1930s Air Ministry surprise sanity options

[NOMISYRRUC]

Without context, the post-BoB Hurricane II would have been less inferior to the BoB Bf-109E in speed, climb and dive. In context, post-BoB contemporary Bf-109s addressed the difference, and increased it, as did contemporary Spitfires.

I don't see what you're trying to prove here. I don't see what's silly or absurd about wanting to get a higher performance Hurricane in service earlier. On the contrary its self-evidently an eminently sensible idea.

Having a more powerful Merlin engine in production in 1940 would also mean higher performance Spitfires.

What we haven't considered yet is how would the enemy react to facing the RAF equipped with much better aircraft than OTL? Seeing what the British Air Ministry was up to wouldn't the RLM try to get its aircraft industry to build aircraft to match or better it?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't disagree with anything you have said particularly where a purpose built Trade Protection carrier would make for a better use of tonnage / money over a conversion - or not built and have more fleet carriers as and when sub 10,000 ton carriers count towards the totals!

Its just as I said the Hawkins carriers are one of those 'Darlings' of an idea that always gets murdered - or in the case of this thread utterly butchered - by the reality and practicality of the times (and probably correctly)

And the 3 Surviving 'Cruisers' are probably better used as Cruisers

So the six 22,500Ton carriers - are these effectively Sir Arthur Johns (then Director of Naval Construction) very innovative 1930 design which became the 1934 Ark Royal?

When do they get laid down and what happens to the existing carriers?

I have an idea that might allow the Follies to be retained beyond the 135,000 ton carrier limit (which is your 6 x 22.5Kton ships) - which is that Courageous and Glorious are modified as Aircraft repair ships (effectively with a reduced weapon storage etc) with Furious turned into a training ship (obviously without the hindsight of a major War)

However given the angst expended on building or not building HMS Unicorn I can see this Idea not being used

For what its worth, I have had what I think are good ideas, not merely murdered, but hung, drawn, quartered and their graves danced on afterwards. So you have my sympathy there.

I agree that they were probably better used as cruisers and if the money was available I'd go for rebuilding them along the lines of the Japanese Aboa class cruisers. That is subject to staying within the terms of naval arms limitation treaties.

For your other questions see on this thread: Post 114 on Page 6; Posts 129 and 132 on Page 7; Posts 143, 145 and 156 on Page 8; Posts 164 and 167 on Page 9; and last for now Post 193 on Page 10.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So the six 22,500Ton carriers - are these effectively Sir Arthur Johns (then Director of Naval Construction) very innovative 1930 design which became the 1934 Ark Royal?

When do they get laid down and what happens to the existing carriers?

I have an idea that might allow the Follies to be retained beyond the 135,000 ton carrier limit (which is your 6 x 22.5Kton ships) - which is that Courageous and Glorious are modified as Aircraft repair ships (effectively with a reduced weapon storage etc) with Furious turned into a training ship (obviously without the hindsight of a major War)

However given the angst expended on building or not building HMS Unicorn I can see this Idea not being used

The six 22,500 ton ships were called the Dreadnought class. The differences were 3 conventional single deck lifts instead of the 3 double-deck lifts of OTL and the hangar width increased from 60 to 62 feet. The building cost of Ark Royal was about £4 million IOTL and I'm hoping that the TTL changes that turn it into the Dreadnought produce an insignificant increase in the cost. Therefore an extra £20 million spread over about a decade has to be spend to build the 5 extra ships. But there is also the cost of the aircraft and the increase in the running cost (including the crew).

The names and building dates were as follows:

• HMS Dreadnought ordered 1930-31 Estimates. Laid down 1930, launched 1932 and completed 1933. She replaced HMS Argus, which became a depot ship for Queen Bee target drones as OTL;
• HMS Marlborough ordered 1931-32 Estimates. Laid down 1931, launched 1933 and completed 1934. She replaced HMS Eagle, which became an aircraft maintenance ship;
• HMS Monarch ordered 1932-33 Estimates. Laid down 1932, launched 1934 and completed 1935. She replaced HMS Hermes, which was converted into a seaplane carrier;
• HMS Canopus ordered 1933-34 Estimates. Laid down 1933, launched 1935 and completed 1936. She was to have replaced HMS Furious, which would have been scrapped. However, the abolition of tonnage quotas by the 1936 London Naval Treaty gave Furious a reprieve;
• HMS Benbow ordered 1934-35 Estimates. Laid down 1934, launched 1936 and completed 1937. She was to have replaced HMS Courageous, which would have been scrapped. However, the abolition of tonnage quotas by the 1936 London Naval Treaty gave Courageous a reprieve
• HMS Ark Royal ordered 1935-36 Estimates. Laid down 1935, launched 1937 and completed 1938. She was to have replaced HMS Glorious, which would have been scrapped. However, the abolition of tonnage quotas by the 1936 London Naval Treaty gave Courageous a reprieve.

