No Aircraft Carriers, How far do battleships develop?

[alt_historian]

How the deuce do you pronounce frigate, old man?

It looks like it could be something to do with fridges. Just like the whole magnate/magnet' thing.

It was all a joke, in any case...

 

[David S Poepoe]

HMS Glorious 1919-1928. Originally planned as a light battlecrusier with 2x15" and then 2x18" guns, the ship was modified in 1918 to carry 10 scouting bi-planes and a flight/handling deck aft of the superstructure, replacing the aft turret. The planned 18" inch gun forward was replaced by a new quadruple 8" turret, as it was believed the quicker firing main armamement would be more suited to thew new scouting and independent cuising role planned for this ship. It is interesting to note that early sketches for this conversion featured a full flight deck forward and configured for use by land planes as well as floatplanes. The main guns were placed aft. This design was scrapped as soon as it was presented to the Admiralty. As First Lord Jellicoe is rumored to have said, "The Royal Navy has never turned tail and run from an enemy before; I do not intend to see any ship placed in His Majesty's service which is designed to do just that!" The ship was always considered a failure and was scrapped in 1928.

All you are describing in effect is HMS Furious which was modified before completion before 1919.

 

[alt_historian]

All you are describing in effect is HMS Furious which was modified before completion before 1919.

That might have been intentional...

or not.

 

[zoomar]

Yes, the description of "Glorious" is deliberately very similar to our TL's Furious since this is very near the presumed PoD. Although it's not identical if you observe, because the OTL Furious had its flight deck installed over the bow section, which has the effect of emphasizing the aircraft carrier function and downgrading the 18" gun. "Furious" in the ALT is still primarily a cruiser with its guns mounted forward so the "Royal Navy won't ever run away" and a less functional flight deck aft - really more of a staging area for side launched catapult planes than a takeoff platform. It is also eventually re gunned as a heavy cruiser.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Yes, the description of "Glorious" is deliberately very similar to our TL's Furious since this is very near the presumed PoD. Although it's not identical if you observe, because the OTL Furious had its flight deck installed over the bow section, which has the effect of emphasizing the aircraft carrier function and downgrading the 18" gun. "Furious" in the ALT is still primarily a cruiser with its guns mounted forward so the "Royal Navy won't ever run away" and a less functional flight deck aft - really more of a staging area for side launched catapult planes than a takeoff platform. It is also eventually re gunned as a heavy cruiser.

I guess the nitpickers should rightly point out that Jellicoe was not in any position to make suggestions about warships since he was forcibly retired from being First Sea Lord in December 1917. Also, the Royal Navy embraced the use of aircraft at sea, since it was demonstrated as being important. Beatty and others fought to retain the Naval Air Service from being incorporated into the Royal Air Force. It is the United States and the Japanese navies that really had their fill of the 'Big Gun Club' Admirals.

 

[MrP]

I guess the nitpickers should rightly point out that Jellicoe was not in any position to make suggestions about warships since he was forcibly retired from being First Sea Lord in December 1917. Also, the Royal Navy embraced the use of aircraft at sea, since it was demonstrated as being important. Beatty and others fought to retain the Naval Air Service from being incorporated into the Royal Air Force. It is the United States and the Japanese navies that really had their fill of the 'Big Gun Club' Admirals.

IOTL, David, yes. ITTL?

 

[David S Poepoe]

IOTL, David, yes. ITTL?

There is no POD given, that is true. In fact there is no developed ATL given either. We are just making remarks upon an essay.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

I think by "no carriers" it's meant that naval aircraft could not take on capitol ships at sea due to some technical limitation, not that carriers themselves were not conceived. It's inevitable for aircraft to operate from the sea. At the very least they are useful dropping aerial bombs further inland than naval guns could.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I think by "no carriers" it's meant that naval aircraft could not take on capitol ships at sea due to some technical limitation, not that carriers themselves were not conceived. It's inevitable for aircraft to operate from the sea. At the very least they are useful dropping aerial bombs further inland than naval guns could.

No, its pretty specifically directed at flat tops.

 

[zoomar]

I guess the nitpickers should rightly point out that Jellicoe was not in any position to make suggestions about warships since he was forcibly retired from being First Sea Lord in December 1917. Also, the Royal Navy embraced the use of aircraft at sea, since it was demonstrated as being important. Beatty and others fought to retain the Naval Air Service from being incorporated into the Royal Air Force. It is the United States and the Japanese navies that really had their fill of the 'Big Gun Club' Admirals.

This an alternate history, remember? Presumably Jellicoe did better at Jutland since he obviously was in such a position in this TL. Perhaps Beatty made a fool of himself and/or got killed in this ATL. Does it really matter? To much picking of nits in an AH is a fairly pointless exercise.

 

[David S Poepoe]

This an alternate history, remember? Presumably Jellicoe did better at Jutland since he obviously was in such a position in this TL. Perhaps Beatty made a fool of himself and/or got killed in this ATL. Does it really matter? To much picking of nits in an AH is a fairly pointless exercise.

For the most part I think it does matter since a POD does not mean that the world is create anew and fresh from that point on without any preceeding history. If someone wants changes then they also have to figure out that at times their PODs have to be moved further back or forward.

 

[zoomar]

For the most part I think it does matter since a POD does not mean that the world is create anew and fresh from that point on without any preceeding history. If someone wants changes then they also have to figure out that at times their PODs have to be moved further back or forward.

Well, the hypothetical ship types are really just snapshots in time of this AH. Quite obviously a lot would have to be different between 1914 and 1970 in this world, and they need not stem from a single PoD. The purpose of the text descriptions was to merely describe the hypothetical ships in a world with no effective aircraft carriers in a manner which was vaguely entertaining and created an illusion of alt-historical reality. One does not need to justify why Jellico did NOT fail, or for that matter, how there could be a Communist France at war with the US in 1942. More to the point of the topic would be criticisms of the technical plausibility of the ships themselves, not the backstory. I expected criticsim on whether or not a gigantic kamakazi rocket bomb carrier would even be built, not the throw away backstory.