More Fleet Carriers And No Light Fleet Carriers - Effects On The Smaller Navies - Mark 2

So we're looking at up too 75 slips capable of Capital Ship (Battleship and Aircraft Carrier sized) construction!

(Must remember not to mention this in any AH scenario where a Naval arms race with another country, that totally is not symbolised by a bird barely a step away from endangered, is an issue).

Interestingly, there is no mention of the capacity available in the Royal Naval Dockyards in Janes?(Which admittedly only ever built one Carrier, but numerous Battleships) which at the height of British Naval construction were considered the fastest, cheapest and most efficient, actively competing with civilian yards.
Before WW1 Sixteen Dreadnoughts, including the innovative original, were built at Devonport and Portsmouth. And most of the major interwar reconstructions were carried out at Portsmouth Dockyard.
Does anyone know what capacity they had in 1939-45?
IIRC in the OTL war, they spent most of their time on repairs/on smaller construction as they were a little too close to the line of fire. Doubt that's changed here.
 
I've done some more work on this.

It looks as if the 10 fleet carriers and 6 battleships laid down 1934-44 IOTL were built on 12 slipways as follows:
2 - Cammell Laid - used to build Prince of Wales and both Ark Royals (NB Ark Royal 1934 was launched 3 months after Prince of Wales was laid down)
2 - Fairfield - used to build Howe and Implacable
1 - Harland and Wolf - used to build Formidable and Eagle (1942)
2 - John Brown used - to build Duke of York, Vanguard and Indefatigable
1 - Swan Hunter - used to build Anson
2 - VA Barrow - used to build Illustrious and Indomitable
2 - VA Tyne - used to build King George V, Eagle (1944) and Victorious

In my TL the 14 Audacious class ships were laid down as follows:
1941 - One ship laid down, which is the aircraft carrier Vanguard laid down on the same slip as the battleship Vanguard
1942 - 5 ships - The aircraft carrier Eagle of OTL plus 4 additional Audacious class ships
1943 - 5 ships - The aircraft carrier Ark Royal of OTL plus 4 additional Audacious class ships
1944 - 3 ships - The original Eagle, which was cancelled in 1946 IOTL and 2 additional Audacious class ships.

I can't prove it, but it is very likely that some of the light fleet carriers of OTL were built on slipways previously used for King George V class battleships and Illustrious class aircraft carriers. The yard allocations of the 20 CVL of OTL were:
1 - Alex Stephen
1 - Cammell Laird - which also had one of the 4 cancelled Centaur class
1 - Fairfield - which also had one of the 4 cancelled Centaur class
6 - Harland & Wolff - ITTL the yard probably builds 3 of the extra Audacious class were to have been built here.
1 - HM Dockyard, Devonport - which also had one of the 4 cancelled Centaur class
1 - Hawthorn Leslie
3 - Swan Hunter - which also had one of the 4 cancelled Centaur class - ITTL it probably builds 2 of the extra Audacious class
3 - Vickers-Armstrong, Barrow
3 - Vickers-Armstrong, Tyne

For completeness these are the yard the 8 Swiftsure class laid down 1941-44 (3 completed as Swiftsure, 3 completed as Tiger and 2 not completed):
1 - Harland & Wolff
1 - Fairfield
1 - John Brown
1 - HM Dockyard, Portsmouth
1 - Scotts, Greenock
1 - Swan Hunter
2 - Vickers-Armstrong, Tyne (Swiftsure and the original Blake, some reference books say the original Blake was laid down in 1944, but others say it wasn't).

And Unicorn the aircraft maintenance ship was built by Harland & Wolff.
I'm bumping this because its relevant to Posts 59, 60 and 61.
 
