Hybrid aircraft carriers (1 Viewer)

[Admiral Beez]

Bismarck with the aft part of the ship taken up by a hangar and flight deck and thus half of the heavy firepower gone, could have been the one ending up at the bottom as a result of Denmark Strait.

True. That's Germany's silly choice of twin turrets when everyone else, save the KGV's B-turret in the 1930s onwards was making triples and quads. The ideal camship layout for Bismarck would be Richelieu. 32 knots top speed, eight 15" concentrated up front, 9,500 nmi range at 15 knots, space for a large hanger or even a CATOBAR flight deck aft.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Bismarck with a half dozen Catafighters might have given any unescorted Stringbags a fright and maybe got the ship home. Bismarck was about 300 miles from Brest when the final Swordfish attack came in. Six Bf 109s would have taken them on, and then either ditched alongside or flown to France.

Whose shell actually destroyed the HMS Hood? No rear turrets. Half the firepower.

 

[tomo pauk]

Whose shell actually destroyed the HMS Hood?

The bomb(s) from the Ju 87C.

 

[z42]

Ideas, of Italy and Germany making the carriers while forgetting the battleships, was countered with a lot of flak in this and other forums. Reasoning being that no ships with big guns = the carriers will be trashed once the capital ships of the RN pounce on them.

I think the timing argument is a better one, really. If the KM&RM leadership had the magic crystal ball telling them what carriers would be capable of by 1942, and they had been able to have a functional relationship with their respective air forces wrt naval aviation, I don't think going for a surface navy with carriers rather than battleships would have been a bad choice. But nobody was sure of that in the mid-1930'ies.

As for gunships trashing carriers; yes, IF they catch them. Looking at the WWII score, aircraft sinking battleships seems to be a more common occurrence than battleships sinking carriers.

So this leaves the big ships with a good deal of guns' firepower still being there, while the presence of the air group will prevent the enemy from scouting and following as he wishes, improves the own recon ability, improves the air defenses, and allows for an over-the-horizon attack.

Yes, all good and well-known advantages of carriers. So why not go all the way then and get rid of the guns and replace them with a longer flight deck and a bigger hangar, making the carrier that much more potent? And probably quite a lot cheaper as well.

The air group also can cover much greater area in searching both for the enemy military ships, as well as for the merchant ships.

I was thinking that a merchant raider might be one of the few good use cases for a hybrid carrier. But is it actually feasible? Seems carrier task forces had a long tail of oilers and other supply ships that they met regularly. Can a raider carrier work alone for any useful period of time?

And sort of the same argument applies to a hybrid raider carrier as a pure carrier raider: Use the scout aircraft to stay away from enemy warships, so no need for big guns. Maybe some 6" guns could be useful when intercepting merchant ships though.

Luckily, neither Reader nor his Italian counterparts never figured this.

I don't think one can really blame them here. By the time the supremacy of the carrier was established firmly enough, the German surface fleet was mostly hiding in harbors and fjords, and Germany was concentrating on building u-boats, for good reasons. And Italy never had the industrial capacity to produce carriers on short notice before the war was over for her part anyway.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, all good and well-known advantages of carriers. So why not go all the way then and get rid of the guns and replace them with a longer flight deck and a bigger hangar, making the carrier that much more potent? And probably quite a lot cheaper as well.

I'm okay if the another thread is started with the all-CV and no-BBs approach by the countries we usually don't list as the owners and users of the carriers back in ww2.

 

[EwenS]

I was thinking that a merchant raider might be one of the few good use cases for a hybrid carrier. But is it actually feasible? Seems carrier task forces had a long tail of oilers and other supply ships that they met regularly. Can a raider carrier work alone for any useful period of time?

No. The point of a merchant raider was its ability to disguise itself as similar looking merchant ships expected to be found in the area of ocean it was operating in. How many merchant ships had flight decks? How do you hide it as was done with the main armament, or disguise its existence?

Some of the KM raiders were equipped with one or two floatplanes carried out of sight in ship's holds.

