It's 1940 and you're....

[Freebird]

I have an idea guys. Since my "let's gt it started and see what sticks" posts seems to have confused people, lets start from scratch. Since we now know we can mix and match, it sure opens the possibilities.

Tim and Freebird. Since you two have the strongest opinions here, why don't you post something to start with?

Also, just a question.......if we are picking Battleships, would the Yamato be an option? yes I know it only went 27 knots and the carriers would have to wait on it, but the firepower it would bring in a battle group would be tremendous. It was launched in 1940 so it's an option.

I thought we were doing "completed date", now if you pick Mar 1940 things become VERY interesting, as you would miss all the modern Battleships, as Littorio was completed in May, Bismarck in Aug and King G.V. in Dec. Yamato North Carolina were not completed until 1941. Thor, remember that "launched" only means that the hull is complete, it still needed guns, turrets etc. worked on.

Anyways if you pick Mar 1940 there is no BB faster than 23 knots, making the BC's {Renown, Scharnhorst} very valuable indeed.

Ok, it's a thread that has promise so let's give it a whirl.

For starters, let set up the time and geography. Time is 1940, March. No particlular reason I picked March, just came to mind. Anybody have any strong opinions about another month, have at it.

Three powers. One is Maritime, the other two are continental. The Maritime power is one large island with colonies that supply raw materials. It's economic power is roughly 40% greater than one of the the continental powers and about 10% less than the other. For simplicty, we'll make England our Maritime power and Spain and Germany the two Continental powers. Lends itself to the time frame as well. France is neutral, as is the rest of Europe to varying degress. But France is decidedly not friendly to Germany, indifferent to Spain and cordial to England.

US is friendly to England. USSR is cordial but not overly friendly to England. Italy is not friendly to England. Nordic Countries are strictly neutral.

All England's possessions are in play as they were in 1940. Same geography, same trade routes.

All airplanes in the world at that point are available with the exception of the the Japanese Empire. Japan, as a power, does not exist. It has the same power as China so it is not a regional power. Strictly local. Aircraft are second rate from the US/England/France. Just did it it for simplicity. Same with the Japanese Navy. No oriental equipment is used in the setup (and they had some very good stuff). Again, nothing personal, just for simplicity.

Ships, the same. England can purchase or "lend lease" ships from the US. Spain can do the same with Italy. USSR sells to both sides. Same goes with other equiepment.

As for the fleet sizing, I would say 8-8-5 for BBs. Cruisers, Ger- 12, GB- 33, Esp- 9. DDs Ger- 33, GB- 57, Esp-21. Subs, Ger- 48, GB 39, ESP 30. Carriers, Ger 2, GB 5, Esp 1.

Ok, it's a start. Somebody want to flesh out parts of it. Have at it!

I think we should stick to "end of 1940" just for interest sake.
We should set the number of old BB's, and then say that there are only so many modern BB's available

Tim if the Maritime power is already outnumbered 13 - 8 in BB's and 2 - 1 in subs they are pretty much sunk already! Due to the fact that the maritime power has to prevent an invasion of the homeland, assist it's continental Allies secure trade routes they would need AT LEAST 150% of they enemy's strength, otherwise the empire could not expect to survive.

Your choice of Spain instead of Italy is interesting though...

Do you think the countries are already at war? Or is this planning for a Future war? Would Spain's fleet be in the Med, the Atlantic or 50/50? What is the status of Portugal?

It would make the contingency plans for the fall of Gibraltar even sharper in focus. If the Spanish had made a move against Gibraltar, {or let Germany do it} the British would have moved to seize the Canaries, and if Portugal is invaded they would occupy the Azores Madeira as well

And I don't think you can consider # of cruisers, but total tonnage. Thats why the British CA's seem weaker than the Japanese, because they built a larger # of cruisers of about 10,000 or 11,000 tons, the Japanese had CA's of 13,000 or 14,000 tons.

 

[Glider]

To be honest the British Navy had a good mix at the start of the war, but I would make some changes to what was built.

