Uhm, i think, the otomat launchers on Garibaldi have more to do with that at those times the italians did not have any fixed wing aircrafts onboard, to do any strike work. The russian ones (especially the Kuznetsov) are a very different animal.
AHC - Battlecarriers?
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
Uhm, i think, the otomat launchers on Garibaldi have more to do with that at those times the italians did not have any fixed wing aircrafts onboard, to do any strike work. The russian ones (especially the Kuznetsov) are a very different animal.
BlondieBC
Banned
Japanese built two of them. All guns forward (seems like 6 of them), seaplanes rear (seems like 8). Intended to be flag ship of submarine squadron for long range interdiction. Assume concept was to scout with planes to guide subs to targets. Cruiser guns can kill DD that harass your SS.
Did not work so well. By end of war, most planes were removed and was used as command ship since the hanger area in rear of ship were quite large and otherwise of low value.
BlondieBC
Banned
I am not sure that is a fair criticism. It would have been easy to communicate the issue to another ship and fix. And even if you used only carrier based scout planes, nothing prevents one from having mechanical issues half way out and having to come back to the carrier. Then a late replacement plane is sent out. Either bad luck or bad decisions can make for a failed scouting mission.
It would be pretty easy to change a few minor events and have us writing about bad USA scouting. If a different Japanese plane had the issues, the scout plane issue would be only know to the most knowledgeable historians on the battle. Then give the USA some bad luck (say a scout plane erroneously reports the Japanese carriers in the wrong location or a mechanical failure in the planes that found the Japanese carriers), and we have a situation where the Japanese get off a early strike with half their aircraft available and kill one or two USA carriers (depending on group found). The USA strike could fail to get kills, and we end up with a Japanese naval victory and probably a Japanese land defeat.
We can't really blame the ship designers for the poor Japanese luck and decision making that day. Or for the code books being broken by the USA.
Only the Oyodo was actually build to this SubRon Flagship specification. A second was at one time suggested, but never laid down, nor named.
I can see a possible role for a ship with a flight deck and big guns in modern times, but it certainly wouldn't be a "battlecarrier".
A destroyer-sized amphibious assault ship with a tiny flight deck could be suitable for helicopters or V/STOVL jet fighters, since they require very little deck space. The craft would simply be kept on deck permanently; the flight deck would have a retractable canvas roof, just to keep the rain out. The reason for this is that the rear below deck would be taken up by the well deck.
The purpose of the guns would not be for shooting other warships, but for artillery support. Fighters and helicopters can be shot down. Missiles can be interdicted with chaff. You can't shoot down a bullet. The biggest problem with such a system would be that the ship's movement would decrease accuracy, and thus increase danger close distance, an issue for a small marine raid, but not for something Normandy scale. Modern computers could help compensate, but there would still be accuracy issues.
Basically, it's not a battlecarrier because it would be lightly armoured, never intended to get into a fight. It's basically just a standard amphibious assault ship with artillery pieces mounted to the front half of the deck. I do not see any way a gun/carrier mix could be a decent idea before modern VTOL tech.
A destroyer-sized amphibious assault ship with a tiny flight deck could be suitable for helicopters or V/STOVL jet fighters, since they require very little deck space. The craft would simply be kept on deck permanently; the flight deck would have a retractable canvas roof, just to keep the rain out. The reason for this is that the rear below deck would be taken up by the well deck.
The purpose of the guns would not be for shooting other warships, but for artillery support. Fighters and helicopters can be shot down. Missiles can be interdicted with chaff. You can't shoot down a bullet. The biggest problem with such a system would be that the ship's movement would decrease accuracy, and thus increase danger close distance, an issue for a small marine raid, but not for something Normandy scale. Modern computers could help compensate, but there would still be accuracy issues.
Basically, it's not a battlecarrier because it would be lightly armoured, never intended to get into a fight. It's basically just a standard amphibious assault ship with artillery pieces mounted to the front half of the deck. I do not see any way a gun/carrier mix could be a decent idea before modern VTOL tech.
