1924, Royal Navy given control over aviation, with coastal strike focus.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

They learned their lesson?

 
I don't know how much stuff was interrelated. The British got their first high temperature alloys from the US (GE?) so depending on the state of the art on the GE turbosuperchargers, their materials supplier/s, and the US governments attitude to exporting the materials technology in 1938-1940?????
aerodynamics was also making major strides during the mid to late 30s and early 40s. For the US the P-26 was retro fitted with flaps after the first production batch. For the British the Gladiator is reputed to be the first RAF plane (or fighter?) to use flaps but it took from 1934 from first flight to 1937 for service service squadron so there was room for overlap. Point here is that by the summer of 1942 Douglas was flying the A-26 prototype with double slotted fowler flaps. So most of the changes in flaps from none to the A-26 took place in 10 years or less.
ThomasP said:
Of course this all begs the question of what a jet powered carried based aircraft would look like. hmmm . .
Click to expand...
Hmmm indeed.

British 1939 jet fighter?

Kneestrong-Smeedelly Smeedelly proposed this jet powered torpedo plane (two torpedoes) with folding wings and folding tail.(tail booms hinge down).
The twin floats were incomplete when the project was terminated.

 
It's only 48 carriers in service at 15 Aug 1945.

6 Illustrious/Implacable
5 Colossus (Colossus, Venerable, Vengeance, Glory and Ocean)
11 Attacker class CVE
21 Ruler/Smiter class CVE
British built CVE - Activity, Nairana, Vindex & Campania plus Pretoria Castle as trials carrier.

I think some of the discrepancy lies in these:-
Argus - laid up in Reserve from Aug 1944 worn out. Used as an accomodation ship at Chatham
Furious - laid up in Reserve Sept 1944 worn out.
Archer - laid up in Reserve from Nov 1943 due to machinery problems. Transferred to the MoWT in March 1945 renamed MV Empire Lagan and used as civilian manned aircraft transport.
Biter - laid up Aug 1944 until handed back to USN in April 1945. The USN paid for a refit before transferring her to the French Navy.
Nabob - irreparably damaged in Aug 1944 and laid up. Transferred to USN in March 1945.
Thane - irreparably damaged in Jan 1945 and laid up in Reserve.
Unicorn - had reverted to her principal role as an Aircraft Maintenance Ship in 1944 and was not in use as a carrier.

The last MAC ship operations were in June 1945.

And there were only 8 British carriers lost in WW2. Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal, Hermes and Eagle from pre-war numbers plus Audacity, Avenger and Dasher.

Of the 48 in service, 14 CVE were with the East Indies Fleet (with another 2 scheduled to join) and 18 with, or due to join, the British Pacific Fleet (5 Fleet, 4 Light Fleet, 9 CVE).

As for the Blackburn Firebrand when it finally reached its first operational squadron in Sept 1945 it wasn't as a fighter. It joined as the first FAA single seater torpedo aircraft since the Blackburn Dart of the early 1920s. Although it carried the TF for Torpedo Fighter designation, the emphasis was very much on the first part of that. It was very far from the role envisaged when the FAA ordered it in Jan 1940.
 
What about our strike aircraft? One of the roles intended for the CAG is daylight and nighttime, fighter-opposed strikes against an enemy's fleet base of the likes of Wilhelmshaven, Taranto and Mers-el-Kébir. So we're not going to settle for slow flying Swordfish.



One issue is the available engines in the late interwar period.
 
Last edited:
One of the roles when?
From 1924 to 1940 the proposed roles would fluctuate back and forth. And until about 1940 you don't have much choice in speed.
2nd British carrier torpedo bomber

It was a single seat airplane because the engine was not powerful enough lift the torpedo, the fuel and a 2nd crewman and rear gun. Very very likely no radio.
The First plane was the Sopwith cuckoo which used a special light weight torpedo.
The Blackburn Dart was the first carrier plane to do a night landing, which was in 1926.
Just like a lot of ideas about warfare in the 1920s and 30s. There were a lot of ideas and while without ideas you do not move forward, you do have to be able to implement the ideas.
You need a certain amount of power to have a workable torpedo bomber. There was also a race between the attack/strike aircraft and the ships defenses which include speed, guns, protection and when in harbor, terrain.

