Ark Royal Class

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I've always been disappointed that Oliver Cromwell has never had a ship in the RN named after him - even Ironside would do...

Still, would be difficult having one of His / Her Majesty's Ships named for a regicide :D
#15 ninja'd!

Blake (as in HMS Blake) was his 'Sea General' and one of our greatest.

I'd love to see the minutes of the planning meetings that decided to cut back the 14 CV plan. In favour of what, I wonder...?

Ark Royal 1934 build programme (OTL) (laid down sept 1935)/(commissioned dec 1938)
Argus and Hermes 1935 build programme (laid down april 1936 and sept 1936)/(commissioned june 1939 and nov 1939)
Eagle 1936 build programme (laid down april 1937)/(commissioned may 1940)

Or is that too leisurely? The new armoured CV class will be hot on their heels. I think it would have to be two a year financed in 1934 and 1935.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_%2887%29#Background_and_description

The Royal Navy's 1936 Naval Programme authorised the construction of two aircraft carriers. Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, Third Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy, was determined not to simply modify the previous unarmoured Ark Royal design. He believed that carriers could not be successfully defended by their own aircraft without some form of early-warning system. Lacking that, there was nothing to prevent land-based aircraft from attacking them, especially in confined waters like the North Sea and Mediterranean.
____________________Coastal Armoured Carriers
1936 2x Illustrious class
1937 2x Indomitable class
1938 2x Implacable class
1939 2x Irresistible class (another bonus of this steady two a year)
____________________Emergency Light Carriers start
1940 8x Colossus class
1941 8x Majestic class
1942 8x Centaur class (four best retained post war)
____________________Post war replacements started (unarmoured to reflect advent of Radar)
1943 2x Audacious class
1944 2x Africa class
1945 2x Malta class (stopped and re-ordered as 4x replenishment at sea oiler/reefers)
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Not sure if logistics would support this battleplan, sorry.

Can we source appropriate round shot and train crew adequately? It would surely require the RN to have anticipated this issue back before the War. Which would have, obviously, caused the Germans to change their own naval planning.

Plus, all the new round shot is likely to be iron, which would have to be diverted from other military construction. So for every fully armed Victory, you will likely lose several tanks or lorries. Which probably means that the Germans defeat the BEF slightly faster than OTL, which would probably mean Sea Lion is a success.
They disguise the whole program as a time-off project for RN officers. Sorry, I mean, they recruit all two thousand RN officers who've always dreamed of taking a Ship of the Line out to battle and who've conveniently trained for it.
:p
 

Cook

Banned
If Churchill had got his way we would have had HMS Oliver Cromwell instead of HMS Queen Elisabeth. He also tried to have a superdreadnought named William Pitt.

However, warship names had to be approved by the King (it was his navy after all) and George V rejected both of them.

I know why he rejected Cromwell - damn shame all the same - but why did he reject Pitt? I would have thought he would have been entirely acceptable.
 
I know why he rejected Cromwell - damn shame all the same - but why did he reject Pitt? I would have thought he would have been entirely acceptable.
Being a second son, George V was not actually expected to take the throne, and instead served as an officer in the Royal Navy. As such, he knew exactly what HMS Pitt would be nicknamed by her crew, and vetoed it on those grounds.

Churchill grumbled that such thoughts were unworthy of a king.
 
Supposedly because of the nickname she would likely have been given. King George knew this sailor's habit very well, and it goes back a long way. HMS Hermes spent many years being referred to by the lower deck as "Herpes", for instance- Fisher's Follies being Outrageous, Uproarious and Spurious; and so on, Billy Ruffian, Guards Van, Lusty, Vinnie and so forth.

HMS Pitt had an obvious nickname, that King George chose to preclude.
 
I have a,book called British Warship names and it seems warship naming was a serious business.
Apparently aircraft carriers confused the powers that be as they were capital ships with at best light cruiser armament. Would it be appropriate to give them capital ship names

Apparently Fishers follies paved the way by creating precedent

So the ous Names were continued with

Illustrious
Victorious
and probably HMS Audacious
 
Thats brilliant - thanks

Soooooooo

Was it possible to laydown or order 3 or 4 Ark Royal class CVs, to replace the Eagle, Argus and Hermes, before the admiralty decided to start building the Armoured carriers?

So something like this

4 Ark Royal CVs all laid down between 1935 and end of 1936

22K Design as OTL - replacing their name sakes upon launch

HMS Ark Royal
HMS Eagle
HMS Argus
HMS Hermes

The as things started to deteriorate further and following the 2LNT

2 Illustrious Class CVs are ordered (Laid down in 1937 both completed by 1940)

23K Design as OTL

HMS Illustrious
HMS Formidable

2 Victorious Sub Class CVs are ordered (laid down 1938 both completed by 1942)

23K Design with extra hanger (thinner side armour) - as OTL Indomitable sub class

HMS Victorious
HMS Indomitable

2 Implacable Class CVs are ordered (laid down in 1939 but the war and diverted resources delay their completion till 1944) - as OTL Implacable class

HMS Implacable
HMS Indefatigable

I can already see plenty of holes in this but I need my bed.....

