I must admit to quite liking the Kiev's look as a child. It always struck me as looking what I would like a warship to look like, practicalities aside!
AHC - Battlecarriers?
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
"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"
I agree with iddt3, the battlecarrier concept is not more flexible but rather is less flexible in practice, for the reasons others have pointed out. Such a (gun) battlecarrier would be highly expensive, and apart from scouting/raiding roles it will have limited use. And both of those roles can be met by conventional vessels. Any carrier will be too lightly armed and armoured to close with capital ships so mounting heavy guns is pointless. If the aim is for it to be able to fight off cruiser or destroyer class opponents then the question is why waste money building an expensive semi-capable carrier that unnecessarily will risk getting its flight deck and conning tower shot up by smaller opponents when you'd get more value out of a conventional carrier plus a couple of escort vessels? Keep your carriers away from enemy ships and allow them to do what they do best, serve as floating airfields. Shore bombardment and slugging it out with battlewagons is best handled by battleships and/or cruisers.
How could hybrid battlecarriers come to be widely deployed? By the type of interwar theorising Calbear mentioned. I could see them becoming flavour of the month and so be built by a number of naval rivals fixated by their hypothetical advantages during a prolonged peacetime. I guess one way to bring that about is to have the major navies plan for commerce raiding in the 20s and 30s even more than in OTL and have an earlier appreciation of the possibilities of sea-based airpower, while still having the big gun lobbies in the RN, USN, Japanese navy etc keep winning their arguments that big guns should go on everything afloat. That way, battlecarriers might be seen as the favoured compromise between increased airpower and big guns.
Of course, when the shooting starts the 'value' of battlecarriers would be quickly reappraised once a couple of them get sunk.
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"
I agree with iddt3, the battlecarrier concept is not more flexible but rather is less flexible in practice, for the reasons others have pointed out. Such a (gun) battlecarrier would be highly expensive, and apart from scouting/raiding roles it will have limited use. And both of those roles can be met by conventional vessels. Any carrier will be too lightly armed and armoured to close with capital ships so mounting heavy guns is pointless. If the aim is for it to be able to fight off cruiser or destroyer class opponents then the question is why waste money building an expensive semi-capable carrier that unnecessarily will risk getting its flight deck and conning tower shot up by smaller opponents when you'd get more value out of a conventional carrier plus a couple of escort vessels? Keep your carriers away from enemy ships and allow them to do what they do best, serve as floating airfields. Shore bombardment and slugging it out with battlewagons is best handled by battleships and/or cruisers.
How could hybrid battlecarriers come to be widely deployed? By the type of interwar theorising Calbear mentioned. I could see them becoming flavour of the month and so be built by a number of naval rivals fixated by their hypothetical advantages during a prolonged peacetime. I guess one way to bring that about is to have the major navies plan for commerce raiding in the 20s and 30s even more than in OTL and have an earlier appreciation of the possibilities of sea-based airpower, while still having the big gun lobbies in the RN, USN, Japanese navy etc keep winning their arguments that big guns should go on everything afloat. That way, battlecarriers might be seen as the favoured compromise between increased airpower and big guns.
Of course, when the shooting starts the 'value' of battlecarriers would be quickly reappraised once a couple of them get sunk.
Proposal to convert the under-construction Lions into battlecarriers did not go down well:
Even for a 1920s ship, I think the conflict between the competing requirements of gunship and carrier quickly leads to the realisation of the need for two separate ships, rather than a bizarre union 'twixt the two...
Even for a 1920s ship, I think the conflict between the competing requirements of gunship and carrier quickly leads to the realisation of the need for two separate ships, rather than a bizarre union 'twixt the two...
The probblem of a HYbrid is that it does the job of a BB half as good as a BB and the job of a carrier half as good as a carrier.
I do not doubt that you could build a Hybrid with the Firepower of an IOWA and the airgroup of an ESSEX (to stay in WWII environmenT), but it would cost much more than to build two ships.
The operational deficits can be condensed tow two factors.
