WesWorld

I am in the midst of a thought experiment and am faced with several options, so I invite your comments regarding them.

It is 1939; a European colonial power is drawing up its naval construction program and has decided upon most of the ships to be laid down, but sufficient tonnage is available to embark upon some construction of large ships. Now, the threat of war is not imminent, but not impossible. The chief naval rival is a European power that shares a common land border and competes for control of the adjacent seas. The secondary naval rival is an expansionist oriental power that could pose a threat to the country's colonial possessions. The options under consideration for 1939's additional construction are:

1 - Commence construction of one (possibly two) battleships/battlecruisers to strengthen the battle force - which presently comprises four modern battleships (completed within the last four years), four older battleships that have been modernized within the last four years, and two modern battlecruisers (completed within the prior six years).

2 - Commence construction of one (possibly two) heavy cruisers, partly to replace two units approaching fifteen years of age. The heavy cruiser force comprises six other units of more recent vintage, but none less than eight years old.

3 - Commence construction of one (possibly two) aircraft carriers to expand an exiting force of five units - one constructed on a converted battlecruiser hull, vintage 1925, one a rather light 'from scratch' design of 1930, and three units constructed in the 1930s that are considered quite battle-worthy.

Of course the impact of carrier aviation (as would be shown by the historical Second World War) is unknown. The European naval rival has not - at this point in time - constructed any aircraft carriers. The Oriental naval rival has constructed several units of varying tonnages.

Please offer comments as you see fit. Pertinent questions are welcome as well.

Not an expert but let's give it a try.
A geography question. Assuming that the world map is the same that the real one. Where are located your country and colonies, more or less?
How well do your flets match the ones of your potential enemies? (Supposing that you divide your navy between Europe and Asia).

Quoted from "M_Fredi"

Not an expert but let's give it a try.
A geography question. Assuming that the world map is the same that the real one. Where are located your country and colonies, more or less?
How well do your flets match the ones of your potential enemies? (Supposing that you divide your navy between Europe and Asia).

I've deliberately kept the details of the description of the rival powers vague, in order to hold preconceptions to the minimum. The world map is historical, and the situation is set in the aftermath of the First World War (1914-1918). One of the factors in play is the need to balance commitments in Europe versus commitments in the colonial possessions that are scattered about the globe.

On the whole I think I have done that well enough but the state of technology in the latter part of the 1930s forces the question, as air power is on the cusp of being able to overcome surface warships but that has yet to be demonstrated - at least in my mind. I am wondering how others might see the situation. Sorry for being rather nebulous.

I'm guessing our fictional naval power (let's call it Ruritania) was a signatory of WNT and London? Were the recent capital ships built to those standards?

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

I'm guessing our fictional naval power (let's call it Ruritania) was a signatory of WNT and London? Were the recent capital ships built to those standards?

Actually, no. I am proceeding on the presumptions that the Washington Naval Treaty did not come into force. Neither have I presumed that the subsequent London naval treaties were agreed to. I *have* assumed that the realities of postwar finances induced general economies among the major powers. I have not ruled out in my thinking that some sort of general naval armament treaty may have been agreed to among the powers, but the historical treaties are not in play.

What sort of tonnage is allotted to this building program, more specifically what tonnage is available to use on the options you have proposed? It would also be helpful to know exact fleet deployments in order to access which fleets need what ships.

Quoted from "thesmilingassassin"

What sort of tonnage is allotted to this building program, more specifically what tonnage is available to use on the options you have proposed? It would also be helpful to know exact fleet deployments in order to access which fleets need what ships.

The question is not one of specific fleet deployments the specifics of the tonnage available, but of philosophy. With what we know now of the Second World War the aircraft carrier is too obvious a choice. Making that choice would be the easy way out of my dilemma. As for tonnage availability, it is as I set out above - sufficient to put towards one, perhaps two, battleships/battlecruisers, one perhaps two large heavy cruisers, or one, perhaps two aircraft carriers.

And no, I do not see a "one from column A and one from column B" approach as that viable.

Mmmmmh. If there is no war really close in the horizont I think that replace those heavy cruisers is the best option.

So in order to clarify my thought process, I decided to add details such as ship names, basic specs, and national strategy, since that's going to inform my answer. I'll be using the fictional Republic of Laurania, from Winston Churchill's novel Savrola. (Ruritania has been banished.)

Laurania is located on the Mediterranean, and expanded their continental territory during WWI, largely at the expense of Austria-Hungary; they remain concerned about Italy, but they do not share a border with Germany. They are friendly with, but not allied to, the United Kingdom and France.