Thus there would be 9 aircraft carriers (the 6 Dreadnoughts and the 3 Follies) in September 1939 plus 3 seaplane carriers (Albatross, Hermes and Pegasus); Eagle as aircraft maintenance ship (ITTL Unicorn was built to replace her) and as OTL Argus as depot ship for the Queen Bee target drones.

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

The problem here is when the conversion was done. The older the ship the less the remaining life of the hull and machinery making the construction of a new ship increasingly more attractive. Also the more elaborate the conversion the more expensive it is which reduces the amount of money saved when compared to building a new ship.

Having written all that I would love to see 4 trade protection carriers acquired between the wars. Converting the Cavendish class is not my preferred solution, but it would do. The problem is the WNT and even more the 1930 LNT limiting the number of ships and I want the six 22,500 ton fleet carriers even more.

I think the only way of making this viable is with an ATL Washington treaty.
All the focus in the discussions for the treaty were focused on battleships, with carriers and other ships as secondary considerations.
The decision that 10,000 tons and 8" was the cruiser limit was, I believe, driven by the Hawkins class, and the desire by the RN to keep them.
Nobody else had anything of comparable size, and nothing over 6".

When the 10,000 ton 8" cruiser become the standard size rather than the largest size that was a nasty shock to the RN, who really would have been happier with a larger number of smaller cruisers.

So getting the WNT limit set at 8,000 tons and 6" would probably have been doable, assuming a few more connected brain cells in the British delegation.
Article XI - change 10000 to 8000
"No vessel of war exceeding 10,000(8,000 TTL) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft-carrier shall be acquired by, or constructed by ..."
Article XII - change 8" to 6"
"No vessel of war ... hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8(6 TTL) inches."

There is also this in Definitions:
"Aircraft-carrier
An aircraft-carrier is defined as a vessel of war with a displacement in excess of 10,000 tons standard displacement designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft. It must be so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon ... "

The RN then convert the 2 existing ships (Hawkins & Raleigh), the 2 on the slipways (Frobisher & Effingham), and Cavendish/Vindictive (which is already 90% there), to "Imperial aircraft & munitions supply" or some such transparent fiction.

Article XI wouldn't apply, as the ships already exist so they are not being acquired or constructed. Converted yes, constructed no.
And they fall outside the definition of Aircraft carriers, as they are less than 10,000 tons, so don't count towards the allowable tonnage.

Once the discussions for the London Naval treaty come round the existing restriction on cruiser size is 8,000 ton and 6".
The RN are happy with that, while the American and Japanese want to build bigger.
Which can be used as leverage to let the Hawkins class go by.
A line about currently built carriers of less than 10,000 tons not counting towards the tonnage limit should do it.

 

[Astrodragon]

One other issue with turning the old cruisers into small carriers is that they were seen as too small.
Studies by both the RN and the USN pre-war indicated a carrier of under 10,000t wasn't large enough to handle aircraft properly as the flight deck was too small and movement too large.
Granted in wartime relaxed flying conditions mad this more achievable, but they didn't know that at the time they would have made the conversion decision.

Its also (relatively) more expensive to convert to a carrier than most other types of ship. A carriers main expense is the hull and machinery. You'd need to replace the cruiser machinery - carriers put a lot more strain on their engines - and rebuild the hull. It doesn't cost much more than build a proper light carrier, and that's good for 25 years (or 50, IRL!!).

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't see what you're trying to prove here. I don't see what's silly or absurd about wanting to get a higher performance Hurricane in service earlier. On the contrary its self-evidently an eminently sensible idea.

Having a more powerful Merlin engine in production in 1940 would also mean higher performance Spitfires.

What we haven't considered yet is how would the enemy react to facing the RAF equipped with much better aircraft than OTL? Seeing what the British Air Ministry was up to wouldn't the RLM try to get its aircraft industry to build aircraft to match or better it?