The flight deck limits the place where you can place your guns and limits the angle where your guns can fire. The guns in turn limit flight deck operations.
Internal logistics are hell too.
While it is probably possible to launch your airgroup from far away and let them land after mission accomplished, why the use a hybrid - thats the job of a carrier (with a large airgroup). You even can launch your airgroup if you close the range , but turning into the wind nad launching takes time your opponent can use too - and landing planes (or recoverimng floatplaned) during a battle is impossible. You would get a one shot srike at best for probably missing half the Big guns in an surface engagement.
Someone mentioned that the early carrieres were (almost) cruisers - thats right, becuase they were built on BB/BC hulls - and even then they lost their heavy guns and kept only the secondaries (8" still good, but small for such large hulls) - KM fell in the trap in making the GZ into a cruiser/carrier hybrid - lighter guns and GZ could have had a larger airgroup.
Armoring your cariier makes sense too - even if its taken out on air operations its cheaper and faster to repair than to build a new ship
I do not doubt that you could build a Hybrid with the Firepower of an IOWA and the airgroup of an ESSEX (to stay in WWII environmenT), but it would cost much more than to build two ships.
The operational deficits can be condensed tow two factors.
The flight deck limits the place where you can place your guns and limits the angle where your guns can fire. The guns in turn limit flight deck operations.
Internal logistics are hell too.
While it is probably possible to launch your airgroup from far away and let them land after mission accomplished, why the use a hybrid - thats the job of a carrier (with a large airgroup). You even can launch your airgroup if you close the range , but turning into the wind nad launching takes time your opponent can use too - and landing planes (or recoverimng floatplaned) during a battle is impossible. You would get a one shot srike at best for probably missing half the Big guns in an surface engagement.
Someone mentioned that the early carrieres were (almost) cruisers - thats right, becuase they were built on BB/BC hulls - and even then they lost their heavy guns and kept only the secondaries (8" still good, but small for such large hulls) - KM fell in the trap in making the GZ into a cruiser/carrier hybrid - lighter guns and GZ could have had a larger airgroup.
Armoring your cariier makes sense too - even if its taken out on air operations its cheaper and faster to repair than to build a new ship
Its not just that its prima face a dumb idea, it isnt even cost effective.
There were suggestions along this line in the RN, which were squashed by the DNC who pointed out that building the same number of carriers and BB's (split 50:50) as hybrids was cheaper, had more combat power, and avoided the issue of ships full of avgas getting deliberately in the way of gunfire (which is a seriously BAD idea, btw...)
There were suggestions along this line in the RN, which were squashed by the DNC who pointed out that building the same number of carriers and BB's (split 50:50) as hybrids was cheaper, had more combat power, and avoided the issue of ships full of avgas getting deliberately in the way of gunfire (which is a seriously BAD idea, btw...)
IIRC, the early BC conversions (Lexingtons, Akagi, Kaga*) carried 8" guns because the admirals were afraid aircraft would be worthless except for scouting and wanted to get some firepower out of them. Akagi and Kaga were also built so they could be quickly converted back into BCs if the carrier thing didn't work out.
*Kaga was technically a battleship, not a battlecruiser.
*Kaga was technically a battleship, not a battlecruiser.
David S Poepoe
Banned
To be concise: If a battlecarrier was hit by heavy caliber fire in such a ways to damage its ability to operate aircraft and aircraft operations will most likely prevent the battlecarrier operating with the battleline, what good is it.
Grey Wolf
Donor
IMHO the thing is to build it from the planning stage up so it makes sense as a cohesive whole. Furious, Ise etc were conversions and thus had all the problems of a compromise.
The question needing answering I guess, is what role is envisaged where the main guns are concerned? It can't stand in the line of battle, even as a scouting force, because any hit to the flight deck would disable half of the ship's capabilities.
Presumably therefore, the guns would need to have either a bombardment role, or a defensive one. But how battleship-sized guns could do this better than a combination of its own aircraft and their payloads and say 6" or maybe 8" gun turrets I don't know...