Courageous, Furious and Glorious were very good smaller carriers with 36-48 aircraft, speed and a decent AA defence. The Ark Royal was an excellent carrier and I would have continued to build these rather than the Illustrious.

The old BB were ideal for escorting convoys able to take on any opposing warship.

The KGV were not the best but were no pushover for anyone. Also they had the best AA defence of any BB in 1940. Bismark and Scharnhorst would run them close.

The Heavy Cruisers were not the best but again were a good average but the Medium cruisers were very capable. The Dido were the first AA cruisers in the world and even the old WW1 cruisers had a role to play in the front line being converted to AA cruisers. Most importantly the RN had a lot of them.

Destroyers. The RN had a good number of destroyers of different sizes. Unfortunately they stuck with 4 x 4.7 LA guns for far too long. That said they had some good ones. The LM Class were very good and more of those would have been of considerable benefit. I would have stuck with building more of these.
The small Hunt class were excellent. Small, well armed, first class handling and fast enough to support any convoy and the older BB's.

Escorts - didn't have enough at the start of the war (which navy didn't) but the designs were the best in the world.

 

[Freebird]

To be honest the British Navy had a good mix at the start of the war, but I would make some changes to what was built.

Courageous, Furious and Glorious were very good smaller carriers with 36-48 aircraft, speed and a decent AA defence. The Ark Royal was an excellent carrier and I would have continued to build these rather than the Illustrious.

The old BB were ideal for escorting convoys able to take on any opposing warship.

The KGV were not the best but were no pushover for anyone. Also they had the best AA defence of any BB in 1940. Bismark and Scharnhorst would run them close.

The Heavy Cruisers were not the best but again were a good average but the Medium cruisers were very capable. The Dido were the first AA cruisers in the world and even the old WW1 cruisers had a role to play in the front line being converted to AA cruisers. Most importantly the RN had a lot of them.

Destroyers. The RN had a good number of destroyers of different sizes. Unfortunately they stuck with 4 x 4.7 LA guns for far too long. That said they had some good ones. The LM Class were very good and more of those would have been of considerable benefit. I would have stuck with building more of these.
The small Hunt class were excellent. Small, well armed, first class handling and fast enough to support any convoy and the older BB's.

Escorts - didn't have enough at the start of the war (which navy didn't) but the designs were the best in the world.

Excellent posts Glider, I agree. Do you think the 5.25's would have been better on the destroyers?

About the CV's, I'm a bit torn on those. The result of actual battles is mixed too. It would be nice to have 60+ aircraft instead of 36, although it seems that they improved that in the Indomitable. Also they almost mothballed the last 2 "Implacable's", they took 5.5 years to finish, "Illustrious" was done in 3. I would think it would have been better instead of starting so many new carriers in 1942 1943 {Collossus, Majestic's, Eagle's Malta's} it would have been better to try to finish the Implacables sooner.

What do you think about "HMS Vindictive"? It was originally a CA, converted into a CVL in the 1920's, then re-converted into a training/depot ship. Would it have been more useful as a CVL or a CA? I think they might have put it back into service as a CVL?

About the BB's, I think they made the right choice, to finish up the K.G.V's, but not use up scarce shipyard resources on the "Lion" class BB's, which would be several years away in any event. Sad though because it would have been nice to see them.


Tim, Thor, Lucky all.

Since we are musing about possibilities for Spain what are your thoughts? Use the historical model of the Royal Navy, from Dec 1940. Assume that the UK is at war with Germany, Italy, while Japan is menacing as it was. Now IF the Spanish had thrown in their lot with the Axis, and attacked Gibraltar. by Jan 1941 the fortress is neutralized, the guns have mostly been eliminated, the Royal Navy has left, although the defence battalions are still holding out. What would your strategy for the Navy be? Would you try to stop the Italian fleet from linking up? Suppose that Portugal wants to stay neutral, would it be worth risking their wrath by occuping Madeira Azores? Or would you abandon Iberian Morrocan waters to the Axis? If you can set up airbases base a fleet in Madeira it might compensate for the loss of Gibraltar

 

[Lucky13]

Anything that was completed in 1940 up to December 31 will do, me think...