There were proposals to remove the Iowas' rear turret and build a hanger and flight deck on the aft part of the battleships. I don't remember if AV-8s were part of the air group or if it was just helicopters. In the 1970s and 1980s there were the strike cruiser proposals in the USN, for a large cruiser with an aft flight deck.
While not battlecarriers, there were hybrid proposals for both HMS Agincourt and USS Wyoming. Agincourt was proposed for a "base ship" conversion, removing most of her main gun turrets to be replaced with the infrastructure to service small craft (or planes, or a mobile HQ? The details may have been lost.) Wyoming, while already a training ship in the late 30's, was considered for a conversion to an amphibious support ship. Keep 2 or 3 main gun turrets and some of the 5" secondaries, remove most of her armor, and provide berthing for Marines. Now in my imagination, I can see Wyoming receiving a flight deck for observation aircraft.
I think the Royal Navy did look at BC/carrier hybrids in the 1930s for trade protection. My memory is real fuzzy about that though.
While not battlecarriers, there were hybrid proposals for both HMS Agincourt and USS Wyoming. Agincourt was proposed for a "base ship" conversion, removing most of her main gun turrets to be replaced with the infrastructure to service small craft (or planes, or a mobile HQ? The details may have been lost.) Wyoming, while already a training ship in the late 30's, was considered for a conversion to an amphibious support ship. Keep 2 or 3 main gun turrets and some of the 5" secondaries, remove most of her armor, and provide berthing for Marines. Now in my imagination, I can see Wyoming receiving a flight deck for observation aircraft.
I think the Royal Navy did look at BC/carrier hybrids in the 1930s for trade protection. My memory is real fuzzy about that though.
Orville_third
Banned
I had heard about the Iowa proposals. The SecNav, John Lehman, quickly nixed the idea- though it would be cool.There were proposals to remove the Iowas' rear turret and build a hanger and flight deck on the aft part of the battleships. I don't remember if AV-8s were part of the air group or if it was just helicopters. In the 1970s and 1980s there were the strike cruiser proposals in the USN, for a large cruiser with an aft flight deck.
While not battlecarriers, there were hybrid proposals for both HMS Agincourt and USS Wyoming. Agincourt was proposed for a "base ship" conversion, removing most of her main gun turrets to be replaced with the infrastructure to service small craft (or planes, or a mobile HQ? The details may have been lost.) Wyoming, while already a training ship in the late 30's, was considered for a conversion to an amphibious support ship. Keep 2 or 3 main gun turrets and some of the 5" secondaries, remove most of her armor, and provide berthing for Marines. Now in my imagination, I can see Wyoming receiving a flight deck for observation aircraft.
I think the Royal Navy did look at BC/carrier hybrids in the 1930s for trade protection. My memory is real fuzzy about that though.
OTL, it really doesn't seem feasible in time to make an impact in WW2, due to the conflicting volume demands of the hangar deck and magazines. OTOH, if you were to introduce the concept in a timeline where guided missile technologies of the 1970's-1980's were in place by 1935, (all other things being as close to OTL as plausible,) you'd have the ability to make one badass ship. However, that would have the impact of making BB's so glaringly landing-support-only artillery platforms.
I'm thinking something along the lines of sponsons of missiles fore and aft of the island, or SLBM-style vertical tubes along the island side. Of course, if CV's have them, everything between them and DD's are just a waste of steel and a huge radar signature. If the radar and guidance technology is advanced, then you're also looking at dedicated AWACS-style airframes taking up space on the carriers earlier, which brings even more butterflies.
Really, I don't know how you'd be able to reconcile any sort of combination BB/CV ship, the volume demands of either would require such a gigantic ship that any naval treaty would have to be ignored outright or never having come to fruition in the first place. You'd need something roughly 500m long, which would require huge expansions of naval yards, etc, etc. All of this in the years of the Depression, and it's a non-starter without a POD that eliminates the Washington Naval Treaty and the Great Depression.
I'm thinking something along the lines of sponsons of missiles fore and aft of the island, or SLBM-style vertical tubes along the island side. Of course, if CV's have them, everything between them and DD's are just a waste of steel and a huge radar signature. If the radar and guidance technology is advanced, then you're also looking at dedicated AWACS-style airframes taking up space on the carriers earlier, which brings even more butterflies.
