Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
 



Go Back   Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums > World War II - General > WW2 General

WW2 General Every WW2 related discussion besides aviation.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2008, 11:56 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
starling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: bomber command hq.
Posts: 162
carriers and destroyers.

i put this question on a different forum,got some good answers.see what you think.
if the r.n and u.s.n built just ark royal and yorktown class carriers from 1936,and good destroyer designs,there would be no need to build new battle ships,or cruisers at all.but finish ships in the shipyards under construction.i beleive this would have been a good idea.yours,starling. .
__________________
"Every German city,is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier".
starling is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 12:10 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
syscom3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 10,814
The USN needed lots of cruisers and battleships to provide gunnery support for amphib invasions.

Plus as events in the Solomon Islands proved, the IJN liked to fight at night when allied airpower wasnt effective.

And then the USN found cruisers and battleships made good AA screens.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"
syscom3 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 12:16 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
parsifal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,493
One of the problems for the RN in building repeat Ark Royals was the shortage of aircrew. With just 16 additional aircrew per annum, pre-war, it was going to take a month of Sundays to get enough pilots to put planes on the carriers. Once the war broke out, this number crept up slowly, to something like about 400 new pilots per year (very roughly). But the early years of the war for the RN was a veritable pilot drought, caused mainly by the need to train the pilots for bad weather and night flying capabilities.
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices
parsifal is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 01:05 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
starling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: bomber command hq.
Posts: 162
syscom,i think the u.s.n already had bb,ca and cl,in 1936 and several other heavy units in different states of construction.yours,starling.
__________________
"Every German city,is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier".
starling is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 01:52 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,753
ACīs do not exist stripped out of context. With carrier airborne technology of the mid 30īs in mind, I donīt see a justification for such a drastic measure. The Swordfish fully equipped with torpedo had to be launched from uncomfortable distance to enemy capital ships (Jurens wrote "almost in within gunrange", which probably exagerates the issue). In within the North Atlantic theatre with associated poor weather conditions (raider usually prefer these conditions for their breakouts) air power is not always a viable option and the history of engagements between carriers and enemy surface forces in gunrange is a single sided one...

To justify such a building program we need to define and answer the following questions, preferably without using experiences not avaiable to them in the mid 30īs:
1.) Does it make sense technically?
2.) Does it make sense strategically?
3.) Is it logistically possible?

which I knew the answers....
__________________
---delcyros---
delcyros is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 02:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
syscom3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 10,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by starling View Post
syscom,i think the u.s.n already had bb,ca and cl,in 1936 and several other heavy units in different states of construction.yours,starling.
In 1936, the only BB that was under construction was the USS North Carolina. And that class didn't have the speed to keep up with the carriers.

The Cleveland and Baltimore class CA's were just preliminary designs in the BuShips drafting shops.

The fleet buildup you're thinking of didn't happen untill 1940 when congress essentially opened the wallets to build a two ocean navy.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"
syscom3 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 04:41 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
freebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 2,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by delcyros View Post
ACīs do not exist stripped out of context. With carrier airborne technology of the mid 30īs in mind, I donīt see a justification for such a drastic measure. The Swordfish fully equipped with torpedo had to be launched from uncomfortable distance to enemy capital ships (Jurens wrote "almost in within gunrange", which probably exagerates the issue). In within the North Atlantic theatre with associated poor weather conditions (raider usually prefer these conditions for their breakouts) air power is not always a viable option and the history of engagements between carriers and enemy surface forces in gunrange is a single sided one...
And in the close confines of the "Med", the carriers would be so close to enemy air cover {from Sicily or Crete} that they could overwhelm a carrier's CAP {before 1942 most UK carriers had only 1 squadron of fighters}

Plus many of the significant engagements took place at night, the superiority of the RN BB's fighting at night {with radar} helped allow them to keep control of the Med, even when outnumbered
__________________
freebird is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 09:33 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
starling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: bomber command hq.
Posts: 162
carriers and destroyers.

i believe the u.s.n had approx 20 cruisers,built or under construction in 1936.and how does one term ..fast..in bb,s,24knots perhaps.and i would want decent dd,s,with d-p guns,of 4.75in-to 5in.how many destroyers could one build,instead of 1 large bb.yours,starling.
__________________
"Every German city,is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier".
starling is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 12:59 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
syscom3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 10,814
The US had only 2 CA's and & 6 CL's (Brooklyn class) under construction in 1936.
__________________
"Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"
syscom3 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 07:13 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
starling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: bomber command hq.
Posts: 162
i looked in the ..cruiser..site,on the first page of this thread.starling.
__________________
"Every German city,is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier".
starling is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 07:53 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
parsifal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,493
And in the close confines of the "Med", the carriers would be so close to enemy air cover {from Sicily or Crete} that they could overwhelm a carrier's CAP {before 1942 most UK carriers had only 1 squadron of fighters}


Freebird
British Carriers demonstrated their potency and survivability in the central basin time and again. IF the brits had opted for more Ark Royals, instead of Illustrous types, AND they could put the planes on them (something that they manifestly could NOT do, because the RAF controlled the procurement machine until 1938, then the Brits would have been able to nearly double their airpower, for no real additional cost. The Ark Royal had a carrying capacity of 63 A/C to the Illustroius' 36 (in 1940. If the Brits could actually put 63 aircraft on the same number of hulls, they would have been a real challenge to the Axis control of the central basin.

Plus many of the significant engagements took place at night, the superiority of the RN BB's fighting at night {with radar} helped allow them to keep control of the Med, even when outnumbered

From 1940, until the middle of 1942 (very roughly), the British CAGs were trained as night capable. Night Landings, ASV radar, the use of flares were all standard stuff for British CAGs. Moreover the equipment (particualrly the Swordfish had a remarkable ability to make rough weather T/O & Landings
__________________
Do not judge on abilities, but on choices
parsifal is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
Design by HTWoRKS


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125