Buffaloes save Force Z, now what?

EwenS said:

The question is why wouldn't she be "sent there".

Click to expand...

I'm mainly asking because....

EwenS said:

War in Far East - based Kingston Jamaica.

Click to expand...

Shortround6 said:

The Repulse could not take a punch.
It did not get the same refit as the Renown.
The Repulse could take out the Kongos but the Kongos could take out the Repulse at similar ranges.
The Kongos had two more guns as we know.
The Kongos had much improved elevation but that was more a theoretical advantage. Firing at over 30,000yds gave a very poor return (accuracy) form most countries guns.

Click to expand...

Both classes have middling armor and roughly the same armament. The danger presented to Repulse would mainly be the Japanese escorts carrying Type 93s. Ship v ship, could go either way. Fleet v fleet, ABDACOM would have to pick the battle carefully, and still probably come out the worse.

Admiral Beez said:

I'm mainly asking because....

Click to expand...

A lot changed between pre war mid 1939 and even mid 1940 let alone early 1942.

That mid 1939 plan for war in the Far East showed Courageous at Trincomalee and Glorious at Singapore both with reduced air groups of 24 aircraft. To me that indicates a trade protection role as increasing aircraft size shouldn't have reduced the aircraft capacity that far from the pre-war 48. With both lost there were gaps to fill. Hence Hermes to the IO.

The main fleet at Singapore in 1942 was intended to include Ark Royal, Indomitable, Implacable and the 1939 carrier Indefatigable. In mid-1939 the latter pair were expected to complete late 1941 to mid 1942.

EwenS said:

A lot changed between pre war mid 1939 and even mid 1940 let alone early 1942.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If the consensus is that Hermes has no place with Force Z if it survives to operate out of Australia, then she equally has no place at Ceylon. When Indomitable and Formidable arrive, I'm surprised that Hermes' CAG and aircrew weren't redistributed to the two fast fleets and the old carrier sent packing. While we're at it, send the old Revenge class home - they're nothing but a liability. Though if PoW and Repulse are still in survive the old R's might not have been sent.

Hermes' range of 5,500 miles at 10 knots makes her suitable for trans-Atlantic convoy protection, at least part way across - Halifax to Southampton being only 2555 nautical miles. That's where she can be most useful.

But there were still hugely valuable convoys travelling through the IO in early 1942. More so in view of all the personnel being carried to the IO and Middle East. The WS convoys continued to sail. Australian troops needed escorted back to Oz. Troop convoys ran from India to Singapore until it fell. The need was there even if Hermes wasn't directly involved in most of them. These convoys were far more important than transatlantic travel.

The R class had been released from the Atlantic convoy escort duties by virtue of the US Atlantic Fleet taking over more escort duties as agreed between the respective Govts. They went out as escorts to the WS convoys. Without them the Eastern Fleet only has the modernised Warspite, PoW and Repulse, and no one here rates the latter.

And this is still before the big carrier battles of May and June. The battleship still rules!

IO was a good spot for the Rs. British equivalent of the Standards, keep them out of the rough-and-tumble -- much like TF1 on the West Coast in 1942. Convoy escort, eventually bring 'em forward for fire support.

There were several dozen ships sunk by German raiders in the Indian Ocean in 1940-41. You can't leave them to run amuck while gearing up for fleet actions.
After Pearl Harbor nobody really had any idea if the Japanese would try to emulate the German tactics/strategy or not. Were the Japanese Bushido warriors that would not stoop to attack merchants or were they sneaky little eyeglass wearing bas***** that would emerge from dozen of freighters in many ports?

Thumpalumpacus said:

IO was a good spot for the Rs. British equivalent of the Standards, keep them out of the rough-and-tumble -- much like TF1 on the West Coast in 1942. Convoy escort, eventually bring 'em forward for fire support.

Click to expand...

Poor ventilation and dangerously-inadequate fresh water production made them a harsh environment in the Indian Ocean. After the expense on the QE class, the smaller Rs were designed and built on the cheap for close range ops in the North Sea. Too bad that all five Rs were not instead built as Renowns (the two battlecruisers were intended to be two more Revenge class) - now that would have been some speedy capital ships (or potential CV conversions) for use in WW2.

Admiral Beez said:

Too bad that all five Rs were instead built as Renown's.

Click to expand...

????

