A Gift To WWII Light Carrier Fans!

You're welcome.:)

http://www.avalanchepress.com/Flight_Deck.php

In 1931, the U.S. Navy was actively designing the flying deck cruiser. The restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty on fortifying Pacific bases meant that the Navy knew that aviation would be ship borne during the cross Pacific trek of War Plan Orange. Seeking a way to bring aviation into the fleet at a faster pace than the limited funding for new carrier construction allowed and to circumvent the restriction on total allowed carrier tonnage in the treaty, the Navy came up with a cruiser with significant aviation capability.

At the time, Lexington (CV-2) and Saratoga (CV-3) were new to the fleet after protracted conversion times caused in large part by limited funding. There was still debate by the theorists on whether carriers should be large like Lady Lex and Sara or smaller. Ranger (CV-4), built small for the maximum possible air fleet, was still in the future to prove larger is better. Yorktown (CV-5) and Enterprise (CV-6) would be larger than Ranger with Wasp (CV-7) built small to use up the remaining allowed carrier tonnage.

The Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 restricted U.S. Navy total carrier tonnage to 135,000 tons and defined a carrier as a vessel designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and between 10,000 and 27,000 tons. Article IX also included a provision for two carrier conversions not exceeding 33,000 tons (U.S. Lexington, Saratoga. Japanese Akagi, Kaga. No other signatory utilized the provision).

Article XIX provided for status quo in the Pacific and no new fortifications or naval bases nor increases to naval facilities for the repair and maintenance of naval forces. The U.S. Navy was most affected because the cross Pacific trek would not have a fleet base. U.S. Navy began the Mobile Base Project and to design/modify ships with longer cruising ranges in the next decade, but that is another story. To understand this article, when a seaplane arrived in the Philippines it had to be based on a seaplane tender and not use land facilities. If the seaplane used land facilities, Japan could file a protest. The Navy could not get seaplane tenders or anything else built in the frugal administrations of the 1920s.

Rear Adm. William A. Moffett, head of the Bureau of Aeronautics 1921-33 and a great proponent of naval aviation, began to push for a cruiser that had aviation power to get more airplanes into the fleet by 1928. At British insistence there were no restrictions on the number of cruisers in the treaty. Moffett also advocated using large dirigibles as airborne aircraft carriers.

The risk of losing fleet air power concentrated in a few large decks concerned Navy planners: in the 1929 Fleet Problem IX Sara was “lost.” The cruiser, being smaller, cheaper and more numerous, would get aviation spread onto more decks. Also important, cruisers might actually get funded. Moffett through the Navy secretary requested five small carriers and only one received funding. Moffett planned to ask for seven flying deck cruisers to be built by 1936.

First designated as Light Aircraft Carrier (CLV) for Naval War College war games, the flying deck cruiser ended up designated as CF because the Chief of Naval Operations the felt that CLV would be confusing when compared to Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL). It was since CLV is understood today as a light cruiser with significant fixed wing capability. An apt description but CF is the historical designation. (Also, calling this a light carrier rather than a cruiser would seem to be a good way to bring protests from the other signers of the treaties.)

At the London Naval Conference of 1930 the U.S. had clauses added to the London Treaty to allow for the flying deck cruiser. During late 1930 the various Navy bureaus presented design studies. The main contention was whether the cruiser would be a flush deck design or have an island superstructure. The superstructure won since fire control needed to be mounted on something and without it the ship looked like a carrier.

By June 1931 the design was a 637-foot, 11,580-ton cruiser with nine 6-inch guns forward in triple turrets and eight 5”/25 along the sides. Two of the 5-inch were designated as anti-aircraft guns. Even this was considered overkill by some. A faction favored deleting all the 5-inch entirely since the 0.50 caliber machine guns would be more effective against attacking dive bombers! A folding funnel and the first angled flight deck (an innovation that would wait until well after World War II) were included in the design. The teeth of the ship would have been the 350 foot flight deck with 24 aircraft; a squadron of fighters and a squadron of observation/dive bombers. With 32 knot speed this design gives a new meaning to "commerce raiding cruiser." The hunting cruiser would find itself the hunted instead as the CF turns into the wind. Add one of these to a World War II cruiser force with two squadrons of fighters and it has combat air patrol. Some of these in the Asiatic Fleet in 1941 would have made things interesting.

The Great Depression was a large part in the death of the flying deck cruiser. Congress funded a ship in 1930 before the design was ready. But by 1932 new ships could not be laid down while existing ships were being laid up because there was no money. The additional time allowed the design to devolve into a real hybrid ship that could not operate aircraft very well; the angled flight deck went away replaced by a flying platform like the unsuccessful British Furious of 1917. Furthermore, Rear Admiral Moffett died in the crash of dirigible U.S.S. Akron (ZRS-4) on April 4, 1933. As part of the New Deal funding became available for large scale new construction in 1933. Carriers and cruisers were built instead of the flying deck cruiser (not a bad idea).