 

[z42]

No. The point of a merchant raider was its ability to disguise itself as similar looking merchant ships expected to be found in the area of ocean it was operating in. How many merchant ships had flight decks? How do you hide it as was done with the main armament, or disguise its existence?

Some of the KM raiders were equipped with one or two floatplanes carried out of sight in ship's holds.

I was thinking of a 'merchant raider' in the spirit of a warship hunting lone merchants, like the cruises of the Scheer and Graf Spee.

Disguising the raider as a merchant ship, like the German Hilfskreuzers is indeed another approach, and probably was a lot more cost effective, but was not what I was thinking about here.

 

[don4331]

Bismarck with a half dozen Catafighters might have given any unescorted Stringbags a fright and maybe got the ship home. Bismarck was about 300 miles from Brest when the final Swordfish attack came in. Six Bf 109s would have taken them on, and then either ditched alongside or flown to France.

a. The fighters could have been stuck on the deck due to the damaged compressed air line just like the Ar.196 was historically.
b. How do you know which is the "final" Swordfish attack and launch at the correct time

Does Bismarck launch all her fighters during Victorious' attack and have nothing available for Ark Royal's​

Even launched Ar.196s could have disrupted TB attack; although there is the challenge of locating grey FAA a/c against a grey rainy background... Locating the Bismarck by shell flashed from the 10.5cm guns is much easier for RN pilots once RADAR has gotten you to the general area.​

The hybrid aircraft carrier is a solution to a Treaty or construction restriction: If you are limited on numbers of cruisers and carriers, then the hybrid makes some sense:

USN gaming had 2 hybrid cruiser carriers better than 2 cruisers or 2 light carriers or a cruiser and a light carrier - with the caveat, this was in early '30s i.e. post LNT '30 but pre '36.
Post LNT '36 if you are USN and can have 2 carriers and 2 cruisers, hybrids don't make much sense.​

IJN Tone class was combination of 2 ideas:

1. If you concentrate the main battery, you reduce the amount of the hull you need to provide thick armour over the limited left of the magazines, which left the aft deck open*:
2. As treaty system limited IJN to 3/5th the CV capability of USN, if IJN could move the scouting squadron to another ship (or 2), then the CVs can concentrate on attack only.**
*OK, they blew 1. as they didn't make the hull stiff enough and accuracy fell off due to hull flex when the main armament fired.
**Advancement between '32 when the design was funded and '42 when they were in combat, meant floatplanes were no longer able to scout with impunity. So, Tone/Nisshin/Oyodo all suffer from that shortcoming.​

My biggest concern: What are you doing for plane guard ship with your hybrid??

Wouldn't necessarily have been an issue for USN in early '30s - they had enough 4 stackers, but would be a challenge for everyone else.​

With shore based air cover, there is always the issue of planes not being in the right place at the necessary time.

​

A hybrid cruiser carrier might be expensive way to provide 12-24 aircraft to an engagement, but its a lot cheaper than losing 3 cruisers and having a BB laid up. Or losing a BB or BB & BC.

As noted earlier:

BB/BC is a poor choice for a hybrid - putting lots of extremely flammable gasoline in a ship that is expected to go toe to toe with opponent is just a bad idea. Not necessarily the shell hitting the fuel tank, but more damaging tank or line resulting in fumes filling the ship.
DD and smaller have the issue of range & stability (not necessarily in that order)​

You need enough speed to keep up with the battle group.​

Which pretty much leaves cruisers as choice for the hull.​

And no navy built cruisers with immunity zones to 8" guns, most not even 6" guns, so they really don't have any business engaging peers, let alone the big boys.​

To be truly useful, the hybrid cruiser needs a landing on deck - RM proposed conversion of CA Bolzano into fighter cruiser might have been solution for what happened at Cape Matapan but too expensive overall IMHO, not to mention after the 12 a/c have been launched it is little more than a flak ship.

As a raider, a hybrid cruiser has lots of potential:

It can scout a much larger area than a gun ship - finding both potential targets and enemy forces (with functional Ar.196, battle of River Platte never happens)​

The "Roberts rules of merchant raiding" required providing "position of safety" for which ship's (aka life) boats don't count. So, the raider needs to get close enough to transfer the crew before sinking the ship - which basically means aircraft can't attack merchantmen.​

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

To their detriment.

