KGV Battleships built as carriers

[birdy]

WI the RN KGV Class Battleship had been built as Aircraft Carriers- i recall hearing contary to popular misconception, most RN top brass in the 30's believed in the future of airpower and carriers and that a few luddites incl Churchill were obsessed by the battleships.

WI in the mid 30's or so the modernists had won and the KGV class incl Vanguard had been designed as Carriers- prehaps as better versions of Illustruious and Ark Royal classes.

[Cockroach]

WI the RN KGV Class Battleship had been built as Aircraft Carriers- i recall hearing contary to popular misconception, most RN top brass in the 30's believed in the future of airpower and carriers and that a few luddites incl Churchill were obsessed by the battleships.

This is incorrect, true by the late 1930s the poms were getting back into their stride as far as carrier development after the RAF had controlled the FAA for the better part of two decades. However equally so there was still a strong liking for Battleships... and rememebr we have not had Taranto, Pearl Harbour, Coral Sea or Midway yet to demostrate the carrier's advantages.

However the big problem with this idea is that it is just dim witted... the Germans have two "Battlecruisers" in service and will soon have two Fast Battleships on the slips; the Italians have three plus their modernised vessels; the Japs have two on the slips plus the Kongo class BCs and Nagato class BBs -both of which have sufficient speed to avoid an oncoming sqaudron of QEs and Rs- while the yanks are getting ready to mass produce fast Battleships.
In this situation the Royal Navy's three fast captial ships -the Battlecruisers Hood, Repulse and Renown- are left to counter much larger numbers of ships that the Battleline are incapable of catching. Hence it is logical for the poms to build their own fast Battleships to counter these vessels.

[birdy]

Originally Posted by Cockroach

This is incorrect, true by the late 1930s the poms were getting back into their stride as far as carrier development after the RAF had controlled the FAA for the better part of two decades. However equally so there was still a strong liking for Battleships... and rememebr we have not had Taranto, Pearl Harbour, Coral Sea or Midway yet to demostrate the carrier's advantages.

However the big problem with this idea is that it is just dim witted... the Germans have two "Battlecruisers" in service and will soon have two Fast Battleships on the slips; the Italians have three plus their modernised vessels; the Japs have two on the slips plus the Kongo class BCs and Nagato class BBs -both of which have sufficient speed to avoid an oncoming sqaudron of QEs and Rs- while the yanks are getting ready to mass produce fast Battleships.
In this situation the Royal Navy's three fast captial ships -the Battlecruisers Hood, Repulse and Renown- are left to counter much larger numbers of ships that the Battleline are incapable of catching. Hence it is logical for the poms to build their own fast Battleships to counter these vessels.

Curses

well probably true-

[Archdevil]

There is also the fact that for a lot of the year, the North Atlantic is not really suitable for carier operations, while battleships suffer far less limitations.
Case in point: Glorious getting sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

And as WWII showed, there were quite a few naval battles in that region.

[birdy]

Originally Posted by Archdevil

There is also the fact that for a lot of the year, the North Atlantic is not really suitable for carier operations, while battleships suffer far less limitations.
Case in point: Glorious getting sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

And as WWII showed, there were quite a few naval battles in that region.

well to be honest, i was thinking the bigger effect would be against Italy and Japan- hmm would having Carriers rather then battleships actually be worse for the british in the North Atlantic against the German battleships.

btw when i posted this thread- i was thinking more British effort into carriers might also mean greater effort at desiginging better FAA planes.

[Redbeard]

By the 1930s the carrier wasn't that obvious as the major naval weapon system.

First good and reliable radar to have one of the main assets of the carrier - the Combat Air Patrol (CAP) - be practical. You simply couldn't detect the enemy soon enough to have your interceptors in the air at altitude.

Next the North Atlantic for much of the time was unsuitable for flying. Had Duke of York at North Cape in 1943 been a carrier Scharnhorst probably would have gotten away after making mincemeat of some of the pursuing British cruisers and destroyers.

IMHO the Royal Navy's main problem in naval aviation was the FAA (and its predecessors) having been a step child for decades. Well into WWII the already small British aircomplements were often understrength because neither crews nor aircraft were available. But imagine the RN carriers by early WWII having modern fighters (say a navalised Hurricane called the Hawker Blizzard), a divebomber (a Skua with gradually improving engines and better bombload, or the Hawker Henley - a "twinseat Hurricane") and enough torpedobombers (The Swordfish/Albacore actually did OK). If next the Glorious and Courageous are not wasted in 1939/40 (or Ark Royal in 1941), operations in the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean might begin to take a different cause.

BTW it is often overseen that the FAA for most of WWII was the only naval airforce capable of substantial nightstrikes. This was due to intense training which was greatly enhanced by the introduction of reliable airborne radar in 1941. In April 1942 Somerville had intercepted the expected arrival time of the Japanese fleet at Colombo and had set up a trap made up of a carrier launched night strike. The Japanese were late however and Somerville called off the strike to get away before dawn. By 1942 the IJN was practically defenceless against night strikes and very far away from repair facilities.
(I will make a thread with a PoD letting the IJN be on schedule).


Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Archdevil

There is also the fact that for a lot of the year, the North Atlantic is not really suitable for carier operations, while battleships suffer far less limitations.
Case in point: Glorious getting sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

And as WWII showed, there were quite a few naval battles in that region.

The loss of the Glorious is not a good example.

[Archdevil]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

The loss of the Glorious is not a good example.

Why not? If it had been a battleship, it would have had a much better chance of survival.

Examples: Malaya (non-upgraded QE class) scaring of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during Operation Berlin and the inconclusive engagement with HMS Renown.

[67th Tigers]

The list of British Capital Ships, 1939

Carriers (Normal Aircraft Load) (9+6)
Argus (18)
Furious (33)
Glorious (48)
Courageous (48)
Vindictive
Eagle (20)
Hermes (15)
Ark Royal (72)
Unicorn (36)
(6x Illustrious class building)

Battleships (15+7)
Queen Elizabeth
Warspite
Valiant
Barham
Malaya
Royal Oak
Royal Sovereign
Revenge
Resolution
Ramilles
Nelson
Rodney
Hood
Renown
Repulse
(5 KGV and 2 Lions building)

The problem the RN had was that they couldn't get modern aircraft for the carriers, the RAF was getting them all so the Carrier was reduced to a supporting arm.

[Johnestauffer]

The hull form of the KGV's were not suited for high speeds (30+ knots)
It would be more practical and cost effective to start from scratch.
There would be a lot of internal modification required to convert the KGV from a BB to CV and the final conversion would not be as suitable as 'purpose built' design.

[Sargon]

Originally Posted by Johnestauffer

The hull form of the KGV's were not suited for high speeds (30+ knots)
It would be more practical and cost effective to start from scratch.
There would be a lot of internal modification required to convert the KGV from a BB to CV and the final conversion would not be as suitable as 'purpose built' design.

That didn't stop the Japanese from converting the former BB Kaga into a rather successful CV. And she could not do better than 28 knots, around the same as the KGVs. Granted, they were forced to replace Amagi with her, after the former BC's unfinished hull was wrecked in the Great Kanto Earthquake, but it shows it can be done if need be.

Sargon

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Sargon

That didn't stop the Japanese from converting the former BB Kaga into a rather successful CV. And she could not do better than 28 knots, around the same as the KGVs. Granted, they were forced to replace Amagi with her, after the former BC's unfinished hull was wrecked in the Great Kanto Earthquake, but it shows it can be done if need be.

Sargon

Apples and oranges and the times were different.

[Tizoc]

Originally Posted by Sargon

That didn't stop the Japanese from converting the former BB Kaga into a rather successful CV. And she could not do better than 28 knots, around the same as the KGVs. Granted, they were forced to replace Amagi with her, after the former BC's unfinished hull was wrecked in the Great Kanto Earthquake, but it shows it can be done if need be.

Sargon

The only reason for converting Akagi and Kaga into carriers was Washington Naval Limitation Treaty of 1922 - it strictly forbid completing capital ships that were under construction at that time, while allowing for conversion of no more than two capital ships into carriers. Otherwise Akagi and Kaga, not mentioning other capital ships that Japanese were building at that time, would've been completed as capital ships.

[Sargon]

I am fully aware of the background behind Akagi and Kaga. You are missing the point. It shows it can be done if need be, that is what I am saying. And both ended up being successful carriers despite the changes being forced upon them. And if you want a later example, then you have Shinano, although that was forced on the Japanese by the events at Midway. It still shows a BB can be converted to a CV though, and in this case, she was slower than KGV, being only capable of 27 knots.

If the British really wished to turn the KGVs into carriers for some reason during construction such as the rather unlikely happenstance of the alleged air minded top brass getting their way, then it is possible, that is what is being discussed here. Now whether they'd end up being successful vessels in that role, is something that is open to debate, however, the idea of actually being able to be converted is not. However, the possibility is there.

Sargon