 

[Freebird]

To be honest the British Navy had a good mix at the start of the war, but I would make some changes to what was built.

And about ships, there are really two questions, what kind of ships would you like, and in what ratio. The kind of ships are more or less personal preference, as most navies were similar. For CA's, I have always liked the Northamptons, but the Zara's, Takao's, Hipper's County's were comparable. For BB's, the Littorio's, Bismarck's, King G.V.'s N.Carolina's were all roughly similar in power, about 28 - 30 knots, 8, 9 or 10 of 14", 15", or 16" guns.

In all nations, it took from 3 - 5 years to build anything from CA or heavier, so you are more or less locked into what you decided to build 3 or more years ago!

Considering the ratio's, the plan for the Royal Navy at the end of 1940 was to have a ratio of:

CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL, it was: 2- 1- 4- 1- 8- 16

which gives 6-3-12-3-24-48

Do you agree that this is a good ratio of ships? Or would you change it? In WWII the British did not build any more CA's, they concentrated on CL's, DD's DE's. I also think that they made the right choice with the Battleships, but I don't think the planning for the CV's was good. They should have finished the 4 remaining Illustrious/Implacable CV's as quickly as possible, then laid down perhaps 4 more CV's or CVL's, and convert some passenger ships quickly instead of wasting years building CV's CVL's. The Royal Navy laid down ten Colossus class from Jan '42 - Jan '43, and six "Majestic's" in 1943, only ONE made it into sevice by 1944 (Colossus in Dec of '44). It would be far more helpful to have a dozen or so "aircraft transports" in 1941-1942, instead of TWENTY carriers still building at the end of 1944!

Unfortunately, the sinking of the Glorious Courageous left the RN with only 4 fleet carriers until the Victorious is finished in May of '41

Its also a little difficult to compare CA's CL's as the British "Town" class, the US "Brooklyn's the Japanese "Mogami's" were listed as CL's but were almost the same tonnage as CA's and so should really be included as CA's. In fact the RN had plans to convert some of the Town's to 8" guns, just as the Japanese had converted the "Mogami's"

I think the ratio's were about the right mix, although I would increase the number of CVE's as quickly as possible

I personally think the British should have converted some of their large fleet of passenger liners as Auxilliary carriers, instead of using them as AMC's {Auxilliary Merchant Cruisers} A merchant ship could probably be converted in about 3 to 5 months if they pushed it, these auxilliarys could have been used as escorts as aircraft transports, which would free up fleet carriers from this task. Wasp, Ranger, Victorious, Ark Royal, Furious etc were all used as transports when they were badly needed as fleet carriers, especially in the Pacific.

An "Aircraft Transport ship" would have a flight deck, catapults arrestors, but would have only basic maintainance facilities, and would not have spent time working up training a large naval air group. {since they would be transporting P-40's or Spitfire's for take-off to Malta or elsewhere} This would also have the advantage that if lost in this mission would be easier to replace than a fleet carrier {eg. Ark Royal was lost on an aircraft transport mission} They would also be better for this mission than the "Bouge" type CVE's, because the passenger ships were longer {600' - 700'} with more take-off room than the shorter 500' "Bouge's" Some of the ships that could have been used were the "Empress", "Duchess" "Castle" classes

 

[Glider]

Excellent posts Glider, I agree. Do you think the 5.25's would have been better on the destroyers?

No I don't. The 5.25 was way to big for a destroyer but I would have replaced the 4 x 4.7LA with 6 x 4in AA. The weight is about the same and the AA would of course have been invaluble. The twin 4in was also a good gun against destroyers so it wouldn't have lost out in a naval context. Its worth noting that some WW1 VW destroyers were rearmed before the war with 4 x 4in AA guns and the last of the Cossack class destroyers had 8 x 4in instead of 8 x 4.7LA.