Some more relevant information

Comparative Lengths of British Aircraft Carriers Laid Down 1941-45 and the battleship Vanguard
Lengths between perpendiculars (LBP) in feet
630 Colossus when completed in 1945 (laid down 1942)
650 Centaur when completed in 1953 (laid down 1944)
720 Eagle when completed in 1951 (laid down 1942)
720 Ark Royal when completed in 1955 (laid down 1945)
760 Vanguard when completed in 1946 (laid down 1941)

Lengths at the Waterline (LWL) in feet
650 Colossus when completed in 1945 (laid down 1942)
686¾ Centaur when completed in 1953 (laid down 1944)
750 Eagle when completed in 1951 (laid down 1942)
750 Ark Royal when completed in 1955 (laid down 1945)
n.a. Vanguard when completed in 1946 (laid down 1941)

Lengths Overall (LOL) in feet
693½ Colossus when completed in 1945 (laid down 1942)
736 Centaur when completed in 1953 (laid down 1944)
803¾ Eagle when completed in 1951 (laid down 1942)
808¼ Ark Royal when completed in 1955 (laid down 1945)
814½ Vanguard when completed in 1946 (laid down 1941)

Sources for the Aircraft Carriers, British Carrier Aviation, by Norman Friedman. Source for Vanguard, Conway's 1921-46
 
IIRC in the OTL war, they spent most of their time on repairs/on smaller construction as they were a little too close to the line of fire. Doubt that's changed here.
I'm swapping the 20 slipways used to lay down 20 light fleet carriers of 630-650 feet between perpendiculars for 10 Audacious class of 720 feet between perpendiculars. That's 10 fewer slipways than were used IOTL. The killer question is, "Where 10 of those 20 slipways long enough for an Audacious class aircraft carrier?"

Furthermore some of the 4 ships laid down in 1942, plus the carrier laid down in 1941 instead of Vanguard and the OTL Eagle laid down in 1942, might be launched early enough for the vacated slips to be used for the 2 Audacious class laid down 1944 in place of the 4 Centaurs.
 
Bump part of this post because its relevant
It looks as if the 10 fleet carriers and 6 battleships laid down 1934-44 IOTL were built on 12 slipways as follows:
2 - Cammell Laid - used to build Prince of Wales and both Ark Royals (NB Ark Royal 1934 was launched 3 months after Prince of Wales was laid down)
2 - Fairfield - used to build Howe and Implacable
1 - Harland and Wolf - used to build Formidable and Eagle (1942)
2 - John Brown used - to build Duke of York, Vanguard and Indefatigable
1 - Swan Hunter - used to build Anson
2 - VA Barrow - used to build Illustrious and Indomitable
2 - VA Tyne - used to build King George V, Eagle (1944) and Victorious

And Unicorn the aircraft maintenance ship was built by Harland & Wolff.
The 6 Illustrious class were 673feet BP and the King George V class were 700 feet between perpendiculars. Overall they were 753ft 3in and 745ft overall respectively.
 
So To Put The Pieces Together...

Alex Stephen, Govan - No

OTL the CVL Ocean was laid down there in 1944. Jane's said the yard was capable of building up to cruisers, so ITTL unable to build a 720ft long Audacious class.

Cammell Laird, Birkenhead - Yes

Jane's said 6 slipways of 600 to 1,000 feet

The 1934 Ark Royal and the 1943 Ark Royal were built at this yard and the Malta class ship New Zealand was also ordered from this yard.

IOTL CVL Venerable was laid down in 1943. Furthermore the original Hermes (cancelled 1945 before being laid down) was ordered from Cammell Laird.

There is a good chance that 2 Audacious class ships could have been laid down here in 1943, because the ship used to build to build Vengeance IOTL was probably long enough or it could be swapped with another ship laid down in that year in a slipway that was long enough.

Fairfield, Govan - Yes

Jane's said 6 slipways of up to 1,000 feet.

The cancelled Centaur class CVL Monmouth and the Malta class ship Africa were also ordered from this yard. The battleship Howe and fleet carrier Implacable were also laid down in this yard. Implacable was laid down before Howe was launched.

IOTL the CVL Theseus was laid down there in 1943. ITTL I think there is a good chance that the yard would be able to lay down an Audacious class ship in 1943, possibly on the slip used for the OTL Theseus.

Harland and Wolff, Belfast - Yes

19 slipways, but the lengths were not stated.

