Better luck for the RN carrier force 1939-1941

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

Curious why the plane and cruiser both doing the same speed can't connect & lift the plane.
I don't think that was ever done. But I bet a Shagbat could land on a short platform on the host cruiser, in the right conditions. Into wind, airspeed just above stall, cruiser at full clip, closing speed shouldn't be more than a few knots.
 
,

You want "luck" for the Glorious? Put up even two aircraft (of any kind) at a time sweeping the intended course just 50 miles ahead of the carrier. two is for redundancy, so you have one in the air or in position no matter what.

Lack of stupidity nets 2 operational carriers instead of 2 sunk ones, let alone damaged.

The RN were not short of old battleships, given the danger of KM cruisers there should have a heavy escort of some type
 
The R class battleship would have slowed the Glorious down (trying to cruise an R class at 17kts takes a lot of fuel) One story has it that the Captain of the Glorious was in a hurry to get to Scapa Flow to court martial one of his officers (his air group commander?)
 
The R class battleship would have slowed the Glorious down
If Glorious was running as she should have been, yes. But Glorious was running at 17 knots with only half her boilers lit. Yes, since 17 knots was near flat out, any Revenge class would have burned a lot of fuel.

Ideally each carrier in the Norwegian campaign should have been assigned a battlecruiser, a CL and four DDs. And put some bloody planes in the air.
 
Courageous was the first carrier lost to submarines, but there were many more, including HMS Ark Royal, Eagle, Audacity (the first CVE) and Avenger, USS Yorktown, USS Wasp and Block Island, IJNS Taiho, Shōkaku, Unryū and Shinano. If you're sending carriers into combat, you're going to lose some to enemy submarines even with the best ASW and damage control procedures.

B
The Wasp wandered into a Japanese sub line and the Japanese sub I-19 launched six Type 95 torpedoes, which turned out to be probably the most devastating single launch by a submarine in the war. Three torpedoes struck the Wasp causing such damage she had to be later sank, one torpedo struck the destroyer O'Brien causing such damage that six months and 3000 nautical miles later her hull split open and she sank, then a torpedo struck the Battleship North Carolina, knocking out its forward turret, but otherwise didn't prevent the ship from maintaining speed and station. The Japanese had fabulous torpedoes. Here's an amazing picture of the O'Brien being struck by the torpedo. in the background is the stricken Wasp. Note how far the Wasp is from the O'Brien, both hit by the same salvo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_O'Brien_(DD-415)#/media/File:USS_O'Brien_(DD-415)_being_torpedoed_on_15_September_1942_(80-G-457818).jpg

The Yorktown was pretty well dead in the water after the battle of Midway when she was torpedoed by the I-168 and was struck by two torpedoes.
 
and risked break down.
The entire Revenge class should have been updated, akin to the Italian Doria and Cavour classes. New machinery, increased main gun elevation and lengthen the hull for better hydrodynamics. Yes, that costs money and takes limited yard capacity, but they would have been much more usable units. Of course we'd want Hood updated first.
 
The entire Revenge class should have been updated, akin to the Italian Doria and Cavour classes. New machinery, increased main gun elevation and lengthen the hull for better hydrodynamics. Yes, that costs money and takes limited yard capacity, but they would have been much more usable units. Of course we'd want Hood updated first.
Problem with that idea is the lack of internal space, that's why the earlier QE ships were upgraded.
 
Problem with that idea is the lack of internal space, that's why the earlier QE ships were upgraded.
True. The Cavours and Doria benefited by having the midship turret to remove, freeing up a lot of space. If we could cut a Revenge in half and add a 100ft plug, that would free up the space for machinery, etc.

But really, the Revenge class were duds. They should have built five more Renowns. Then we'd convert them to carriers.
 
Let's see, build 5 very expensive battlecruisers of dubious fighting value, during the middle of WWI, so the Hulls and turbines will be available 10-15 years later for conversions to Carriers, leaving the RN not only short of battleships, but in violation of the international naval treaties that Britain herself wanted.
And of course, no mention of how to pay ( or provide enough dock space/ workers for such a program.
 
