled as cruisers and re-ordered as carriers in 1915-16?
StewartG		#29	[-]
Posts: 496 (26-Apr-2008 10:22:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The problem with this question is that it really boils down to "how different would everything have been if everything had been different"? The answer is "as different as you want them to be."
No1catman		#30	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 45 (26-Apr-2008 12:49:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Personally I think it a shame that HMS Tiger as a Battlecruiser was scrapped - but then you have odd gun calibre of 13.5 in. (can't remember what the Japanese did with the Kongo re. gunsize). However, rather than scrap it, couldn't it have been gutted and converted to an aircraft carier? Granted, there would be problems on the 'finance'; but it might have been cheaper than starting from scratch. And it was shorter than the Glorious Class 704 ft., against 786 ft., yet wider 90.5 ft., against 81ft. Though rather than do away with the Glorious class conversions, I think it more plausible to keep them plus a Tiger carrier and if anything is to be scrapped it's the Eagle - slow and poor capacity.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Glorious, Courageous, and Furious: Canceled

Quick Reply