They possess two naval bases in the metropole, with the primary base and major shipyard at Portaferra, and a second base and shipyard at the City of Laurania (the national capital). Secondary ports and shipyards are located in Pelaya, Lorenza, and Turga.

Laurania possesses a number of significant overseas colonies:
- Nuva Xalla: Eastern Africa, acquired in the late 1800s; also called Lauranian Somaliland. Primary port and naval base is Porto Kamboni. Includes a small offshore archipelago.
- Gongshan: Exclave on the southern coast of China, captured from Austria-Hungary during WWI; a significant trading port near Macao and Hong Kong. One of two Lauranian naval bases in Asia.
- Yuzhao: Exclave on the central coast of China, acquired during the Boxer Rebellion.
- Lauranian East Indies: Composed of the Spice Islands (Îsolles da épizie), Lambi, Roanapur, and Sulapur. Main port cities are Roanapur and Portoantonio. Portoantonio is the second Lauranian naval base in Asia, and has a drydock for major repairs.
- Lauranian Antilles: chain of four small islands in the Caribbean, acquired from Sweden in 1899.

As of 1939, the major forces of the Armada da Laurania are in overall excellent shape:

Quoted

ARMADA DA LAURANIA

Quoted

CAPITAL SHIPS (LE NAVIRA CORASSÉ)
Bellona-class Battleship: a dreadnought battleship massively reconstructed; the amidships 32cm turret was removed, and speed increased. 8x32cm guns (4x2), 21 knots (27 post-rebuilt), 26,500t.
-- Bellona - Dreadnought #1 (1915, reconstructed 1935)
-- Victoria - Dreadnought #2 (1916, reconstructed 1935)

Cape Cheronta-class Battleship: a dreadnought battleship laid down to counter the Caracciolo and Ersatz Monarch-class. 8x38cm guns (4x2), 26 knots (28 modernized), 34,000t.
-- Cape Cheronta - Dreadnought #3 (1920, modernized 1936)
-- Baia di Rocaille - Dreadnought #4 (1921, modernized 1936)

Saldanho-class Fast Battleship: a very modern fast battleship, replacing the predecessors to the Bellona-class. 8x38cm guns (2x4 all-forward), 29 knots, 38,000t.
-- Saldanho - Fast Battleship #1 (1935)
-- Fortuna - Fast Battleship #2 (1936)
-- Coutinha - Fast Battleship #3 (1937)
-- Caserta - Fast Battleship #4 (1938)

Quoted

BATTLECRUISERS (INCROISEURTORE DA BATTAIGLLE)
Sorato-class Battlecruiser: a modern battlecruiser, designed for the Asiatic Fleet (Flotta da Asiateque). 8x32cm guns (2x4 all-forward), 31 knots, 29,500t
-- Sorato - Battlecruiser #1 (1933)
-- Petrach - Battlecruiser #2 (1934)

Quoted

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS (PORTE-AEREI)
Aiguile-class Aircraft Carrier: converted battlecruiser hull, 36 aircraft, 31 knots, 22,000t
-- Aiguile - Converted BC (1925)

Faulcon-class Aircraft Carrier: light carrier sharing propulsion plant with the Alzira-class heavy cruisers. 36 aircraft, 31 knots, 12,000t
-- Faulcon - Light carrier (1930)

Implacable-class Aircraft Carrier: modern armoured-deck fleet carrier, 56 aircraft, 31 knots, 28,000t
-- Implacable - Modern carrier #1 (1935)
-- Valeurosa - Modern carrier #2 (1935)

Formidabile-class Aircraft Carrier: modern armoured-deck strike carrier, 56 aircraft, 31 knots, 26,000t
-- Formidabile - Modern carrier #3 (1937)

Quoted

CRUISERS (INCROISEURTORE 1° CLASSE)
Rienzi-class Heavy Cruiser: first heavy cruiser design, 6x20cm guns, 31 knots, 9,500t. "Paperclad."
-- Rienzi - Heavy Cruiser #1 (1924)
-- Stradella - Heavy Cruiser #2 (1924)

Moret-class Heavy Cruiser: fixes design flaws of the Rienzi-class; 8x21cm guns, 31 knots, 10,200t.
-- Moret - Heavy Cruiser #3 (1927)
-- Godoy - Heavy Cruiser #4 (1927)
-- Savrola - Heavy Cruiser #5 (1928)
-- Renos - Heavy Cruiser #6 (1928)