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
The question needing answering I guess, is what role is envisaged where the main guns are concerned? It can't stand in the line of battle, even as a scouting force, because any hit to the flight deck would disable half of the ship's capabilities.
Presumably therefore, the guns would need to have either a bombardment role, or a defensive one. But how battleship-sized guns could do this better than a combination of its own aircraft and their payloads and say 6" or maybe 8" gun turrets I don't know...
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Here is a Cruiser that was build by a minor navy that was a Half/Carrier and half/ Cruiser
GOTLAND light cruiser - seaplane carrier
Displacement standard, t
4750
Displacement full, t
5550
Length, m
130.0 wl 134.8 oa
Breadth, m
15.4
Draught, m
4.50 mean 5.50 max
No of shafts
2
Machinery
De Laval geared steam turbines, 4 Penhoët boilers
Power, h. p.
33000
Max speed, kn
27.5
Fuel, t
oil 800
Armour, mm
belt: 24 - 15, deck: 25, turrets: 25, CT: 19
Armament
2 x 2 - 152/55 M30, 2 x 1 - 152/55 M30, 1 x 2 - 75/60 M28, 2 x 1 - 75/60 M28, 4 x 1 - 25/58 M32, 2 x 3 - 533 TT, 100 mines, 1 catapult, 8 seaplanes (Osprey)
Complement
467 - 480
GOTLAND light cruiser - seaplane carrier
Displacement standard, t
4750
Displacement full, t
5550
Length, m
130.0 wl 134.8 oa
Breadth, m
15.4
Draught, m
4.50 mean 5.50 max
No of shafts
2
Machinery
De Laval geared steam turbines, 4 Penhoët boilers
Power, h. p.
33000
Max speed, kn
27.5
Fuel, t
oil 800
Armour, mm
belt: 24 - 15, deck: 25, turrets: 25, CT: 19
Armament
2 x 2 - 152/55 M30, 2 x 1 - 152/55 M30, 1 x 2 - 75/60 M28, 2 x 1 - 75/60 M28, 4 x 1 - 25/58 M32, 2 x 3 - 533 TT, 100 mines, 1 catapult, 8 seaplanes (Osprey)
Complement
467 - 480
Which is why the only possible role for such a hybrid would be in independent operations such as commerce raiding and scouting. Given this role, high speed and endurance would be more important that shell weight and armor protection. A number of navies dabbled with the "flightdeck cruiser" concept (with displacements ranging between 12,000 and 30,000 tons and batteries of three to six 8 to 14 inch guns). The the USN came pretty close to ordering one in the interwar years as an experiment (partly to get around Washington Treaty limits). I think such a ship would be quite useful to smaller navies intending to focus on commerce raiding (re:Germany). With a high speed, it could run from anything it couldn't fight and its air wing could serve scouting, recon, defense, and attack roles, and his medium/heavy guns could defend it against many cruisers. Large navies, such as the USN, IJN, and RN really wouldn't have needed such ships. They had enough traditional BBs, CAs, CLs, and CVs so hybrids were less necessary.
It also needs to be pointed out that many fleets designed and built so called "hybrids" (such as the Japanse Ise rebuilds, Tone class CAs, and the Gotland described above) but these really aren't carrier/surface combatant hybrids. They are just battleships or cruisers build/rebuilt to handle/operate large numbers of float planes. None had a true offensive aviation capacity.
Yes, but they were designed that way so that they could accompany the carriers and use their floatplanes for scouting, freeing up carrier aircraft for strike missions. Fine theory, but at Midway....Tone's catapult trouble, you know. The IJN developed a two-phase scout doctrine after that.
The Gotland wasn't a hybrid carrier/cruiser; it was a cruiser with seaplanes, but more oriented towards the seaplanes then the Japanese scoutcruisers.
I think the idea of a carrier with 8" guns is that it can stand outside destroyer and other smaller gunned ships and destroy them. As long as the carrier can stay there, it isn't going to get in any trouble with it's flammable content.
IIRC that was one of the drivers behind putting two 8" on the Surcouf too.
