Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'll try and launch 30+ of wheeled aircraft from each hybrid, that is sized like the Andre Doria, or Schanrnhorst, or the Ise/Hyuga; each of these with 2/3rds of the ship devoted to the air component. I'll prefer the dive bombers.So you launch 20 wheeled a/c at a fleet -- let's be generous here. Maybe six of 'em are fighters? Fourteen strike a/c with lighter loads because launching with minimal headwind (sailing into the wind gives the a/c nothing, sailing with the wind is not going to get you 27 kts over the deck) is problematic, maybe you can get torpedo planes into the air, maybe not. You'd better hope your target isn't fielding a real aircraft carrier.
Nope.Or maybe you launch a floatplane strike.
No, again. Big guns are for the case of when the proverbial hits the fan, not of 'let's go plinking'.Or maybe you sail these hybrids in the line of battle.
If we are discussing the Italians then we are limiting the scenario to the Med. The Italians are not going anywhere else.No need to stay with one flight deck, and no need to limit the scenario just to the Med.
At least this:Assuming that somebody does actually build a large Hybrid, what else don't they get,
For the French, Italians, Japanese and Germans, they will have less 'guns firepower' available. They will also make and deploy less of the floatplanes and/or flying boats.
and what does their primary opponent do in response?
Germany was not a signatory.
Expecting that Japanese adhere to the 1930 LNT come late 1930s is illusory. They having no problems leaving the League of Nations already in 1933 shows how much they cared for international treaties.
Italy was also gone from the LoN by 1935, and they were not signatories of the 1937 LNT.
Thus, either of these 3 nations making a big hybrid CV is not a long shot.
We also have a thing of the treaty expiring at the end of 1936.
I'll try and launch 30+ of wheeled aircraft from each hybrid, that is sized like the Andre Doria, or Schanrnhorst, or the Ise/Hyuga; each of these with 2/3rds of the ship devoted to the air component. I'll prefer the dive bombers.
Sailing into the wind gives to the aircraft a lot. Sailing with the wind is trying to shoot oneself in the foot.
No, again. Big guns are for the case of when the proverbial hits the fan, not of 'let's go plinking'.
So Italy rips the stern turret off the Vittorio Veneto or leaves the two rear turrets off the Duilio? 6 guns and 5 guns respectively.
Trying to yank B turret to add aviation capacity really leaves the ship with not enough guns to fight any other capital ship. Just throw A turret over the side to lighten the ship and run for it
The next question, and rather important one, is what happens to the secondary and/or AA armament? Cut the secondary guns? swap for better AA?
And what do you do with the armor? Lighten the ship up and try for speed or lug thousands of tons of armor around for a gun battle you are hoping doesn't happen?
Basically the idea seems to be lug thousands of tons armor plate and guns (Veneto turret goes 1585metric tons, does not include barbette, etc. )around for a "just in case scenario " in case your destroyers, cruisers screw up.
Firstly the Japanese liked high speeds in their 1930s designs. Soryu & Hiryu & the Shokakus 34+ knots. Their heavy cruisers, even as rebuilt, matched that.Hiya, Ewen. I'm baffled by such a high max speed requirement in view of idea that these were flagships for submarines; it strikes me that they could have dropped this by six or eight knots and picked up spare tonnage for other uses like weapons stowage, fuel, etc.
Do you have any insight as to why this speed requirement was so high?
So you'll need to invent angled decks some fifteen years earlier
I'm glad that we are not in the "this ship is better than this ship" mode from now on.
No need to stay with one flight deck, and no need to limit the scenario just to the Med.
Agree .... to a pointThe Lexington Class carriers were some sort of hybrids with their 8'' gun turrets.
Scrap them and start over, unless you can get the treaty guys to really give you a good deal. Like not count them as tonnagefavorite alternative history option for the Italians is to convert the Francesco Caracciolas.
Scrap them and start over, unless you can get the treaty guys to really give you a good deal. Like not count them as tonnage
The Caracciola was about 12.5% completed hull wise and about 5% machinery. They were designed in 1913-14 and the Caracciola was laid down Oct 1914. They were designed for oil firing but that was as modern as the machinery got. The others were barely started. By even 1920-24 they would need substantial upgrading. Boilers were making very large advances.
Check to see if the Caracciola had ungeared turbines or geared Turbines. The Andrea Doria went from 20 boilers to 8 and went from 30,000hp to 75,000hp, Also went from 4 shafts to 2 shafts. Huge changes to machinery spaces, compartmentation and auxiliary system.
