The '1936' light fleet carrier or how the 3rd Sea Lord both has his cake....and eats it

[Cryhavoc101]

HMS Colossus conducting her speed trials in June 1940 - with the situation in Europe worsening many 'issues' were overlooked in the haste to bring her into service and several of them such as the steering faults where not rectified for several years.


One of the ‘ATL Riddles’ that occupies far too much of my brain activity is the pre WW2 choices that Britain made with regards to the choices of ships laid down in the late 30s and the decisions on total and individual ship tonnage limitations imposed by the need to conform to the various treaties in force at the time.

Principally among those was the choice to build the 3 illustrious class armoured carriers

Now I have no issues with the decision making that led to their design – Admiral Henderson as 3rd Sea Lord and Controller of the Navy during the mid 30s performed an amazing end run around the bureaucracy of the day to get those ships built and they served the Royal Navy and the British nation well.

However the decision to reduce the aircraft capacity of the design from an original intention for a similar double hanger space to that of HMS Ark Royal to a single hanger with half the capacity of the eventual design was driven by a desire to allow the Royal navy to operate 6 x 22.5 kiloton Fleet carriers with in the treaty agreed 135,000 ton limit rather than the 4 x 27 Kiloton + Ark Royal that the 2 hanger design would have allowed!

This then went on to set the max limits for carriers in the 1936 2nd LNT and I have always looked for a way to have allowed those carriers to have been built as the double hanger 4 shaft carriers that would have served the RN even better than OTL.

Now I had a bit of an epiphany today regarding this and it goes something like this:-

Admiral Henderson as per OTL recognises the need for armoured carriers to allow the RN to operate in littoral environments in range of twin and triple engine land based bombers i.e. the North Sea and the Med

However he decides that not all the carriers would be needed for such a mission

Therefore he decides to go ahead with the twin hanger, 4 shaft, armoured design of 27 kilo tons but limits the number of carriers to 3.

HMS Invincible after her commissioning during the last days of peace in the Summer of 1940 - note this picture was taken 3 days before Germany Invaded Czechoslovakia and 5 before Britain and France declared war (by which time Invincible had her first dazzle paint scheme)

He then rather cunningly comes up with a ‘1936’ Light fleet pattern aircraft carrier concept 6 years earlier than OTL similar to the Colossus and Majestic class – that is a single hanger unarmoured design of about 16 Kilotons, with a Town class cruiser machinery on 4 shafts - based loosely on the Illustrious design (minus the armoured box hanger and the 8 x twin 4.5” guns) intended to be built in a civilian yard. A slightly less Austere version of the

Harland and Wolff shipyards building 2 of the later light fleets in late 1940 and the first of the slightly larger Majestics*

This is intended to ultimately give the RN by 1941 the following 6 carriers - note weight is dry, aircraft capacity is given as the approximate hanger capacity for a 1936 type airgroup – and speed is design speed (HMS Ark Royal topped 31 knots in her 1938 acceptance sea trials)

HMS Ark Royal (22 Kilotons – 60 Aircraft – 30 knots)

HMS Illustrious (27 Kilotons – 60 Aircraft – 32.5 knots)

HMS Invincible (27 Kilotons – 60 Aircraft - 32.5 knots)

HMS Indomitable (27 Kilotons – 60 Aircraft - 32.5 knots)

HMS Colossus (16 Kilotons – 36 Aircraft – 31 knots)

HMS Glory (16 Kilotons – 36 Aircraft – 31 knots)

This uses up all 135 Kilotons of the allowed 135 Kilotons 2nd LNT Limit


The then intention of the remaining Carriers was as follows

HMS Argos was to be placed in reserve to be broken up once HMS Colossus in Commission

HMS Hermes was to be placed in reserve to be broken up once HMS Glory in Commission

HMS Eagle initially to become the training vessel but to then be 'demilitarised' and reclassified as a Imperial Aircraft Transport once HMS Furious takes over this role

HMS Conqueror decommissioned upon commissioning of HMS Invincible and reclassified as a aircraft maintenance vessel after refit

HMS Glorious decommissioned upon commissioning of HMS Illustrious and reclassified as a aircraft maintenance vessel after refit

HMS Furious decommissioned upon commissioning of HMS Indomitable and reclassified as a Training Vessel after a refit

Note: That the ultimate failure of the 2nd LNT in May 1937 followed by the German rejection of the Anglo German Naval Agreement in December the same year along with the worsening situation (ie Japan's invasion of China and the Italian atrocities in East Africa) which made these plans obsolete - along with concerns regarding the plans for refitting Conqueror and Glorious into Aircraft Maintenance vessels seen as breaking both the spirit and letter of the 2nd LNT led to these plans being suspended at the end of the year and later events obviously saw them permanently shelved and a further 3 Armoured carriers and 6 more of the light fleets ordered in 1938 with several more of the later light fleet 'Majestic' design being ordered later once the 2nd Great war had started.






