How can the trade protection Carrier come about before WW2

[alspug]

The question I have whenever I am looking at the Royal Navy in the 1920's is pretty much the same as the Army. All of the pieces needed are present but the drive to force the issue was lacking.

The Royal Navy lost it's air arm to the RAF with the result that the aircraft the Navy got usually where inadequate. The USN which was even less of a concern for the powers that be, Actually had a good mix of aircraft and design process.

If you take the aircraft introduced and purpose/capability the FAA seem inadequate.

The first point of difference needed is for the Navy to keep the FAA. This is the most important aspect.

Once the FAA has control of the aircraft the progression of pilots to Carrier command and admiral rank begins.

With understanding of what a carrier can do the various naval treaties provide the reason to design a small trade protection carrier.

With small carriers the need for wing folding becomes apparent Shorts had been making aircraft with wing folding for some time. So once again the need for folding wings is apparent and the technology already exists.
So the WNT is an aspect of all this. So long as the CVE is below 10,000 ton and not armed with more than light weapons. So a merchant hull built with voids for torpedo protection and modified so a single 270feet by 63 feet and with a 17 foot ceiling. Air group is primarily scouts that can carry a torpedo and have folding wings.

By 1930 the RN should have two or more operational with the stated purpose of aircraft delivery. This creates a sizeable butterfly as the CVE will be recognised as an asset.

With wing folding being the norm ibetter methods will no doubt come about. Japan will build one to see what can be done. When war is imminent the carriers are ready the convoys with a CVE will have less losses. The small merchant hull is beneficial for mass production.

Having aircraft needs that mirror but exceed the RAF will see the Hurricane built with folding wings or maybe the Gloster F5/34 becomes a carrier aircraft.

 

[sonofpegasus]

Proposed mail carrying auxiliary carrier of 1923, Building a couple of these under the red ensign might fall foul of the Navy treaties, if not then there you go.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

One of my darlings is the 3 Hawkins class heavy cruisers (and possibly Vindictive the 4th Sister - the 5th Raleigh lost by grounding in 1922) are converted to 'Trade Protection' ships.

They retain some of their 7.5" guns but gain a smallish hanger that can store 8-12 aircraft

Their mission is to provide hunting groups in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean with a small carrier capable of massively increasing their search radius with limited aircraft maintenance facility's for the other Crusiers Amphibs as well as a limited strike ability.

A secondary role would be as Imperial aircraft transport

3 ships would be maintained to allow for 2 to be at sea at any time (with 1 in refit) and at <10,000 tons do not count as part of the WNT /1st LNT limits on carriers.

I think the below was by Peg Leg Pom?

 

[jlckansas]

The RN have the most use of one as a CVE/Trade Protection Carrier due to their world wide need to protect shipping. You also have the French with their overseas possessions needing a good aircraft transport that could double as one. The US and Japan are more likely to keep looking at the idea of Big Deck CV's just because they have the Pacific area to deal with. The Dutch also would be looking at one of these to use in the NEI both for trade protection and also as power projection in the area.

 

[AlanJWhite]

One of my darlings is the 3 Hawkins class heavy cruisers (and possibly Vindictive the 4th Sister - the 5th Raleigh lost by grounding in 1922) are converted to 'Trade Protection' ships.

Agreed. My personal favourite as Likely POD is the laying down of the Deutschland class cruisers in 1929
To any RN analyst, their long-range is only useful as a commerce raider in distant waters vs British Trade
much like the WW1 Emden. evading for months and requiring many hunting vessels
Aside: the PBs heavy weapons fit was equally obviously meant to avoid the Emden's fate vs a single cruiser that stumbled across them

However a trade Protection Hunting group of a Hawkins CVL and 2 or 3 cruisers (a mix of CA and CL though those classifications were not till 1931)
would negate both these advantages for the Pocket BB
having both greater searching capacity than 4 10,000 ton hulls operating separately (even with catapulted seaplanes)
but enough concentrated firepower for the kill whether with guns or air-launched attacks.

 

[naraic]

I really think that a total tonage limit for cruisers in the Washington Naval Treat would have provoked thinking about smaller carriers.

London was too late as everyone had the depression to worry about.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Agreed. My personal favourite as Likely POD is the laying down of the Deutschland class cruisers in 1929
To any RN analyst, their long-range is only useful as a commerce raider in distant waters vs British Trade
much like the WW1 Emden. evading for months and requiring many hunting vessels
Aside: the PBs heavy weapons fit was equally obviously meant to avoid the Emden's fate vs a single cruiser that stumbled across them

However a trade Protection Hunting group of a Hawkins CVL and 2 or 3 cruisers (a mix of CA or CL)
would negate both these advantages for the Pocket BB
having both greater searching capacity than 4 10,000 ton hulls operating separately
but enough concentrated firepower for the kill whether with guns or air-launched attacks.

I think aircraft just finding any raider effectively defeats it - putting an 18" fish into it is icing on the cake

 

[Post]

I think aircraft just finding any raider effectively defeats it - putting an 18" fish into it is icing on the cake

That.
But I think they'd be most useful in ASW. Just finding and suppressing would be enough to get the escorts on the sub or for the convoy to escape.

 

[Garrison]

That.
But I think they'd be most useful in ASW. Just finding and suppressing would be enough to get the escorts on the sub or for the convoy to escape.

Which is a lot of what they actually did in WWII, as well as directing hunting groups as to where to look. a lot of small decks with a handful or aircraft can create disproportionate problems for raiders. also if the idea is for such a vessel in the 1920s maybe the MAC ship as a starting place:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merch... a,convoys during the Battle of the Atlantic .

The British certainly have the shipping capacity and maybe it could be regarded as some sort of scheme to help keep otherwise idle shipyards busy?

 

[AlanJWhite]

That.
But I think they'd be most useful in ASW. Just finding and suppressing would be enough to get the escorts on the sub or for the convoy to escape.

The proposed Hawkins light carriers are by their very "DNA" cruiser level vessels.
They could do the job of convoy escorts but are too expensive and too valuable for general use for ASW on simple trade convoys.

"Specials" like troop or heavy equipment movements could be protected that way
but trade convoys are better served by "self protection" in the form of "MAC" ships

i.e. merchant hulls with a simple "flattop" added carrying 4-8 ASW planes like the ubiquitous Swordfish
(iOTL these were often oil tankers or grain ships that retained 80% + of their normal carrying capacity
some converted but most built from scratch)

 

[DougM]

I guess i am lost eith this topic.
Is the goal to creat small carriers for GB instead of fewer larger ships? Is the goal to get GB better Sea Born Aircraft? Are we trying to find a way around the navel restrictions?
The reality is that i don't care what you call them they are still going to counted vs GBs treaty restrictions. The US cant build Coast Gaurd Battleships or carriers just because they are Coast Guard not Navy and neither can GB (nor can they call them Canadian or Australian) The other countries are not that stupid to let them get away with it.
As for the aircraft themselves…. In part it was a budget thing but in reality GB just was not up to snuff designing ship born aircraft.
Other then forcing folding Wings i am not sure why smaller carriers would help. In general the war tended fto favor larger carriers and the smaller carriers were mostly used in support roles. So not having bigger carriers would ultimately hurt. As for the folding wings…. you may not get that with smaller carriers as the height of the hangers is supper critical. IIRC that is why some Engish aircraft had clipped wings?

BTW how in the world is the USN “even lesser a concern to the powers that be”? The US was the second most powerfull (and arguably heading towards first place) navy in the world and one of the big boys involved in the various treaties. So i really dont get what you are trying to say here.

 

[Riain]

In 1939 the RN used its carriers in the ASW role, which I suppose is trade protection. Perhaps instead they could have been used as raider hunters, at the very least it might have saved them from being sunk.

 

[andys]

Having a few smaller carriers, as well as your fleet carriers, would give you a good cadre of air and ground crew to expand your carrier fleet when war comes.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Having a few smaller carriers, as well as your fleet carriers, would give you a good cadre of air and ground crew to expand your carrier fleet when war comes.

The operational experience the RN gains as well the earlier precedent it creates in proving their utility (as well as any foibles) would serve the RN well as well as the USN who would certainly take note and possibly make an earlier start on classes like the Independence class

 

[naraic]

I guess i am lost eith this topic.
Is the goal to creat small carriers for GB instead of fewer larger ships? Is the goal to get GB better Sea Born Aircraft? Are we trying to find a way around the navel restrictions?
The reality is that i don't care what you call them they are still going to counted vs GBs treaty restrictions. The US cant build Coast Gaurd Battleships or carriers just because they are Coast Guard not Navy and neither can GB (nor can they call them Canadian or Australian) The other countries are not that stupid to let them get away with it.
As for the aircraft themselves…. In part it was a budget thing but in reality GB just was not up to snuff designing ship born aircraft.
Other then forcing folding Wings i am not sure why smaller carriers would help. In general the war tended fto favor larger carriers and the smaller carriers were mostly used in support roles. So not having bigger carriers would ultimately hurt. As for the folding wings…. you may not get that with smaller carriers as the height of the hangers is supper critical. IIRC that is why some Engish aircraft had clipped wings?