About the CV's, I'm a bit torn on those. The result of actual battles is mixed too. It would be nice to have 60+ aircraft instead of 36, although it seems that they improved that in the Indomitable. Also they almost mothballed the last 2 "Implacable's", they took 5.5 years to finish, "Illustrious" was done in 3. I would think it would have been better instead of starting so many new carriers in 1942 1943 {Collossus, Majestic's, Eagle's Malta's} it would have been better to try to finish the Implacables sooner.

At the end of the day aircraft carriers carry aircraft so I would go for the Ark Royals on that basis alone. Also it was a proven design, building 4 or 5 more of them wouldn't take nearly as long as building the Illustrious which of course was a new design.
Collossus, Eagle etc are interesting but far to late and don't fit into this 1940 timescale.

What do you think about "HMS Vindictive"? It was originally a CA, converted into a CVL in the 1920's, then re-converted into a training/depot ship. Would it have been more useful as a CVL or a CA? I think they might have put it back into service as a CVL?

CVL definately. It would be small but fast and able to assist the larger carriers. The RN had enough cruisers and one more wouldn't have made much of a difference. CVL's are always useful.

About the BB's, I think they made the right choice, to finish up the K.G.V's, but not use up scarce shipyard resources on the "Lion" class BB's, which would be several years away in any event. Sad though because it would have been nice to see them.

Have to agree with you but again the 1940 slot would rule the Lion out anyway.

One general point the RN with the German Navy were well ahead in the Radar game in 1940. This would count for a lot.

Re the Split I would go for

1 Aircraft carrier - 1 Modern BB - 2 Heavy Cruiser - 3 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 6 fleet destroyers - 6 escort destroyers - 6 escorts

 

[Lucky13]

Would we really swap Yorktown class for the Ark Royal? 90+ vs 60 aircraft? They were also slightly slower 31 vs 32, not much, but in the long run...
And what about the double-hangar design, resulting in a very high hull? Generally a good design I have agree with, well armed and protected, good for aircraft operations, etc. One flaw though, was the arrangement of boiler exhausts, which in the end, lead to her loss.

Also, with armor piercing shells and bombs, wouldn't a armored flightdeck be so much harder to repair compared to a wooden one, so that you could if there were time, land your aircraft?

 

[Glider]

One flaw though, was the arrangement of boiler exhausts, which in the end, lead to her loss.

Also, with armor piercing shells and bombs, wouldn't a armored flightdeck be so much harder to repair compared to a wooden one, so that you could if there were time, land your aircraft?

I had a decent conversation once with a Priest in Plymouth. During the war he was a Swordfish pilot on the ArK Royal when she was hit by the torpedo. He was absolutely adamant that what caused her loss was the actions of the Captain who allowed the engines to be shut down leading to a loss of power and the loss of the vessel.

Re an armoured deck vs a wooden one. It an age old argument, but in brief any bomb will penetrate a wooden deck making it a dockyard repair. Only some bombs depending on the armour will penetrate an armoured deck making a dockyard repair less likely.
Bombs that don't penetrate an armoured deck tend to bend it and this was easily repaired at sea using quick drying cement.

 

[timshatz]

Freebird, I think Portugal stays neutral as does Italy. Later, we can toss more in but for now, in the basic, let's keep these guys where they are. Simplicity.

Start date is December 1940.

Where are we with the ratio of ships? While I agree with you the odds are stacked against the Brits, I think they've got several advantages in their favor. Position is the first and it is the biggest. They're open to move on either side as they choose. And the caliber of the British ships (along with the crews) is excellent. Rate the Germans as very good and the Spanish as average. But if you want to change the ratios, toss something out covering all three sides. Nothing written in stone, we can mix and match.

Once we get the Naval forces figured out, we can go on to the Air aspect.

But we really need to figure out the base line before launching any campaigns (The Rock, Canaries, ect).