*You are mistaken that's definitely not HMS Unicorn in the background.....its errr um HMS Eagle

 

[mcducky]

Different but cool idea do they have same ridiculous torpedo survivability as otl

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Different but cool idea do they have same ridiculous torpedo survivability as otl

Well lets hope its better than Ark Royal

As far as I am aware only one of the Illustrious class Indomitable was torpedoed during Operation Husky and she survived a flooded engine room and initial 12 degree list and recovered relatively quickly.

Several of them were heavily bombed and Kamikazed of course

The Light fleets as far as I am aware were never damaged - OTL they arrived too late!

 

[mcducky]

They were built with same style internal protections as AMC there were void holds inbetween the engineering spaces packed full of sealed empty oil drums i believe one amc with this protection took six German sub torps and took over an hour to sink from it so with more hold spaces they could probably take a good deal of girl hits a still limp home.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

They were built with same style internal protections as AMC there were void holds inbetween the engineering spaces packed full of sealed empty oil drums i believe one amc with this protection took six German sub torps and took over an hour to sink from it so with more hold spaces they could probably take a good deal of girl hits a still limp home.

I didn't know that - I was aware that they had good compartmentalisation etc - learning every day on this site

 

[mcducky]

I didn't know that - I was aware that they had good compartmentalisation etc - learning every day on this site

The joys of reading thru so many naval tls and threads is you find these little snippets.

 

[jsb]

This uses up all 135 Kilotons of the allowed 135 Kilotons 2nd LNT Limit

Was that not 1LNT? was there a total limit in 2LNT? If you get a 27Kt limit could you not just build them all that way, at least legally without HMT intervention?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Was that not 1LNT? was there a total limit in 2LNT? If you get a 27Kt limit could you not just build them all that way, at least legally without HMT intervention?

I thought it was the other way around?

Yes - Carriers were restricted to 23,000 tons.

 

[King Augeas]

What are these early light carriers for?

I mean, they're unarmoured, so they can't be used in range of hostile land-based air, nor are they suitable for use in the Pacific against Japanese carriers. So what's left? ASW and hunting raiders?

 

[Zheng He]

Well lets hope its better than Ark Royal

As far as I am aware only one of the Illustrious class Indomitable was torpedoed during Operation Husky and she survived a flooded engine room and initial 12 degree list and recovered relatively quickly.

Several of them were heavily bombed and Kamikazed of course

The Light fleets as far as I am aware were never damaged - OTL they arrived too late!

I think that torpedo still earned HMS Indomitable something like seven months at Uncle Sam's Carrier Repair Resort and Spa. However, it is possible that time was used to make other modifications and upgrades and if they had just been repairing torpedo damage maybe she gets back sooner (I'm thinking similar to the two torpedoes USS Saratoga took in 1942. The first one kept her in port a lot longer but that's because other modifications were made including swapping out the eight inch turrets for the twin five inch turrets).

 

[Zheng He]

What are these early light carriers for?

I mean, they're unarmoured, so they can't be used in range of hostile land-based air, nor are they suitable for use in the Pacific against Japanese carriers. So what's left? ASW and hunting raiders?

You build light carriers because you can build them faster and cheaper (that's why the US built the Independence class). Plus you get more hulls in the water meaning they can cover more areas at once. One big carrier may be more capable than two light carriers but it can still be only be in place.

 

[jsb]

I thought it was the other way around?

Yes - Carriers were restricted to 23,000 tons.

What I ment was that,

WNT - 27,000t each and 135 Kt UK total limit (+ irrelevant stuff like allowed 2 conversions over and under 10,000t)
1LNT - 27,000t each and still total limits 135Kt (UK)
2LNT - 23,000t each but no total limit.

So if you get a 27,000t limit at 2LNT why build only 3 large and then small? (apart from money and by 37 that's less of an issue) Would building twin hanger, 4 shaft, armoured design of 27 kilo tons not make more sense?

 

[Miss Construction]

What are these early light carriers for?

I mean, they're unarmoured, so they can't be used in range of hostile land-based air, nor are they suitable for use in the Pacific against Japanese carriers. So what's left? ASW and hunting raiders?

What the RN wanted all through the 20s and 30s was a high/low mix of fleet and trade protection carriers. But the WNT and LNT meant they could only have the fleets. The light carriers are ideal for the trade protection role

 

[steamboy]

What are these early light carriers for?