BTW how in the world is the USN “even lesser a concern to the powers that be”? The US was the second most powerfull (and arguably heading towards first place) navy in the world and one of the big boys involved in the various treaties. So i really dont get what you are trying to say here.

The Washington naval treaty defined carriers as ships above 10,000 tons. Ships below 10,000 tons were not counted as carriers and therefore could be built to an unlimited degree.

Also a smaller carrier makes a lot more sense for Britain than America. Britain was the worlds policeman who protected the trade all over the world. Mainly because a lot of trade was on British flagged vessels.

If you can put 20 aircraft on a hull with a speed of 20 knots maintain an asw patrol and a 10 plane strike/search package to counter raiding cruisers (and auxillary merchant ships) you have something on 10,000 knots that can do the commerce protection role of multiple cruisers hunting Graf Spee or can be invaluable for asw operations.

I do agree that a trade protection carrier would not be very valuable in a fleet action although it would probably need a lot less crew than Hermes, Argus or Eagle which had similar capabilities.

The only carrier to fit this definition of being less than 10,000 tons was Ryūjō and the loophole was quickly closed in the London treaty.

If Britain invested this way before the London treaty it would probably be closed on them too.

 

[alfredtuomi]

It is possible after the second london naval treaty of 1936 where global tonnage limits were lifted but we run into the problem of where do you get the manpower to build them.

 

[Riain]

The RN built those tiny Arethusa class and the dual purpose Dido class cruisers for the trade protection role in the 30s, the idea being too have a lot of cruisers in the water to cover a lot of trade. How would going to light carriers for this role stack up against building 20 of these small cruisers? How many carriers would be needed, how many would get built? Would there need to be a mix due to the inability of 30s carriers to operate well at night and bad weather?

 

[alfredtuomi]

The RN built those tiny Arethusa class and the dual purpose Dido class cruisers for the trade protection role in the 30s, the idea being too have a lot of cruisers in the water to cover a lot of trade. How would going to light carriers for this role stack up against building 20 of these small cruisers? How many carriers would be needed, how many would get built? Would there need to be a mix due to the inability of 30s carriers to operate well at night and bad weather?

I think a mix as you hit the nail with not being able at night or bad weather especially pre radar.

 

[naraic]

The RN built those tiny Arethusa class and the dual purpose Dido class cruisers for the trade protection role in the 30s, the idea being too have a lot of cruisers in the water to cover a lot of trade. How would going to light carriers for this role stack up against building 20 of these small cruisers? How many carriers would be needed, how many would get built? Would there need to be a mix due to the inability of 30s carriers to operate well at night and bad weather?

I think there would need to be a mix.

Looking at the 8 hunting groups for Graf Spee. There was 16 cruisers, 3 battlecruisers and 4 carriers. I'd be interested in a breakdown of the groups if anyone had one easily at hand. I believe I've been able to find breakdowns of 5 of the hunting groups.

Force G was Ajax Achiles Exeter and Cumberland (Cumberland missed River Plate as it was in the Falklands doing a bit of repair work).
Force K was Ark Royal and Renown
Force I was Eagle Cornwall and Dorsetshire
Force L was Dunquerke Bearn and three French light cruisers
Force N was Hermes Strassbourg and Algerie (possibly a second french cruiser)

If you have trade protection carriers do you get away with less search groups or smaller groups. My opinion would be less groups. If every group has a carrier maybe you have 5 or 6 groups instead of 8.

Its also worth noting that Hermes Eagle and Argus often filled the role of a trade protection carrier during ww2. As older ships they probably were twice the size as a new purpose built ship with similar capabilities. If overall tonage is important for treaties this could be important.

Edited too add Bearn was assigned to Force L but 2 different sources place her as remaining in Brest through the search

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

One of my thoughts for this is that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary converts a couple of fast(ish) freighters into aircraft ferries/supply ships in the late 20's. These also get used for deck landing training and from time to time on exercises with the dominion navies filling in for the RN's fleet carriers. Being technically civilian ships and classed as naval auxiliaries they don't count against the treaty limits.

This would have the knock on effect that USS Langley would fall into the same category and retain her flight deck. HMS Argus could also fall into this class of ship if transferred to the RFA.