So, back we go, what would be the composition of the forces (with an eye towards what they had historically)? Need to finish our baseline.

 

[Freebird]

No I don't. The 5.25 was way to big for a destroyer but I would have replaced the 4 x 4.7LA with 6 x 4in AA. The weight is about the same and the AA would of course have been invaluble. The twin 4in was also a good gun against destroyers so it wouldn't have lost out in a naval context. Its worth noting that some WW1 VW destroyers were rearmed before the war with 4 x 4in AA guns and the last of the Cossack class destroyers had 8 x 4in instead of 8 x 4.7LA.

You are quite right, but I think that they probably decided that during wartime it was better to build new DD's CL's instead of re-fitting. What do you think of the "new" CL's - the "Ceylon's", "Bellona's" "Swiftsure's"? All were completed in late '41, '42 or '43. Were they good designs?

At the end of the day aircraft carriers carry aircraft so I would go for the Ark Royals on that basis alone. Also it was a proven design, building 4 or 5 more of them wouldn't take nearly as long as building the Illustrious which of course was a new design.
Colossus, Eagle etc are interesting but far to late and don't fit into this 1940 timescale.

The point I was making with Colossus etc was that these were products of choices made in 1941 or early 1942. The problem in this kind of scenario is that ships you can't just say "I wish I had this", you must consider what you have available, and try to predict what you need 3 or 4 years later. I don't think you are right about the carriers, Ark Royal took 3 years to build {1936 - 1938} and so did Illustrious {mid '37 - mid '40} I agree that it is better to have more aircraft { }, but I do see the advantage of the armoured carriers, while they might be put out of action for many months by bomb damage, at least they made it home with almost all of the crew. compare that to the fate of the Akagi Soryu etc.

Consider the time frame of Dec 1940, and think what you want to do. There are 5 carriers under construction. The "Victorious" "Indomitable" were completed as quickly as possible, both in sevice 1941. The "Implacable" was laid down in early '39, "Indefatiguable" at the end of '39. Also "Unicorn" started mid- '39 After that things took a wrong turn, they started work on the 10 carriers in 1942, and all but 1 didn't become operational until '45.

I think you can consider the new 1942 "Eagle" to be more like a modern "Ark Royal", as the air group is up to 78 aircraft.

What I would do in 1941 is start construction of 1 or 2 fleet carriers, "Super Ark Royal's" if you will. Finish the Victorious Indomitable. Work on the "Implacable's" "Unicorn" as quickly as possible, so that they could be completed in 1942 or early '43. I would plan to convert passenger ships to auxilliary carriers as quickly as possible, instead of taking 3 years to build "Colossus" class. Only start a couple of CV/CVL's in 42, instead concentrate on finishing existing ships quickly. No reason why "Implacable" should have taken 5.5 years!

CVL definately. It would be small but fast and able to assist the larger carriers. The RN had enough cruisers and one more wouldn't have made much of a difference. CVL's are always useful.

Have to agree with you but again the 1940 slot would rule the Lion out anyway.

Actually the Lion is already under construction, laid down mid 1939, work suspended Oct 1940, later scrapped. Vanguard was laid down late 1941, not completed until 1946. So if you wanted another BB it would be better to finish the "Lion", not start a new one. I would not have started "Vanguard", it would take too long to finish. The British probably have enough BB's at that point, they are much tougher than CV's, they really only lost 2 in wartime combat {Royal Oak Barham}, I consider "Prince of Wales" more like "suicide by stupidity". I would finish "Duke of York" "Anson" "Howe", then concentrate on the carriers.

One general point the RN with the German Navy were well ahead in the Radar game in 1940. This would count for a lot.

Re the Split I would go for

1 Aircraft carrier - 1 Modern BB - 2 Heavy Cruiser - 3 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 6 fleet destroyers - 6 escort destroyers - 6 escorts

Are you talking new construction here? Thats not enough DD's escorts. If you are talking total fleet then you are way too light in cruisers destroyers, the Germans didn't need that many, but the British did with their far-flung empire. Do you consider "medium cruiser" to be like the "Fiji", "Swiftsure" or "Brooklyn's"?