If kept and used the Machinery would defiantly need to be replaced in the late 30s and what else doesn't get rebuilt or modern ships built?
Interestingly, the USN was already heading in that direction: https://laststandonzombieisland.com...ck-cruiser-hybrid-carrier-from-warship-13.jpgAs I mentioned upthread and as mentioned by Thumpalumpacus:
I am not sure if a 10° angled deck would be enough, but 15° should do, and when using arrestor gear it takes less length of deck to land than it does to take off - particularly if you use a catapult.
400 ft of flight deck for take-off and landing runs should be enough for relatively low TO and landing speeds. You would not be able to launch any of the heavier aircraft without a catapult, but scout-planes, early-war fighters (A6M, Hurricane, etc) and dive bombers (SBC-4, Val?) should be doable.
And an odd and little appreciated aspect of the angled flight deck is that if the leading edge is ~1/2 of the length behind the bow there is less chance of pounding or damage to the flight deck due to heavy seas than with a conventional carrier.
Firstly the Japanese liked high speeds in their 1930s designs. Soryu & Hiryu & the Shokakus 34+ knots. Their heavy cruisers, even as rebuilt, matched that.
I think though that the answer lies in the comment about "good mobility". The submarines they were designed to support were going to be strung out over some distance. Once a contact report was received from them they might need to move some distance quickly to allow their aircraft to verify it or simply to leave the scene before US destroyers or cruisers caught up with them before they could transmit details of what they found. They carried an extensive comms suite to ensure that they could fulfill the task of reporting back to the main fleet. The radio eqpt in a low sitting sub would not have the same range. (In the late1920s /1930s RN patrol subs in the Far East had tall, collapsible radio aerials to ensure their reports could be received at their bases in Hong Kong & Singapore).
More surprising than the outright speed is the radius of action at a relatively high 18 knots. 10,000+ nm. It was greater than most other ships the IJN had. Only the Tone class (9,000 @ 18 knots) & Shokaku class (9,700 @ 18 knots) seem to get close.
The closely related (at least in terms of time) Agano class were intended as flagships for the destroyer flotillas were 35 knots, necessary to keep up with their charges, but were lighter, with a radius of action of 6,300 miles at 18 knots.
Most US cruisers of the period were designed to cruise efficiently at 15 knots to produce similar range figures to Oyodo.
More weapons would have meant a larger hull, requiring bigger heavier machinery for thecsame speed etc etc etc.
That is the rationale for an angled flight deck NOW .... as you mentioned, on the design I posted, it was a way to preserve flight deck width abreast the island. It is, nevertheless, an angled flightdeck. Somewhere, I read an article that such ships, if built, would most likely have been converted to light carriers in WW2. In that case, they quite possibly would have lead to the evolution of the 'separate landing and take-off areas'. In truth, there are other ways to preserve flightdeck width: either sponson out the island, or off set the entire flightdeck (like Joffre (one of who's design iterations had a quad 12" turret aft...). Instead, the US N angled the forward end of the flightdeckNope. The point of the angled deck was to separate take off and landing runs onto different paths.
The USN flight deck cruiser simply set the straight deck, with landing area and take off area on the same axis, a few degrees (3 IIRC) to port so it was not narrowed abreast the island superstructure. The latter was needed to support the directors for the main armament. Look at the location and angle of the arrester gear aligned with the deck axis and not at an angle.
For the Italians in particular, where do they get the carriers from, and what do they give up in order to get them? Seems the favorite alternative history option for the Italians is to convert the Francesco Caracciolas. But that brings into light the state of the Italian economy post-WWI. The FC hull was launched, but then languished for a number of years due to lack of funding to complete it, before ultimately being scrapped. The Aguila could have been a perfectly Ok first carrier, but of course it wasn't finished before the war was over for Italy. Starting an Aguila-like conversion project earlier might have been an option, but before the war it might not be feasible to just commandeer an in-use ocean liner into the yard for conversion? Maybe convert one or two of the Cavours or Dorias as part of their modernization?
And how to equip the carriers? Add a tailhook to the CR.42 might have made a decent enough carrier fighter for the beginning of the war? Yes, it's a biplane, but fast enough to catch Swordfishes and Albacores, and probably better than the Gladiator as a fighter. What about recon, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber? Maybe save a buck by forgetting about the torpedo bomber and do a combined scout/dive bomber plane?