The OTL Fleet carrier Formidable was laid down there in 1937.

The OTL fleet carrier Eagle was laid down there in 1942.

6 light fleet carriers were laid down as follows

1942 - Glory and Warrior
1943 - Magnificent and Powerful
1944 - Centaur
1945 - Bulwark

Although we don't know how long the slipways were I think that enough of the slipways used to lay down 2 CVL a year there IOTL would be large enough for 3 Audacious class to be laid down at the rate of one per year 1942-44 ITTL.

HM Dockyard, Devonport - Probably Not

IOTL the CVL Terrible was laid down there in 1943 and the cancelled Centaur class carrier Polythemus was ordered here. The slip might be long enough, for an Audacious, but would probably be ruled out because it was too vulnerable to bombing for such a valuable ship to be built there.

Hawthorn Leslie - Borderline

The CVL Triumph was laid down here in 1943 and according to Jane's the yard had 9 slips of up to 735ft. Because the OTL Triumph was 630 feet long, it is possible that she was laid down in the 735ft slip in the first place.

John Brown, Clydebank - Yes

No CVLs were laid down there ITTL but it did build the Duke of York, Indefatigable and Vanguard, plus the eponymous Malta class carrier was ordered from this yard. According to Jane's it had 5 slipways of 600 to 1,000 feet. Therefore I think some of the 10 extra Audacious class could have been built here if there was not enough slipways long enough in the yards used to build CVLs IOTL.

Swan Hunter, Wallsend - Yes

The battleship Anson was built here IOTL. The CVL Vengeance was laid down here in 1942, the CVL Leviathan in 1943 and the CVL Albion in 1944. The cancelled CVL Arrogant was ordered from this yard too.

According to Jane's, Swan Hunter had 16 building berths of up to 900 feet.

ITTL I think one slip long enough to build a CV instead of Vengeance and Leviathan would become available in 1942 or 1943. I also think that another one would become available in 1944 or 1945 for one CV to be laid down instead of Albion and Arrogant.

Vickers Armstrong, Barrow - Yes

According to Jane's this yard had 2 slipways that were long enough to build an Audacious class carrier on (1 x 800ft and 1 x 750ft).

IOTL the fleet carriers Illustrious and Indomitable were laid down there in 1937 and launched well before the end of 1941.

The yard also built 3 CVLs, Pioneer laid down 1942, Majestic laid down 1943 and Elephant (later renamed Hermes) laid down 1944.

ITTL I think one of the 2 slipways long enough for an Audacious would be available to lay down an Audacious class instead of Pioneer. If launched at the same time as the OTL Pioneer (20th May, 1944) that is enough time to lay down another Audacious on 21st June 1944 instead of Elephant (Hermes).

Vickers Armstrong, Tyne - Yes

According to Jane's this yard had 3 slipways that were long enough to build an Audacious class carrier on (1 x 1,000ft, 1 x 900ft and 1 x 800ft)

IOTL it build the battleship King George V and fleet carrier Victorious, which were both laid down in 1937 and launched before the end of 1941. The Malta class carrier Gibraltar was also ordered from this yard.

The CVLs Colossus, Perseus and Hercules were laid down there 1942-43. The OTL Audacious class carrier Eagle was laid down in 1944, but cancelled in 1946 and the Audacious class ship laid down in 1942.

The OTL Eagle (1944) took up one of the 3 slipways, but one of the others would probably be available for an Audacious class ship in 1942-43 in place of the 3 OTL light fleet carriers built in this yard.
 
Slipway Availability - Conclusion

I think Post 66 is the closest we will be able to get in determining whether 10 Audacious class could have been built in place of the 20 light fleet carriers of OTL. I think the slipway availability 1942-44 would be:

2 Cammell Laird
1 Fairfield
3 Harland & Wolff
1 Hawthorn Leslie (borderline)
1 HM Dockyard, Devonport
2 Swan Hunter
2 VA Barrow
1 VA Tyne

That's a total of 11 probable and 2 possible. I need 10.

