Battleship/Carrier hybrid

[rickshaw]

Some of the Japanese Carriers with 8" guns had some of them casemate mounted aft, which is another approach to the turrets vs flight deck problem, albeit one that creates it's own set of problems.

If all the aircraft have to be struck down in order to be safe during gunnery actions, then that limits the already-compromised air complement in much the same was as RN pre-war carrier design did. US and Japanese carriers routinely used deck parks even prior to WWII, and the RN was forced to adopt them too. Also, the US deck ops cycle envisaged building up a large number of aircraft on deck, launching them in a short time, and then recovering them to a deck park at the bow, with some of the aircraft only being struck down below later. If a gunnery situation developed during either of these operations, it would be difficult to clear the flight deck in a short time, even if all the aircraft could be accomodated in the hangar.

True, however it would be an extremely lucky situation for your opponent that they were able to close to gunnery range without being detected by your aircraft while your aircraft were engaged in intensive air operations.

Further, you are assuming that air operations would have developed in the same way as did those of conventional, purpose built carriers, if hybrid carriers had been adopted.

BTW, Stalin was very keen on hybrid carriers, with several designs being considered by the Red Navy in the interwar and even post-war periods.

[Radish]

But what about hybrid carriers in the assault role.....

a carrier lobbing 15" shells inland while ground attack aircrafr support would be very impressive surely, especially as you're often missing the point....hybrid carriers look so damned cool.

[Weaver]

Some of the Japanese Carriers with 8" guns had some of them casemate mounted aft, which is another approach to the turrets vs flight deck problem, albeit one that creates it's own set of problems.

If all the aircraft have to be struck down in order to be safe during gunnery actions, then that limits the already-compromised air complement in much the same was as RN pre-war carrier design did. US and Japanese carriers routinely used deck parks even prior to WWII, and the RN was forced to adopt them too. Also, the US deck ops cycle envisaged building up a large number of aircraft on deck, launching them in a short time, and then recovering them to a deck park at the bow, with some of the aircraft only being struck down below later. If a gunnery situation developed during either of these operations, it would be difficult to clear the flight deck in a short time, even if all the aircraft could be accomodated in the hangar.

True, however it would be an extremely lucky situation for your opponent that they were able to close to gunnery range without being detected by your aircraft while your aircraft were engaged in intensive air operations.

Not at night or in bad weather with 1930s aircraft. This scenario was the prime reason for the 8" armed carriers.

Further, you are assuming that air operations would have developed in the same way as did those of conventional, purpose built carriers, if hybrid carriers had been adopted.

Whatever model of carrier ops developed, the physical limitations on the speed with which aircraft could be landed and struck down and on how many could be accomodated in a hangar would remain the same. The fundamental point is that if a hybrid has 2/3 the deck and a hangar space of a small carrier, then if it has to strike all it's aircraft below for a gunnery action, it will have significantly less than 2/3 of the aircraft compliment. This doesn't make the hybrid technically un-doable, it just gives yet another reason for not doing it.

[Weaver]

But what about hybrid carriers in the assault role.....

a carrier lobbing 15" shells inland while ground attack aircrafr support would be very impressive surely, especially as you're often missing the point....hybrid carriers look so damned cool.

Well see my previous post about S.American BBs converted for amphibious ops. Some of these had middle turrets that could be sacrificed for a hangar and two, sided helo platforms, while still leaving four turrets fore and aft.

The hybrid assault ship would look even more impressive as the the shells from the shore battery crashed through it's lightly armoured aircraft section and started a catastrophic aviation fuel fire. Just not for long.....

[beowulf]

..hybrid carriers look so damned cool.

got to agree there...........they might be totally wrong for the real world but they make a great subject for whiffdom

ever since i joined this forum i have seen various threads about battle carriers and it has facinated me..........to the point that i have one in the planning stage 

[dy031101]

The hybrid assault ship would look even more impressive as the the shells from the shore battery crashed through it's lightly armoured aircraft section and started a catastrophic aviation fuel fire. Just not for long.....

I've been under the impression that coastal artillery role was often (though not always) fulfilled by guns rendered obsolete as a weapon against surface combatants.  Some had been given ammunitions that allowed them to shoot further than they ever could afloat, but others might have trouble hitting cruisers or above with a battery of decent guns.

Of course if the converted ship in question was an old warship itself, the water is narrow or otherwise confined, or the guns happened to be former battleship guns or even not old at all, the hybrids can still be in for trouble, especially when the attacker cannot dedicate other, better-protected ships to suppress those guns.

