Search this Topic:
Jun 6 14 3:34 PM
Jun 6 14 5:50 PM
Jun 9 14 5:15 PM
Aug 6 14 3:51 PM
So, it seems there are two time options:
a) - a major refit after the 1931 collision - subject to available funds at that time,
b) - as a result of operational damage - e.g. Swordfish doesn't make the take-off and crashes off the end of the flight deck.. Depending on the wanted 'back-in-service' date is, either a major refit or flattening out the 'hump' and creating an extension with RSJs with a wooden flight deck for the extra length!!
AS per Admiral Beez comment: perhaps instead of converting the Vindictive back into a Cruiser in 1924 - it follows the Furious conversion - with side superstructure and flat top. Granted, at 9,770 tons it may be a bit small - but 15 - 20 aircraft gives you a early CVL, and a good early Escort Carrier. Moreover with other three ships of the class (Improved Birmingham) being the odds ones out of the Fleet with 7.5" guns, they also are converted over a period.
One of them is sunk by a U-boat 17th Sept 1939, another in the South Atlantic is instrumental in sinking the Graf Spee!
Aug 7 14 2:27 AM
Aug 7 14 3:02 PM
Aug 8 14 2:03 AM
Aug 12 14 7:06 PM
bager1968 wrote:Yes - losing a cruiser-conversion instead of Courageous is a good idea.
Thanks, I thought so - but with Courageous still operational - does it go to Norway, instead of Glorious or are the 'twin' carriers there to meet the 'twin BCs !!?
Aug 13 14 1:48 AM
Aug 13 14 8:02 PM
Aug 14 14 4:07 PM
Aug 15 14 3:16 PM
Aug 15 14 8:31 PM
Aug 19 14 7:10 AM
Aug 19 14 1:39 PM
Aug 19 14 1:41 PM
don4331 wrote:Debating to start a new thread on "scout/fighter" carrier:
As helpful as a/c could be to AMC, North Atlantic just isn't conducive to seaplane operations. And handling of petrol without adequate systems being designed in is asking for accident.
?Elizabethans? I assume you are talking Emeralds, which make very poor choice for conversion due to their internal arrangements: boiler room 1, boiler rooms 2 & 3 side by side (making it hard to duct gases to one side), forward engine room, magazines, boiler room 4 (putting funnel very aft), aft engine room....
Better choice is a Leander (boilers are nicely consolidated on center-line forward; machinery rooms aft). So, when it becomes apparent that Dido class is going to have issues with 5.25" turrets, replace a few of them with Leander hull carriers (good offense - fighters, beats defense - HAA). Yards building Dido class cruisers can, for most part, build Leander classs just as easy; Dido machinery in Leander hull only costs ~1.5kn (you can force machinery a bit to make some of that back, or even better steal Abdiel class machinery and get some more space. )
A pre/early war CL conversion will have 10, may 12 a/c (not USN-ish 20 ). But you can plan and have a/c and crews ready when ships are ready to be commissioned.
I was thinking fighters right from get go - e.g. squadron of Sea Gladiators moving to Sea Hurricanes as soon as possible.
This CVL's job in battle line is to protect the BB/BCs spotter a/c from opponents fighters so they could carry out their job without harassment. (I have no faith in limited number of FAA TSR a/c successfully attacking a raider in less than abysmal weather conditions and a scout/fighter carrier can't operate a/c in those conditions...) Even if the fighters never go beyond visual range of the carrier, they still extend area covered tremendously. And I don't need to slow down raider: Once located, it is only a matter of time until RN can bring sufficient force to bear.
CVL with Hood and PoW would have allowed Admiral Holland to more effectively position his forces (ensuring BS & PE crossed his T) nipping myth of invincibility before it even got started. There are more than a couple Mediterranean convoys where having a dozen modern single seat fighters would have made huge difference to supply. Force Z, of Hood and Pow (Hood not being lost at Denmark Straits), is probably still lost off Singapore, but to cruiser/destroyer launched torpedoes, not from a/c.
Sorry, ChrisPat, it was cavalry coming to support you...no stakes or zippos.
Aug 19 14 1:56 PM
jlyons97 wrote:This is nice to know then, as it is now. As always Chris, you give us insight into hindsight
One source (RN Airpower 1914-1945) tells us deep thinkers in the RN were concerned about carrier warfare (carrier vs. carrier, i.e.) pre-war. This by observation of those who not only took note of and acted upon this concept, took a different tack in carrier design than did the RN.
The carrier vs. carrier idea was a complex one, and we have not considered the characteristics of aircraft necessary (nor did the RN), but having a carrier that played like a turtle when under air attack was not a recipe for success.
Aug 20 14 1:54 AM
Aug 20 14 2:47 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.