WI:WNT allows 15,000 ton carriers?

As it says, what if the 1922 WNT had had the loophole as OTL, but for 15,000 ton carriers, instead of 10,000 carriers?

I don't have the numbers handy, but how many carriers would have 'not counted' had this been the rule? On a side note, what displacement was referenced in the treaties, normal, standard, or full load?

Now, what if the subsequent treaties had not closed this, what would we possibly have seen carrier fleet wise in the 1920-1940 time frame?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This would actually fit in with one US doctrinal point from OTL - they felt that, since a carrier strike would so often get through and sink a carrier, the best approach was to build lots and lots of small carriers so that some would survive to strike back.
The British considered the same problem and produced the famed armoured carriers instead.
 
I have to wonder, though, if the 15,000 ton ships didn't count, would we see many such decks, and also more of the big guys?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I have to wonder, though, if the 15,000 ton ships didn't count, would we see many such decks, and also more of the big guys?
We wouldn't see any more large decks, indeed arguably less because everyone would be focusing on the small decks they can spam to their hearts' content. That might also lead to better development of catapults and a reluctance to go to higher performance aircraft, because of the prevalence of smaller decks.


Of course RADAR changes things and makes fighter defence more possible, but that's too late for all the builds people want to manage.
 

Driftless

Donor
OTL 1920's, the US went from the 14k ton USS Langley conversion right to the big USS Lexington & Saratoga. Perhaps if those two big ships don't get built, you'd see more 1920's era carriers in the 15k ton range. The operational limitations of those ships don't become fully apparent till later? The "You don't know enough to know that you don't know enough" idea.

Had the Ranger (in your 15k ton range) been built in the late 20's AND before bigger carriers, it might be remembered as a useful progression. Even though it's limitations became apparent quickly, it did serve a useful role in the Atlantic.
 
Looking at the Yorktown class, if the Ranger and later Wasp didn't count towards the US tonnage limit, we could at least get an additional CV in addition to all the CVL's, and if we knew we could have free CVL's, perhape the Yorktowns could have been improved a bit.

You mentioned the armored deck carriers, and free CVL's would make for the possibility to have the best of both worlds, without needing to compromise the fleet carriers protection. I would have thought that this would have been better for the RN than OTL?
 
You mentioned the armored deck carriers, and free CVL's would make for the possibility to have the best of both worlds, without needing to compromise the fleet carriers protection. I would have thought that this would have been better for the RN than OTL?

I disagree with it. Armored flying deck was an heresy. And don't think that's because carriers had wooden flying deck they were weaker. Essex-class had wooden flying deck but the hangar deck was fully armored (a return of the combat experiences of the previous classes)
 
OTL 1920's, the US went from the 14k ton USS Langley conversion right to the big USS Lexington & Saratoga. Perhaps if those two big ships don't get built, you'd see more 1920's era carriers in the 15k ton range. The operational limitations of those ships don't become fully apparent till later? The "You don't know enough to know that you don't know enough" idea.

Had the Ranger (in your 15k ton range) been built in the late 20's AND before bigger carriers, it might be remembered as a useful progression. Even though it's limitations became apparent quickly, it did serve a useful role in the Atlantic.
Yes, there is no doubt that the smaller ships, buildt to early to expose their limitations, would be less capable than CV's, but if the CVL's are not tossed out, then they can be improved in later buildt designes, and in numbers that don't effect the fleet carrier allocations.

I would think that the navies would all greatly benifit from such an ATL set of treaties, as they would get more carriers, sooner, and learn things faster than having to wait for big carriers to comission. The FFA would also need more aircraft to stock all the RN carriers, and this might just be a good thing?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I disagree with it. Armored flying deck was an heresy. And don't think that's because carriers had wooden flying deck they were weaker. Essex-class had wooden flying deck but the hangar deck was fully armored (a return of the combat experiences of the previous classes)
Heresy?
What do you mean?

Armoured carriers survived bomb hits which would have sunk non-armoured carriers - in one instance in 1945, there was a bomb/kamikaze hit on an armoured carrier which took her out of action for six hours, and a similar bomb/kamikaze hit on an Essex class which took her out of action for several months.

I suggest
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/deb...king-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays
 
Last edited:
I disagree with it. Armored flying deck was an heresy. And don't think that's because carriers had wooden flying deck they were weaker. Essex-class had wooden flying deck but the hangar deck was fully armored (a return of the combat experiences of the previous classes)
Don't get me wrong, I myself think that the armored flight deck of the RN was a worse idea than the wooden decks in the US fleet, but I can see both sides have a point. I think the UK would go ahead and build their full allotment of CV tonnage as armored fleet carriers, and also build all the unarmored merchant protection CVL's that they wanted.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Don't get me wrong, I myself think that the armored flight deck of the RN was a worse idea than the wooden decks in the US fleet, but I can see both sides have a point. I think the UK would go ahead and build their full allotment of CV tonnage as armored fleet carriers, and also build all the unarmored merchant protection CVL's that they wanted.
The armoured flight deck was a worse idea for the Pacific, certainly. Which is why Ark Royal, built for Pacific ops, didn't have one and focused instead on a bigger air group.
 
The armoured flight deck was a worse idea for the Pacific, certainly. Which is why Ark Royal, built for Pacific ops, didn't have one and focused instead on a bigger air group.
Ah, good point!

So, if you were the head honcho for the RN, and had a free hand in the case of CV and CVL construction, how would you design your fleet in this posited ATL? Definately have the free CVL's (why not, afterall), and then build a mix of armored and unarmored CV's?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Ah, good point!