Consider the total # of RN ships completed from Jan 1941 - summer 1945: CV 4, CVE 63, BB 4, CA 0, CA(med) 7, CL 7, DD 220, DE 250+

So the ratio of '41-'45 builds would be: 1 Aircraft carrier - 16 Escort carrier* - 1 Modern BB - 0 Heavy Cruiser - 2 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 55 fleet destroyers - 60+ escort destroyers (corvettes)- 60+ escorts (sloops, trawlers etc) *includes US construction

I think they had a good ratio of building program, except I would cancel the "Vanguard most of the "Colossus", and convert more Aux. carriers

 

[Lucky13]

I had a decent conversation once with a Priest in Plymouth. During the war he was a Swordfish pilot on the ArK Royal when she was hit by the torpedo. He was absolutely adamant that what caused her loss was the actions of the Captain who allowed the engines to be shut down leading to a loss of power and the loss of the vessel.

Re an armoured deck vs a wooden one. It an age old argument, but in brief any bomb will penetrate a wooden deck making it a dockyard repair. Only some bombs depending on the armour will penetrate an armoured deck making a dockyard repair less likely.
Bombs that don't penetrate an armoured deck tend to bend it and this was easily repaired at sea using quick drying cement.

Thanks! What about the much smaller air group? Also, what was the cost for Ark Royal compared to Yorktown?

 

[Freebird]

Would we really swap Yorktown class for the Ark Royal? 90+ vs 60 aircraft? They were also slightly slower 31 vs 32, not much, but in the long run...
And what about the double-hangar design, resulting in a very high hull? Generally a good design I have agree with, well armed and protected, good for aircraft operations, etc. One flaw though, was the arrangement of boiler exhausts, which in the end, lead to her loss.

Also, with armor piercing shells and bombs, wouldn't a armored flightdeck be so much harder to repair compared to a wooden one, so that you could if there were time, land your aircraft?

Lucky, in Naval war it's kinda like the expression "dance with the one that brung ya" In most cases they had second thoughts or would like to change the design, but with a 3 or 4 year construction time you are basically stuck with what you laid down years ago. I agree with you that the "Yorktown" was probably the best aircraft carrier design in early 1941, considering size of air group how well she stood up to damage. Would the British offer the 23,000 ton "Furious" or the 26,000 ton "Eagle" {1924 ver.} to trade straight up for a 25,000 ton "Yorktown"? In a heartbeat!!!

The British design for armoured flight decks I would tend to agree with, for the points mentioned earlier, survivability, and because the British anticipated fighting in the Atlantic or the Med within range of shore based A/C, while the US looked at operations far out in the Pacific away from freindly bases. I would note that the 4 British armoured CV in service before "Pearl" all survived heavy damage from multiple bombs, while the 4 Japanese carriers at Midway all sank with 2 - 4 bomb hits. Even if your carrier is unrepairable, if it makes it home with the crew intact you have a trained crew that could be put on a new ship.

Also I would note that the Victorious operated 60 Wildcats while in the Pacific in 1943. So I would say that it was British operational doctrine that was flawed, not the ships. For example on "Pedestal", I would have landed all of the swordfish Albacore's, and had 50 -60 fighters for fleet defence. For airstrkes on the Italian fleet (if they showed up) I would have carrier bases fighters escort longer-ranged land based Swordfish, Beauforts Hapmdens to hit the Axis fleet.

Freebird, I think Portugal stays neutral as does Italy. Later, we can toss more in but for now, in the basic, let's keep these guys where they are. Simplicity.

Start date is December 1940.

Where are we with the ratio of ships? While I agree with you the odds are stacked against the Brits, I think they've got several advantages in their favor. Position is the first and it is the biggest. They're open to move on either side as they choose. And the caliber of the British ships (along with the crews) is excellent. Rate the Germans as very good and the Spanish as average. But if you want to change the ratios, toss something out covering all three sides. Nothing written in stone, we can mix and match.