If I may toss a thing or two about this.
RR was introducing the more powerful Merlins in 1940 - the slightly more improved Merlin XII and the excellent Merlin XX, with very good Merlin 45 in the works. All while out-producing the Jumo 211 and DB 601 combined. The Merlin XX/45 requires Hooker doing it's job, IMO that is not very likely to be speeded up, even with much of a foresight.
Quirk with cramming Merlin XX in Hurricane is that, with foresight and within confines of the thread, Britain will be producing much more Spitfires, probably the Merlin Whirlwind, even the Gloster "Merlin F.5/34". Each of those will be a far better use of Merlins, with significant performance advantage, while even out-performing the Bf 109 (perhaps the F.5 'just' equaling it). Hurricane is too big a fighter, with too thick a wing (both in relative and absolute terms) - great when low-speed handling and payload matter (hint, hint British Army/Royal Navy/FAA), but a problem when expecting it to out-flight the small & reasonably powerful Bf 109.

As for the German reply. They have the Fw 190 in the works, that has it's own set of issues, engine-related mostly. The Bf 109F is also in the works, with airframe-related probems, like wing and tail leaving the aircraft during violent maneuvers. The new engine - DB 601N - is also hardly a paragon of reliability, a reason why the duration of max power was limted to 3 min, and even to 1 min. The 601N is of lower power than the Merlin XX in all altitudes.

 

[Astrodragon]

If the new carriers were laid down that early, they would likely have been bigger, around 25kt. This is because at the time to propose, they hadn't worked out if landings would work with arrester gear or not. Once they concluded they could, the minimum size of Ark Royal came down. So if you want 22.5kt carriers so early, you'll have to advance the arrester gear trials.

 

[merlin]

Vindictive fell under the category of 'experimental' - at that time aircraft were small, with a low take-off and landing speed. With the Admiralty still upset about losing the RNAS the more pressure they could put on the RAF the better. Also, it may be more politically advantageous to say no we are not engaged in building 'new' warships, only doing some conversion work on existing ones - taking the guns off! With a more extensive conversion, the case would be made for the others to follow, and make allowance for a 'loophole' in the Treaty negotiations.
It may well be that the aircraft carried will be low, in keeping with defence spending, but the ships will act as Training vessels for senior officers. Moreover, it could lead to an earlier arrival (to replace them) of the Unicorn Class.

 

[Just Leo]

I don't see what you're trying to prove here. I don't see what's silly or absurd about wanting to get a higher performance Hurricane in service earlier. On the contrary its self-evidently an eminently sensible idea.

It wouldn't be silly or absurd to expect that Hurricanes would be fitted with engines designed to take constant speed propellers, and that such propellers were fitted. It's self-evident that metal-covered wings would be fitted to all Hurricanes before the end of the BoB.

I always thought that Teddy Petter was eminently sensible in asking the aircrews of Army Co-operation what they wanted before he designed an aircraft for them. None of them asked for a Hurri-bomber.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If the new carriers were laid down that early, they would likely have been bigger, around 25kt. This is because at the time to propose, they hadn't worked out if landings would work with arrester gear or not. Once they concluded they could, the minimum size of Ark Royal came down. So if you want 22.5kt carriers so early, you'll have to advance the arrester gear trials.

Bringing arrester gear forward is perfectly feasible.

Incidentally I was reading about them in Friedman last night and one of the reasons why they were abandoned in the 1920s was that shorter undercarriages were required for propeller clearances making it easier to adapt standard RAF types for naval use.

However...

The original 1924 Plan ITTL was still to have a force of 7 aircraft carriers built by 1938 consisting of 4 new 17,000 ton ships and the Follies. The latter would be replaced by the middle of the 1940s. The WNT set the service life of aircraft carriers at 20 years and the intention was to build one ship about every 3 years to avoid block obsolescence.

However, like OTL none of the ships planned for the 1920s were built, but the target date for the replacement of Argus, Eagle and Hermes by 1938 remained. What changes is that at the end of the 1920s the Admiralty persuades the Cabinet and Treasury to pay for the construction of ships to replace Argus, Eagle and Hermes by 1938 plus ships to replace The Follies by that date too. The Cabinet and Treasury approved it as an unemployment relief measure. By this time the requirement had evolved from an eventual force of eight 16,500 ton ships (total 132,000 tons) to six 22,500 ton ships (135,000 tons) after flirting with ten 13,500 tons ships (also 135,000 tons) in between.

To fit in with the arrester gear problem the change could be that the six ships are laid down at the rate of 2 per year 1933-35 instead of one per year 1930-35. However, that would be harder to sell to the politicians because the same money would be spent over half the period of time. It also makes the block obsolescence problem worse. We know that won't be a problem, but the planners don't know that the tonnage quotas will be abolished in a few years allowing a larger force of aircraft carriers or that there will be a world war in the first half of the 1940s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I always thought that Teddy Petter was eminently sensible in asking the aircrews of Army Co-operation what they wanted before he designed an aircraft for them. None of them asked for a Hurri-bomber.

AFAIK the Lysander did the job asked of it very well, but unfortunately hindsight proved that it was the wrong job. IOTL it seems as if the powers that be didn't realise their mistake until the Battle of France because the Lysander squadrons re-equipped with fighter-bombers ASAP after that. Unfortunately ASAP was after the Battle of Britain ended and No. 22 (Army Co-operation) Group had a front-line of 162 Lysanders in 9 squadrons at the height of the battle.

In my TL Spec. A.39/34 still happens and the 2 prototype Lysanders and their Bristol rivals still fly. However, the first production contracts weren't placed until 1936 IOTL and ITTL that is where the sane Air Ministry changes its mind. IIRC 144 production Lysanders were ordered from Westland in 1936 it orders 144 Hurricanes from Westland.

There are 5 extra Hurricane squadrons with ACBEF during the Battle of France, the equivalent of 10 extra Hurricane squadrons at 16 I.E. during the Battle of Britain and in June 1940 RAF Middle East has 2 Hurricane squadrons instead of 2 Lysander squadrons.

Edit

Getting more fighters into the Battle of Britain is the primary reason why I want the Air Ministry to order more Hurricanes instead of putting the Lysander production. Better close air support in the early part of the war is a secondary consideration for me.

For example the 5 extra Hurricane squadrons that served in France instead of the 5 Lysander squadrons of OTL would have spent most of the time shooting down Luftwaffe bombers rather than acting as airborne artillery against the German army.

 

[marathag]

Timing was much, much better 'in' the Kestrel than it was 'in' the Daimler or Jumos. Merlin, as-is, have had several advantages over these German engines, including the timing.

The Daimler 600 seems to have been lighter in weight with higher displacement at lower RPMs for roughly the same power as the Merlin I in 1935

 

[sonofpegasus]

As to the Lysander, give the AM a crystal ball as per the OP and they choose the Bristol 148 instead (I know it requires the Taurus to get the near 300mph performance which is often quoted.) give it a couple of cannons and a B/F 0.5 observers gun and you could end up with a decent fighter bomber for 1939. Let the FAA see this with it's 48mph landing speed and you could have a decent alternative to the Skua and the Roc that can actually catch a German bomber!

 

[tomo pauk]

The Daimler 600 seems to have been lighter in weight with higher displacement at lower RPMs for roughly the same power as the Merlin I in 1935

The DB 600 A/B types were indeed making 1000 PS, but with an important caveat - the single-speed supercharger gearing was for low altitudes, and rated altitude was either 0 ft (say Germans; sea level, obviously) or 1500 m(say Soviets; 4920 ft).
The 'fully supercharged' (per British terminology), but still with single speed S/C, DB 600 C/D was good for 910 PS at 4000 m (say Germans; 897 HP at 13120 ft); or 1050 CV at 3600 m (say Soviets; 1036 HP at 11810 ft). The Merlin I was good for 1030 HP at 16250 ft (or 1044 PS at 4953m). So I'd say that Merlin I was a far better engine when it is about high altitudes.
The Jumo 210 is of lower power than the Kestrel, the Jumo 211A/B are somewhat late, being contemporary of Merlin III/X.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part 2 of the FAA Wank...

The Fleet Air Arm 1923-39 ITTL
The Size of the Fleet Air Arm​

Capacity of the Aircraft Carriers 1923-34

For the purposes of this essay I'm rating the carrying capacity of the OTL carriers as follows:

6 Vindictive (completed October 1918)
12 Hermes (completed July 1923)
18 Argus (completed September 1918)
18 Eagle (completed February 1924)
48 Courageous (conversion to aircraft carrier completed May 1928)
48 Furious instead of 36 (conversion to flush deck aircraft carrier completed September 1925)
48 Glorious (conversion to flush deck aircraft carrier completed March 1930)​

ITTL the conversion of the Three Follies to flush-deck aircraft carriers was different. The main flight deck extended all the way to the bow. It didn't increase the capacity of the hangars, but it did mean that the flight deck was longer allowing longer take-off and landing runs, more aircraft to be assembled on deck for take-off and larger deck parks when they were belatedly introduced.