How so? Did they have the budget to fund a ship that both required useful aircraft and medium-to-large caliber gun foundries? Could they afford two different supply-chains to support one or two halfhouse ships with limited utility?

Which navies do you think would have 1) benefitted from hybrid carriers without breaking the bank, and 2) had the resource base to build or support them? What nations could do this in a manner that fulfilled their actual military needs?

Put another way, which nation suffered for not having hybrid carriers?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

True. That's Germany's silly choice of twin turrets when everyone else, save the KGV's B-turret in the 1930s onwards was making triples and quads. The ideal camship layout for Bismarck would be Richelieu. 32 knots top speed, eight 15" concentrated up front, 9,500 nmi range at 15 knots, space for a large hanger or even a CATOBAR flight deck aft.

Except Krupp stuck with sliding-block breeches, which widened the space requirement at the butt-end of the turret, which in turn limited the number of guns you could fit inside a given turret-ring. You're not getting 4 Krupp 15" guns into a turret without widening the beam and thus slowing down the ship. Two turrets forward is going to make turret Anton's barbette and magazine pretty vulnerable no matter what.

 

[tomo pauk]

How so? Did they have the budget to fund a ship that both required useful aircraft and medium-to-large caliber gun foundries?

Yes, they did.

Could they afford two different supply-chains to support one or two halfhouse ships with limited utility?

Same supply chains for the ships of very good utility.

Which navies do you think would have 1) benefitted from hybrid carriers without breaking the bank, and 2) had the resource base to build or support them?

1) France, Soviet Union, Italy, Germany, Japan.
Both the USA and UK have had the bank, too, as well as the other resources required.

What nations could do this in a manner that fulfilled their actual military needs?

Italy, Germany, Japan.

Put another way, which nation suffered for not having hybrid carriers?

At least Italy and Germany.

 

[z42]

USN gaming had 2 hybrid cruiser carriers better than 2 cruisers or 2 light carriers or a cruiser and a light carrier
​

I suppose that makes sense; if your navy is so small you can't afford to operate both cruisers and carriers, hybrids could be a better option than being without either.

But at the same time, not many navies were that small and had a need to operate beyond land based air cover? The Netherlands, maybe, considering the DEI and other colonies?

IJN Tone class was combination of 2 ideas:

As far as I understood, the topic of this thread was hybrid carriers capable of operating wheeled aircraft (including landing!), so useful as the Tones were in IJN doctrine it's not really what the OP was looking at?

My biggest concern: What are you doing for plane guard ship with your hybrid??

Wouldn't necessarily have been an issue for USN in early '30s - they had enough 4 stackers, but would be a challenge for everyone else.​

Ideally, you wouldn't want to operate any large warship without at least a destroyer screen (long range merchant raiders excepted). Not sure what makes hybrid carriers any different.

And if you can't afford that, maybe you need to accept that you just don't have the money required to have a blue water navy.

As a raider, a hybrid cruiser has lots of potential:

It can scout a much larger area than a gun ship - finding both potential targets and enemy forces (with functional Ar.196, battle of River Platte never happens)
The "Roberts rules of merchant raiding" required providing "position of safety" for which ship's (aka life) boats don't count. So, the raider needs to get close enough to transfer the crew before sinking the ship - which basically means aircraft can't attack merchantmen.​

Indeed, if you can make the logistics work, that could be a powerful concept for commerce raiding early in the war.

OTOH, do you need a hybrid carrier-cruiser for that? If the task of the guns is to stop an intercepted merchant, surely a few 6" guns on an otherwise 'pure' carrier ought to be enough. Or even a bunch of 5" DP guns could do it? If the merchant starts shooting back, turn away and launch a flight of dive bombers.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, they did.



Same supply chains for the ships of very good utility.

So useful that no nation but a terribly desperate Japan built them.

1) France, Soviet Union, Italy, Germany, Japan.

How so? Be specific in listing those benefits, please.

 

[tomo pauk]

So useful that no nation but a terribly desperate Japan built them.

Japan made no ships like the ones that I've mooted in this thread.

How so? Be specific in listing those benefits, please.

To what end? As if people that don't like the idea will now say 'okay, now I agree with you'.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Japan made no ships like the ones that I've mooted in this thread.

Right. Why do you suppose that's the case?

To what end? As if people that don't like the idea will now say 'okay, now I agree with you'.

I'd like to see the nuts and bolts of your reasoning as to how these nations would benefit, rather than reading vague and unsupported claims. I'm funny that way.

Also your post here is a not-so-subtle poisoning the well.

 

[Shortround6]

So useful that no nation but a terribly desperate Japan built them.

It appears that nobody except Japan actually constructed Hybrids that were intended to launch wheeled aircraft and they were not intending to land the wheeled aircraft back on-board.
This is in the modern (post 1925?) era.
So actual use of a hybrid with wheeled aircraft and landing back on-board is conjecture. Accident rate/serviceability, magazine space and arrangements are not discussed.

The Japanese BB/carrier hybrids seem to have dual purpose, not really triple.
A floatplane recon aspect, much like the the Tones or even many of their other older cruisers.
A single use one-time, strike component. Planes recover to other carriers or land bases if possible.

Now perhaps the Hybrid BBs could be used at the end of the Glorious Japanese Victory for shooting up crippled American/allied ships as they try to limp away
Sort of a reserve ammo supply after the normal Japanese battleships/cruisers had exhausted their ammo?

People may have planned, sketched, drawn more capable hybrids (more aviation fuel and munitions storage) more aircraft maintenance, more aircraft trussed up in the rafters to replace crashed aircraft? But the actual cost (displacement/volume) may have gone up enough to not look as attractive.

For the RN the Ark Royal was supposed to carry 60 plane compared to the 48 planes on the Glorious. We can argue a bit about exact number or differences between the 1920s planes the Glorious carried and the late 1930s planes the Ark Royal carried. What is less arguable is the the fact that the Glorious held 34,500 gal of av gas, while the Ark Royal carried 100,000 gal. The small, slow Colossus class carried 98,600 gals and the slightly later (laid down in 1943) Majestics carried 75,000 gal, partially to compensate for the heavier flight deck and fittings to handle heavier aircraft.
Large quantities of aviation fuel need a lot of tonnage/volume for safe storage.

 

[tomo pauk]

Right. Why do you suppose that's the case?

I was not in charge of the Japanese wartime procurement, nor do I have good docs and sources dealing with that.

I'd like to see the nuts and bolts of your reasoning as to how these nations would benefit, rather than reading vague and unsupported claims. I'm funny that way.

Also your post here is a not-so-subtle poisoning the well.

Your enmity towards the idea was expressed, directly or indirectly, perhaps a dozen times here. I have no desire to cater to your wishes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was not in charge of the Japanese wartime procurement, nor do I have good docs and sources dealing with that.

I'm aware of that. I was wondering why you thought that might be the case, not asking for a historical overview.

Your enmity towards the idea was expressed, directly or indirectly, perhaps a dozen times here. I have no desire to cater to your wishes.

So you won't explain your reasoning simply because we don't agree? Wow.

 

[tomo pauk]

I was wondering why you thought that might be the case, not asking for a historical overview.

It probably never dawned on them?

So you won't explain your reasoning simply because we don't agree? Wow.

It is not just a simple disagreement from your side, but a vehement opposition to the idea. Thus I will not cater to your wishes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It probably never dawned on them?



It is not just a simple disagreement from your side, but a vehement opposition to the idea. Thus I will not cater to your wishes.

The negatives outweigh the positives in my opinion. I asked you to produce the positives. You refuse to do so because I'm in disagreement. I'm willing to change my mind, in the face of informed and congruent reasoning.

Or perhaps the only positive is that the ship will have heavy guns available in what is a niche and easily avoidable scenario.

You like hybrids, I get it. That doesn't mean they're optimal combatants; they make too many compromises in my opinion.