[Weaver]

There was all sorts of coastal artillery from obsolete ironclad guns to specially built, utterly modern stuff (still is in some parts of the world). Generally speaking, it's considered a hiding for nothing for a battleship to engage a shore battery: the battery has a better fire control solution (because it's not moving and there's no limit how high or big it's rangefinders can be) and it can achieve results by hitting the relatively large battleship anywhere, whereas the latter can only take out the battery with a direct hit on the relatively small turret/embrasure: you can't sink a country by gunfire!

Anyway, let's not get hung up on coastal artillery specifically: my underlying point was that a gunnery ship doing NGS is making a retaliation-magnet of itself while very close to a hostile shore, and that the aircraft facilities of a hybrid make it significantly less able to withstand that retaliation.

[rickshaw]

Some of the Japanese Carriers with 8" guns had some of them casemate mounted aft, which is another approach to the turrets vs flight deck problem, albeit one that creates it's own set of problems.

If all the aircraft have to be struck down in order to be safe during gunnery actions, then that limits the already-compromised air complement in much the same was as RN pre-war carrier design did. US and Japanese carriers routinely used deck parks even prior to WWII, and the RN was forced to adopt them too. Also, the US deck ops cycle envisaged building up a large number of aircraft on deck, launching them in a short time, and then recovering them to a deck park at the bow, with some of the aircraft only being struck down below later. If a gunnery situation developed during either of these operations, it would be difficult to clear the flight deck in a short time, even if all the aircraft could be accomodated in the hangar.

True, however it would be an extremely lucky situation for your opponent that they were able to close to gunnery range without being detected by your aircraft while your aircraft were engaged in intensive air operations.

Not at night or in bad weather with 1930s aircraft. This scenario was the prime reason for the 8" armed carriers.

And at night or in bad weather most aircraft would be struck down below in the hangar.  You seem to be making an assumption that carrier operations would conducted in say 1930, when this sort of design was popular,  how they were in 1945.  They weren't.

Further, you are assuming that air operations would have developed in the same way as did those of conventional, purpose built carriers, if hybrid carriers had been adopted.

Whatever model of carrier ops developed, the physical limitations on the speed with which aircraft could be landed and struck down and on how many could be accomodated in a hangar would remain the same. The fundamental point is that if a hybrid has 2/3 the deck and a hangar space of a small carrier, then if it has to strike all it's aircraft below for a gunnery action, it will have significantly less than 2/3 of the aircraft compliment. This doesn't make the hybrid technically un-doable, it just gives yet another reason for not doing it.

As I pointed out, it need not have a flight deck only 1/3rd the size if the deck carriered over the top of the turrets and its hangar would actually be about the same size as that of a conventional carrier of the period.

[proditor]

The other consideration is who made the hybrid?

If it's the US, well, standard policy from the get-go was deck parks.  That's going to be a huge potential problem if you locate those nicely flimsy 1930's biplanes anywhere near a big gun.  Since the UK didn't adopt them until 1943, I think they become a more viable old school candidate.

[rickshaw]

The other consideration is who made the hybrid?

If it's the US, well, standard policy from the get-go was deck parks.  That's going to be a huge potential problem if you locate those nicely flimsy 1930's biplanes anywhere near a big gun.  Since the UK didn't adopt them until 1943, I think they become a more viable old school candidate.

Hybrid carriers would be most likely attractive to smaller navies or those operating in more confined waters, I suspect.   The US Navy, operating primarily in the Pacific wouldn't find them as useful.  As for large deck parks, there are ways to protect the aircraft from blast.  What would be even more damaging would be the incoming shells.

[proditor]

Any gun battle gun is going to cause a problem for a hybrid.  That's in large part why everyone got excited about the idea, then abandoned it, then got excited again when the next generation of equipment made them seem viable again. 

[ysi_maniac]

What if HMS Iron Duke received same treatement as Ise/Hyuga?

[NARSES2]

Interesting idea. Might have needed the mid-ships turret removed as well though ?

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^
Ise and Hyuga kept 2 center turrets. IMHO, the point is the could carry only float planes and thus it did not need big flat deck.

[Scotaidh]

I am now contemplating building my dad's old ship, HMS Implacable, with turrets from HMS Revenge in place of the Impy's dual 4.5s.  Might have to lower the sponsons a bit, and have only single turrets instead of pairs of them per sponson.

What d'ye reckon?