These ships are still superior to the Follies, they have far far better underwater protection and carry roughly the same number of aircraft on a more modern sturdy hull. Until the AFD carriers commissioned, the Follies were the RN's main carrier strength, and they would have been expected to serve in the Med in WW2 had Courageous and Glorious survived long enough to do so. Furious spent a lot of time in the Med and she was unarmoured. So its not as bad as it might seem. They are nearly as fast, and probably have better aircraft handling facilities than the Follies.

So in reality, these are not bad ships, and not bad for their lack of armour. As was mentioned, they copied the boyancy scheme of armed merchant cruisers and were amazingly well subdevided. And even without armour, the RN had a massive hard-on for fire fighting and fuel safety. You'll note that in WW2, no RN CV that survived being hit ever suffered horrid hangar or deck fires like the IJN and USN did. That was largely down to training and the emphasis the RN placed on aircraft/fire safety on their CVs.

The biggest problem here is the fecking RAF, and the lack of suitable aircraft for these fine fine ships. There's not enough planes and pilots to go around with the dead hand of the RAF at the helm.

Mayhaps the FAA gets some more aircraft allocated to it or built to go with these new hulls. They desperately need a fighter that's up to the task, the Sea Gladiator isn't and nor was anything that came after. Even a navalized hurricane would do well enough.

Also, just spotted.

HMS Invincible after her commissioning during the last days of peace in the Summer of 1940

In 1940...so the UK and France get a bit longer to re-arm whilst Hitler keeps his powder dry.

 

[King Augeas]

What the RN wanted all through the 20s and 30s was a high/low mix of fleet and trade protection carriers. But the WNT and LNT meant they could only have the fleets. The light carriers are ideal for the trade protection role

But there's only two of them!

If the trade protection role is identified as being important enough to merit dedicated ships, then more than two are needed. Similarly, if it's accepted that these are not front-line fleet carriers, but restricted to the trade protection role, then 36 aircraft seems a little excessive for scouting, ASW and small strikes against lone raiders.

So these just seem too big, too fast and too few for the trade protection role. I think something like the Avenger-class would be better. You could get four of them instead of two, while their aircraft and speed are sufficient for their role.

 

[b0ned0me]

If the trade protection role is identified as being important enough to merit dedicated ships, then more than two are needed. Similarly, if it's accepted that these are not front-line fleet carriers, but restricted to the trade protection role, then 36 aircraft seems a little excessive for scouting, ASW and small strikes against lone raiders.

I agree. Historically I think the RN saw the carrier as a super-cruiser, with the same challenges. You need a lot of them, good ones are needed for battle and simpler ones for trade protection. Given that you will never get as many as you need, build as good as you can without sacrificing too many numbers. Those peacetime vessels will hopefully do you for early battles while you improvise trade protection from AMCs and obsolete vessels and build war emergency for later on.
The treaties meant the RN was cut below what it saw as irreducible minimum numbers - so why would they then use some of their precious cruiser tonnage to build AMCs in peacetime, likewise why would they use their precious carrier tonnage on deluxe trade protection carriers seen as unsuitable for likely battle conditions?
1938 or 39 light fleet carrier would be a different story, by then everyone was hearing the drums and smelling the smoke. But I don’t think there was a convenient break point there.
Maybe move the inskip award forward a decade or so, then the Navy might have built up enough institutional knowledge and self-confidence by 1936 to take dramatically different decisions, for good or ill?

 

[steamboy]

I would say that calling them 'trade protection carriers' is more a political slight of hand in line with what was done with the Invincible class carriers "Oh they are not carriers they are...through deck cruisers..." These ships are basically replacements for the Follies and the old prototype conversions like Eagle and Argus. And with 30+ aircraft they are really a fleet carrier in all but name. Just with a more US kind of slant in regards to protection of the flight deck than anything else.

 

[yulzari]

The biggest problem here is the fecking RAF, and the lack of suitable aircraft for these fine fine ships. There's not enough planes and pilots to go around with the dead hand of the RAF at the helm.

Perhaps a little unfair to the RAF although it must be admitted that they were not overly interested in the task. The Admiralty made the specifications for what they wanted, the RAF oversaw the introduction and manned the airframes and fitters. The issue was more the naval specifications and no huge argument arose until Their Lordships wanted a Sea Spitfire in the late '30s and were firmly told NO but that was by the Ministry (indeed backed up by the RAF who wanted Fairiey's to concentrate on making vital Lysanders [?] and and then repair major damaged Spitfires not make folding wing Sea Spitfires).