The closest thing the Navy would get was the Independence class carrier conversions from cruiser hulls during World War II — ships not recommended for a surface action.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Axis light carriers?

I wonder how many of these the Germans could have ready by Sept 1939 if they went this way rather than pocket & capital battleships?

Hipper and Deutschland class makes six.
Another seven instead of the battleships? Maybe fourteen. That would be roughly equal tonnage.

40 squadrons of aircraft afloat!

Six light cruisers wouldn't be enough escorts, so maybe 12 CF and 18 CL is more likely (with 30 Z-destroyers).
 
Last edited:
Dang it, Avalanche keeps coming out with these threats to my finances. I still have the power to resist, or more precisely I have no good choice in the matter. :(

I like the looks of the first carrier-cruiser proposal (found in Friedman's book on US cruisers). She looks like one of the British BC/CV conversions, with 3 6" turrets forward.
 
One advantage of the CV over the CF is that it would be operational operational in poorer weather. You might thus get a battle where the CV's aircraft can attack the CFs without having to worry about any fighters to intercept them.

Another advantage of the CV is survivability; not withstanding the disaster of the IJN at Midway the larger ship can take more hits and so make it back to port.

There is also another factor in favour of the CV, length of flight deck. Whilst it may not be an issue in the thirties, the CVs would be able to handle larger planes come the Second World War. It would thus be possible for a navy to have a lot of tonnage that suddenly becomes obsolete just when the shooting starts. Whilst the CFs could be used in the Battle of the Atlantic as escort carriers me thinks that they would be inefficient in manpower for the task.
 
The Red, happy birthday then!:)


Dilvish, no charge for these free articles! Just go to Avalanche Ltd and enjoy!


perfectgeneral, first, Germany couldn't build such ships until after free of the restraints of Versailles and they were hardly likely to give up their only ships of importance for an unproven concept. Then there's the obstacle known as Goering...
 
Ah, the wonders of the hybrid monster rears its head again...!!:D

The British had these suggested to them a number of times between the wars, and the DCN's argument was basically the same each time. Its cheaper to build a set of carriers and a set of battleships (it was normally hybrid BB's suggested rather than cruisers, but the arguments the same for cruisers...) than a set of hybrids. The single-purpose ships carry more aircraft and guns for the money. But the most compelling argument is this; do you want all those delicate planes and REALLY highly imflammable avgas at the back of a ship going into gun combat...!!!

Sort of surprised the IJN didnt build a slew of them, they managed to commit suicide by the numbers in most other areas.....:p
 
Something i've wondered with the British proposals for hybrids is that HMS Vindictive had already shown it not to be a good idea.
 
Gents,

I could have sworn we've talked about these in the past, but I'm most likely hallucinating again.

Anyway, here's a link from my files to the relevant pages at the USN's historical website.


Bill
 
I wonder how many of these the Germans could have ready by Sept 1939 if they went this way rather than pocket & capital battleships?

Hipper and Deutschland class makes six.
Another seven instead of the battleships? Maybe fourteen. That would be roughly equal tonnage.

40 squadrons of aircraft afloat!

Six light cruisers wouldn't be enough escorts, so maybe 12 CF and 18 CL is more likely (with 30 Z-destroyers).

Italy would be more likely to be able to produce carriers before the war than Germany. Biggest problem to that is the Regia Marina didn't have an air wing. The Air Force, which was a fascist bastion, was completely seperate.
 
I wonder how many of these the Germans could have ready by Sept 1939 if they went this way rather than pocket & capital battleships?

Hipper and Deutschland class makes six.
Another seven instead of the battleships? Maybe fourteen. That would be roughly equal tonnage.

40 squadrons of aircraft afloat!

Six light cruisers wouldn't be enough escorts, so maybe 12 CF and 18 CL is more likely (with 30 Z-destroyers).

I'm not going to ask how Germany gets away with building these without the british noticing. I'm not going to ask what sort of mistakes are inherent in these designs. I'm not going to ask where the sailors, aircrews, planes, etc... come from, nor what happened to Goering, nor how the germans created their own carrier doctrine. I'm not going to ask...

Italy would be more likely to be able to produce carriers before the war than Germany. Biggest problem to that is the Regia Marina didn't have an air wing. The Air Force, which was a fascist bastion, was completely seperate.
Not to mention Italy (Mussolini) not seeing a need. In his mind, the surface fleet was fast enough to suit the needs of the italians (able to reach any point in the Med in 36 hours), and the Air Force was a colossus (admittidely, a paper-machie one), so why bother?
 
Top