Once we get the Naval forces figured out, we can go on to the Air aspect.

But we really need to figure out the base line before launching any campaigns (The Rock, Canaries, ect).

So, back we go, what would be the composition of the forces (with an eye towards what they had historically)? Need to finish our baseline.

I would say that the Spanish would have a fleet about the size of the historical Italian Navy, while if we hypothesize that if Germany had not lost its WWI fleet it might have 4 or 5 "Bayern" BB's and 1 or 2 "Hindenburg" BC's

The main question is are these countries already at war? What the situation with France is a key consideration. About ratio's I think it is the other way around, the German/Spanish Axis have the advantage of interior lines, while the British would have to provide long escorts to colonies "around the cape" {as Gibraltar would soon fall to the Axis, shutting off the Med except through Suez.}

I will have to think on the baseline a little and put something up.

 

[Glider]

You are quite right, but I think that they probably decided that during wartime it was better to build new DD's CL's instead of re-fitting. What do you think of the "new" CL's - the "Ceylon's", "Bellona's" "Swiftsure's"? All were completed in late '41, '42 or '43. Were they good designs?

You are correct about the preference being to build new destroyers but most of the war built destroyers kept the 4 x 4.7 LA guns as the main weapons. Its these that I would have equipped with the 6 x 4in.

The Cruisers proved themselves many times over and were based on the Town class cruisers. I served on HMS Tiger in the early 70's and although the guns and radars had changed beyond all recognition the basic ship hull was little changed.

The point I was making with Colossus etc was that these were products of choices made in 1941 or early 1942. The problem in this kind of scenario is that ships you can't just say "I wish I had this", you must consider what you have available, and try to predict what you need 3 or 4 years later. I don't think you are right about the carriers, Ark Royal took 3 years to build {1936 - 1938} and so did Illustrious {mid '37 - mid '40} I agree that it is better to have more aircraft { }, but I do see the advantage of the armoured carriers, while they might be put out of action for many months by bomb damage, at least they made it home with almost all of the crew. compare that to the fate of the Akagi Soryu etc.

I see where you are coming from. With war coming I wouldn't have bothered with a new design, the Ark Royal worked and worked well, the only changes that I would suggest would be the lifts, making them go from the lower deck to the flight deck. This though is small potatoes compared to desinging a new ship. The follow on ships could have been built from 1937 and would have been finished well before the Illustrious came on stream. By 1941 they all would have been available for action.

This would have freed up the dock space for more of the same or the Colossus class.

Actually the Lion is already under construction, laid down mid 1939, work suspended Oct 1940, later scrapped. Vanguard was laid down late 1941, not completed until 1946. So if you wanted another BB it would be better to finish the "Lion", not start a new one. I would not have started "Vanguard", it would take too long to finish. The British probably have enough BB's at that point, they are much tougher than CV's, they really only lost 2 in wartime combat {Royal Oak Barham}, I consider "Prince of Wales" more like "suicide by stupidity". I would finish "Duke of York" "Anson" "Howe", then concentrate on the carriers.

I would have done the reverse, not started the Lion and pushed the building of the Vanguard. The problem wasn't the building of the ship, it was supplying the Guns. We didn't have the ability to build the 16in guns needed, we only had the machinery to build the 14in. This is why the Vanguard had WW1 15in Gun Turrets.

Are you talking new construction here? Thats not enough DD's escorts. If you are talking total fleet then you are way too light in cruisers destroyers, the Germans didn't need that many, but the British did with their far-flung empire. Do you consider "medium cruiser" to be like the "Fiji", "Swiftsure" or "Brooklyn's"?

