soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Mao" wrote in message
news:47b3ffb2$0$25819$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> (I think my previous post got dropped because of the 50% quote limit... so
> I'll shorten it here by snipping stuff I have no problem with, thanks!)
>
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message
>> "YMC" wrote in message
>>> I don't think Admiral Badger was being disingenous. I don't have the
>>> original General Board hearings records with me.
>>
>> Ah I see the public problem, the two references given were
>>
>> [1] GB Hearing February 21, 1921, p. 82. Also, see House
>> Committee of Naval Affairs, Paper No. 12, February 4, 1921, p. 683.
>>
>> [2] My emphasis. GBH February 21, 1921, p. 82.
>> And I noted the House Committee of Naval affairs and assumed the
>> remarks were therefore made public. My apologies, including to
>> the Admiral. The trouble was his information was so incorrect.
>
> Argh, I'm sorry. My bad. Should have been more clearer on that.

No, my mistake.

> The full context of that particular (USN General Board) hearing in early
> 1921 was to build a proper designed carrier from the keel up. The USN
> Board and aviator had doubts that the converted Langley (to be
> commissioned in
> March 1922) would be adequate.

I have no doubt the USN was pushing for purpose built carriers,
to go along with its new scouting arm, the Omaha class light
cruisers and the Lexington class battlecruisers.

> Back then, no one had properly designed fleet carriers, the British had
> converted ships - and none were satisfactory (I think everyone concerned -
> from the British Admiralty to the USN General Board knew that).

Correct as far as it goes, the problem is staying in 1921, not what
would appear in a few years time. The RN had proved the carrier
concept, including providing the basics of what to do, Argus, and
what not to do, Furious and Vindictive.

Furious had the speed and size and was slated to become a flat
top, but reconstruction had hardly started in 1921.

Various other projects were under way, including Hermes and Eagle.

>> Hermes and Eagle were under construction in 1921.
>
> HMS Eagle - the converted Chilean Battleship - 22,200 could "only" operate
> 24 planes. Hermes 11,000+ tons only 20.

I have no problems with their characteristics, the problem comes
in what the USN knew about them.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation.

> The fear for the USN GB was that they would be lumped with half-baked
> carriers like the Langley. The USN aviators were crying out for something
> topnotch - fast and big - so that they could prove their theories (or
> else).

Ah yes, the USN could see post war budget cuts and was worried
the newest idea would be the obvious one to cut, after all in 1921
what exactly was an aircraft carrier, why not wait a few years and
see what happened? Saves money too.

> BTW, this is not to disparage British carrier design at that time - they
> built with what they had - the (Admiralty) and the GBoard knew that the
> current lot were only makeshift; their aviators told them so.

No one is saying anything bad about the ideas floating around in
1921, the people involved could only make estimates. The RN
experience indicated a flat top was required, but that gave ship
handling problems, where does the bridge go? The higher the top
speed the easier it was to take off and land but that gave problems
in disposing of large amounts of funnel gasses, plus the amount of
hull volume devoted to engines and bunkers. And so on.

It is easy now to see the answers.

> The USN even had an observer on board the HMS Furious, Lt
> Cmdr Chevalier- who provided a detailed report (see Friedman,
> British Carrier Aviation, page 59 - I got that from my old footnotes,
> don't have that book with me now).

Yes, if you read the Friedman books it is clear the RN provided
the USN with significant information on all classes of ship and
their wartime performance. An investment that paid off a
generation later.

> Just for context - the end result of the Washington Conference on Naval
> Arms Limitation had not concluded yet - and so the Board was trying to
> push for the building of a large carrier or two - speed 35knots and the
> capacity to
> operate 100 planes - quite extreme figures- so that the USN could develop
> its naval aviation to the
> fullest of its ability.

My reading is simpler, the Board was pushing for a carrier to
accompany their scouting force. Which meant a 35 knot top
speed. The rest of the ship would be designed around this
characteristic. Given the stalling speeds of 1931 aircraft there
was no great need for the ultra high speed the USN was trying
for.

There are good reasons why warship top speeds stabilised in
the mid 30 knots, the cost per knot of extra speed was becoming
extreme.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.