Battleship/Carrier hybrid

[Radish]

Oh bugger....mine'll be different though lol.

[GTX]

I see you have begun your search for the Holy Grail of naval combat in the 1930's, the aircraft equipped surface combatant.   

Everyone has taken a shot at it design-wise, and the best source for ideas I can suggest is "The Hybrid Warship" by R. D. Layman and Stephen McLaughlin.

The problem is that I'm not sure where to tell you to get this otherwise excellent book as it is LONG out of print and usually goes for well in excess of $100 US.  I have a few photocopied pages of the designs, and I understand there are more...pirate-like...ways to get the book.  It is a stunner though, just based on all of the drawings and the little bit of text I've seen.

Our local library used to have it, but when I went there for the first ime in ages the other week, it had gone....

That would be this one:



If anyone wants to know how to get a copy, just PM me.

Regards,

Greg

[ysi_maniac]

Does anyone know what project does this cover illustration represent?

Where can I get more info?
Thanks

[Jschmus]

Does anyone know what project does this cover illustration represent?

Where can I get more info?
Thanks

If I'm not mistaken, that is the Lion "battlecarrier" which is mentioned earlier in the thread.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^^
I think you are right.

BTW: another good candidte for this hybrid config would be HMS Hood, this allows a quite long flyght deck. Castle config would be inspired in HMS Eagle.

[proditor]

^^^^^
I think you are right.

BTW: another good candidte for this hybrid config would be HMS Hood, this allows a quite long flyght deck. Castle config would be inspired in HMS Eagle.

Good call, Hood has such a short bow with the a & b turrets, it gives you a massive amount of space for a flight deck!

[ysi_maniac]

... another good candidte for this hybrid config would be HMS Hood, this allows a quite long flyght deck. Castle config would be inspired in HMS Eagle.

1st proposal: more battleship (6x15 inch. guns) and less carrier. Perhaps aircrafts are there only for self defence and recce
2nd proposal: more carrier and less battleship (only 4x15 inch. guns)

Which do you prefer? Please, your comments.
Thanks

[lenny100]

what time frame are you looking at? 1910-1930s i go for 1 but 1940- go for 2

[proditor]

I agree with Lenny  on the timeframes.  I also just prefer 2 aesthetically.

[ysi_maniac]

what time frame are you looking at? 1910-1930s i go for 1 but 1940- go for 2

Yes, the short flight deck would be ok for biplanes and the long one for monoplanes.

[Weaver]

If I remember the Hybrids book correctly, all rear-turret designs fell down due to excessive turbulence behind the flight deck. That would be even worse for lightweight biplanes, so I would say that only design 2 is a goer.


The reason why no "proper" carrier-battleships were built is actually a triumph of correct operational analysis. What you've got is a bad battleship and a bad aircraft carrier in one hull that's almost always going to be in the wrong place to do either job. At gunnery ranges, the aircraft facilities seriously compromise the survivability of the battleship, while at air-strike ranges, the guns are useless and detract from the carrier's ability to launch a concentrated, forceful attack by reducing deck and hangar space.

Just about the only half-decent justification for big guns on a carrier was the suggestion that they should carry some 8-inch guns to protect them from marauding cruisers approaching them at night or in bad weather, and indeed, some early carriers were built with such guns. Generally speaking though, carriers were recognised as important enough and scarce enough to be afforded an escort of cruisers which were inherently better gunnery platforms.

[dy031101]

What you've got is a bad battleship and a bad aircraft carrier in one hull that's almost always going to be in the wrong place to do either job. At gunnery ranges, the aircraft facilities seriously compromise the survivability of the battleship, while at air-strike ranges, the guns are useless and detract from the carrier's ability to launch a concentrated, forceful attack by reducing deck and hangar space.

IIRC, Japanese chose Ise and Hyuga for aviation battleship reconstruction because, other than the turret explosion of Hyuga, the turret they lost during the reconstruction cannot be upgraded for higher gun elevations anyway.  I think www.navweaps.com has a detailed article about it here......

If the Royal Navy was that desperate for carriers, maybe they'd have considered one...... but I guess that was why CVEs were built in droves.

I'd vote for Proposal 2 as well...... you probably wouldn't need three turrets to handle the Admiral Hipper class and Leipzig class cruisers......

[ysi_maniac]

Just about the only half-decent justification for big guns on a carrier was the suggestion that they should carry some 8-inch guns to protect them from marauding cruisers approaching them at night or in bad weather, and indeed, some early carriers were built with such guns. Generally speaking though, carriers were recognised as important enough and scarce enough to be afforded an escort of cruisers which were inherently better gunnery platforms.

OK, What about following argument?: Escorting north convoys to Russia. With enough light, planes will make the job, with less light or bad wheather (very frequent in fact) the guns will work. Think that summer convoys were stopped (in real world) because it was not possible to warrant security. With this solution you can have a credible protection in any condition; sometimes you can not know the conditions in advance.

Just to continue this polite discussion

[proditor]

Now don't get me wrong, I love a good hybrid.  Heck, I'm making several at the moment.  The big problem with them though is that if they take battle damage, they tend to stop working well as carriers, and if they operate properly to support flight operations/strike doctrine, they never get close enough to use their guns on the enemy.  They almost become viable the closer to modern times you get, and the dream of the self-protecting multi-role ship seems possible.  The closet thing I've seen is the self-supporting amphibious striker.  Small group of strike aircraft, big guns for off shore artillery support.  Sort of the Ise with Harriers as the airwing.  I have one Iowa going down that road.

But, I like the idea that something forces the idea as a one off.  Convoy support becomes quasi-viable beyond even Russian convys if you figure the attemnpt is to make a ship that will annihilate anything smaller than a battleship with her guns, and will attack subs and other capital ships with her air wing.  Is it still probably non-viable?  Sure, but at a time that you have ancient battleships attached to convoys to add some firepower, it starts looking attractive to have the cannons and escort carrier in one package.  I think the only hurdle to overcome then is how is this an advantage over two purpose built ships?  Shortage of crew, resources, fuel, any could be exploited to explin why mediocore at both is better than having to NOT have one of them.

Sorry for the ramble, mostly just free associating. 

[NARSES2]

I think you've made a good case as to why you might have had a Hybrid see service there Proditor. Especially if one had been built pre-war when they were seen as the coming must have and then pressed into service regradless of it's faults at a time of crisis.

Chris