Alzira-class Heavy Cruiser: new design improved over the Moret-class, 8x21cm, 33 knots, 11,500t.
-- Alzira - Heavy Cruiser #7 (1931)
-- Capodimonte - Heavy Cruiser #8 (1931)

* * * * * * *

Quoted

DEPLOYMENTS
Mediterranean Fleet - HQ Portaferra
- 1st Battle Squadron: Coutinha, Caserta
- 2nd Battle Squadron: Bellona, Victoria
- 3rd Battle Squadron: Cape Cheronta, Baia di Rocaille
- 4th Battle Squadron: Saldanho, Fortuna
- 1st Carrier Squadron: Implacable, Valeurosa
- 2nd Carrier Squadron: Formidabile
- 3rd Carrier Squadron: Aiguile, Faulcon (latter primarily used for transport and for pilot training)
- 2nd Cruiser Squadron: Moret, Godoy, Savrola, Renos
- 3rd Cruiser Squadron: Alzira, Capodimonte

Asiatic Fleet - HQ Portoantonio
- 1st Battlecruiser Squadron: Sorato, Petrach
- The most modern light cruisers, or alternatively the ones with the best cruising range; prefer at least four ships deployed to the LEI, and two more available for the China stations
- Numerous sloops, at least sixteen preferred, to conduct presence missions ranging from Polynesia to Australia to the Chinese coast, with an emphasis on the latter

African Fleet - HQ Portaferra
- 1st Cruiser Squadron: Rienzi, Stradella
- Colonial sloops assigned to colonial policing, as well as presence missions ranging from India to South Africa

Atlantic Fleet
- Two Light Cruisers, assigned primarily for trade protection and port calls to the US, Western Europe, and South America
- Colonial gunboats deployed to the Antilles

DOCTRINE
Most major assets are retained in the Mediterranean Fleet, based out of Portaferra. This means that the fleet is always primarily available to conduct operations in the primary potential theatre of war. The two oldest heavy cruisers are deployed in Africa, where they are regularly employed for trade protection and presence mission duties. The two Sorato-class battlecruisers are deployed to the Lauranian East Indies, along with several fast light cruisers and sloops (gunboats) for colonial policing. Their mission, in the event of war with the Expansionist Oriental Power, is commerce raiding while awaiting the arrival of the Mediterranean Fleet. It is expected that the Mediterranean Fleet will arrive prior to the capture of the major naval bases in Asia.

Lauranian sloops and light cruisers in the Pacific Fleet are aggressively employed in presence missions to ensure that the Expansionist Oriental Power knows that Laurania won't roll over without a fight. The battlecruisers, however, are used more judiciously, so that the EOP does not find their presence too provocative.

Carrier doctrine follows British principles. Doctrine has "battle carriers" sailing close to the battleship squadrons, and operating in close concert with them, protecting the battleships from hostile air attack, scouting for enemy surface units, and conducting preliminary strikes to harass and disrupt enemy surface combatants in the hours leading up to a surface gun engagement. The "strike carrier" operates independently of the battleships and the battle carriers, allowing the battle carriers to find and engage the enemy, and then move forward to attack from unexpected directions, as well as sinking enemy stragglers escaping from a surface gun action. Armoured flight decks are strongly preferred for both battle carriers and strike carriers.

The Lauranian Third Sea Lord's Preference
At the moment, the Lauranian Third Sea Lord requests a second armoured strike carrier, Intrépida, built either to a larger design, or if fiscally limited, to a modernized Formidabile-class design. If built, the Intrépida can potentially replace the aging Aiguile (which is fourteen years old, and lacks the survivability and aircraft-operating potential of our more modern carriers. Additionally, we would ensure that the Armada da Laurania always possessed at least one battle carrier / strike carrier pair, even if Formidabile should be disabled by attack or absent due to maintenance.

The acquisition of this carrier will help maintain the Armada da Laurania's ability to defend against aggression from the Expansionist Oriental Power, which has invested significantly in their own carrier assets. Should the Armada be called to defend our overseas possessions, we require the ability to shield our own battle fleet from hostile observation and potential attack, while wearing down the enemy surface units with constant air attack in the hours preceding the surface action. In the event of a war against our European rival, this carrier will expand our pre-existing lead over them, and allow us greater flexibility in harassing their capital ships prior to surface gun action, or ensuring that damaged enemy units are sunk after the gun action.

If the Lauranian Parliament will not accept this proposal, the Third Sea Lord requests two heavy cruiser replacements for the cruisers of the Rienzi class. These vessels are aging, lightly-armoured, and significantly inferior to other vessels used by both European, American, and Oriental powers at this present time. This department strongly recommends the use of the new 23.4cm twin turret available from the British, giving our new ships a qualitative firepower edge over foreign designs.

