RN Ark Royal AH carrier starting 1920's

Z

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Joined
15 July 2007
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
4,025
RN opts for Scheme C (as opposed to real life they adopted Scheme B) of 25,000tons 1923. Ordered 1926....?

LBP 780ft, LOA 820ft
Beam 92ft
Draught fed 23.5ft, aft 25.5ft
Displacement 25,000tons
Deep 29,500tons
SHP 180,000shp
Speed 34.5kts
Deep 33kts
Fuel 4,000tons
Endurance 6,000nm
Complement 1200
Aircraft 50 approximately
4.7" by 6
8" by 6 in 3 twin turrets.
Revised design removes 8" guns for more 4.7" guns, inncreases beam to 94ft. Result is larger hanger capacity.

Choosing this doesn't exceed the UK drydock limitations.
This of instead of modernisations of the shallow battlecruisers.

Effectively this sets the RN up for a different outcome of Armoured carriers later on
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
I'd say that for 1920s the carrier with 8-inch guns is better than the carrier without them...
Click to expand...

If a carrier is engaging with 8" it's doing something wrong. 1920s naval strategy saw the carrier as an adjunct to the battlefleet, but not operating with the line of battle. It was meant to be doing reconnaissance before the engagement, and gunfire spotting during it, and that means operating its flight deck, which it can't do when it's using the guns. Dump the guns, put the weight into increased hangar volume and deck area, everything else is a distraction.
 
zen said:
Aircraft 50 approximately
Click to expand...

That's presuming you can persuade the Air Ministry to allow that many, which may be the main issue.

I think the primary advantage would be in allowing the RN to better understand the usage of large air groups in advance of Ark Royal's arrival in the mid-30s. With a doctrine for that they might well not have gone down the armoured carrier route at all.
 
I'm not sure about this anti-8 inch thing... if a carrier is caught by destroyers or a light cruiser it gives it some ability to fend them off. The 8" provides are large effective range and could help support escorting destroyers (assuming the carrier had escorts). So there is a logic to it.

Carriers can't fly-off aircraft in all weather conditions or times of day (especially in the 1920s) and even if they could their ability to reliably hit smaller fast ships (e.g. enemy destroyers) is imperfect.
 
DWG said:
If a carrier is engaging with 8" it's doing something wrong. 1920s naval strategy saw the carrier as an adjunct to the battlefleet, but not operating with the line of battle. It was meant to be doing reconnaissance before the engagement, and gunfire spotting during it, and that means operating its flight deck, which it can't do when it's using the guns. Dump the guns, put the weight into increased hangar volume and deck area, everything else is a distraction
Click to expand...

Problem is, that with range & capabilities of 1920s carrier planes, something could very quickly gone wrong. The idea that carrier could always be "standoff" wasn't exactly well supported by technology at this time - especially fast carrier, designed to operate with cruiser vanguard (as this carrier seems to be). One big problem was a wind gauge - the carrier needed to run into wind, to launch or receive planes, and with rather... slow takeoff/landing operations of 1920s, it could easily means running into wind for hours.

And if the wind was blowing from enemy side, it essentially means that instead of standing off, the carrier is running full speed toward the enemy. Considering the limited range of carrier planes, lack of radar, weather conditions... In short, the situation in which carrier & her escorts might be forced to fight for her life was quite probable. Generally the large carriers - like "Lexington"-class, or "Akagi" and "Kaga" - have sufficient advantages in durability, stability and sheer size to successfully fight off the heavy cruiser.

So for 1920s, the 8-inch guns on carriers are pretty useful...
 
However it's not a given that it would result in an actual carrier in the 1920's, rather it's most likely to enter service between the end of the 20's and the early 30's. Which means it's operating through the 30's and 40's, and assuming it survived, leaving service in the 50's.

So even if it retains the 8" guns at review in '26. It's unlikely to keep them into the late 30's.
 
zen said:
So even if it retains the 8" guns at review in '26. It's unlikely to keep them into the late 30's.
Click to expand...

Depend on many factors... "Glorious" would clearly find the 8-inch guns handy in her last battle (it would not affect the outcome much, but fire support from carrier heavy guns might make "Acasta" and "Ardent" attack run more productive).
 
Of course Scheme B of 1923, was deferred after the Labour victory but deferred again under a repeat of the Ten Year Rule in 1925 to 1929, whereupon it was deferred to 1932 and eventually ordered in 1934 to become HMS Ark Royal.

So it's possible that history might repeat with the larger design.

Thus a sub-AH is that Ark Royal is the larger design evolved.
Being still of 25,000tons and presumably capacity for 72 aircraft using a single hanger.
This might make a simpler repeat order if an agreement can be reached with the US on the 25,000ton limit. Which seems highly likely considering the US wanted just that.
 
If.....if standard displacement limit for carriers is agreed in Treaty to remain at 25,000tons.....
Then Armoured Carrier must be larger.....how much larger would that be?

If....if Ark Royal is 25,000ton (29,000ton deep) CV, and treaty remains at 25ktons then repeat is not under constraints of lower displacement and must surely increase the potential for a simple repeat?
 
Even when the maximum tonnage for aircraft carriers stays at 27 000t or is lowered to 25 000t will the UK use this ?
The japanese carriers during the treaty era had a lower displacement.
 
Anderman said:
Even when the maximum tonnage for aircraft carriers stays at 27 000t or is lowered to 25 000t will the UK use this ?
The japanese carriers during the treaty era had a lower displacement.
Click to expand...
That's a good question!

Considering the difficulties of producing the Illustrious Armoured Carrier design one might conclude having more allowable tonnage will make things easier.
But the counters are....
A) trying to encourage others to not design to the maximum allowable. Much as with the 14" guns instead of 15" or 16" .
B) the process being as hard regardless of tonnage limits
 
The obvious solution is that this ship will be build before the LNT then the other states will most likely not accept a new displacement limit
lower then this ship.
 
Last edited:

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom