Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
No. Countries start building a new class of battleships in the 1930s because it was a battleship centric world and Admirals around the world were expecting to fight the next Jutland style action. It was 1942 before things began to change. 10 Dec 1941 was the first time that a major warship, battleship or aircraft carrier, had been sunk at sea, by any aircraft. Interwar the role of the TB in the RN was to inflict enough damage on an enemy warship to slow it down for the big guns of the fleet to sink. The USN virtually gave up on the TB in the early 1930s only ressurecting it with the TBD Devastor (service entry late 1937). The intended target for its dive-bombers were an enemy's carriers not its battleships.Somewhat based on earlier comments, I'm going with better aircraft but with some caveats:
Countries start building battleships 1st when they start rearmament because battleships take the longest to construct, fit out and commission (in theory)
See above re build times.But if we explain (sell) to treasury, that aircraft carrier take even longer than battleships to construct, fit out, commission and train air group, therefore we get them started 1st
Yes. But with the RN banned from talking to the aviation companies and having lost virtually all of its aviation experts in the RNAS to the RAF on 1 April 1918, it lost touch with what was possible in aircraft terms. And as the relationship with the RAF deteriorated in the early 1930s the Air Ministry technical advisory committees met infrequently, and they limited the RN contribution to relatively junior officers.The 2nd part - aircraft designers need a higher minimum landing requirement.
Under the Treaties mothballing was not an option. They either had to be somehow reclassified (Argus & USS Langley for example) or scrapped within certain time limits of the completion of the new tonnage (6 months to strip & 18 to completely scrap IIRC).RN needs to get rid (mothball) Hermes, Argus and Eagle and build 3 Ark Royals. This allows better aircraft - minimum landing speed may increase 10 knots because all the carrier in the fleet can turn 30kn (versus some <20), landing distances may be extended with longer decks.
In 1934, the world is only just coming out of the Depression that started in 1929. Money was tight. That was one cause of the delay from 1931 to 1934 in including a new carrier in the Warship Programmes. Another was technical, while arrester gear trials were carried out in 1933. At that point RN planning was looking at a new carrier in the 1933 Programme (delayed to 1934 - Ark Royal not laid down until Sept 1935 in the end) for completion in 1936, one in 1936 for completion in 1939, one in 1939 for completion in 1942, one in 1942 for completion in 1945, one in 1945 for completion in 1948. That then changed in 1936.Lastly, you now have 3 carriers * 72 (design) + 3 * 48 (yes, I know Furious is short a couple) aircraft; opening ratios were 50% TSR/50% fighters So, now you are talking 200 fightersTherefore, '34 budget gets 3 Ark Royals. We'll put off some other refits to find the money/batch 1 will be 2 KGVs rather than 3 with 2nd BB batch replacing a CV with the 3rd KGV./dive bombers+ spares (25%) + additional for base protection...more/less equal to the order for RAF's premier fighters, therefore you get the 'A team working the design. Same for the TSR aircraft.*
It's critical to start before the Abyssinian Crisis - after RN gets cold feet about fighter protection and goes with armoured carriers, the order for planes gets cut in 1/2 and you get the 'C' team working on design.
I doubt that was possible.I'll pull in the FAA order for the Griffon by 2 years ('36 start, not '38) dropping Peregrine and Exe to get early Griffon
Not a good idea. With long nosed fighters visibility in and around the deck was a huge problem. Hence the adoption of the curved approach to landing a Seafire & Corsair. In the Firebrand they even fitted an extra ASI on the side of the fuselage, outside the cockpit, in the pilot's line of sight to allow him to concentrate on his curved approach. Look to the final generation of piston engined fighters to see how the pilot's seating postion was RAISED to improve his visibility e.g. Spiteful v Spitfire, Fury/Sea Fury v Tempest.As the carriers are bigger/faster, the pilot can be seated lower (we might need to put FAA pilots in Spitfire/Buffalo to show <beat them over head> him what he would get for visibility in single seater)
The Griffon engined Barracuda V was a big disappointment. While power was increased from 1,640hp of the Merlin 32 in the Barracuda II/III to 1,890 or even 2,020 hp in the Barracuda V top speed only rose by 15-20mph and its warload capabilities hardly changed. The earliest Griffon engine, the IIB only produced 1,720hp. The Mark V grew even heavier and a weight reduction programme saw it lose the TAG in the rear cockpit. After 2 years of development 1943-45 it still wasn't considered fit for service with a number of problems still to be overcome (including a noisy cockpit). The major area of improvement was the ability of the Mark V to climb away from an aborted carrier landing even with its flaps & landing gear down, something the Mark II/III struggled to do.Resulting in the RN gets a Firefly prototype in mid '37, issues sorted and production in '39 (OK, it might be closer to a Griffon power Fulmar, but its still 300+ kn aircraft and we can work on clean up/more powerful Griffons - I'm thinking Typhoon -> Tempest path).*I'm nervous that the 'improved' TSR aircraft is Fairey Barracuda; but the 'early' models won't have armour/self sealing tanks and the other weight increases of the late WWII planes. And the Griffon Barracuda seems to be OK as torpedo/dive bomber.
Much as I would like a single seater, until aircraft have VHF/UHF radios and ships have Radar/Fighter control, I can't see giving up the back seater.
Shortly, the UK was dealing with Stalin's USSR. A deal like this may be enough to split Mussolini from Hitler, and a neutral Italy would be a major gain for the UK, as there would be far less strength needed in the MedWhat about politics and dealing with facist italy? Axis, and prognoses to war.
Was that an argument in the discussion,?
Was neutrality a feasible path economically for Italy? After Sept 1939 and Germany had to go for broke and invade the USSR as they'd be truly broke otherwise.Shortly, the UK was dealing with Stalin's USSR. A deal like this may be enough to split Mussolini from Hitler, and a neutral Italy would be a major gain for the UK, as there would be far less strength needed in the Med
he seems to have had a problem with math.Mussolini came to power in 1922 and rapidly turned Italy into a dictatorship. He embarked on his war in Ethiopia in 1935. TBH, given Il Duce's mindset, I don't see any way for him NOT to become part of the Axis pact. He certainly wouldn't fit in with the democratic powers.
Franco pulled off a neutral Spain and got to live into the 1970s. But I get what you mean. Italy's best chance to remain neutral is to hold back about a year to see how things go. Germany's lack of victory against Britain in 1940 will have shown Mussolini to be a prudent player, and Germany's disaster at the Battle of Moscow (Oct 1941 to Jan 1942) will make him look like a savant for keeping Italy out of it. And if Germany finds success in the USSR due to its lack of a North African/Greece distraction, Italy can join with Germany (and Japan?) in summer 1942. But I bet Mussolini will remain neutral as by now Germany has declared war on the USA and Japan has just lost their fleet at Midway.Mussolini came to power in 1922 and rapidly turned Italy into a dictatorship. He embarked on his war in Ethiopia in 1935. TBH, given Il Duce's mindset, I don't see any way for him NOT to become part of the Axis pact. He certainly wouldn't fit in with the democratic powers.
If Italy is not a member of the Axis, than Germany would most likely not get pulled into North Africa, which in turn, would not bode well for the Soviet Union.
How many total German personnel were committed to the Afrika campaign?Of course, Germany would also not get 300,000-plus Italian troops on the Soviet front, RN's Mediterranean Fleet wouldn't tied down by the Italian Royal Navy in the Med or the assistance of Italian submarines (perhaps less effective than German ones, but far more effective than nothing) early in the Battle of the Atlantic. At best, a non-belligerent Italy is neutral change for Germany.
Ah yes, the Italians (and Hungarians and Romanians). Those useless tits assigned to defend the Wehrmacht's flank at Stalingrad. Has anyone ever been happy to have the Italian army on their side? They seem more a burden needing rescue or diverted resources than anything else.Of course, Germany would also not get 300,000-plus Italian troops on the Soviet front...