Furthermore it might be possible to lengthen shorter slipways at the yards used to build CVLs IOTL. E.g. the slipway used to build Tirpitz was lengthened while she was being built. That would require some labour, but not building the light fleet carriers and cruisers might provide that labour.
 
FFS Arromanches Part 1
OTL French Navy Plans 1945-1975 - Source Mainly The Postwar Naval Revolution By Norman Friedman
The First Postwar French Plan was for a fleet of 750,000 tons. It would consist of:


6 large aircraft carriers
3 battleships (Riechelieu and Jean Bart, plus one new ship)
12 light cruisers
36 fast escorts

They would be organised into 3 task forces, one Atlantic, one Mediterranean and one Colonial.

4 small aircraft carriers
50 escorts

The above would be organised into 4 ASW groups

60 long-range submarines
12 colonial avisos
Coastal forces (midget sumbarines, MTBs and minesweepers)
An amphibious flotilla with 60,000 tons worth of ships.

This plan was soon cut by about half to:

2 heavy carriers
2 light carriers
2 battleships
no cruisers - at least none mentioned
24 fast escorts

The above would be organised into 2 task forces.

2 small escort carriers (Dimuxude and Commandant Teste, which would be converted)
25 escorts - which is a guess by me

The source said 2 escort groups, but not the number of escorts.

30 long-range submarines
The source did not mention the avisios, but I think 12 were still planned.
For coast defence 24 small craft and 12 ex-German midget submarines
An amphibious flotilla with 30,000 tons worth of ships.

What was actually built

IOTL the French actually had the 2 battleships, one CVE and one potential CVE. They bought one light carrier from the British and borrowed 2 from the Americans which were replaced by Clemenceau and Foch. A third large aircraft carrier PA58 was ordered, but cancelled.

By 1970 they had also completed 2 aircraft carriers, 3 cruisers, 2 large guided missile destroyers (of 6 planned), 18 standard destroyers, the one-off frigate Anconit (although a total of 5 was planned), 27 avisos and 2 LPDs. The number of submarines built was less than planned, but they did build up a force of about 100 minesweepers.

Plan Bleu 1972 For Completion in 1985

This was another ambitious plan, which France could not afford to implement. It included 4 nuclear powered helicopter carriers of the PH75 type. The first 2 would be completed by 1985 including one to replace Arromanches and the other 2 would replace Clemenceau and Foch. None were built and in 1980 it was decided to replace Clemenceau and Foch with 2 nuclear powered conventional carriers (PAN), but only one was built and she commissioned many years later than planned.
 
Not read this through before - very interesting - well done

Regarding slipway capacity - do recall that you also had the Battleship 'keels' Lion and Temeraire clogging up 1 of Vickers - Newcastle upon Tyne slipways (until the end of the war) and 1 of Cammell Laird's Birkenhead slipway (until at least 1942) - so will have to find a way to get shot of them earlier to free up those 2 Slipways

Perhaps a larger Op Judgement and slightly increased successes by the FAA would result in a greater and earlier realisation that the Battleships day had gone?
 
According to the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster "gift" is both a noun and a verb, a transitive one to be precise.

English is a living language.;)
Yes English is a living language, but there were several new meanings of words that in my opinion should have been strangled at birth, because there are plenty of other words with the same meaning that already exist.

Turning gift into a verb is one of them because we already have the perfectly adequate give.

Another one is turning friend into a verb when we already have befriend.

And I hate the misuse of target. E.g. when politicians say, "I want to target the money where it's most needed," when they should be saying, "I want to concentrate the money where it is most needed," or even better, "I want to spend the money where it is most needed."

Target also is also replacing attack, bomb, cure, find, kill and murder. E.g. "Today Soviet warplanes targeted Isis strongholds." instead of "Today Soviet warplanes bombed Isis strongholds."
 
Yes English is a living language, but there were several new meanings of words that in my opinion should have been strangled at birth, because there are plenty of other words with the same meaning that already exist.

Turning gift into a verb is one of them because we already have the perfectly adequate give.

