Lemming, there's the cliff, do your duty!
I usually think that the British should have built 16 Centaurs instead of the 16 Colossus/Majestic class and the 7 Swifsture/Tiger class cruisers that were begun. That would have given the smaller navies that bought British light fleet carriers much better ships because they could operate more and/or heavier aircraft.
I also think that 2 Audacious class should have been built for the Royal Navy instead of the 4 Centaurs that were laid down 1944-45 because they would have been a better long term investment.
Recently I have started to think that the RN might have been better off laying down 8 extra Audacious class instead of the light fleet carriers laid down 1942-43 and the cruisers laid down 1941-43.
IOTL about half the Colossus and Majestic classes were sold to other navies. Would the same have happened to the extra Audacious class ships ITTL? Would the navies that bought light fleet carriers IOTL have the resources to buy and operate a full fleet carrier ITTL?
E.g. I can see the French operating one instead of Arromanches and experience of operating a larger ship might lead them to buying bigger carriers than Clemenceau and Foch. However, I think the Canadians and Dutch would have to pay off some of their cruisers to provide the larger crews. Australia would have a similar problem, but she probably buys one fleet carrier instead of 2 light fleet carriers. We might have seen the RAN's Audacious class ship operating on Yankee and Dixie stations during the Vietnam War.
I usually think that the British should have built 16 Centaurs instead of the 16 Colossus/Majestic class and the 7 Swifsture/Tiger class cruisers that were begun. That would have given the smaller navies that bought British light fleet carriers much better ships because they could operate more and/or heavier aircraft.
I also think that 2 Audacious class should have been built for the Royal Navy instead of the 4 Centaurs that were laid down 1944-45 because they would have been a better long term investment.
Recently I have started to think that the RN might have been better off laying down 8 extra Audacious class instead of the light fleet carriers laid down 1942-43 and the cruisers laid down 1941-43.
IOTL about half the Colossus and Majestic classes were sold to other navies. Would the same have happened to the extra Audacious class ships ITTL? Would the navies that bought light fleet carriers IOTL have the resources to buy and operate a full fleet carrier ITTL?
E.g. I can see the French operating one instead of Arromanches and experience of operating a larger ship might lead them to buying bigger carriers than Clemenceau and Foch. However, I think the Canadians and Dutch would have to pay off some of their cruisers to provide the larger crews. Australia would have a similar problem, but she probably buys one fleet carrier instead of 2 light fleet carriers. We might have seen the RAN's Audacious class ship operating on Yankee and Dixie stations during the Vietnam War.