More capital units are not deemed necessary at the present time, as our fleet is quite well-supplied with modern or modernized vessels. However, the naval architects should prepare a follow-on design to the Saldanho, as we should expect our regional rival to construct units comparable to our own (if these vessels are not already laid down).

And I thought that my answer was short.

Quoted from "M_Fredi"

And I thought that my answer was short.

I had things I really needed to do, and so I chose to procrastinate...

A wise choice. My personal favorite I must add.

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

Quoted from "M_Fredi"

And I thought that my answer was short.

I had things I really needed to do, and so I chose to procrastinate...

Thank you for taking the time to develop such a thorough answer well supported with reasoning Your suppositions are close to those I have proceeded upon, though some of doctrine is not - but that is not central to the question.

Conflict with the Expansionist Oriental Power is not seen as immediate, though eventual - baring a change of government within the EOP (which is seen as unlikely), and this impacts the question of timescale for naval construction. A heavy cruiser - depending upon tonnage - will take 25 plus months to construct and place into service; an aircraft carrier 35 plus months; a battleship 50 plus months.

Construction resources (available tonnage) were adversely strained due to the desire to modernize existing units of the battle fleet. Refits are expensive! But are seen as being worthwhile, within reason. The juncture of timescale and resources in my current planning year drove my question - in future years more resources will be available.

So I think the choice for the current year will be heavy cruisers, with aircraft carriers commencing in the subsequent building years.

Thank you all for your input.

I sorta had an idea yesterday what I would have picked myself with the limited info at hand. Originally I would have said build a medium sized strike carrier and two heavy cruisers and send them to the Pacific with your two battle cruisers and some destroyers (not knowing deployments) assuming that each plan had a "one or more" suggestion thereby suggesting one of each type from two plans was possible. From my perspective your navy has two issues, and aging cruiser force and a potential adversarial Asian power with CV's while your closest neighbor's do not. With only one plan as an option (dismissing the one of each type idea) I would say your Cruiser dilemma is the more pressing issue, a conclusion which apparently you have also reached. Your CV's and other assets could always be moved to other theater's in an emergency and forces built to replace/supplement them.

The use of the terms “battle carrier” and “strike carrier” highlight the philosophical conundrum imposed upon us by hindsight. Heirs of the result of the Second World War we are conditioned to accept the overwhelming value of naval air power. This was not always so. If you have the opportunity to find a copy, I would commend to you “Sunburst – The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power 1909-1941” by Mark R. Peattie.

The author examines the lengthy development of Japan’s carrier-based aviation as well as its land-based elements, giving balanced treatment to both. He investigates the conflicting opinions of naval officers on the value of naval aviation and its proper use, arguing that the Kido Butai striking force emerged almost by accident and was never quite fully accepted. It is worth a read.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

The use of the terms “battle carrier” and “strike carrier” highlight the philosophical conundrum imposed upon us by hindsight. Heirs of the result of the Second World War we are conditioned to accept the overwhelming value of naval air power.

Be that as it may, I believe my answer for another carrier (and the breakdown between the two types) matches the appropriate doctrine of the mid to late 1930s, as well as the information provided.

The reason I chose the carrier, and still feel it is the best option, is because there was no indication that Italy the rival European power is at naval parity with our theoretical nation - nor is there any indication that we have an inferior fleet (which might favor the choice of another battleship). I presume, since we have carriers and Italy the rival European power does not, we are probably in possession of a larger, or perhaps equivalent, navy. It seems to me that adding more battleships or heavy cruisers will not fundamentally change that overall calculus.

However, if we look to Japan the expansionist Oriental power, you've given information that they've built "several units of varying tonnages", which tells me that this is a place where our navy is being challenged for parity, or perhaps in danger of losing our supremacy of force. Combined with the "expansionist" moniker, this leads me to assign it Threat Level 1 status. Another pair of heavy cruisers does not address that threat. Another capital ship does not address that threat. Only a carrier matches that threat.

It's not a matter of viewing things with hindsight, but a matter of taking the threat assessment I've been given, and trying to find ways to answer it.