There are cycles in procurement which run from new funky toy through to dangerously obsolete for the same airframes and this cycle was becoming shorter and shorter pre war. For example, when the Skua came in it was world class able to out run contemporary fighters and deliver accurate dive bombing whilst able to destroy attacking bombers and shadowers. By WW2 it was no more than useable but vulnerable. 1939 found the Royal Navy at the arse end of the cycle and unable to enter the next cycle until 1941. The Italians were in a similar position whilst the Japanese were at mid position in 1942.

In the mid 1930's bOnedOme above has it right. There was no overwhelming evidence that a carrier strike could take out major battleships better than another good battleship, protect a fleet from land air attack nor deliver a large strike against ground or light enemy ships better than a large gun fleet. A match to a cruise was more accurate than a match to a Battleship.

 

[steamboy]

But also during the 30's the RN was also very much aware of the potency of the carrier both for scouting and gunnery purposes as well as slowing a hostile force so their battle line could engage the enemy. They practised extensivley with the Follies as a group, actually heading towards multi-carrier deployments and attacks but pulled back from where as the IJN went at it full hog. The RN was also very anti-air minded, its why they had the pom-pom which when it was introduced was one of, if not the best AA guns there was.

The RN's initial doctrine called for torpedo strikes to slow a hostile force, or allow for their planes to scout enemy vessels whilst denying the same to the enemy, and much like the IJN, to help with the fall of shot during an engagement. But with their hands tied by treaties they could build the force they really needed, and there wasn't the money available to push it further, nor the political willpower.

Whilst they felt that a carrier strike couldn't sink a ship (although some certinally did, Bob Burnett being one of them) they were very air minded both in the use of, and defense against.

 

[b0ned0me]

I would say that calling them 'trade protection carriers' is more a political slight of hand in line with what was done with the Invincible class carriers "Oh they are not carriers they are...through deck cruisers..." These ships are basically replacements for the Follies and the old prototype conversions like Eagle and Argus. And with 30+ aircraft they are really a fleet carrier in all but name. Just with a more US kind of slant in regards to protection of the flight deck than anything else.

Except that to the best of the Admiraltys knowledge they would be completely unsuitable for operation within aircraft range of an enemy coastline, therefore could not be used to protect/support a fleet that might need to do that. Therefore, suitable for colonial and trade protection only and incredibly expensive for that task. If they accept that armour is not needed to operate with the fleet, then why bother building any armoured carriers at all, just spam out big flimsy flat-tops to a standard design.

Perhaps a little unfair to the RAF although it must be admitted that they were not overly interested in the task. The Admiralty made the specifications for what they wanted, the RAF oversaw the introduction and manned the airframes and fitters. The issue was more the naval specifications

To my mind the issue was that in 1918 every experienced naval airman was moved to the RAF, and from then to 1939 every air-minded naval person spent a couple of years dual-hatted as RAF/RN before being given a choice between staying with the RAF to focus on exciting air stuff or moving back into the RN to continue their career as a person specialised in liaising with the RAF. This siphoned off a lot of people and experience the navy needed and forced them to rely on the Air Force for expertise and advice much more than e.g. the USN or IJN. So the specs were written in part based on what the RAF said was desirable and feasible.
Then you had weird mindset conflicts like rating pilots. The RAF insisted every pilot had to be an officer AND in command of the aircraft, because aircraft were the most wonderful things ever and only god-like beings could control them. The navy figured that from a command perspective it was no different than a launch or other small vessel being helmed by a seaman/P.O. while an officer sat in the back and gave the orders. The airforce saw everything through the lens of air being uniquely decisive and wonderful, the navy saw small cheap auxiliary craft that were uniquely useful to the fleet because they happened to fly. And so on and on, just like never ending army/Air Force arguments that continue to this day.

But also during the 30's the RN was also very much aware of the potency of the carrier both for scouting and gunnery purposes as well as slowing a hostile force so their battle line could engage the enemy. They practised extensivley with the Follies as a group, actually heading towards multi-carrier deployments and attacks but pulled back from where as the IJN went at it full hog. The RN was also very anti-air minded, its why they had the pom-pom which when it was introduced was one of, if not the best AA guns there was.

The RN's initial doctrine called for torpedo strikes to slow a hostile force, or allow for their planes to scout enemy vessels whilst denying the same to the enemy, and much like the IJN, to help with the fall of shot during an engagement. But with their hands tied by treaties they could build the force they really needed, and there wasn't the money available to push it further, nor the political willpower.

But surely you have just described the cruiser role? Find and fix the enemy, then harry.
Delay the enemy while the battle fleet either closes to destroy or makes its escape.
Destroy enemy scouting forces and hold their cruisers / destroyers (and carriers) away.

Even torpedo attacks are a cruiser staple, just now carried part of the way on aircraft.