Admiral Beez said:

Poor ventilation and dangerously-inadequate fresh water production made them a harsh environment in the Indian Ocean. After the expense on the QE class, the smaller Rs were designed and built on the cheap for close range ops in the North Sea.

Click to expand...

Didn't know that, thanks for the edu.

Admiral Beez said:

Too bad that all five Rs were instead built as Renowns (the two battlecruisers were intended to be two more Revenge class) - now that would have been some speedy capital ships (or potential CV conversions) for use in WW2.

Click to expand...

Did you mean to write "Too bad that all five Rs were not instead built as Renowns?

Admiral Beez said:

Too bad that all five Rs were instead built as Renowns (the two battlecruisers were intended to be two more Revenge class) - now that would have been some speedy capital ships (or potential CV conversions) for use in WW2.

Click to expand...

They were near useless in WW I and needed extensive rebuilds.

Their nicknames in WW I were the HMS Refit and HMS Repair. One or both had to have the hull strengthened after they ran their full speed trials.
As built they had narrow band of 6in armor as a main belt and were no more fit to fight enemy capital ships than the Invincible. One of the classic egg shells armed with hammers.
Not sure if they had to be strengthened in order to fire 6 gun salvos?

They were fast and...............................................................................they were fast.................and...............................................................................they were fast..........................................

Thumpalumpacus said:

Didn't know that, thanks for the edu.



Did you mean to write "Too bad that all five Rs were not instead built as Renowns?

Click to expand...

Fixed, thx.

Admiral Beez said:

Fixed, thx.

Click to expand...

For just a few more thousand tons you can get three more Admiral-class. Worth it?

Thumpalumpacus said:

For just a few more thousand tons you can get three more Admiral-class. Worth it?

Click to expand...

Oh, my favourite What if. Sept-Nov 1916 four Admirals laid down. Get them further along and those are the RN's interwar fleet carriers. Scrap Furious, Argus and Hermes. Forget Eagle.

Admiral Beez said:

Oh, my favourite What if. Sept-Nov 1916 four Admirals laid down. Get them further along and those are the RN's interwar fleet carriers. Scrap Furious, Argus and Hermes. Forget Eagle.

Click to expand...

Not sure how that breaks, though. Convert three Admirals and you might have nice carriers, but no heavy ships when SHTF in 1939. And who knows if the carriers are any better, given the dates of conversion?

Admiral Beez said:

Oh, my favourite What if. Sept-Nov 1916 four Admirals laid down. Get them further along and those are the RN's interwar fleet carriers. Scrap Furious, Argus and Hermes. Forget Eagle.

Click to expand...

I think you run afoul of the Washington treaty?

You might be able to keep/convert 2. Not unless the US can keep 4 Lexington's and the Japanese keep 4 large battleships/battlecruisers to convert.

Which assumes you even have the money to convert such large ships (or assumes you had the money to get the hulls/power plants to near completion status.

You might also run afoul of the Treaty limits, The US had to get quite creative in interpreting the language.

Treaty said standard new carriers would be 27,000tons. Each nation could convert two existing ships to a limit of 33,000 tons, There was a clause about using up to 3,000 tons to modify existing ships for better anti torpedo and aircraft bomb protection. The US applied the 3,000 ton allowance to the modified battlecruisers and the Lexington and Saratoga were actually 36-37,000 ton ships.
I would imagine that is what you would wind up with the Admirals. Cutting an existing 36,000-42,000 ton ship down to 30,000-33,000 tons can get tricky, yes you are getting rid of the guns, turrets, armor etc , but you want to build quite a bit of new structure and the ship/s have to be ballasted correctly to keep from playing turtle.

When Washington came around this was still the early days of carrier aviation with everyone trying to work out the best size for a carrier. The RN was the furthest advanced.

The RN went to Washington with Argus in service and Eagle & Hermes building (but with designs not ideal) plus plans to convert Furious and either C or G. They had also concluded around mid-1920 that the sweet spot for carrier size in the future was around 25,000 tons. And it believed it needed 5 carriers i.e. it needed a total carrier tonnage of 125,000 tons.

At the same time the US had only just begun to convert Langley but had been studying larger vessels around c36,000-40,000 tons.

Japan had Hosho building plus plans for a repeat.

