Quick mods to the Courageous class

don4331 said:

But yes, more Ark Royal with modifications to sub-divide the boiler rooms would have been better.

Click to expand...

Ark Royal's problems didn't lie in the boiler rooms but in the space above that contained the boiler uptakes that carried the boiler gases across the ship to the funnel. That arrangement allowed gradual flooding of the centre and then port boiler rooms, as she listed to starboard and sank lower in the water. Her loss revealed the problem.

The same design was used in the Illustrious class. A fix was applied to them as they came in for refit or repair from 1942. That involved half height bulkheads being installed in the spaces concerned. The problem was caught early enough to allow the modification of the Audacious class design to carry the boiler uptakes higher in the ship before moving them across the ship.

Glider said:

I have always believed that not producing more Ark Royals with some modifications around the lift arrangements, would have been a much better idea that designing the Illustrious and following classes. The ships would have been available sooner and they carried more aircraft.
I hadn't thought about building them as replacements for C and G but I admit it makes sense. If the Ark Royal was approx £3m then a class would almost certainly have been cheaper per vessel. Brining it closer to the £2m to convert C and G

Click to expand...

I imagine the modified Arks would have had a much harder time in the Med than the armored-deck carriers.

Thumpalumpacus said:

I imagine the modified Arks would have had a much harder time in the Med than the armored-deck carriers.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Yes, there can be little doubt that the Ark Royal would not have survived the damage inflicted on the Illustrious. However I would suggest that no carrier, in any Navy, up to the end of the war would have survived such a pounding so I don't consider that an issue with the Ark Royal herself.

No, the RN would have had a number of Ark Royal Class carriers and the loss of one carrier wouldn't have had such an Impact on the war effort.

It is true to say that there was a design flaw which made it harder for the vessel to be saved, but appalling leadership and poor damage control procedures played a major part in her loss. There were also issues such as the lack of mobile pumps which played a part. All lessons that were learnt and applied to the rest of the fleet.

Glider said:

No, the RN would have had a number of Ark Royal Class carriers and the loss of one carrier wouldn't have had such an Impact on the war effort.

Click to expand...

How many more are you envisioning?

Glider said:

I have always believed that not producing more Ark Royals with some modifications around the lift arrangements, would have been a much better idea that designing the Illustrious and following classes. The ships would have been available sooner and they carried more aircraft.

Click to expand...

Only if they have more competitive fighters. Otherwise the abosute pounding Illustrious and Formidable took in the MTO would have likely have sunk the less protected Ark Royal class. Something better than Fulmars is needed…. though it could be argued that more Fulmars would suffice. Either way, we need to prevent those bombs that hit the two AFD carriers.

Thumpalumpacus said:

How many more are you envisioning?

Click to expand...

The two Courageous class (Furious can be on her own) predate Ark Royal and the experience that led to her design, and have lower allowable tonnage. If we're making new ships instead of the conversions the Courageous class will be larger and faster versions of Hermes.

Admiral Beez said:

The two Courageous class (Furious can be on her own) predate Ark Royal and the experience that led to her design, and have lower allowable tonnage. If we're making new ships instead of the conversions the Courageous class will be larger and faster versions of Hermes.

Click to expand...

I just want to know how many Arks are being built if the C/G/F carriers aren't converted. And I'd bet that Ark herself and any hypothetical follow-ons would be benefitting from the C/G/F experiences. Absent that experience, I wonder if Ark Royal would have been as fine a carrier as she was? Be it known I have a high regard for her and may be biased in the matter.

The US went from Langley to Lexingtons in one jump, but still took a good decade to formulate a coherent doctrine for the larger ships, though Langley did lay down useful precepts. It's possible the RN could have done the same, but how many Arks are we going to build not knowing whether we're on the right path or not?

If we're only getting (say) four Arks, losing one or two in the Med could be very hurtful.

I think the Brits did the right thing in armoring their flattops; and I think the Americans did the right thing in not armoring theirs -- because each nation had its own concerns and mission-profiles to think of. Ark Royal appears very good for its intended role of eastern operations, but having a bunch of them around when you need to escort convoys to Malta seems problematic, to me. It's a punch-heavy theater.

More Arks quicker? Check the build times for Ark and the Illustrious class.

Ark - 1934 Programme ordered 1935 - 39 months
Illustrious class -1936 & 1937 Programmes all ordered in 1937 - 37-48 months

Some of the delays in the Illustrious class were due to delays in armour delivery from Czechoslovakia.

The only way to get significant speeding up of deliveries of additional Arks is to order them earlier. Given RN rearmament plans I doubt that would happen.

EwenS said:

The only way to get significant speeding up of deliveries of additional Arks is to order them earlier. Given RN rearmament plans I doubt that would happen.

Click to expand...

Indeed, so it has nothing to do with the Courageous conversions or new builds.

Admiral Beez said:

The two Courageous class (Furious can be on her own) predate Ark Royal and the experience that led to her design, and have lower allowable tonnage. If we're making new ships instead of the conversions the Courageous class will be larger and faster versions of Hermes.

Click to expand...

Why would new ships necessarily be larger/faster than Hermes? Why would there even be additional ships - If RN is scrapping possible hulls, why would there be money for new builds??

