carriers and destroyers.

[starling]

i put this question on a different forum,got some good answers.see what you think.
if the r.n and u.s.n built just ark royal and yorktown class carriers from 1936,and good destroyer designs,there would be no need to build new battle ships,or cruisers at all.but finish ships in the shipyards under construction.i beleive this would have been a good idea.yours,starling. .

 

[syscom3]

The USN needed lots of cruisers and battleships to provide gunnery support for amphib invasions.

Plus as events in the Solomon Islands proved, the IJN liked to fight at night when allied airpower wasnt effective.

And then the USN found cruisers and battleships made good AA screens.

 

[parsifal]

One of the problems for the RN in building repeat Ark Royals was the shortage of aircrew. With just 16 additional aircrew per annum, pre-war, it was going to take a month of Sundays to get enough pilots to put planes on the carriers. Once the war broke out, this number crept up slowly, to something like about 400 new pilots per year (very roughly). But the early years of the war for the RN was a veritable pilot drought, caused mainly by the need to train the pilots for bad weather and night flying capabilities.

 

[starling]

syscom,i think the u.s.n already had bb,ca and cl,in 1936 and several other heavy units in different states of construction.yours,starling.

 

[delcyros]

AC´s do not exist stripped out of context. With carrier airborne technology of the mid 30´s in mind, I don´t see a justification for such a drastic measure. The Swordfish fully equipped with torpedo had to be launched from uncomfortable distance to enemy capital ships (Jurens wrote "almost in within gunrange", which probably exagerates the issue). In within the North Atlantic theatre with associated poor weather conditions (raider usually prefer these conditions for their breakouts) air power is not always a viable option and the history of engagements between carriers and enemy surface forces in gunrange is a single sided one...

To justify such a building program we need to define and answer the following questions, preferably without using experiences not avaiable to them in the mid 30´s:
1.) Does it make sense technically?
2.) Does it make sense strategically?
3.) Is it logistically possible?

which I knew the answers....

 

[syscom3]

syscom,i think the u.s.n already had bb,ca and cl,in 1936 and several other heavy units in different states of construction.yours,starling.

In 1936, the only BB that was under construction was the USS North Carolina. And that class didn't have the speed to keep up with the carriers.

The Cleveland and Baltimore class CA's were just preliminary designs in the BuShips drafting shops.

The fleet buildup you're thinking of didn't happen untill 1940 when congress essentially opened the wallets to build a two ocean navy.

 

[Freebird]

AC´s do not exist stripped out of context. With carrier airborne technology of the mid 30´s in mind, I don´t see a justification for such a drastic measure. The Swordfish fully equipped with torpedo had to be launched from uncomfortable distance to enemy capital ships (Jurens wrote "almost in within gunrange", which probably exagerates the issue). In within the North Atlantic theatre with associated poor weather conditions (raider usually prefer these conditions for their breakouts) air power is not always a viable option and the history of engagements between carriers and enemy surface forces in gunrange is a single sided one...

And in the close confines of the "Med", the carriers would be so close to enemy air cover {from Sicily or Crete} that they could overwhelm a carrier's CAP {before 1942 most UK carriers had only 1 squadron of fighters}

Plus many of the significant engagements took place at night, the superiority of the RN BB's fighting at night {with radar} helped allow them to keep control of the Med, even when outnumbered

 

[starling]

i believe the u.s.n had approx 20 cruisers,built or under construction in 1936.and how does one term ..fast..in bb,s,24knots perhaps.and i would want decent dd,s,with d-p guns,of 4.75in-to 5in.how many destroyers could one build,instead of 1 large bb.yours,starling.

 

[syscom3]

The US had only 2 CA's and 6 CL's (Brooklyn class) under construction in 1936.

 

[starling]

i looked in the ..cruiser..site,on the first page of this thread.starling.

 

[parsifal]

And in the close confines of the "Med", the carriers would be so close to enemy air cover {from Sicily or Crete} that they could overwhelm a carrier's CAP {before 1942 most UK carriers had only 1 squadron of fighters}


Freebird
British Carriers demonstrated their potency and survivability in the central basin time and again. IF the brits had opted for more Ark Royals, instead of Illustrous types, AND they could put the planes on them (something that they manifestly could NOT do, because the RAF controlled the procurement machine until 1938, then the Brits would have been able to nearly double their airpower, for no real additional cost. The Ark Royal had a carrying capacity of 63 A/C to the Illustroius' 36 (in 1940. If the Brits could actually put 63 aircraft on the same number of hulls, they would have been a real challenge to the Axis control of the central basin.

Plus many of the significant engagements took place at night, the superiority of the RN BB's fighting at night {with radar} helped allow them to keep control of the Med, even when outnumbered

From 1940, until the middle of 1942 (very roughly), the British CAGs were trained as night capable. Night Landings, ASV radar, the use of flares were all standard stuff for British CAGs. Moreover the equipment (particualrly the Swordfish had a remarkable ability to make rough weather T/O Landings