Expansion of the FAA 1923-34 IOTL

IOTL Eagle was completed 18 months late and Hermes was completed 2 years late. Meanwhile the conversions of the Follies which were scheduled to take 2 years each all took between 4 and 5 years. I had thought that it was all due to lack of money, but when I was reading through my copy of Freidman checking some facts I came across a passage saying that the completions and conversions were given high priority by the Admiralty. He went onto saying that this was the cause of great embarrassment to the Admiralty because they were pressing the Air Ministry for more carrier aircraft, but weren't providing the aircraft carriers. For example:

• 60 aircraft in 10 flights on 31/03/23 when the 2 aircraft carriers (Argus and Vindictive) could accommodate 24;
• 90 aircraft in 15 flights on 31/03/24 when the 3 aircraft carriers (Argus, Eagle and Vindictive) could accommodate 42;
• 108 aircraft in 18 flights on 31/03/25 when the 4 aircraft carriers (Argus, Eagle, Hermes and Vindictive) could accommodate 54;
• 108 aircraft in 18 flights on 31/03/26 when the 5 aircraft carriers (Argus, Eagle, Furious (at 36 aircraft), Hermes and Vindictive could accommodate 90;
• There was no change by 31/03/27, but;
• 138 aircraft in 23 flights on 31/03/28 when the 5 aircraft carriers (Argus, Eagle, Furious (at 36 aircraft), Hermes and Vindictive could accommodate 90;
• 144 aircraft in 24 flights on 31/03/29 when the 6 aircraft carriers (Argus, Courageous, Eagle, Furious (at 36 aircraft), Hermes and Vindictive could accommodate 138;
• 144 aircraft in 24 flights on 31/03/30 when the 6 aircraft carriers (Argus, Courageous, Eagle, Glorious, Furious (at 36 aircraft) and Hermes could accommodate 180. I have not included Vindictive because she reverted to a cruiser in 1929.

Therefore the usual accusation that the RAF didn't want to expand the FAA doesn't appear to be valid until at least the end of the 1920s. Between April 1930 and March 1933 another 3 flights with 18 aircraft were formed bringing the total up to 162 aircraft in 27 flights. As Argus was in reserve at this time there were actually enough aircraft to keep all 5 operational aircraft carriers at full strength.

Except that when Vindictive reverted to being a cruiser in 1929 her flight became the first catapult flight and there were a total of 6 by the end of March 1933. This reduced the number of aircraft available for the aircraft carriers to 126 in 21 flights. At this time there were 6 aircraft carriers had a capacity of 180 aircraft but because Argus was in reserve only 162 were required to keep the other 5 at full strength. Therefore depending upon how you look at it the number of carrier aircraft filled 70 or 78% of the available capacity of the aircraft carriers.

There was no improvement a year later at the end of March 1934 after the 21 flights had been reorganised into 12 squadrons. At the same time the RAF's Air Defence of Great Britain Command, also known as the Home Defence Force was about 20% short of the strength it should have attained in March 1928 and was not planned to attain until March 1938. So once again I think we can't accuse the RAF of sacrificing torpedo bombers for strategic bombers.

Expansion of the FAA 1923-34 ITTL

I was going to have the Eagle, Hermes and the Follies commissioned on time and the FAA built up proportionately. One of the reasons for that was to give the RN and FAA a few extra years of operating aircraft carriers capable of operating reasonably large air groups. However, that was before I discovered that the late completion dates weren't because of lack of money or that the FAA actually expanded faster than the capacity of the aircraft carriers until the end of March 1928.

Therefore ITTL the expansion of the FAA up to 31/03/28 was the same as OTL, but between then and 31/03/30 it expanded from 144 aircraft in 24 flights to 198 aircraft in 33 flights. That is 192 carrier aircraft in 32 flights and 6 in one catapult flight. During the course of the next 3 financial years another 6 catapult flights were formed.