Another one is turning friend into a verb when we already have befriend.

And I hate the misuse of target. E.g. when politicians say, "I want to target the money where it's most needed," when they should be saying, "I want to concentrate the money where it is most needed," or even better, "I want to spend the money where it is most needed."

Target also is also replacing attack, bomb, cure, find, kill and murder. E.g. "Today Soviet warplanes targeted Isis strongholds." instead of "Today Soviet warplanes bombed Isis strongholds."

Your opinions are valid but unfortunately irrelevant when it comes to the "verbing" of nouns. It is happening and it is being accepted by the arbiters of the "official" English language.

As to your issues with the use of the word target, unfortunately imagery and euphemism are only two of the many arrows in a modern day politician's quiver.
 
Your opinions are valid but unfortunately irrelevant when it comes to the "verbing" of nouns. It is happening and it is being accepted by the arbiters of the "official" English language.

As to your issues with the use of the word target, unfortunately imagery and euphemism are only two of the many arrows in a modern day politician's quiver.
It's a big ask to expect people to speak and write properly. I don't foresee it improving any time soon.

In 1973 when I was 6, my grandfather took me to Saltburn for the day and we went on the train. While we were there he bought a tube of Opal Fruits and a Marathon from the corner shop next to the railway station.

In 2016 when I was 49 I took my son to Saltburn for the day and we went in my car. While we were there I bought a tube of Starburst and a Snickers from the convenience store next to the train station.

Not very old English
Q: Where are whales weighed?
A: Whaleweigh stations!

Modern English
Q: Where are whales weighed?
A: Train stations!

New is not always an improvement. The deputy head who is reputed to have said, "After I learned them, they just done it," would surely agree.

PS for those that didn't get it (because some didn't the last time) I was making a point by deliberately using some of my "favourite" examples of bad English. However, I make no claim that my standard of written English is perfect.

While I'm in rant mode, am I the only person that thinks impact should only mean to hit with great force? And that impact is often used when effect or influence would be better? That is, "What will he effects be?" reads better than, "What will the impacts be?" And, "How will this influence future events?" Is better than, "How will this impact upon future events?"

Another one is, "It's a real problem!" Of course a problem is real, because it exists therefore it is real. If it didn't exist it wouldn't be a problem because it wasn't real. If they want to emphasise the importance of the problem then I think it should be, "This really is a problem!" Or, "This is a significant problem?"

The same with worry. "It's a real worry!" Again it if wasn't a worry it wouldn't be real because it wouldn't exist. I think it should be, "It's really worrying!" The same with concern. "It concerns me greatly!" Or, "It's really concerning." Instead of, "It's a real concern."

Then there is the lady in the Trivago adverts who says, "The exact same room," which is a tautology. If she wants to emphasise that it lists all the prices for the same room, she should be saying, "Exactly the same room."

And to finish, is it me or is conflicted used too often instead of concerned, worried, unhappy or undecided?
 
Come now. 'Gift' has been in use as a verb meaning 'To endow or furnish with gifts ...; to endow, invest, or present with as a gift' since the 16th century, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. You may prefer to limit the word artificially to its even older nominal sense, but I hope then that thou usest thy second-person verbs with proper singularity (or singular propriety?)

Edit: and indeed, the sense 'to bestow as a gift' is nearly as old. You might not like it, but there is nothing more 'proper' about your preference, if established English usage (and not mere arbitrary taste) is the guide to linguistic propriety. We all have words we don't like, but this one is neither new nor improper.
Now you've learned me I'll keep my gob shut. Not!
 
Now you've learned me I'll keep my gob shut. Not!
Any Language is a strange beast. English in all its varieties (dialects and the various Standard Englishes) is one of the strangest of all. I sort of share your "conservativism" regarding usages but these do change over time.

I think we (you and I?) can just about understand Shakespeare, though miss some of his nuances unless we hear a production using the original pronunciation. How about Chaucer? Or the other way, do we really understand what Jane Austen or even Dickens wrote? The in-jokes etc.?
 
Top