I should note, as a bit of an explanation for my choice of battle carrier / strike carrier dichotomy, that this is the RN's carrier doctrine in the 1930s. In my example, the Implacable-class is basically Ark Royal, while the trailing Formidabile is a close cousin of the Illustrious-class. I'm not using the USN doctrine of the massive knockout punch, but rather the RN's concept of always having aircraft in the air over the enemy, constantly harassing them, tiring them, observing them, inflicting pinprick wounds, and generally hindering them from completing their mission prior to meeting up with our own gun-line. That's a very period concept. The only thing I didn't include was the RN's emphasis on carrier night strikes, which they equipped for from 1939 onwards.

Edit to add an addendum:

I increasingly don't place a lot of faith in the hindsight argument about carrier construction. I had a brief look at new Royal Navy construction from 1936 to 1939, and this is what I found:
--- Battleship construction: 5 ships laid down totaling 211,000 tons displacement
--- Carrier construction: 8 ships laid down totaling 209,000 tons displacement

Only one carrier (Indefatigable) was laid down in 1939 after the start of the war; all of the other 1939 ships were ordered prior to that. It includes one ummmlight carrier (Unicorn) which served as a prototype for the later fleet light carriers.

Its difficult to compare the three main carrier nations fleets as they all seemed to have slightly different idea's with regards to carriers and their role. The Japanese viewed them as a type of ship that could clearly be used as a main asset to supplement the battleship, why else would they rebuild their four best capital ships and pair them up with its CV squadrons for much of the war? The Kongo's seldom left the big six CV's side and when they did it was for night bombardment and cruiser squashing, which ended badly for two of them. For much of the war the rest of the capital ships sailed in rearguard support groups with the intent of mopping up what the CV's softened up. The U.S. in contrast also saw the CV as a supplement for the battleship but still regarded the BB as the primary naval asset, a sort of reversal to the Japanese concept. Why wouldn't they when they had a battle line with 50% more ships?
The British took the same basic concept as the other two but instead created two types of CV for offensive and defensive use. You'll notice that three of the five British CV's lost were used in the offensive search and strike role (searching for subs should be left to smaller expendable CVE's! or learn to temper your enthusiasm for court marshals), while Eagle and Hermes were either too slow or didn't have large enough airwings. Eventually all three would adopt the others idea's such as the Japanese Unryu's being built to be convoy raiders (strike carrier anyone), while the Taiho paid homage to the British Illustrious class. It wasn't until the U.S.S. Midway that strike and battle carrier concept merged to create the CV as we know it today.

I feel the carrier option would be the best or a combination of a conversion and a couple of heavy cruisers.
A conversion may be less than optimal but when gaining experience it might be the best move unless your designers can get design support from an ally or can copy something good.

Regardless of doctrine the three main naval powers were building or had planned roughly equal numbers of carriers and battleships, which given their relatively small pre-war carrier fleets gave quite a large increase. Ironically the Japanese from 1939 seemed to bank more on their easily convertible seaplane cruisers and depot ships for wartime boosts in numbers. That seemed to have distracted away from effective fleet units but did give them more 'boost' when numbers were needed. Luckily when war broke out the USN had cruiser hulls it could convert, the RN had to wait a couple of years until it designed the Colossus class.

Strangely enough, having opted to commence construction of two heavy cruisers (in addition to the other warships planned for the current year), I discovered that the gods of Excel provided sufficient relief that I could commence construction of two aircraft carriers with only six months delay. The calculations within the spreadsheet narrowed their focus to the first half of the current year and initially drove things into negative territory. The delay allowed prior years’ ships to complete and clear the books; the available surplus ran close to the edge, but not over.

Philosophically though, converting an existing cruiser hull to an aircraft carrier is not, in my opinion at least, a viable option. Under our rules, it would be a partial reconstruction at a cost of 50% of the tonnage. Only wartime necessity could justify that expenditure to obtain a sub-optimal aircraft carrier.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Philosophically though, converting an existing cruiser hull to an aircraft carrier is not, in my opinion at least, a viable option. Under our rules, it would be a partial reconstruction at a cost of 50% of the tonnage. Only wartime necessity could justify that expenditure to obtain a sub-optimal aircraft carrier.

I'd agree, that's not really a good peacetime solution unless the situation really calls for desperate measures.

One of the things I'd considered for the prior question was the suggestion that you "pull a Henderson" and order a "light aircraft maintenance ship" like HMS Unicorn, which served as the prototype for the wartime light fleet carrier programme. Once the RN had Unicorn in service, they were able to tweak the design for wartime production and churn them out pretty quickly. But in peacetime... "Huh, you see an aircraft carrier in that? No, no, you're seeing things. That's an aircraft maintenance ship, not a carrier. Don't be silly, Mr. Newspaperman. It's just a boring auxiliary. Can I show you this shiny battleship now...?"