AHC - Battlecarriers?

As the title says, the challenge is to have the battlecarrier (a hypothetical type of ship, a hybrid aircraft carrier/battleship, basically an aircraft carrier with a battleship's guns, combining the best aspects of both kinds of ship) be widely adopted by the world's navies and become an accepted class of ship.
 

iddt3

Donor
As the title says, the challenge is to have the battlecarrier (a hypothetical type of ship, a hybrid aircraft carrier/battleship, basically an aircraft carrier with a battleship's guns, combining the best aspects of both kinds of ship) be widely adopted by the world's navies and become an accepted class of ship.
LSD usage becomes an accepted part of Naval Culture, as well as unlimited budgets. OTL I think the Japanese tried this, and the result was the worst of both worlds, not the best, the tasks are in direct conflict with one another.
 

Ancientone

Banned
RC1_BBCVJeanBart_Bow2_2011-09-04.jpg
 
The US tried to outfit its early carriers for double duty as heavy cruisers. The Saratoga missed the battle of Midway in part because its 8" guns were replaced with a lighter smaller caliber battery. As the fate of the HMS Glorious showed a ship packed with more than the usual number of flamables should not be in a gun fight.

The Brits armored many of their carriers, but found that while it increased survivability somewhat hits by bombs or large caliber projectiles still put the ship out of action, unable to do flights ops until repairs were made.
 

iddt3

Donor
That actually makes more sense than a battle carrier, the demands aren't of missiles and aircraft aren't nearly as competitive as guns and aircraft.
 
That actually makes more sense than a battle carrier, the demands aren't of missiles and aircraft aren't nearly as competitive as guns and aircraft.

That's a fair point. Missiles don't require as much space or mass.

The Soviets had a kernel of a good idea; but as power projection platforms, obviously, they couldn't match a supercarrier.
 
Gibbs & Cox Design B for the Soviets in 1937 (Project 10581)

12 16" guns
28 5" guns
32 1.1" guns
36 conventional carrier planes
4 float planes
13" belt
74,000tons

Two 16" turrets fore and aft, a flight deck and hanger structure in the center lined with 7 5" turrets on each side.
 

Hoist40

Banned
The problem is that you have a ship with a split personality.

Against a surface combatant you have a ship whose battleship part wants to close with the enemy and whose aircraft carrier part want to run away and launch aircraft
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The problem is that you have a ship with a split personality.

Against a surface combatant you have a ship whose battleship part wants to close with the enemy and whose aircraft carrier part want to run away and launch aircraft

Basically, the problem.

Nazi had some dual designs. I have played around with these ideas for TL, but they don't work well. Once you get past a few scout planes on a AMC or warship, it does not make sense. Or a plane or two on large merchant ships to keep submarines away (make them dive).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The concept of a "battlecarrier" isn't far from what was on the minds of many naval architects in the immediate post war period. What killed it was the Washington Treaty since it limited carriers to guns no larger than 8" (Article X of the Treaty).

Carriers were seen as part of the scouting fleet, not as separate offensive weapons of any note. This was actually the case until you had the evolution of aircraft and the improvement of air deployable topedoes into the early 1930s that took the concept of offensive air operations into reality. It would be easy to see a carrier, probably built off of a BC design that carried 4-6 12" guns, that would be meant to defeat the enemy's scouting force and act as the occasional commerce raider.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
The problem is that you have a ship with a split personality.

Against a surface combatant you have a ship whose battleship part wants to close with the enemy and whose aircraft carrier part want to run away and launch aircraft
Not really. It would obviously only be half as good as each individual ship(a BB or CV), but it would also be much more versatile, and in alot of situations that's what matters most.

The planes could act, depending on the situation, as (extra) fighters to fend off enemy torpedo and bombers, or sent out to aid in bombardment of a target. The guns would then also serve a dual purpose. They could be defensive, protecting the BB/CV proper, the fleet as a whole, or as gun support. They'd serve as a good all-around platform to make up for whatever may be lacking one area or another, without having to divert a dedicated BB or CV.

Think of it as a sort of insurance policy. Might never need it, but when you do, even if it isn't the best, you're elated to have it.
 

iddt3

Donor
Not really. It would obviously only be half as good as each individual ship(a BB or CV), but it would also be much more versatile, and in alot of situations that's what matters most.

The planes could act, depending on the situation, as (extra) fighters to fend off enemy torpedo and bombers, or sent out to aid in bombardment of a target. The guns would then also serve a dual purpose. They could be defensive, protecting the BB/CV proper, the fleet as a whole, or as gun support. They'd serve as a good all-around platform to make up for whatever may be lacking one area or another, without having to divert a dedicated BB or CV.

Think of it as a sort of insurance policy. Might never need it, but when you do, even if it isn't the best, you're elated to have it.

But it wouldn't be half as good. All the Fuel and Bombs and flight deck are a terrible weakness for a Battleship, and the space the Guns and Armor take up is going to massively crimp hanger space. There is a reason in OTL the US removed the heavier guns from it's carriers in the middle of a war where there was desperate need of them. Plus, given the competing demands, this is ship would probably be insanely expensive. One of the benefits of Carriers leading up to WWII was that they were relatively cheap, around the price of a Cruiser IIRC. The BattleCarrier would likely be cost prohibitive, even if nothing else stops it.

The only vaguely useful role I see for it is as a self scouting commerce raider, more of a CruiserCarrier, with a light, long range air wing, little armor, and decent guns in the '20s if the WNT doesn't nix it.
 
How would such a ship be used? Well I guess useful for littoral operations with an embarked marine force, variety of helicopters, CAS aircraft plus assorted landing and patrol craft?
 

Riain

Banned
In the Kievs the big SSMs go some way to replacing the strike sqns on a USN carriers, especially when compared to the offensive punch (or lack thereof) of Harrier carriers.

However in my mind the problem with hybrids isn't punch but on-board survielence capacity. Despite having the SSMs to talke virtually any target within 300 miles the Kievs have little to no capacity to find these targets themselves, relying instead on sattelites and Bear LRMPA.
 
Top