So several things happened:

1. Individual ship size was capped at 27,000 tons, near what Britain wanted, remembering that bigger ships = greater cost which everyone wanted to keep in check.
2. Overall tonnage for Britain & the US was capped at 135,000 tons allowing Britain its 5 ships at the new ship limit
3. All nations were permitted to BUILD 2 larger carriers of up to 33,000 tons within their overall tonnage allowance, so keeping the USA happy with its plans for bigger ships.
4. "in order to effect economy" (money again) the two ships at 3 above could be converted from capital ship hulls "constructed or in the course of construction" but due to be scrapped under the Treaty.
5. All the carriers everyone then has built or under construction gets considered "experimental" allowing early replacement (there was some doubt about Furious' status - hull stripped but no rebuild started).because no one really knows what makes an ideal carrier.

So Washington is a compromise to keep everyone happy.

For Britain, the other 3 Admiral class were history long since scrapped to free up the slipways to allow the builders to build merchant ships. They were also gone before the RN decided 25,000 tons was the sweet spot. There were no capital ships under construction as in the US and Japan (the G3 class were ordered but not laid down). Build 2xnew ships of 33,000 tons, which would have been permitted, means the other 3 ships it ultimately wants need to be smaller than desired (135,000-66,000= 69,000 /3= 23,000 tons assuming you scrap all the "experimental" stuff. Converting old BB/BC available gets you more inefficient Eagles. The beauty of F, C & G is that they are relatively new, fast and were not considered "capital ships" despite their 15" guns.

Using the Admiral hulls as carriers is a decision that needs to be taken no later than 27 Feb 1919. By that time what carrier experience exists in the world? Separate take off and landing decks (Furious & Cavendish) don't work. Argus has only been in service for 4 months and is still trialling aircraft and arrester gear which highlight modifications required. No other country can contribute any practical experience.

And ultimately conversion of battlecruiser hulls by all 3 nations did not prove to be the most efficient use of the tonnage.

If the other 3 Admiral hulls had still been around then the Washington Treaty would have taken an entirely different form so far as carriers were concerned.

Admiral Beez said:

Poor ventilation and dangerously-inadequate fresh water production made them a harsh environment in the Indian Ocean. After the expense on the QE class, the smaller Rs were designed and built on the cheap for close range ops in the North Sea. Too bad that all five Rs were not instead built as Renowns (the two battlecruisers were intended to be two more Revenge class) - now that would have been some speedy capital ships (or potential CV conversions) for use in WW2.

Click to expand...

Bit difficult considering the 5 Rs actually built were all laid down before the Renowns were even thought of.

More useful would have been that 6th QE (Agincourt) also cancelled in Aug 1914.

EwenS said:

Using the Admiral hulls as carriers is a decision that needs to be taken no later than 27 Feb 1919. By that time what carrier experience exists in the world?

Click to expand...

I'd make that decision in late 1916 soon after the four Admirals were laid down, with all four, including Hood built slowly, ending up entering service after HMS Hermes (laid down 1918), where many of the design ideas for the Admirals will be tested. Plans will be to scrap rather than convert Courageous, Glorious and the unfinished Almirante Cochrane (Eagle). With little history beyond Hermes to pull from, mistakes will be made with the four Admiral carriers, mistakes that can be rectified with rebuilds in the 1920s and/or 30s. Britain enters WW2 with four 30 knot Admirals, HMS Ark Royal, Hermes, Argus and some Illustrious.

Admiral Beez said:

I'd make that decision in late 1916 soon after the four Admirals were laid down, with all four, including Hood built slowly, ending up entering service after HMS Hermes (laid down 1918), where many of the design ideas for the Admirals will be tested. Plans will be to scrap rather than convert Courageous, Glorious and the unfinished Almirante Cochrane (Eagle). With little history beyond Hermes to pull from, mistakes will be made with the four Admiral carriers, mistakes that can be rectified with rebuilds in the 1920s and/or 30s. Britain enters WW2 with four 30 knot Admirals, HMS Ark Royal, Hermes, Argus and some Illustrious.

Click to expand...

Now you have gone back before the Admiralty even decided to convert Furious with a take off deck forward. That was March 1917 before she completed in June and before she was taken in hand in Nov that year for the aft landing on deck. Before that there are only seaplane carriers.

Argus had only been purchased in Sept 1916 and her design was only beginning. Hermes was a 1917 project. Eagle is 1918.

There is no way the Admiralty would jump from seaplane carriers to 3 or 4 full carriers the size of the Admiral class. This is the very beginnings of carrier aviation.