What if the War began in 1944? Royal Navy in particular and RAF overall

Thomas1195

Banned
Hood1944 said:
It wasn't until WW2 that battleships were considered obsolete.
There is no way, espiecally if the Germans were building the H class, that the British would give up Lion or vanguard..
Click to expand...
The German could not afford that Z plan, I am sure, but until that they would continue to build up both.

But in the post 1938 Czech war with German decisively defeated scenario, then they might reduce BB and build CV.
 

Aber

Thomas1195 said:
Maybe with better CAG and torpedo bombers being developed, some cost obstacles in building BBs.
Click to expand...

Chicken and egg problem. Why develop carrier capable aircraft when you don't have carriers; why build carriers when you don't have the aircraft?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Aber said:
Chicken and egg problem. Why develop carrier capable aircraft when you don't have carriers; why build carriers when you don't have the aircraft?
Click to expand...
At least for the existing CV fleet, which need more modern aircraft to replace the like of Swordfish. Besides, Britain had actually test the Taranto war game well before the war. But I think they might reduce the Illustrious class and build the better ones (Implacable or Audacious or even Malta)
 

Aber

Thomas1195 said:
At least for the existing CV fleet, which need more modern aircraft to replace the like of Swordfish. Besides, Britain had actually test the Taranto war game well before the war. But I think they might reduce the Illustrious class and build the better ones (Implacable or Audacious or even Malta)
Click to expand...

Oops! Misread your suggestion as for Germany, not Britain.:frown:
 

Thomas1195

Banned
RodentRevolution said:
Siemens but that is more a case of good marketing than actual history.
Click to expand...
Since when it was more a case of good marketing than actual history? It was, after all, one of 4 biggest electrical producers in the world at that time, and none of British electrical firms were a match for it.
 

jsb

Thomas1195 said:
Maybe with better CAG and torpedo bombers being developed
Click to expand...
The problem is that in a North Atlantic winter storm you probably need a Buccaneer carrying Red Beard before you would feel safe as 1st sea lord to risk not deploying a BB with your CV task force....
 
Hood

Hood

Thomas1195 said:
The German could not afford that Z plan, I am sure, but until that they would continue to build up both.

But in the post 1938 Czech war with German decisively defeated scenario, then they might reduce BB and build CV.
Click to expand...
The first two had already been laid down by 1939. I'm not saying the Germans would be able to complete all of them, because they couldn't, but I'd say at least one or two might be finished. Plus the Lions would probably be built anyway, as the only thing that would be considered able to fully counter B&T was A modernised Hood(but not both at the same time, obviously!),unless the KGVs were built with 9x15' guns.
 

RodentRevolution

Banned
Hood1944 said:
The first two had already been laid down by 1939. I'm not saying the Germans would be able to complete all of them, because they couldn't, but I'd say at least one or two might be finished. Plus the Lions would probably be built anyway, as the only thing that would be considered able to fully counter B&T was A modernised Hood(but not both at the same time, obviously!),unless the KGVs were built with 9x15' guns.
Click to expand...

I think that KGVs could go up against the Bizzies but the point of the British program was not simply Germany but the fact that all of the RN's battleships were old. Not only that but once construction gets rolling a lot of interested parties would apply pressure to keep it that way. British cuts are more likely to be seen in the earlier retirement of older classes (this applies to cruisers, carriers and destroyers as much as battleships) for lower total numbers than cut backs in new construction. The aim as I understand it was to add 7 battleships (so retain the Nelrods who often get missed off people's lists as well) to give sufficient battleship numbers to cover both Europe and Asia but again if the Italians and the Germans fail to turn up the cuts are likely to fail on the QEs first assuming it is decided they are needed as a delayed World War 2 is likely to see a continued uptick in the British economy.
 

jsb

Even if the Germans cut down the RN will still be thinking about covering the IJN as well.

I cant see the RN cutting battleship building until its clear its won the ratio race with IJN/KM/RM and anyway they have 13 overage ships to replace (including 4 rebuilt but still weak).

Anyway realistically new battleships are cheap by the standards of the cost of the BofA in OTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Redbeard said:
Flawed for what?

For the Pacific probably, but the British CVs were designed for operations in the Med. where intense landbased airpower (and many hits) was expected or in the North Atlantic where the weather often would make deck parks, open hangar deck, and big strike or any carrier operations impossible. As good as an Essex class CV was in the Pacific as flawed they would have been in the Med or in the North Atlantic. It was not without reason that the Essexs had British style closed bows incorporated at first chance. BTW later US CV designs had armour designs much inspired by the British and later British designs slightened armour protection to increase aircomplement and endurance - inspired by USN and Pacific operations. The very robust and heavy weather capable Swordsfish IMO was much more suited for North Atlantic operations than any contemporary torpedo plane (only with the Avenger came a worthy competitor), but basing your North Atlantic naval power on Pacific style carrier operations would mean having no naval power for much of the year. It was for a good reason the FAA early on (as the only) focused on night operations. In the North Atlantic it will be dark (and stormy) for most if not all day during winter and over the enemy fighter infested Med FAA Swordfish and Albacores equipped were very succesful operating at night. No other navy was capable of that. Taranto was performed in darkness and flares and later airborne radars made the FAA an extremely potent weapon.

Anyway, the difference in aircomplement between a British armoured design and an US design isn't as big as is often quoted. The British initially operated with what could be kept under armourprotection in the hangar where the USN had large deck parks. When the British later in the Far East and Pacific also used deck parks they would operate 50-70 planes and not the 36 usually quoted. The problem of the British CVs was that they were not designed to operate that far from land bases and so relatively fast ran out of aviation fuel and bombs. But the safety of aviation fuel and bomb stovage was much bigger in British ships - expecting to be hit much more often.
Click to expand...
I believe they should have just sticked to Arrk Royal (which had high aircraft carrrying capacity by British standard) and develop next generation classes based on it rather than building Illustrious and Co, which were a waste of steel and had only half of AR's aircraft carrying capacity.
 

HMS Warspite

Thomas1195 said:
I believe they should have just sticked to Arrk Royal (which had high aircraft carrrying capacity by British standard) and develop next generation classes based on it rather than building Illustrious and Co, which were a waste of steel and had only half of AR's aircraft carrying capacity.
Click to expand...

The HMS Illustrious was a specific design meeting the requirements at the time for the sort of tasks in mind, which would be inable to perform, had the type not been developped. Note that a soft decked type of aircraft carrier was not able to perform duties in the Mediteranean Sea in 1940-1942, with Axis dominance in the air. An Ark Royal with no armored flightdeck was not capable of withstanding the sort of punishment HMS Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable experienced in the Mediterranean. In other words: No armored Aircraft Carrier, with flightdeckarmor means surrendering the Mediterranean to the Axis powers, as the other surface ships cannot defend themselves against ongoing airstrikes form land based strike aircraft. A single aircraft carrier makes a lot of difference here, so if that single carrier is easily knocked out, you can make your own calculations.
 

hipper

Banned
Thomas1195 said:
I believe they should have just sticked to Arrk Royal (which had high aircraft carrrying capacity by British standard) and develop next generation classes based on it rather than building Illustrious and Co, which were a waste of steel and had only half of AR's aircraft carrying capacity.
Click to expand...

Every new class of fleet aircraft carrier since the Essex has armoured decks so the Americans don't agree with you about deck armour being a waste of steel

In action the arc Royal kept about 55 aircraft in operation. That's the same number as the illustrious classes achieved in 1942

Aircraft capacity is a function of crew size & skill plus the deck area and hanger space available

The Illustrious class WEre too small. But not a waste of steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top