fast escort for carriers

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Depends on the weapons mix.

The Iowas were exceptionally good at the escort role (realistically the Iowa and her sisters were BC to the never built Montanas BB. Whether they were the best choice for the role is a different question. IMO they were not.

The Iowa class ships cost $100M+ and required a crew of over 2,700. For that same construction cost the USN could have obtained FIVE CLAA, for the same manpower they could have operated four CLAA. The Iowa class carried 10x2 5"/38, the best naval AAA weapon of the war, a total of 80 40mm (in a mix of dual and quad mountings, the effectiveness of the 40mm remains a subject of some debate) and 40+ 20mm (a weapon that was more or less a last ditch point defense weapon that could not assist in the defense of the carriers).

Each CLAA mounted either 8x2 or 6x2 5"/38 (early ships had "wing" turrets that were not carried forward in the second batch of hulls), 8 40mm, and 14 20mm. For the same cost as one Iowa the fleet could have gone from 20 to 60-70 of the 5"/38 (by far the most effective AAA weapon available), albeit at the cost of 50% of the battleship's 40mm capacity.

There are, of course, other considerations beyond pure firepower that fall on the capital ship's side of the ledger these include survivability and the ability to act a force flag and/or communications hub. You could, using the displacement of the BC possibly come up with a design scheme that would get you many more heavy AAA mounts, although at the cost of the heavy gun scheme.
 
possible RN carrier escorts

Would hms repulse,hms renown, hms implacable,hms kgv and four tribal class dd be a good carrier battlegroup for the early ww2?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Would hms repulse,hms renown, hms implacable,hms kgv and four tribal class dd be a good carrier battlegroup for the early ww2?

Where & when? Implacable was not available before 1944, that isn't early WW II.

In the Med it would be iffy. In the North Atlantic it would be okay, capable of handling the potential threat environment. In the Pacific, its meat on the table.
 
Escorts...

CLAAs are special purpose ships, and very useful. But, in the World War II era, especially early, carriers NEEDED a big gun ship nearby. There's times when flight operations are not possible, but gunnery works just fine...like night, for example.. Two fast moving fleets can go from beyond air range to gun range in the course of a night, if they're on converging courses.

Battlecruisers would be better than no big gun ships, but fast battleships are just plain better.
 
CLAAs are special purpose ships, and very useful. But, in the World War II era, especially early, carriers NEEDED a big gun ship nearby. There's times when flight operations are not possible, but gunnery works just fine...like night, for example.. Two fast moving fleets can go from beyond air range to gun range in the course of a night, if they're on converging courses.

Battlecruisers would be better than no big gun ships, but fast battleships are just plain better.

Fast battleships basically made the battlecruiser a pointless endeavor.
 
I have a mid 30s design of fast Battleship for the British that ticks most of the box's

Basically it involves decommissioning the Revenges and utilising the 4 spare Mk1 twin 15" turrets from the Follies and building 8 35,000 ton fast battleships.

Using a 35,000 Ton Nelrod layout (or something like the North Carolina 'A' design see below picture) with 3 reconditioned (to Mk1N standard) twin turrets forwards, 10 Secondary twin 4.5" (Renown refit style) with 5 Octuple 2 pounder Pom Pom guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North.../media/File:North_Carolina_class_scheme_A.jpg

(wont show the picture so you will have to click on the link!)

This gives us a ship with the fire-power and speed of of the refitted HMS Renown but with an armour scheme similar to the OTL KGV.

While this puts the design at a disadvantage compared to say the Bismarck or Littorio class the improved armour scheme and layout should compensate and the speed and AAA armament should also make them more useful.

The advantage of this design is that it should allow 8 new Fast Battleships to be constructed relatively quickly.
 
Last edited:
Fast battleships basically made the battlecruiser a pointless endeavor.

true, but the British had 3 of them and they were fast enough to keep up with the Ark Royal and Illustrious class. Of course the Hood was matched up against a fast battleship (although I like the theory that the Prinz Eugen is the ship who got the fatal hit in), and the Repulse was overwhelmed with airpower. If the British had kept them as carrier escorts, upgraded their AAA during 1937-38, and then again post Crete, and not put them into situations they weren't designed to handle, they would be handy AAA ships.

If the British had adopted the American practice of putting an AA gun on every flat surface big enough to hold one they could have been more valuable still.

Personally I think the best carrier escort were the American light cruisers, which had plenty of duel purpose 5 inch guns, plenty of space for radar, and were far more survivable and had better endurance than the Atlanta class. Cheaper than the Baltimores, and with a hell of a lot of firepower in a surface battle. Opinions vary of course.

The Iowa class were definitely one hell of a carrier escort though. The Alaska class was a waste of time, money, and shipyard space and a ship that really never had a useful role. Pretty though
 
Could the NELRODs fire all three turrets at once?

Not all superfiring directly ahead no only the first 2 could do that

The South Dak 'A' design had a similar layout but with the turrets arranged in a semi super-firing config that allowed superfiring all guns if the guns were elevated above 4.5 degrees.

Mind you I am not aware of a situation that put the Nelrods at a disadvantage that would not also disadvantage those designs with 1 or 2 turrets to the stern.
 
Not all superfiring directly ahead no only the first 2 could do that

The South Dak 'A' design had a similar layout but with the turrets arranged in a semi super-firing config that allowed superfiring all guns if the guns were elevated above 4.5 degrees.

Mind you I am not aware of a situation that put the Nelrods at a disadvantage that would not also disadvantage those designs with 1 or 2 turrets to the stern.

Just to clarify, they could fire all nine guns either to port or starboard, but not forward. Although they were limited on firing arcs during peacetime as the concussion would break the bridge windows
 
Just to clarify, they could fire all nine guns either to port or starboard, but not forward. Although they were limited on firing arcs during peacetime as the concussion would break the bridge windows

Do you mean the NelRod's, I thought they also caused deck damage when all guns fired on a broadside?
 
Top