Sorry the Term medium cruiser is one that I am used to using in debates. It is unofficial and not a term you will hear anywhere else or in any book.
We used it to cover the 7000-10000 ton range. Lights were less than that and Heavy bigger.
The traditional if its a 6in its a light cruiser and if its got 8 in its a heavy makes little sense in the real world. It means the Brooklyn with 15 x 6in and heavy armour is the same as an Arethusa which has 6 x 6in and has very thin armour, or even an old WW1 cruiser.
Just ignore the term for this forum.

 

[Glider]

These may be of interest, apologies to those who have seen them before

 

[timshatz]

The main question is are these countries already at war? What the situation with France is a key consideration. About ratio's I think it is the other way around, the German/Spanish Axis have the advantage of interior lines, while the British would have to provide long escorts to colonies "around the cape" {as Gibraltar would soon fall to the Axis, shutting off the Med except through Suez.}

I will have to think on the baseline a little and put something up.

Figure the French are neutral but it is an uneasy neutrality. Was thinking the Spanish fleet was smaller than the Italian fleet, not nearly so fast. Ships are older, more WW1 class than up to date. A few ships here and there are new but most are at least 10 years old.

As for the German fleet, that's a good one. I guess we're going to have to give them a couple of BBs. So WW1 Bayern and Hindenburgs are a good call. Sounds like a scenario where the Great Depression forces navies of the world to downsize. Same could be said with the Brits. The best in class stick around while the older ships of WW1 vintage go to the breakers.

Politically, Nazi Germany comes again due to a collapse of the Kaiser's Govt brought on by the Depression. Interum Democratic Govts fail and Hitler again rises to power, but in 1936 instead of earlier. Franco is in charge in Spain (after the civil war that ended late 30s), Mussolini in Italy. France is a republic but well aware of the three Facist dictatorships on her borders. She is trying to stay out of it.

 

[Lucky13]

I haven't seen any minesweepers for our fictional country's navy...or have I just missed them....?

 

[Freebird]

I haven't seen any minesweepers for our fictional country's navy...or have I just missed them....?

I'm not as knowlegable about the smaller stuff, I think the British used "trawlers" for mines, and that they could also assist in ASW

What do you all think about the force mix ratio of the Royal navy?

Considering the ratio's, the plan for the Royal Navy at the end of 1940 was to have a ratio of:

CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL-DD, it was: 2- 1- 4- 1- 8- 16 -60 Historical

which gives 6-3-12-3-24-48


Consider the total # of RN ships completed from Jan 1941 - summer 1945: CV 4, CVE 63, BB 4, CA 0, CA(med) 7, CL 7, DD 220, DE 250+

Builds: CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL-DD-DE Ratio 1- 16- 1- 0- 2- 2- 55- 60

So the ratio of '41-'45 builds would be: 1 Aircraft carrier - 16 Escort carrier* - 1 Modern BB - 0 Heavy Cruiser - 2 Medium Cruiser - 2 Light cruiser - 55 fleet destroyers - 60+ escort destroyers (corvettes)- 60+ escorts (sloops, trawlers etc) *includes US construction

 

[timshatz]

the plan for the Royal Navy at the end of 1940 was to have a ratio of:

CV-CVE-BB-BC-CA-CL-DD, it was: 2- 1- 4- 1- 8- 16 -60 Historical

which gives 6-3-12-3-24-48

That would work for me as a starting place for the RN ships. Give Spain 40% less. What about Germany? Figured 10% more originally but you made the statement that it would make the war a non-event. I see and agree with your perspective. So we give them, what, 80%? Enought to make the Brits sit up and take notice but not enough to end the war in the first major combat.

Also, enough so the combined total is greater than Britian's total. Forces England on the attack, makes the scenario more interesting.

 

[Lucky13]

As for the subs, I think that we say that the best in service in 1940 were the German Type VII and IXA and B, right...?
Don't know much about the Royal Navy's S, T or the U class that were operational then...
What's the USN Sargo and Tambor class subs like?

 

[Glider]

British submarines were average and not as good as the German or American boats. However in 1940 they did have one huge advantage, the torpedo's worked.