The British tried at times to advance the state of the art, but sometimes it would not work. In the Early 30s they built 3 torpedo bombers using 825hp RR Buzzard engines, but the specification was too ambitious. From Wiki

"The Handley Page H.P.46[1]​ was built to Air Ministry specification M.1/30 for a carrier based torpedo bomber to replace the Blackburn Ripon. The Air Ministry paid Handley Page for a single prototype; its competitors were the Blackburn M.1/30 and the Vickers Type 207. No manufacturer could meet both the specified performance and weight limits together. M.1/30 required a military load of 2,874 lb (1,303 kg), including 2,000 lb (910 kg) or over in a single bomb or torpedo with an endurance of 8 hours. A maximum speed of at least 150 mph (240 km/h) and a service ceiling of 16,000 ft (4,900 m) were specified. The maximum allowed weight was 9,300 lbs (4,218 kg) as the weight limit of the lifts on Royal Navy carriers at that time was 9,500 lb (4,300 kg). If the recommended Rolls-Royce Buzzard or Armstrong Siddeley Leopard engines were used, the performance parameters could be met but the fuel consumption made the aircraft overweight; if a smaller Rolls-Royce Kestrel was used, then with its lower consumption the weight limits could be met but not the performance. The design process was thus a struggle to reduce weight"

They tried to do a lot more like use high lift devices for low landing speed. See the Wiki entry. Handley Page H.P.46 - Wikipedia

We are looking at British carrier aircraft with the benefit of hindsight. We also keep forgetting that the British carriers, until the Ark Royal, weren't very good. Granted some of the American and Japanese carriers had problems but the British got trapped by being the first county to really embrace naval aviation and that lead to the Argus, Hermes, Eagle and the 3 sisters, only one of which was designed as an aircraft carrier. It meant short decks and as engines got more powerful it meant operations were restricted by fuel storage. Which in turn affected both landing speeds (and top speeds) and tactics. The Ark Royal was designed in 1934 and commissioned in 1938 which doesn't leave a lot of time to change tactical ideas.
The Illustrious doesn't show up until 9 months after the war started. They knew the Illustrious class was coming but they didn't have the experience to quite know what to do with them (Like what kind of aircraft could really operate off them).

HMS Furious in 1935-36.


USS Saratoga in 1935.






Note the deck park forward while plane is just to touch down aft.

The Saratoga had the speed and deck size to accommodate faster monoplane aircraft (and yet the navy wanted 70kt landing speeds). They had the ability to launch dozens of planes in just minutes. Their ideas were going to be shaped by what they knew. The RN could observe the US but a lot of their "knowledge" was based on their carriers and their carriers limitations.

The RN could not get bespoke aircraft for each ship or for each group of ships. Any type of airplane or squadron had to be able to operate on any (or practically any) flight deck.

Writing off the Argus, Hermes and Eagle might have made sense to allow for better aircraft but the loss of the Courageous and Glorious through stupidity required the retention of the old, slow ships. But when do you write off the old ships (order aircraft that cannot work on the old ships).
 
Flaps were not uncommon in the early 30s - think Boeing 247 & Douglas DC-1 in 1933, Airspeed Envoy in 34 (and probably the Courier in 32 as it had a retractable main gear) so the lack of flaps on military types until later is not the designers/manufacturers fault.
 
The Curtis P-1 (US Army Air Corps 1923) was adopted by the Navy as the F6C in 1925 having been strengthened for carrier use.

The Boeing PW-9 entered USAAC service in 1925, and a carrier-modified version entered USN service in 1927 as the FB-5.

Other than those, about all other joint-use fighters were either designed for both services from the start, or were USN first.
 
Last edited:

My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's harder to convert landplanes to carrier use (especially for fighters) than vice-versa, because the carrier-landing requirements add weight, with the concomitant impositions on performance -- structural weight, hook gear, etc.
 
With the exception of float or experimental rubber deck types, any carrier plane is by nature also a land plane. But the challenge is keeping it competitive. When it entered service in 1943, the Grumman Hellcat had a sub-400 mph top speed and a RoC of 2,600 ft/min. Those are more like 1940-41 performance numbers, and suggest that the Hellcat's robust carrier-based construction has pulled down speed.
 