At 31st March 1933 there were 6 aircraft carriers in commission (Argus, Courageous, Eagle, Furious, Glorious and Hermes) with 192 aircraft in 32 flights available for them. There were also 42 catapult aircraft in 7 flights. The total force was 234 aircraft in 39 flights. The next day (1st April 1933) the 198 carrier aircraft in 32 flights were reorganised into 17 squadrons with the same number of aircraft. The preferred number of aircraft per squadron was 12, but the pairs of squadrons aboard Argus and Eagle had 9 each.

Therefore the FAA on 1st April 1933 ITTL was about 50% larger than the OTL version.

Expansion of the FAA 1934-39 ITTL

Argus did not decommission until 1933 when she was replaced by Dreadnought. During the course of the 1933-34 the FAA formed another 4 aircraft carrier squadrons and the 2 squadrons that had been aboard Argus were increased from 9 to 12 aircraft each. Thus on 31/03/34 the TTL FAA had 246 carrier aircraft in 21 squadrons compared to 126 in 12 squadrons IOTL, about double.

Eagle decommissioned in 1934 when she was replaced by Marlborough. In a repeat of the previous financial year the FAA formed another 4 aircraft carrier squadrons and the 2 squadrons that had been aboard Eagle were increased from 9 to 12 aircraft each. Thus on 31/03/35 the TTL had 300 carrier aircraft in 25 squadrons compared to 138 in 12 squadrons IOTL, about double.

Hermes decommissioned in 1935 when she was replaced by Monarch. During the course of the 1935-36 financial year the FAA formed 5 new aircraft carrier squadrons, which brought its strength at 31/03/36 to 360 carrier aircraft in 30 squadrons. This is 2.4 times more than at that time IOTL when there were 150 carrier aircraft in 13 squadrons.

Furious decommissioned in 1936 when Canopus was commissioned. She should have been scrapped under the terms of the Washington and First London Naval Treaties, but the abolition of the tonnage quotas under the Second London Treaty saved her from the breakers and she was retained in the Reserve Fleet. The FAA only formed 2 new aircraft carrier squadrons during the 1936-37 financial year, but that still brought the total up to 384 aircraft in 32 squadrons on 31/03/37. At the same time in OTL the FAA had 162 carrier aircraft in 14 squadrons.

Courageous should have been scrapped in 1937 when Benbow was commissioned to replace her. However, the abolition of tonnage quotas meant she was kept in service as a deck landing training ship without an air group of her own. In common with the previous financial year a pair of new FAA squadrons was formed in the course of 1937-38 so that there were 408 aircraft in 34 squadrons on 31/03/38. At the same time IOTL the FAA still had 162 carrier aircraft in 14 squadrons.

Glorious should have been scrapped in 1938 when Ark Royal commissioned to replace her. However, in common with her sisters she had a reprieve when the tonnage quotas were abolished. She became a deck landing training ship like Courageous with no air group of her own. In common with 1936-37 and 1937-38 a pair of new FAA squadrons was formed in the course of FY 1938-39 so that there were 432 aircraft in 36 squadrons on 31/03/38. At the same time IOTL the FAA had only grown to 174 carrier aircraft in 15 squadrons.

The Situation on 3rd September 1939

When the Admiralty took control of all ship based naval aviation in May 1939 it inherited 432 carrier aircraft in 36 squadrons instead of 174 in 15 squadrons. In common with OTL its first action was to convert about one fifth of those squadrons to training squadrons. However, new squadrons were formed over the course of the next 4 months so that the strength was back up to 432 aircraft in 36 squadrons.

All 9 aircraft carriers were in commission as follows:

• Dreadnought was in the Mediterranean Fleet instead of Glorious;
• Marlborough was on the China Station in place of Eagle;
• Monarch was in the Channel Force in place of Hermes;
• Canopus was in the Mediterranean Fleet;
• Benbow was in the Channel Force instead of Courageous;
• Ark Royal was in the Home Fleet as OTL;
• Courageous, Furious and Glorious were at Rosyth with no aircraft embarked where they formed a deck landing training squadron.

The number of catapult aircraft was increased from 69 to 81. This was because there was a squadron of 12 Walrus amphibians aboard Hermes, which was converted into a seaplane carrier in 1936. In common with OTL Argus was in commission as a depot ship for Queen Bee target drones. Eagle, converted to an aircraft maintenance ship in 1935 was in the Mediterranean supporting the aircraft carriers there.

