US Aircraft Cruisers

[John 3rd]

Over in the RA Thread we are discussing the merits of allowing for one or two of the experimental US Aircraft Cruisers designs. The idea would be that they might be built in 1930--1932 and be classified as Adm. Moffat wanted as a CL (to count against Washington Naval Treaty cruiser tonnage and NOT CV tonnage). The design was for a 12,000 T vessel, moving at 30Kts, carry 24 planes (12 F and 12 DB), mount 3x3 6" turrets, and have 8x1 5"-25 Cal HA guns for AA.

Questions:
1. Does anyone have ship art for this experimental vessel?
2. Would the US have built one or two as their experiment?

What do you think? It is an INTERESTING vessel but not sure past that...

[Terminus]

It was an interesting concept in building a vessel to implement a raiding doctrine that would be made obsolete by the half of the ship that was carrying aircraft...

I'd say the USN would probably only have built the one; they weren't shy about creating one-offs.

[John 3rd]

The information I just used comes from John Jordan's Warships After Washington.

[Terminus]

I know. When would you propose that the USN would construct this mutant?[:D] Not a lot of money to throw around in the Navy before the Two Ocean Act.

[John 3rd]

Solid comment. Even Roosevelt couldn't squeeze more blood from the deficit turnip for his beloved Navy...

[Terminus]

And delayed construction gives more time to look at the design and come to the historical conclusion, namely that it was too small for its intended role.

[DOCUP]

Not argueing with anyone, but it is a fantasy mod.  These ships werent good for much but they can be use in a similart fashion as the Jap CS ships.  Early in the war they can be used as a scout ship for raiding parties.  Due to the lack of CVs.  If they make it into the later parts of the war use it or them with amphib or other types of TFs.  
 
I vote for 2. 

[Don Bowen]

As a cruiser the aircraft handling portion was a detriment (and a danger). As a carrier the cruiser portion was a waste of valuable space. And, with 1942 sized aircraft, their aircraft complements would be negligible.

If these ships were built they would most likely be converted before or early in the war. Could be to CL, most likely to CVL. Either way they were still a poor tradeoff.

[John 3rd]

We could allow for 1 or 2 built and seen as failures. Could we make them able to carry just fighters in 1941-42? Imagine a plane complement of 18-24. Would they have an organic air group/squadron OR would they be perfect for carrying a Marine Fighter Squadron?

As soon as possible we could allow for a conversion to a CVL possibility. If the player like having it then it can remain the same and have an upgrade path where more AA is added as the war progresses.

Wouldn't this be an interesting addition in the Philippines on Dec 7th. A refugee ship sent to the graveyard of ships: the Asiatic Fleet.

Just a thought...

[John 3rd]

Does anyone have ART WORK of this ship? Anyone interesting in trying to make some?

[wdolson]

Both the early IJN and US CVs were built with 8 inch guns. The Akagi and Kaga had triple flying off decks when built, though one of them had 8 inch guns at the end of the deck. Before the war began the idea of having ship to ship guns on a carrier was declared obsolete.

If the US had built these CL/CVL hybrids, they probably would have been converted to pure CVLs by the start of the war.

Bill

[John 3rd]

I tend to agree but would the Americans do a costly conversion in 1939-1940 when all that new construction was underway? Maybe. Maybe not. Those BBs at Pearl desperately NEEDED to be upgraded but weren't.

[DOCUP]

John

Post number 11

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2594041&mpage=1&key=&#2594041

They would of prob not been converted in my book.

edit: look at post 49 also.

[John 3rd]

I PM'd Gary about this.

[wdolson]

I suspect if the US did have such hybrids, they would have been converted early in the war if not before. The Lexingtons had the 8 inch turrets removed in March 42.

The US was conducting a crash program to convert the Independence class CVLs while under construction. If a couple of hybrid cruiser carriers have been around, the navy planners probably would have seen them as cheap CVLs faster to convert to full CVLs than the Independence class carriers. The Independence class only came about because the navy foresaw that there would likely be a shortage of deck capacity by early 43 and the Essex class wouldn't be available in numbers until late 43. The CVLs were a stopgap.

Bill

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I suspect if the US did have such hybrids, they would have been converted early in the war if not before. The Lexingtons had the 8 inch turrets removed in March 42.

The US was conducting a crash program to convert the Independence class CVLs while under construction. If a couple of hybrid cruiser carriers have been around, the navy planners probably would have seen them as cheap CVLs faster to convert to full CVLs than the Independence class carriers. The Independence class only came about because the navy foresaw that there would likely be a shortage of deck capacity by early 43 and the Essex class wouldn't be available in numbers until late 43. The CVLs were a stopgap.

Bill

Bill: Everything said in the above Post makes great sense. I think this is something that could be done.

RA allows for a near immediate set of conversions. A number of AOs can become CVEs as well as the Omaha-Class can become CLAA. Would only make sense to allow this option as well for the hybrid.

Any thoughts for a name to this unique little bird?

[Hotschi]

About names, if like CV's after famous ships or battles;

1.) Wright
2.) Constellation
3.) Constitution
4.) Kitty Hawk
5.) Any Civil War Battle not used for the Essex/Ticonderoga

Or take territories (just like the late-war CB's)

[Don Bowen]

North Point (the land portion of the defense of Baltimore in the War of 1814)

Kings Mountain (the companion battle to Cowpens)

Stone Mountain (a civil war battle before Atlanta where, incidentally, my mother's grandfather was severely wounded)

Shiloh (civil war)

Fredericksburg (both a city and a civil war battle so both cruiser and carrier naming conventions work)

[John 3rd]

Fredericksburg certainly fits for BOTH categories.

[oldman45]

What planes would you have on there in 1941? Not sure the Buffalo's would work and the SBD's might be too heavy.