OK, the Hellcat didn't climb well but a speed of over 375mph, while under 400mph, was right up there with most 1940-41 fighters.
You may also want to check the climb figures. Make sure the F6F is rated at military power, not normal power.
And because it used that two stage supercharger check it's performance at different heights. It wasn't great at any one height but it could cover a large variety of heights.
Part of what pulled down the Hellcats speed was the 334sq ft wing, 10% bigger than a P-47 and just a smidge bigger than a P-38.
Also please tell us what 1940-41 fighter that was faster than an F6F-3 was carrying 1150lbs worth of guns and ammo?
Or the 1940-41 fighter that was carrying 208imp gal of internal fuel?

But yes, to handle catapult launces and arrested landings you are going to invest more weight in a 12,000lb airplane than in a 6-7,000lb plane. But it is probably a similar percentage to a 6-7,000lb carrier plane.

You were going to have a slightly poorer performing carrier plane than an equivalent land plane but the differences start to get lost as the later planes get bigger and more powerful.
 
There are multiple reasons for British and American Carrier Aviation following differs paths between the wars some of which are more obvious than others.

1917-21 was a period of great experimentation and Britain did lead the world. But by 1921 she was seeking larger ships hence the conversions of F,C&G with 36-48 aircraft all able to be struck down in the hangar (2 were planned even before Washington). The US and Japan held an advantage at Washington in already having battlecruiser (and battleship for Japan) hulls building that could economically repurposed as carriers. Britain did not have that luxury (the G3 class only reached the order stage before Washington).

And then we come to the reality of the weather that both navies expected to fight in. Generally the Pacific is a much more benign ocean than the Atlantic and North Sea. So the USN practice of large deck parks was not something open the the RN given the aircraft of the time. I'm just finishing Hobbs "The Fleet Air Arm and the War in Europe 1939-1945". A comment in there relating to Home Fleet carrier operations off Norway in 1944/45 noted how much more difficult it was to maintain serviceability of aircraft parked on deck compared to other theatres. And that included US types as well as British. So the RN just having a larger carrier would not have generated USN style aircraft numbers.

Longer decks would have been an advantage as aircraft developed in the 1930s. But it seems that the limitations of the large light cruiser hulls came to the fore to limit what could be done.

Again it is a reflection of the expected weather conditions that DNC insisted that Hermes have her bow plated to flight deck level to cope. One of the big 3 had its forward hangar doors stove in by heavy seas at one point. And landing areas were further forward to cope with pitching of the flight deck. Which leads to the probably apocryphal tale of Indefatigable operating of Japan with US carriers in Aug 1945 when asked about how she was coping with the heavy typhoon seas, responded "what Typhoon?"

The RN also spent a lot of time aerodynamically refining bow, stern and island structures. These became less relevant and eventually a hindrance as aircraft developed in the 1930s.

US carriers of the period also carried large numbers of reserve aircraft in their hangar roof spaces. These were essential to allow a carrier to remain effective as the expected pre-war campaign advancing across the Pacific unfolded. For the RN operating close to its worldwide network of bases, such onboard reserves were unnecessary.

To compensate for some of the weaknesses you perceive, in the early 1930s the RN was pioneering the use of multi carrier task groups in exercises with 2 and sometimes 3 carriers teamed up as one unit. Procedures were worked out to form up and land aircraft from multiple carriers. And night strike procedures were also worked on and became part of standard procedures as displayed at Taranto in 1940. In contrast the Japanese didn't form the Kido Butai until April 1941 and the USN didn't begin multi carrier operations until early 1942.

At Washington the RN did secure the right to replace Argus, Eagle, Hermes and Furious at any time regardless of age (US Langley and Japan Hosho under the same provision). But then would have had to trade numbers for larger ships. And anyway, where was the money to come from to scrap relatively new ships for a newer, bigger, shiny toy. In May 1939 RN plans for 1942 don't include Argus and Eagle at all, indicating that they would have been replaced first as the Armoured Illustrious class entered service. (Eagle proved to be totally worn out by then historically). The other 4 old ships would have been either in reserve in the event of peace, or spread around the Atlantic and Indian Oceans in trade protection roles (i.e. hunting raiders) with air groups reduced to 24, due at least in part by increasing aircraft size.

When you look at US carrier development, it is not until the mid-1930s that they settle on a, for them, workable formula. So we have the ex-collier followed by the two 33,000 ton in reality 36,000+ ton) ex battlecruisers. Then they attempt to embrace the so called flight deck cruiser concept (until that loophole was closed in 1930. Then it was on to trying to squeeze a CV-2 air group onto the smallest possible tonnage to produce the unsuccessful Ranger which they wouldn't risk in the Pacific in WW2. It was only with the 20,000 ton CV-5 class that everything came together. That led on to the much larger 27,100 ton WW2 Essex class.

But even things we take for granted today about carriers were controversial in the 1920s and 1930s. Islands. Ranger and Soryu nearly didn't have one. Smoke disposal. Hinged funnels (Ranger again) or curved to waterline (Japanese Ships) or carried to stern (Argus & Furious). Everyone was struggling with these features.
 
The US and British did follow different paths for many of the reasons you have stated.
Not saying that the British were wrong, but with that path the paths of the aircraft that make up the aircraft component also differ somewhat and it doesn't really matter if the RAF or the RN had the final say in ordering the aircraft. The RN did get to have input. Maybe not as much as they wanted but switching over the staff officers from RAF or air ministry to RN doesn't change the size of the existing flight decks or the speeds of the existing ships or the size of the fuel storage/magazines (that would seem to have been totally up to the RN?).
The RN even with funding of their own didn't have enough funding to really bring "bespoke" engines into production all though a few were tried in 1920s.
This land based torpedo plane was being worked on the early/mid 20s.

Worlds first 1000hp engine. Sometimes it is not good to the be the first.

It doesn't matter if you had RN leadership or RAF leadership if the existing technology of the day won't let you do what you want.

Monoplanes with retracting land gear are possible in the middle 30s (or at least 1935 and up). But now you need RLG (retracting landing gear) monoplanes that will operate off British flight decks in British conditions and not just ones that will operate off American fight decks in American conditions.
I have brought up the Northrop BT-1 before as a contemporary of the Skua

It had a bad accident rate operating off the big American carriers. Douglas was able to fix it but as designed and issued it would have been even worse on British decks.

If somebody wants high speed strike aircraft in 1940 they need to figure out how to power them.

1940 was a bit of a strange year. Merlins were being up rated using 100 octane fuel but while they knew in 1938 that 100 octane was coming (RR announced power levels at the Paris air show) that didn't know exactly when it was coming. The planes that were just being put on carrier decks in 1940 were ordered in 1937-39 and the initial specifications date back even earlier. British radials don't respond well to 100 octane fuel (you get some extra power, not a lot) and to be fair, the US radial engines don't respond well to it either. Both P & W and Wright made extensive modifications to their engines to get the extra power out of the fuel (stronger bottom ends and more cooling fins). So blaming the guys doing the ordering in 1937-38 for low performance in 1940 requires a good crystal ball.
Two speed superchargers existed before 1940 but 1940 was the year that RR, P & W and Wright all made them much more available. But not universally available.

Attacking your enemies mainland with a small carrier force requires special circumstances. And luck.
 
I wondering how the path of Britain's carrier arm might have changed had it been from the mid 1920s onwards expected to hit defended shore targets like Taranto or Wilhelmshaven. Essentially repeats on a larger scale of the Tondern Raid. Perhaps the ships might be essentially the same (though underwater protection and damage control will be a concern when operating close to enemy shores), but the aircraft might be designed to different specifications.
 
Last edited:


Designed how and when?

Consider what engines you had and when.

in 1924 you had engines of about 400hp, give or take 25hp for the most part.
What did you have in 1928?
what did you have in 1932?
what did you have in 1936?

Who was the likely enemy (or not so likely enemy) in the years in question.
Wilhelmshaven should not be on the list until around 1930 or a bit after. Not without a very well focused bit of hindsight.
When does Italy change from being an ex ally to a potential enemy? And what was Italy's potential in the 1920s? Italy had 5 battleships in the 1920s and scrapped one to reduce the naval budget. Italy's navy would not take on threating proportions until sometime in the early 30s along with more expansion into North Africa.

The British navy aviation seemed to be as well equipped as anybody else and better than most until you get into the mid-1930s.
The Americans and Japanese were not building any better engines than the British in the 1920s or early 30s.
The smaller British carriers are not good candidate's for large torpedo planes in the 1920s.

Martin torpedo bombers on the Lex in 1928.

11 ft more wingspan than a Swordfish and almost 6ft more fuselage. A 770 hp Packard V-12 which was going to be close to a RR Buzzard.
Top speed 109mph. No forward firing gun.
They were replaced by Martin T4M-1 with radial engines.

slightly smaller wing with metal construction (fabric covered) and the P & W Hornet radial engine. They served until the Devastator showed up despite more than one attempt to replace them. From Wiki?
" Of its flying qualities, one pilot was quoted as saying "It takes off, cruises, and lands at 65 knots"

perhaps a bit of an exaggeration but top seed was 114mph and cruise was 98mph (85kts) but it doesn't say if that was with or without torpedo.

To get significantly higher performing planes you need better performing engines (which were advancing as fast as technology would allow anyway), more advanced construction techniques and both the US and the British were trying very hard to make the manufacturers switch from wooden frame work to metal frame work even if they kept fabric covering.
To get the take-off and landing speeds wanted, given the power of the available engines you needed very low wing loading. And they were still working on arrester systems and catapults in the 1920s, not just upgrading existing systems. And we are back to propellers.

You simply are not going to make much better progress in the 1920s and early 30s without some fundamental changes.
 
As I've noted previously the torpedo fell out of favour in the USN in the early 1930s. At its nadir there was a single carrier squadron with those T4M. Ranger completed without any provision at all for stowing torpedoes. It was only revived in 1934 with the Devastator design that finally entered service in 1937.
 
It doesn't really matter if the RN uses torpedo bombers or level bombers or tries to use dive bombers in 1920s and early 30s for strike aircraft.

Without some sort of changes in the basics of engine construction, airframe construction and aerodynamics the possible aircraft aren't going to be much different than what was used.
Going back to the Americans

These don't start to show up until 1935. They can just reach 200mph. They have the deep cord NACA cowling, ( already 5-6 years old) and they have the adjustable cooling flaps on the back (a first for the Americans and???) they have a controllable pitch propeller ( two pitch?). They have a 700-750hp 14 cylinder two row engine (not the most powerful available but not too bad in 1935). Cruise speed was 122mph (with or without bomb?) and the bomb load was 500lbs.
You could use it to attack fixed bases but that was about as good as it was going to get in 1935.
Before than you had lower powered engines, worse cooling, fixed pitch props and so on.

It didn't matter very much what your goal/mission was. That was what the state of the art would give you for performance. It didn't matter if you drew up specifications in 1924 or in 1932. Unless you solved all the propulsion, construction, aerodynamic problems (or most of them) years earlier than was done you are are not going to get 200mph + cruise speed strike aircraft in the 1920s and early 30s.

If you wanted a level bomber instead of a torpedo plane you could carry more bombs than a dive bomber. But you weren't going to fly much faster than the torpedo bomber.
 
I am not trying to put down the British here.
Every country trying to make high power aircraft engines in the 20s and early 30s had the same problems.
Nobody had sodium cooled exhaust valves yet. Few, if anybody, had specialty steels on the valve seats and on the faces of the exhaust valves. valves springs were a problem with breakage until they figured out how to draw the wire with fewer occlusions/flaws and coat it better to prevent rust. Better forging/casting techniques allowed for more closely spaced fins for better cooling. And a lot more.
All this stuff had to solved before you could get to even the 800-1000hp engines of the mid 1930s.
High strength aluminum alloys didn't exist before WW I so in the mid 20s they weren't even 10 years old. Making wing spars out of aluminum would have been unthinkable in 1914.
Aluminum was considered no better than solidified dirt for making structures out of.
It took a while to develop the alloys and how to use them.
It also took a while for wind tunnels be used to work on actual airplanes and not just theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Japan decides upon the IJA “strike north” plan instead of IJN’s “strike south”
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
A
Given the engines available, best FAA strike and fighters 1939-1940?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
7K
SaparotRob
Curtiss P-36 with the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone (hypothetically)
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register