Wank RCN?

That seems more a shift in defence policy than an all out wank.
Maybe...

As I understand things there were also political issues at play that resulted in Canada stationing heavy land forces in West Germany during the Cold War.

If some of the political issues changed, I could see how Canada might have wanted to make a different form of contribution to NATO.
 
One easy possible outcome of a significant German attack on the West Coast is a much larger political constituency for the RCN. Sure that's mostly going to be frigates to cruisers in the 20s,
From post-WW1 through the 1940s I think the threat is envisioned as primarily light cruisers, raiding per "Cruiser Rules", and secondarily surfaced submarines likewise raiding, and/or armed merchants. Ideally that means at least a light Cruiser but I doubt Canada funds any, relying upon the RN to send these or heavier cruisers to deal with breakouts.
What about LNT forcing the issue? http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1930.php

Part III
Article 14
The naval combatant vessels of the United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations and of India, the Dominion of Canada, of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Japan, other than capital ships, aircraft carriers and all vessels exempt from limitation under Article 8, shall be limited during the term of the present Treaty as provided in this Part III, and, in the case of special vessels, as provided in Article 12.

Article 16
The completed tonnage in the cruiser, destroyer and submarine categories which is not to be exceeded on 31December 1936 is given in the following table:
Categories United States, United Kingdom of GB & NI & India, Japan
........
3 The maximum number of cruisers of sub-category (a) shall be as follows: for the United States, eighteen; for the United Kingdom of GB & NI & India twelve; for Japan twelve, for the Dominion of Canada two, for the Commonwealth of Australia two, for the Dominion of New Zealand one, for the Union of South Africa none.
.......
8 The maximum number of cruisers of sub-category (b) shall be as follows: for the Commonwealth of Australia three, for the Dominion of New Zealand two, for the Union of South Africa two, for the Dominion of Canada none.
;)
 
Last edited:
What CVs does RCN buy? A couple of Colossuses? Maybe the incomplete Audacious-class Eagle from Swan-Hunter & her (unbuilt) sister?
OTL the plan was for the post-war fleet to consist of 2 British CVL, 2 cruisers and 12 destroyers.

However, the RCN only operated one aircraft carrier at a time and the 12th destroyer wasn't acquired.

But, IIRC, they also considered buying the Essex class aircraft carrier USS Reprisal, which was laid down in July 1944 and was 40% complete at the time of its cancellation in August 1945.

If the Canadian Government had bought her in September 1945 she could have been completed to SCB-27A standard in 1950 and rebuilt to SCB-125A standard later in the 1950s. The USN had enough of its own Essex class ships in reserve to lend one to the RCN 1946-50 (in place of the OTL Warrior and Magnificent) and another one in the late 1950s while Reprisal was having her SCB-125A refit.

An Essex had a crew that was 2 or 3 times larger than a British Colossus/Majestic depending upon whether she was a CVS or CVA. However, I presume that increasing the RCN's personnel strength after 1945 is part of the wank.

The RCN actually maintained 2 fighter and 2 ASW squadrons for the duration of the 1950s, which would go a long way to providing the Reprisal with its air group in the 1950s. Canada also acquired enough Banshees, Trackers and Sea Kings IOTL to provide the ship with most of a 1960s Essex CVS air group of 4 anti-shadower fighters, 20 Trackers and 16 Sea Kings. All you need to complete it are 4 Tracers for AEW and one or two Traders for COD.

Reprisal would remain in service until well into the 1970s and be replaced by an SCB.100 class ASW carrier.
 
Last edited:
Presumably, the Canadians would also be actually acquiring the Tartar frigates they had planned OTL. Since this is a wank, go for all eight.
 
The USN had enough of its own Essex class ships in reserve to lend one to the RCN 1946-50

However, I presume that increasing the RCN's personnel strength after 1945 is part of the wank.
Increased personnel strength is okay, tho I'm not sure so much for a single ship is warranted.

In the scenario I'm imagining, the U.S. hasn't built so many CVs, tho, so there wouldn't be a surplus Essex...

I take it you think buying an incomplete RN CV is out of the question.
RCN actually maintained 2 fighter and 2 ASW squadrons for the duration of the 1950s, which would go a long way to providing the Reprisal with its air group in the 1950s. Canada also acquired enough Banshees, Trackers and Sea Kings IOTL to provide the ship with most of a 1960s Essex CVS air group of 4 anti-shadower fighters, 20 Trackers and 16 Sea Kings. All you need to complete it are 4 Tracers for AEW and one or two Traders for COD.
I like. I lean toward domestic production of the fighters, helos, & patrol types, but otherwise...:cool:
 
I like. I lean toward domestic production of the fighters, helos, & patrol types, but otherwise...:cool:
IOTL the Trackers and Sea Kings were built under licence in Canada.

So only the fighters have to be built under licence ITTL.

I meant post this a few hours ago, but was sidetracked writing posts for another thread.

Canadian Naval Aviation.png
 
I take it you think buying an incomplete RN CV is out of the question.
The only incomplete British CV that would be for sale and worth buying is the third Audacious class aircraft carrier. That is the HMS Eagle laid down at Vickers-Armstrong, Tyne in April 1944 and cancelled in January 1946.

However, I also think that buying USS Reprisal is the better choice.
 
Last edited:
This is from a book called A HISTORY OF CANADIAN NAVAL AVIATION 1918-1962 by J. D. F. KEALY and E. C. RUSSELL that I downloaded from the internet.

Canadian Naval Aviation Chronology.png
 
IOTL the Trackers and Sea Kings were built under licence in Canada.

So only the fighters have to be built under licence ITTL.
I had in mind domestic designs, as far as possible; for the helos, certainly.

Licenced Sea Venoms or something, to start, wouldn't be out of the question, but I do want to move to Canadian designs. (Not just a navalized CF-100, either.:eek: )
The only incomplete British CV that would be for sale and worth buying is the third Audacious class aircraft carrier. That is the HMS Eagle laid down at Vickers-Armstrong, Tyne in April 1944 and cancelled in January 1946.

However, I also think that buying USS Reprisal is the better choice.
I imagined Eagle, too; wasn't there a 4th Audacious projected, & cancelled unbuilt?

Given one's available (I'd tend to say one wouldn't be TTL), why do you say an Essex makes more sense?
As I understand things there were also political issues at play that resulted in Canada stationing heavy land forces in West Germany during the Cold War.

If some of the political issues changed, I could see how Canada might have wanted to make a different form of contribution to NATO.
As I'm picturing it, the U.S. is staying out of international affairs a lot more, & has had no direct part in WW2, so no occupying force. This puts the rest of the WAllies in a position of needing to do more--including Canada. At the same time, the postwar domestic economy allows for it.

I don't mean for Canada to replace the U.S.:eek: I do imagine a "huskier" Canadian presence.
 
The only incomplete British CV that would be for sale and worth buying is the third Audacious class aircraft carrier.
Cant they get a Centaur class? 4 where finished for RN and 2 scraped on slips so they could easily replace the OTL Canadian Majestics?

Might not be an Essex or Audacious but still far better than OTL ships?
 
Cant they get a Centaur class? 4 where finished for RN and 2 scraped on slips so they could easily replace the OTL Canadian Majestics?
The four Centaurs finished for the RN weren't for sale. If they were the Australians and Canadians would have bought them instead of the four Majestics they acquired IOTL.
Might not be an Essex or Audacious but still far better than OTL ships?
Indubitably!

However, they weren't for sale.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that wanks the Navy at the expense of the air Force and Army.

Canadian politicians would prefer to wank the RCN because sailors suffer far fewer casualties than soldiers or airmen. Infantry suffered the worst casualties. After the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was decimated at Beaumont Hamel, they were re-rolled as artillery during WW2 ..... and only suffered minor casualties during WW2.
RCAF Bombers suffered major loses on every raid. My family sent three brothers to Bomber Command, but only one returned home after WW2.
Infantry regiments (e.g. Black Watch of Canada) suffered 350 percent casualties during 1944 and 1945!

A desperate shortage of infantrymen forced the 1944 Conscription Crisis, which almost ousted W. L. MacKenzie King’s government. Quebecouis wanted nothing to do with “another stupid European war.” Conscription was instituted too late in 1944 to deliver significant numbers of infantry before the end of fighting in Europe (May 1945).
 
The four Centaurs finished for the RN weren't for sale. If they were the Australians and Canadians would have bought them instead of the four Majestics they acquired IOTL.Indubitably!

However, they weren't for sale.

In a TL where the British Government has a sudden attack of common sense and long term planning it might decide that just like the Maltas the second world war design vintage of the Centaur and the Audacious classes would be inadequate for future operations and instead decide to start entirely new build ships to satisfy its requirements. In such a set of occurrences the incomplete ships might be taken on by the Royal Canadian Navy instead of buying the even more insufficient Majestics. Though perhaps if the British start being so rational such thinking might become infectious, and Canada would want new builds too.
 
Last edited:
However, they weren't for sale.
AIUI, there were 8 Centaurs planned. Does it need an attack of good sense for RN not to cancel them all before WW2 ends, especially if USN isn't a player?

Does that given RCN an opportunity?

Now, if RN does have an attack of sense...does that leave RCN with something like an option on all the Audaciouses, instead? With an *SCB-125B rebuild soon after.
 
AIUI, there were 8 Centaurs planned. Does it need an attack of good sense for RN not to cancel them all before WW2 ends, especially if USN isn't a player?

Does that given RCN an opportunity?

Now, if RN does have an attack of sense...does that leave RCN with something like an option on all the Audaciouses, instead? With an *SCB-125B rebuild soon after.
Over in another thread I've been pondering which ships any 1952-design fleet carriers replace, and noted that Centaur and Eagle would've needed expensive modifications to operate the Scimitar and Sea Vixen aircraft due to hit the decks. Mayhaps Canada gives the Royal Navy a call around 1955 about buying Eagle?
 
Over in another thread I've been pondering which ships any 1952-design fleet carriers replace, and noted that Centaur and Eagle would've needed expensive modifications to operate the Scimitar and Sea Vixen aircraft due to hit the decks. Mayhaps Canada gives the Royal Navy a call around 1955 about buying Eagle?
How much of the decision not to sell Centaurs was based on British war debt? If HMG didn't have the money for new steel for new ships, selling off a completed CV would be a bad call; if there's less debt, does that free RN to buy/build new?

OTOH, if Canada has more money, does it mean she might, instead, buy a more/less new ship (newer than OTL)? Or offer a better price, & tip the balance?
 
How much of the decision not to sell Centaurs was based on British war debt? If HMG didn't have the money for new steel for new ships, selling off a completed CV would be a bad call; if there's less debt, does that free RN to buy/build new?

OTOH, if Canada has more money, does it mean she might, instead, buy a more/less new ship (newer than OTL)? Or offer a better price, & tip the balance?

The steel for the ships is not the main cost, and even selling the surplus hulls for scrap recoups a significant portion of that, especially if they haven't seen much use. There is also the huge cost of the multiple refits required to bring the obsolete designs up to more modern standards. In Victorious's case almost taking apart the ship and and building a new one under the name plate. Honestly all the war era designs were a millstone around the RN's neck. The Audacious's and any unfinished Majestic's should have been scrapped on the slips. Three of the Centaurs's would be useful as interim ships alongside the I's in best condition until a set of 1952 pattern fleet carriers could be built, then they could be converted into commando carriers. The RN paid a heavy cost of trying to maintain a fleet of eleven carriers in the post war era. If they had faced economic realities and rationalized earlier they would have been able to make far better use of their funds.

Under such a scenario I could see Canada possibly rescuing the half finished hull of Eagle from the cutting torches to replace Warrior, which would then be completed to as close to an approximation of a 1952 Fleet carrier as could be done with the base product. Though IMO they would be better off contracting a British yard to make them a 1952 as well. In any case this larger hull would allow them to operate more capable aircraft without subsequent modification, this would maybe been they don;t give up on naval fighters after the Banshee, I would guess they would go Crusader and Skyhawk as a replacement. When this Super-Bonaventure begins to wear out in the late 70s, they might consider getting a slightly larger replacement built either by the US or Britain, but My guess would be just like OTL they would let their naval aviation capability go.
 
Top