Quick mods to the Courageous class

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Probably no faster than the 5-6 years of the America or Nimitz classes. The first couple of Fords are due to take longer due to all the new tech they incorporate. After that build time is due to come back to c6 years. Japan managed 3+ on its latest DDH of the Izumo class, but they are half the size of an America.

One of the problems with build times today is ensuring that yards have a continuity of work. With low procurement numbers, if you build individual ships faster you end up with gaps in the yards. Then how do you keep the experienced workforce together? When Britain had a gap in SSN / SSBN production at BAe Barrow in the late 1990s the workforce dispersed and it cost a lot to get everything restarted. So better to have a steady drumbeat of work going through a yard even if individual ships take longer. Of course if you can persuade govt to spend more.......

If you want to build a carrier quickly ask China.

The M1 Abrams are being refurbished in the same factory that built them in the first place.
 
Last edited:
That's been the continual problem here in Canada, where we build a batch of warships, operate them for four decades and shut the yards down for lack of work. Yards that built many of Canada's post war fleet are gone, such as Canadian Vickers in Montreal, Burrard Dry Dock in Vancouver, Marine Industries in Sorel, Victoria Machinery in BC, and Saint John Shipbuilding in New Brunswick. Basically we have two yards left to make government ships: warships at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, along with Seaspan Marine in BC for mostly CCG icebreakers. Interestingly the usually handout-adept Quebecers seem to have lost out on shipbuilding.
 
The JSMC (Joint Systems Manufacturing Center - formerly the Lima Army Tank Plant) located in Lima, Ohio, is currently producing M1A2 SEPv3 upgraded series vehicles, and will continue doing so until at least 2028, longer if the SEPv4 upgrades that are currently planned get funded.

"Also known as the M1A2C, the new Abrams variant "rectifies many of the space, weight and power issues identified during Operation Iraqi Freedom and will be the foundational variant for all future incremental upgrades," according to the Army."

A majority of the SEPv3 upgrade is intended to resolve deficiencies noted over the years of service. JSMC is also working with other companies to develop and test systems that will allow a continuous improvement program able to meet needs for the next 20-30 years at least. This includes battlefield network communications (the Joint Tactical Radio System, basically a network data link system similar to JTIDS but for ground systems), active defense systems, and advanced battlefield sensors.

Much of the original M1 production tooling and fixturing is still in place, with most of the rest in storage. There are no current plans to build new M1s as there are over 3000 suitable chassis in storage, in various states from new to needing complete overhaul. However, the improved armour/protection packages requires what is basically a new turret (they may be recycling some bits but most of the turret is new manufacture).

The people at JSMC are also working on the next generation powerplant - a hybrid electric system (allowing gains in efficiency and reliability similar to those found in hybrid electric cars) with increased battery storage over the current upgrade, allowing 'silent' operation. Serious development has also begun on an unmanned turret with automatic loading and ammunition handling.
 
Admiral Beez said:
We've have diesel electric trains for decades. I don't see why this tech can go into a tank.
Click to expand...
It did, sort of.
Petrol electric.

Went into service in Nov 1918. some were in service in 1940.
Not often pictured with the 2nd vehicle which held a 120hp Panhard engine which powered the electric generator that powered the 4 electric motors, one for each track.
The Gun carriage was connected to the engine vehicle by a power cable and could not move on it's own.
Top speed was about 5-6mph.

Germans used petrol-electric in the Ferdinand Tank Destroyer.

Two V-12 gasoline engines (about the same as a MK IV tank engine?) plus generators plus electric motors. Designed by Porsche.
Shortage of copper killed the idea.

The US even built a few petrol-electric heavy tanks during WW II. about 20
 
Engine setup of the Ferdinand proved to be a nightmare, unreliable and lack of spare parts later in war due to uncommon components in use.
Waste of space for all these engines + additional weight were secondary issues. Tiger I/II and Jagdtiger were more reliable than the Ferdinand and used just a single engine.
 
Macandy said:
Desperately obsolete carriers. If they had survived, like Furious, they'd have been relegated to secondary duties
Click to expand...
IDK. Furious' machinery was almost a generation behind that in the two Courageous class. Assuming things go as they did, when both Illustrious and Formidable are crippled and under repairs in the USA from spring 1941 to early 1942 and Ark Royal is sunk in Nov 1941 I expect the two Courageous class will be in high demand for front line duties until at least end of 1942. It's too bad Ark Royal was sunk. If there was any British carrier that was made for PacOps it's Ark with her larger CAG and fuel, etc.
 
What makes you think the machinery in Furious was a "almost a generation behind" that of C&G?

