Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
Whose shell actually destroyed the HMS Hood? No rear turrets. Half the firepower.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.
The bomb(s) from the Ju 87C.Whose shell actually destroyed the HMS Hood?
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.
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.
The air group also can cover much greater area in searching both for the enemy military ships, as well as for the merchant ships.
Luckily, neither Reader nor his Italian counterparts never figured this.
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.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.
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?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.
a. The fighters could have been stuck on the deck due to the damaged compressed air line just like the Ar.196 was historically.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.
To their detriment.
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.
Yes, they did.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?
1) France, Soviet Union, Italy, Germany, Japan.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?
At least Italy and Germany.Put another way, which nation suffered for not having hybrid carriers?
USN gaming had 2 hybrid cruiser carriers better than 2 cruisers or 2 light carriers or a cruiser and a light carrier
IJN Tone class was combination of 2 ideas:
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.
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.
Yes, they did.
Same supply chains for the ships of very good utility.
1) France, Soviet Union, Italy, Germany, Japan.
So useful that no nation but a terribly desperate Japan built them.
To what end? As if people that don't like the idea will now say 'okay, now I agree with you'.How so? Be specific in listing those benefits, please.
Japan made no ships like the ones that I've mooted in this thread.
To what end? As if people that don't like the idea will now say 'okay, now I agree with you'.
So useful that no nation but a terribly desperate Japan built them.
I was not in charge of the Japanese wartime procurement, nor do I have good docs and sources dealing with that.Right. Why do you suppose that's the case?
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.
I was not in charge of the Japanese wartime procurement, nor do I have good docs and sources dealing with that.
Your enmity towards the idea was expressed, directly or indirectly, perhaps a dozen times here. I have no desire to cater to your wishes.
It probably never dawned on them?I was wondering why you thought that might be the case, not asking for a historical overview.
So you won't explain your reasoning simply because we don't agree? Wow.
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.