That this theory is pretty much destined to fail was apparently not clear to the designers of the Surcouf, Graf Zeppelin and possibly others.
Scroll down to post 24 by Irishopnion - Iron Duke conversions with angled flight decks........
http://warships1discussionboards.yu...-Duke-Fast-Battleship-rebuild-proposal?page=3
http://warships1discussionboards.yu...-Duke-Fast-Battleship-rebuild-proposal?page=3
Closer to home, I seem to recall that the Invincible class had space for a brace of Exocet's to go with the Sea Dart launcher, but this option wasn't taken up. It could of course have been part of the cunning plan to smuggle an otherwise verboten small aircraft carrier past the treasury by calling it a 'through-deck-cruiser'
Exactly.
Once aviation technology has reached a point that a carrier is really practical, battleships really are obsolete, save for fire support, so what's the point? For all the big surface actions we saw in the Solomons and the Philippines, we'd have been better off had those big gun ships been fleet carriers. Kill the enemy at long range rather than in a knife-fight.
It's only once guided missiles come into the game that interesting possibilities come to the fore, because missiles take up much less space and weight, and have range that's comparable to aircraft. That said, I'm struck by the fact that only the Russians ever seriously tried it, and it's hard to say how the Kievs would have fared in war against a first class navy. I tend to thinkthat the Soviets were accurate in their nomenclature: heavy aviation cruiser. I think of them more as big guided missile cruisers that happened to have a limited air operation capability, and that seems to be how Soviet doctrine treated them as well. Battlestar Galactica it's not.
"the Soviets were accurate in their nomenclature: heavy aviation cruiser. I think of them more as big guided missile cruisers that happened to have a limited air operation capability, and that seems to be how Soviet doctrine treated them as well. Battlestar Galactica it's not."
Exactly, and all I've read indicates that's the way the Soviets thought of them - missile cruisers with an ASW/local air defence role. And a preliminary step for providing operational experience before building proper carriers. The Soviets didn't plan to use them as a latter-day battlecarrier hybrid of the type originally envisaged on this thread.
Exactly, and all I've read indicates that's the way the Soviets thought of them - missile cruisers with an ASW/local air defence role. And a preliminary step for providing operational experience before building proper carriers. The Soviets didn't plan to use them as a latter-day battlecarrier hybrid of the type originally envisaged on this thread.
NothingNow
Banned
They also had them in case they got into a night battle, that they wouldn't completely defenseless.
Not to mention the limited combat capabilities of carrier aviation until the 30's did necessitate some level of defensive armament.
As for the Aviation cruiser idea, I think it's really only worthwhile in some limited circumstances, like ASW operations. But for the war NATO expected to fight, it's fairly limited, and might be too much of a compromise, as the space given over to say, 16 Surface to Surface missiles could fit more spares or munitions for the Air wing you already have.
Hence why the italians seemed to be the only NATO member who seriously tried them out with the Andrea Doria-class and the Vittorio Veneto. Hell, they fitted ASMs to the Giuseppe Garibaldi, when everyone else just used aircraft for the anti-ship role, or didn't operate anything that far north of about 5000 tons displacement.
Many early Carrier designs, either purposely designed as such, or conversions of another type of vessel, included a low angle battery of some sort. Examples were:
- HMS Hermes (6x1 of 6 inch)
- HMS Eagle (9x1 of 6 inch)
- HMS Furious (10x1 of 5.5 inch. replaced by 10x2 of 4 inch DP in 1939)
- HRIJS Hosho (4x1 of 5.5 inch)
- HRIJS Akagi (2x2 + 6x1 of 7.9 inch, but after 1938: 6x1 of new 8 inch)
- HRIJS Kaga (2x2 + 6x1 of 7.9 inch, after 1938: 10x1 of 8 inch)
- USS Lexington (4x2 of 8 inch) Removed in march 1942.
- USS Saratoga (4x2 of 8 inch) Replaced by 4 new twin 5/38 DP in early 1942.
- Graf Zeppelin (8x2 of 5.9 inch) never completed.