C&G completed in 1916 followed Furious in 1917. All started life with 18 Yarrow small tube boilers and 4 geared turbines generating 90,000shp. When reconstructed as carriers in the 1920s they all retained their original machinery.

Their machinery was more advanced than that of the preceding Renown class, in that the latter used the earlier design of water-tube boiler and as a result needed 42 in total.
 
EwenS said:
What makes you think the machinery in Furious was a "almost a generation behind" that of C&G?
Click to expand...
My mistake, I was thinking of something else. What I meant to write was that the machinery on Courageous and Glorious had seen less use compared to Furious and would be in better shape. After limited use from their entering service in 1917 both Courageous and Glorious were placed into reserve in 1919. Both ships were then essentially not run again in earnest until their completion as aircraft carriers in 1928 and 1930. Furious on the other hand seems to have been running hard during WW1 and then from 1925 onwards - though I do see on Wikipedia that she had a boiler rebuild so perhaps she's as good as her half sisters.

But I don't disagree that both Courageous and Glorious will be pretty clapped out if they'd survived into 1941 and beyond.
 
Last edited:
Denniss said:
Engine setup of the Ferdinand proved to be a nightmare, unreliable and lack of spare parts later in war due to uncommon components in use.
Click to expand...
The Germans were mad. By early 1941 they should have been building just Pz.Kpfw. IV medium tanks (later uparmed with the T-34 capable L/43 and L/48 guns) along with Mule half track transports and 6x6 trucks to reliably get their gas, munitions and men across Russia. Forget the super tanks, Tigers and even Panthers, just build as many Panzer IVs as you can with incremental improvements that don't slow production. If you don't conquer Russia by the end of 1942 nothing matters anyway.
 
Last edited:

Right, it's about production. But even if the Germans had settled on the MkIV and spammed them, by 1944 they're going to be outclassed (on the Eastern Front, surely) and outnumbered everywhere.

They could not match both Soviet and American tank production, and while the Sherman was probably slightly inferior, the T-34 (especially the T-35/85) was markedly superior. And you've got to fight off a shit-ton of 'em.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Right, it's about production. But even if the Germans had settled on the MkIV and spammed them, by 1944 they're going to be outclassed (on the Eastern Front, surely) and outnumbered everywhere.
Click to expand...
If the Germans are still fighting on the eastern front in 1944 (or 1943) it doesn't matter if every German tank is a Panther, the war is lost.

But if they have a universal medium tank and an all-terrain tanker and logistics fleet (half tracks and AWD trucks) then they have a chance in of winning beforehand. Send enough of these wide tracked MkIVs with proper logistics and fuel support and by early 1942 it's not looking good for Stalin.

 
Last edited:
Back onto the Courageous class. Could aircraft or vehicles be loaded onto the lower hangar directly over the stern? I assume the two cranes and aft door are for hauling seaplanes into the lower hangar.



Could this be used for vehicles? I'm thinking of loading that lower deck with light afv for Malaya as a fast ro/ro. Perhaps a dozen 2 pdr Tetrarch? We don't want to capsize her though.
 
Last edited:

Good luck driving them to Tankograd, or any other displaced factory.

As you drive east in the USSR, your front broadens until you hit the Ural Mountains. So as you drive east, you've got more and more demands on troops and equipment ... and then you hit mountains. And mind you, the T-34 was already in action by Barbarossa, and with factories well to the east pumping them out faster than the Germans can produce MkIVs, I'mma put my money on the Soviets.

In fall and winter, however, the wide-track T-34's still-superior mobility over mud and snow asserted itself. Moreover, the added weight of the guns and thicker armor affected the Mark IV's performance, lowering its top speed to 25 mph compared to the T-34's 30 mph. Both tanks underwent increases in the thickness of their frontal armor, the Mark IV sacrificing side armor thickness to compensate for frontal armor increasing from 50 to 80mm. The emergence of the T-34/85, however, carried the Soviet medium tank out of the Mark IV's class and into the realm of the Tiger and Panther.

How Did the Mark IV Special Tank Stack Up Against the T34-76 and -85?

How did the German Mark IV Special tank stack up against the Soviet T-34/76 and T-34/85? —A.B. ? ? ? Dear A.B. The Panzer IV Ausführung F2 and G, with
www.historynet.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
If German have access to high ocatane fuel, how does that impact the performance of their fighters?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
Engineman
E
Mustang with the early Merlins
Replies
10
Views
506
Shortround6
S
The 'ramp head debacle' makes RR to cancel the Merlin. What now?
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MikeMeech
M
Short Brothers flying boat conversion to land based transport?
Replies
4
Views
579
chris ballance
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register