Although the number of front-line carrier squadrons had been increased by only 2.4 times and there had been only a fractional increase in the number of catapult aircraft the second-line was trebled. There were:

• 9 deck landing training squadrons instead of 3;
• 1 seaplane training squadron as OTL;
• 15 squadrons training observers (organised into 5 schools) instead of 5;
• 15 squadrons training telegraphist air gunners (organised into 5 schools), instead of 3; and
• 3 fleet requirements squadrons instead of one.

This meant that instead of appointing a rear admiral as Flag Officer Home Air Command on 25th May 1939 the Admiralty had to appoint a vice or full admiral, whose title was a C-in-C rather than Flag Officer. Under him were: Flag Officer Naval Flying Training performing the same function as RAF Flying Training Command; Flag Officer Ground Training performing the same function as RAF Technical Training Command; and Flag Officer Reserve Aircraft performing the same function as RAF Maintenance Command. The larger FAA presence in the Mediterranean required the appointment of a flag officer to control its ground organisation. There was also a captain-in-charge for the shore based FAA units on the China Station. Contingency plans for the formation of the Eastern Fleet in the event of a war with Japan called for the upgrading of his organisation from a captain's command to a flag officers command.

Expansion Plans At The Outbreak Of World War II

The reason for the trebling of the training organisation was that the current plan was to create a total force of 720 carrier aircraft in 60 squadrons by 31st March 1941. At that time there were planned to be 13 aircraft carriers consisting of 4 Super Implacable class, 6 Dreadnought class and 3 Courageous class. Of these 10 ships would be in commission as fully operational fleet carriers, each with an air group of 72 aircraft in 6 squadrons. One of the Courageous class would be in commission as deck landing training carrier and the other pair would be in reserve.

ITTL Illustrious and Formidable were laid down at least 6 months earlier and the contracts with their builders called for delivery by 31st March 1940. As a result it was planned to form 12 squadrons by 31st March 1940 to provide their air groups. At 31/03/40 there would be 11 aircraft carriers consisting of 2 Super Implacable class, 6 Dreadnought class and 3 Courageous class. All 11 ships would be in commission but at least one of them would be on training duties.

Victorious and Formidable were laid down at the same time as OTL and were scheduled for delivery by 31st March 1941. Another 12 squadrons were scheduled to be formed in the 1940-41 financial year to provide their air groups. At 31/03/41 there would be 13 aircraft carriers as described above.

Implacable and Indefatigable were laid down in 1938 ITTL and scheduled for delivery by 31st March 1942. There would now be 15 aircraft carriers consisting of 6 Super Implacables, 6 Dreadnought class and 3 Courageous class. Courageous would be scrapped to bring the force down to 14 ships. One of the Dreadnought class would become training carrier and another would go into the Reserve Fleet.

The aircraft carriers laid down in 1939 ITTL were named Invincible and Inflexible. They were scheduled for delivery by 31st March 1943. Furious and Glorious would be scrapped leaving a force of 14 aircraft carriers consisting of 8 Super Implacable class and 6 Dreadnought class. 8 of the former and 2 of the latter would be in full commission. One Dreadnought would be in commission as deck landing training ship. The other 3 Dreadnought class would be in the Reserve Fleet.

ITTL the construction on one extra cruiser a year between 1929 and 1935 increasing the rate of construction from 3 to 4 a year meant that the number of ships planned from 1936 onwards was reduced from 7 a year to 6 a year. The money saved helped to pay for the extra cost of the Super Implacable compared to the Illustrious design. It also helped the Treasury provide the money to order 2 aircraft carriers in each of the 1938-39 and 1939-40 Estimates instead of reducing it to one in each year as OTL.

 

[Millsy]

Been reading this thread with interest very thought provoking for the AH story I'm working on

Couple of comments on hmg rather than 8 x rcmg

Tony Williams excellent site has article about raf testing of the vickers .5" and their conclusion was to go for 20mm as .5" was neither fish nor fowl

As a complete what if what about the 15mm Besa ?

 

[perfectgeneral]

Sir Arthur Johns (then Director of Naval Construction) very innovative 1930 design

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sir Arthur Johns (then Director of Naval Construction) very innovative 1930 design

"Continued parsimony" made me laugh.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Been reading this thread with interest very thought provoking for the AH story I'm working on

Couple of comments on hmg rather than 8 x rcmg

Anthony G Williams excellent site has article about raf testing of the vickers .5" and their conclusion was to go for 20mm as .5" was neither fish nor fowl

As a complete what if what about the 15mm Besa ?