So, if you were the head honcho for the RN, and had a free hand in the case of CV and CVL construction, how would you design your fleet in this posited ATL? Definately have the free CVL's (why not, afterall), and then build a mix of armored and unarmored CV's?

Armoured carriers and lots of free CVLs, if I'm designing without foreknowledge of RADAR.
The idea here is that the smaller CVLs are workable in the Pacific, and the armoured carriers can operate in any environment - they have small strike groups, yes, but the RN doesn't care much about that because they're much more durable platforms and the CVLs can support them in the Pacific.
 
Gentlemen lets not derail this thread into a fight between those posters who believe that the RN was correct to develop Armoured Carriers and those posters who are wrong :D

Anyway back to the OPs question

One of the components of the reduced Air wing on the Armoured carriers was the expectation of building "Aircraft repair ships" along the lines of HMS Unicorn.

Carriers in their own right by any yardstick you wish to use these vessels were not intended to act as warships but to provide maintenance and storage facilities for additional aircraft and spares for the Armoured carriers.

However the powers that be in the UK agonised and fretted over their designation and not wanting to be seen to be breaking the Naval Treatys in Spirit delayed construction.

In the end only one was built and flying right in the face of those earlier concerns her first job was operating Seafires in order to provide a CAP for the Salerno Landings. (she is also as far as I am aware the only carrier to conduct shore bombardment/NGS in wartime - during the Korean War) So much for being a non combatant!

She did later revert back to her original role as a Maintenance carrier for the BPF

Had the limit been 15,000 Tons and this limit was retained and not abused over much then I can see their lordships not being so overly precious regarding building them!

For more information see here

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/maintenance-support/
 
Heresy?
What do you mean?

How many planes Armored carriers have ? Illustrious 36 (then 72), Taiho 53, Shinano around 60. Essex ? Nearly 90.
In terms of pure strike power wooden deck carriers have the advantage. And dont forget that because of their armored deck armored carriers are heavier, they cost much more and their construction speed is lower.

So in total naval war Armored carrier is an heresy PLUS a waste a ressources, money and time
 
I disagree with it. Armored flying deck was an heresy. And don't think that's because carriers had wooden flying deck they were weaker. Essex-class had wooden flying deck but the hangar deck was fully armored (a return of the combat experiences of the previous classes)

7 posts so far and i think i disagree with every single one of them

keep up the good? work
 

Saphroneth

Banned
How many planes Armored carriers have ? Illustrious 36 (then 72), Taiho 53, Shinano around 60. Essex ? Nearly 90.
In terms of pure strike power wooden deck carriers have the advantage. And dont forget that because of their armored deck armored carriers are heavier, they cost much more and their construction speed is lower.

So in total naval war Armored carrier is an heresy PLUS a waste a ressources, money and time

I'd rather have Illustrious than two Essex under some conditions. Like, say, the conditions Illustrious actually fought under - she absorbed enough bombs to knock three Essex out of the fight.

And let's not compare Illustrious to Essex. Compare Implacable to Essex, they're the same age... Implacable carried 81 aircraft.
She took a while to build, yes, but that's because the dock workers were reassigned to build escorts for the Battle of the Atlantic.

Compare Illustrious to Yorktown, both were built in peacetime.
Illustrious - three years laying down to commission.
Yorktown - three and a half years laying down to commission.

Illustrious cost 2.3 million pounds. Essex cost ~$68 million 1942 USD, and the conversion factor at the time was about $5 to £1 - so Essex seems to have cost considerably more.

So given a choice between one Essex and (it looks like) five Illustrious for the same cost... the answer is pretty darn obvious.

Of course it's likely that the cost of the Essex is partly how much money was just thrown at her to build her as fast as possible.
 
How many planes Armored carriers have ? Illustrious 36 (then 72), Taiho 53, Shinano around 60. Essex ? Nearly 90.
In terms of pure strike power wooden deck carriers have the advantage. And dont forget that because of their armored deck armored carriers are heavier, they cost much more and their construction speed is lower.

So in total naval war Armored carrier is an heresy PLUS a waste a ressources, money and time

True, but a more heavily armoured carrier with more AA is more use in areas such as the Med where attack by land based air was a problem, as the airfields are harder to destroy than carriers
 
I'd rather have Illustrious than two Essex under some conditions. Like, say, the conditions Illustrious actually fought under - she absorbed enough bombs to knock three Essex out of the fight.

And let's not compare Illustrious to Essex. Compare Implacable to Essex, they're the same age... Implacable carried 81 aircraft.
She took a while to build, yes, but that's because the dock workers were reassigned to build escorts for the Battle of the Atlantic.

Compare Illustrious to Yorktown, both were built in peacetime.
Illustrious - three years laying down to commission.
Yorktown - three and a half years laying down to commission.

Illustrious cost 2.3 million pounds. Essex cost ~$68 million 1942 USD, and the conversion factor at the time was about $5 to £1 - so Essex seems to have cost considerably more.

So given a choice between one Essex and (it looks like) five Illustrious for the same cost... the answer is pretty darn obvious.

Of course it's likely that the cost of the Essex is partly how much money was just thrown at her to build her as fast as possible.

I think your wrong - surely it would have been better to have asked Germany, Italy and Japan to delay WW2 till 1943 - when the Essex class carriers started to come on line in sufficient numbers :p
 
I think your wrong - surely it would have been better to have asked Germany, Italy and Japan to delay WW2 till 1943 - when the Essex class carriers started to come on line in sufficient numbers :p

And how many RN carriers would have been online by then (not too mention the FAA planes to fill them)...:D
 
Top