If RN hasn't built the Courageous class, they haven't learned that bigger/faster ship works much better than a smaller one (aircraft get very compromised to work with all the smaller CVs in the fleet - you don't necessarily make planes just for Furious. The "Ark" of '34 could just be an updated version of Hermes.

Larger and faster is kind of a thing in arms races.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Larger and faster is kind of a thing in arms races.

Click to expand...

But RN needed units more than size - see HMS York and HMS Arethusa class cruisers - they gave up a turret to get more ships on the water.

If we're building updated Hermes, can we do something more Yorktown with that mast?

don4331 said:

But RN needed units more than size - see HMS York and HMS Arethusa class cruisers - they gave up a turret to get more ships on the water.

Click to expand...

The RN was squeezed. You want capable carriers able to survive in close waters? You'll need to give up numbers. You want numbers, you'll need to give up some displacement. You want lightly-armored carriers operating in the Med? You'd better have great air-intercept.

I think that given their situation they made a pretty good design choice to reduce air complement and up their armor, and when it comes to carriers, we're not talking about cruiser numbers. It's a different ball of wax.

The lighter cruisers were great for what they did, but they weren't carrier-grade assets.

SaparotRob said:

If we're building updated Hermes, can we do something more Yorktown with that mast?

Click to expand...

Back to mods of the existing Courageous pair, what mods do we want if they join Indomitable, Formidable and Hermes at Ceylon In preparation for the IJN's attack there? significant improvements to anti-aircraft and radar for starters I say.

The most impactful mod would be full CAGs, something that was rare early on. As the only carriers with full width lifts they can bring early Seafires, if available.

Admiral Beez said:

Back to mods of the existing Courageous pair, if we can get them both to Fremantle by April 1942 what reasonable mods do we want to have them join the USN and RAN at Coral Sea in May? Presumably they've been dispatched from Sommerville's Ceylon force before Nagumo's visit.

Click to expand...

They didn't survive the Kriegsmarine. I doubt they'd do better against IJN.

If they get to Australia, work 'em as ferries and don't hazard them in combat, I say.

In short: C&G hulls were at their limits, a larger flight deck could only be achieved with massive investments in money and time.
The timespot for this work was missed in late 1930s and in wartime they couldn't afford rebuilding them.
The early carrier losses revealed much worse problems with bad leadership (both higher commands and ship itself) which could be easily resolved by getting competent leaders in place.

Admiral Beez said:

Back to mods of the existing Courageous pair, what mods do we want if they join Indomitable, Formidable and Hermes at Ceylon In preparation for the IJN's attack there? significant improvements to anti-aircraft and radar for starters I say.

The most impactful mod would be full CAGs, something that was rare early on. As the only carriers with full width lifts they can bring early Seafires, if available.

Click to expand...

As I noted in post #6 you can't expect very much AA armament wise. Maybe another octuple Pom Pom and up to 8-10 20mm. That was the typical light AA fit on other Fleet carriers in late 1941/early 1942. Why should C&G be different except in fantasy land?

Radar. I've thought about this a bit more since my post #6. Mid 1941 air warning radar is by no means a universal fit. Half the RN capital ships and two thirds of cruisers did without. Priority was given to equipping new ships. Whether older ships received it during refits depended on which theatre they were operating in. The IO ships had a lower priority. Ark Royal & Hermes had none when sunk. Eagle only got a Type 290 set (see below) in her Oct 1941-Jan 1942 refit. Furious received the same radar, probably in her 1941/42 refit at Philadelphia.

The new carriers were receiving Type 279, or preferably Type 281 for its better fighter direction capabilities. Until 1943 Type 281 required 2 masthead aerials. Due to the Type 72 beacon in C&G there is trouble finding space for one without fitting new masts. There was a single aerial Type 79b, but it only existed as two prototype sets in Hood and Audacity in 1941. The only other option is Type 290 designed for smaller ships, which went to sea in May 1941 and was fitted to Eagle and Furious around this time. Problem is it never worked very well and it's successor, Type 291, didn't go to sea in prototype form until Feb 1942. Trouble is that set wasn't good enough to do fighter control.

On balance therefore, surviving C&G would in late 1941 / early 1942 have either no radar, or at best, Type 290 if refitted in the latter part of 1941. That is unless you give them a much more extensive refit, which goes against the quick refit premise.

Historically, Seafires are impossible. Authority to allocate Spitfire production for Seafires didn't come until autumn 1941. A hooked Spitfire Vb wasn't deck landed until late Dec, with further trials in March /April 1942. The first Seafire Ib and IIc were delivered on 15 June 1942 with the first squadrons receiving them in Oct 1942 in time for Operation Torch.

As we have discussed elsewhere before, Sea Hurricanes and Martlets are also in short supply. Your favourite, the Buffalo, doesn't have arrester gear and Skuas and Sea Gladiators had been withdrawn from the front line service by mid1941. That leaves the Fulmar.

EwenS said:

As I noted in post #6 you can't expect very much AA armament wise. Maybe another octuple Pom Pom and up to 8-10 20mm. That was the typical light AA fit on other Fleet carriers in late 1941/early 1942.

Click to expand...

Good point. Though an octuple Pom Pom and 8-10 20mm is a not insignificant increase over what's there in 1939/40 when they were lost.