Given that they already have the tools for 13.9mm barrels and chambers, plus a field tested armour piercing round, why not the .55 Boys?

A larger, heavier - at 57 kg (125 lb) - 15 mm version, also belt-fed, was developed by BSA from the Czechoslovak ZB vz.60 heavy machine-gun as vehicle armament. It could be fired in semi-automatic mode as well as fully automatic. It was introduced in British service in June, 1940 and was used on the Light Tank Mk VIC and on armoured cars such as the Humber Armoured Car Marks I–III. Over 3,200 15mm BESA were manufactured until it was declared obsolete in 1949.[2] It fired a 75 gram bullet from a 15×104mm cartridge with a muzzle velocity of 818.3 m/s (2,685 ft/s) at a rate of 450 rounds per minute

Well given the option of 13.9mm or 15mm BSA felt that the larger round was worth it. Perhaps the army were still clinging to Boys AT rifles in the absence of something better. That rate of fire is limiting the firepower compared with the .5 Browning (750-850rds/min) and 20mm HS.404 (700rds/min). A longer round requires a longer bolt action. That takes a longer time, so the fire rate drops. Even so I think an AN/M2 style action for the BESA round could do better and offer a gateway to a 20mm version later.

 

[Millsy]

Tony's site has good detail on the comparison testing between the vickers and browning .5" the raf could have had the vickers in the BofB but I guess it all goes back to rate of fire. (Vickers came out well and probably would have been choice had decision not been to jump to 20mm)

So you choice would be 8 (or 12) rcmg

4 x hmg (vickers) or maybe x 6

4(?) x besa 15mm

4 x 20mm hispano?

I guess that the realativly low RofF of the 15mm besa would disqualify it although you would have to wonder at the light tank aa version (2x15mm) vs the 4x7.92 version

 

[steamboy]

Very very good stuff! I assume that the Super Imps are basically the OTL Implacables right? For the Dreadnought class I'm gonna guess their Air Groups are a mix of Herc powered Hurricanes and Henley's and Swordfish? Although we need a better name for the Henley (Hawker Sirocco perhaps?) And whilst the 20mm is ideal there's not really the means to produce it yet, and the RAF was still wedded to MG's. But if the FAA/NRNAS (New Royal Navy Air Service) wanted MGs then i'd say they'd go for the .50cal as it was simply available. 2 in the wings of a Hurricane and 4 .303's or 4 x .50cals would be quite a punch for its time.

Re Cruiser construction.

One possible way of saving money could be to decommission/disarm the C/D class cruisers prior to WW2. As these ships were really of limited use with a short range and even when turned into AA ships they had little more firepower than a destroyer at the cost of far larger crews.

If you want to save cash, scrap them, put the guns ashore somewhere and be done with it. The more expensive option would be a conversion into CL-AA's.

Strip out the torpedo tubes and 6-inch mounts and fit dual 4-inch mounts and any single or double 2lbers and Vickers .50's you've got. Add some extra fuel tanks if you can. Whilst basically you'll have a large Black Swan with 8 x 4-inch guns and some 2lbers its better than what the RN has for the most part. But this is the expensive option and crew intensive too.

Perhaps scrapping ALL 22 is too extensive but you could get rid of 50% of them for scrap and put their guns ashore and then try converting as many as possible into CL-AA's to escort the Dreadnoughts.

One thing to also try getting the RN to do is standardize on a gun caliber for their DDs. The RN spent a LOT of money designing different turrets for different guns of the same size but varying calibers. There was loads of 4, 4.5 and 4.7 inch guns of varying caliber. Settle on two types and stick with it. 4.5 for the bigger more modern DDs and 4-inch for the cheaper vessels.

Naturally the 40mm Bofors is a superior weapon to the 2lber, but this is the 30's and the RN, whilst being very air aware had an overblown faith in the ability of AA guns to deter and defeat an air attack. As this is a doctrinal thing, its going to take bitter experience to change it. And as its the 30's the 2lber mounting (especially the Chicago Piano) is still one of the best AA guns in the world.

For the fleet DD's the J's Ks and Tribal likes i'd go for a DP 4.5-inch dual mount and for the Wartime emergency DD's a single but DP 4-inch mount, basically half one of these

in a DP mounting. The RN stuck with the LA mounts for way too long and if the RN who was in love with the gun as the main deterrent against air attacks in the 20s/30s they should realise that a DP mount is of greater use than a LA mount.