The R Class was the cheapest way of strengthening the Grand Fleet at the time. The tragedy for the RN was that they cancelled the last three Admiral Class in 1918. If they had continued them, they would have entered service in 1921 (Hood was commissioned January 1920) and Britain would probably have been able to sign something similar to the Washington Treaty and keep the Admirals instead of the Iron Duke Class during the Twenties. Obviously, the G3 Class would have been better but that is an example of the best being an enemy of the good.
 
The R Class was the cheapest way of strengthening the Grand Fleet at the time. The tragedy for the RN was that they cancelled the last three Admiral Class in 1918. If they had continued them, they would have entered service in 1921 (Hood was commissioned January 1920) and Britain would probably have been able to sign something similar to the Washington Treaty and keep the Admirals instead of the Iron Duke Class during the Twenties. Obviously, the G3 Class would have been better but that is an example of the best being an enemy of the good.

They were canceled due to the Washington Treaty. None of the other signatories would have acceded to the qualitative limits had the RN been able to build these ships without comparable concessions. Also, Britain's economy was a wreck due to extensive debt (private and governmental) and and the demographic damage from the casualties of the Great War (losing some 700,000 men, predominantly between 18 and 40 [Records for the War Dead of WW1] on a population of 43 million is significant. See also Four charts that show the impact the First and Second World Wars had on the UK's population - CityAM).

The largest failure of Britain's inter-war diplomacy wasn't the disarmament treaties; it was not backing up France with regard to German post-war violations of the Versailles Treaty.
 
the demographic damage from the casualties of the Great War (losing some 700,000 men, predominantly between 18 and 40
And given the poor relative health and thus suitability of Britain's poorer people, more of those 700,000 dead would have come from the educated and middle class, the very people you need to run the country in the 1930s and beyond.

But I've taken us far off topic. I'd like to return to the discussion of how Britain's naval strategy and deployments are impacted by extending the lives of three fast fleet carriers. Courageous and Glorious, for example should be repaired and returned to service in time for the Malta convoys and Sommerville's Far East Fleet sailing for Ceylon. Ark Royal will require extensive work to repair her Nov 1941 torpedo damage, so it may be summer 1942 before we see her back in service. Where should Ark Royal go?
 
Not needlessly losing Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal and arguably Hermes (sent to the Far East without credible CAG and sent to sea to escape Nagumo without any aircraft onboard or Ceylon air support) could have gone a long way to meeting the Axis globally.

In April 1942, Sommerville faced Nagumo with three carriers HMS Formidable, Indomitable and Hermes. Send Hermes (and the old Revenge class BBs) to the Med, but give Sommerville Ark Royal, Courageous, Glorious; and these five fast carriers, if equipped with at minimum 240 good aircraft will give Nagumo something to worry about.

Given the weakness of IJN carriers to dive bombers versus torpedo attack, let's hope Sommerville has some Skuas - a challenge as they were withdrawn without DB replacement in 1941.
 
Last edited:
Not needlessly losing Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal and arguably Hermes (sent to the Far East without credible CAG and sent to sea to escape Nagumo without any aircraft onboard or Ceylon air support) could have gone a long way to meeting the Axis globally.

.

Courageous and Ark Royal weren't lost needlessly, it was bad luck and inadequate damage control, while on a mission.

The other two I would agree with.
 
The Courageous should never have been where she was, doing what she was doing if the "powers that be" had any idea of what they were doing.

The Mission was something of a fool's errand and was being carried out in an, to be charitable, untrained or inexperienced manner.

Flying off and landing all planes at once may be an efficient way of doing things but leaves gaps of time in the air coverage. The Courageous was a very valuable asset, seeing as how it would take 3-4 years to replace her (not to mention the money/effort) and depending a few destroyers with their miracle asdic to protect this asset seems a bit much.

If you really want a hunter/killer group it might have helped to have few more killers (destroyers) in the group, not four total.
 
Courageous and Ark Royal weren't lost needlessly, it was bad luck and inadequate damage control, while on a mission.
By needlessly I mean that Ark Royal's captain could have immediately begun damage control, as opposed to mustering everyone on deck and waiting over half and hour before beginning to save his ship. The captain seemed to forget mission, men, self. He went straight to men and forgot the mission. Courageous was bad luck, but using a fleet carrier for ASW with a light escort is a recipe for disaster. But I'm not erasing their fates, entirely. In this scenarios the torpedoes still strike Courageous and Ark, but they live to see another day.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back