Really, I don't know how you'd be able to reconcile any sort of combination BB/CV ship, the volume demands of either would require such a gigantic ship that any naval treaty would have to be ignored outright or never having come to fruition in the first place. You'd need something roughly 500m long, which would require huge expansions of naval yards, etc, etc. All of this in the years of the Depression, and it's a non-starter without a POD that eliminates the Washington Naval Treaty and the Great Depression.
You can, actually. The RN's Sea Wolf system is recorded as having successfully intercepted a 4.5" shell during trials, and I believe that there's an American system based on the Phalanx CIWS that can hit mortar bombs in flight. It would be fairly easy to overcome these with enough incoming rounds, and cost-effectiveness is probably low, but at least in some situations it is possible to defend against artillery.
It doesn't matter if it is able to shoot down a bullet, it must be capable of doing so consistently. And even if you do have a system that can shoot down artillery shells, 100% of the time, it loses logistically since the interception system will always be more expensive than the artillery, for the following reasons:
An artillery piece only needs to be able to do 2 things: propel a mass over a distance, and calculate the arc needed to hit a stationary target (or one moving in a straight line) with said mass. These things are not hard, they were doing it in ancient Rome. Fire, see if you've hit, adjust if you missed. Bullets are cheap.
To intercept the projectile, you must be able to quickly calculate its trajectory, the trajectory to interdict it, and then fire the interdictor, all in less time than it takes for the projectile to hit you. To do this, you must know the projectile's speed, mass and aerodynamic profile. You must know the atmospheric conditions affecting the projectile along its course, and the atmospheric condtions along the course of the interdictor. You may have to compensate for the coriolis effect. This calculation must also take into account how long it takes to calculate itself, because this will affect where the projectile is, and where the interdictor must be aimed. Thus, the targeting for the interception system required far more energy, and will thus prove more expensive.
With missile interdiction, it is quite possible for an interception system to be cheaper than the projectile. With artillery, it is not.
I agree that artillery rounds are relatively cheap, and current methods of intercepting them are not. You might note that I mentioned those concerns in my last sentence. I think it's foolish, however, to assume that just because something is the case at the moment it must therefore always remain the case. Perhaps you're aware of historical examples where that sort of thinking was shown to be false. There's room for a great deal of improvement in current active-defense systems against artillery, and personally I think that they will continue to develop. The C-RAM system shows that it is possible to intercept artillery rounds effectively with cheap projectiles, so saying that such a thing cannot be done in the future strikes me as premature.
What would the use for the aircraft be? Strike or air-to-air or both?
On a destroyer sized ship you could theoretically load 8 or so aircraft, unfortunately that means that you're likely not to have anymore then 2 available at any time.
On a destroyer sized ship you're not going to be able to have guns, aircraft and carry infantry at the same time. At least, not without the required logistical tail for each, especially the aircraft.
STOVL aircraft will never take off vertically, in order to maximise payload. On a destroyer sized ship there'll be severe limits on what any aircraft could take along as fuel or payload.
Didn't the WNT only restrict the numbers of ships, not their size?
iddt3
Donor
Nope size (or more correctly, displacement) was restricted too, hence the term Treaty and Non-Treaty ships in various categories.
There are some targets that aren't worth a missile or sortie to attack. Gun rounds are cheaper, and just as effective against some targets. You can carry a lot more of them as well.
Well, Galactica packe a lot of firepower apart from Vipers and Raptors
Colonial Battlestars make everything better.
Colonial Battlestars make everything better.
Even so the Battlestars pack less of a punch than a comparably sized vessel dedicated entirely to lasers, mass drivers, and missiles; the reason they carry small craft instead is for increased range and flexibility. Small craft are not limited to line-of-sight like mass drivers and lasers and are more difficult to fool or intercept than missiles. The weapons the Battlestars carry are primarily intended to defend them from opposing small craft, and to support attacks by their own small craft.