That would work if:

-2 carriers were ordered in 1934, laid down in 1935 and completed in 1938. Ark Royal and Erstaz Argus.
-2 carriers were ordered in 1935, laid down in 1936 and completed in 1939. Erstaz Hermes and Erstaz Eagle.

However, all 4 carriers ordered in the 1936 and 37 programmes were laid down in 1937 IOTL. If the above is followed Victorious and Indomitable are delivered 6 to 12 months later. The Royal Navy needs the maximum number of flightdecks from about April 1940 to August 1942.

This probably won't work, but...

Resuhuffle the aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers in the 1938 and 1939 programmes so that Implacable, Indefatigable and 16 destroyers are ordered in 1938 and 5 cruisers are put back from 1938 to 1939 as compensation.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
If Churchill had got his way we would have had HMS Oliver Cromwell instead of HMS Queen Elisabeth. He also tried to have a superdreadnought named William Pitt.

However, warship names had to be approved by the King (it was his navy after all) and George V rejected both of them.

Yup - Castles of Steel? ;)
 
If we're recycling names with prestige, I don't know why nobody's thrown out a shout for a new saucy. I know in OTL, one of the Lion class was going to get Temeraire, but it didn't happen, and wouldn't in most TLs. Getting the name on an Ark Royal in the thirties could give her the chance to add to the lustre of the name.
I will only accept this if the Walmington-on-Sea Home guard Platoon is some how involved
Do you think that's wise Sir?
At the risk of some shameless plugging, may I humbly suggest that you two fine fellows follow the third link in my signature? It's not the greatest oneshot in the world, but I'd like to think you might enjoy it. As long as you don't panic...
 
If we're recycling names with prestige, I don't know why nobody's thrown out a shout for a new saucy. I know in OTL, one of the Lion class was going to get Temeraire, but it didn't happen, and wouldn't in most TLs. Getting the name on an Ark Royal in the thirties could give her the chance to add to the lustre of the name.


At the risk of some shameless plugging, may I humbly suggest that you two fine fellows follow the third link in my signature? It's not the greatest oneshot in the world, but I'd like to think you might enjoy it. As long as you don't panic...

We're all doomed! Did you hear me say! DOOMED!
 
That would work if:

-2 carriers were ordered in 1934, laid down in 1935 and completed in 1938. Ark Royal and Erstaz Argus.
-2 carriers were ordered in 1935, laid down in 1936 and completed in 1939. Erstaz Hermes and Erstaz Eagle.

However, all 4 carriers ordered in the 1936 and 37 programmes were laid down in 1937 IOTL. If the above is followed Victorious and Indomitable are delivered 6 to 12 months later. The Royal Navy needs the maximum number of flightdecks from about April 1940 to August 1942.

This probably won't work, but...

Resuhuffle the aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers in the 1938 and 1939 programmes so that Implacable, Indefatigable and 16 destroyers are ordered in 1938 and 5 cruisers are put back from 1938 to 1939 as compensation.

Interesting

When would you say that the British totally abandoned even a pretext of following the 2LNT?

A later ordering/laying down date for the Armoured Fleet carriers might result in them not being so constrained by the treaty limits and some of the heavier alternative designs used ie Illustious, Formidable and Victorius built with the additional half Hanger space of their half sister or even Double hanger of their younger sisters.

I could possibly see a reshuffling of carrier construction if the FAA was handed back to Admiralty control earlier than OTL.
 
When would you say that the British totally abandoned even a pretext of following the 2LNT?

I think you meant the 1LNT, as the British were following the second one to the letter, until war was declared on Germany. Actually that isn't true, the Colony class broke the treaty, because they displaced more than 8,000 tons.

IOTL the British were following the 1LNT to the letter until it expired at the end of 1936. E.g. King George V and Prince of Wales were ordered in the 1936-37 financial year, but weren't laid down until 1st January 1937, the day after the 1LNT expired.

My proposal to lay down 88,000 tons worth of aircraft carriers between 1st January 1935 and 31st December 1936 does not break either the WNT or 1LNT because they allow for the scrapping and replacement of Argus, Hermes and Eagle at any time and Furious was commissioned in 1917 and therefore can be replaced in 1937. The 4 new ships plus Courageous and Glorious come to 132,000 tons and the WNT/1LNT allow 135,000 tons

BUT I half remember reading somewhere that the 1LNT prevented the Illustrious and Formidable from being laid down in 1936, but I don't undertand why (unless it was due to a unilateral declaration by the British like the one to build only 91,000 tons of cruisers before the end of 1936). Has anyone else read that?
 
Top