USN Carriers

Dec 1941: 6

Lexington Class: 3

USS Ranger

Yorktown Class: 2

Airwings: 80-90

Total: 480-540



From 1943 on, the USN did not lose a single fleet carrier.



RN Carriers (December 1941 Assuming no European War)

Glorious Class: 3, ~50 planes (100)

HMS Argus: 18 planes (36)

HMS Hermes: ~20 planes (40)

HMS Ark Roya: Designed to carry 72 Planes, ended up carrying 60 (120)

Illustrious Class: 4, 36 planes (72)



Total: 392 (784)



Note that on all british carriers, all aircraft were stored in the hanger, unlike in the USN. Use of a deck park increased the aircraft numbers on illustrious from 36 to 72, wonder what it would have done to Ark, and the Glorious class carriers.



The total number of aircraft in brackets next to each RN carrier class is an extimated number of aircraft that could be carried using a deck park, numbers may be inaccurate but are basedon the carriage of the illustrious class using the deck park compared with without. Use of a deckpark in the illustrious class doubled the carriage of aircraft, so i will assume a similar doubling in the other classes.



Langley was not counted as a fleet carrier as it could not keep up with even the USN Battleships, Argus was counted as it could keep up with the Revenge class battleships.



Assuming in 1939 that a war with Japan is seen as more likely then a war with germany, i could see the laying down of the Lions cancelled in favour of the construction of extra at least an extra three implacable class carriers in 1939 (+ the two in historical) in place of the lions, with either four further Carriers or the lions being laid down in 1940 with the launching of the last illustrious class ship and the last three King George V class Battleships. With work not being  delayed by repairs being done to other vessels, construction of convoy escorts and merchant ship construction, based on the build time for the three illustrious class ships, ships laid down in 1939 will commission in 1942 and ships laid down in 1940 will commission 1943, with similar build times for the battleships.



So potentially 9 new carriers by 1943 (7 extra), with 5 more in 1944(laid down in 1941 upon launch of the 5 laid down in 1939) and another 4 in 1945(laid down 1942) and another 5 in 1946 if the war is still going on. This isn't counting ships under construction in cruiser sized slips eg, (majestic + colossus).



I'd also like to point out that in 1941, there were only two US carriers in the pacific, and even during the battle of the midway, 3 US carriers took out 4 IJN carriers, with the IJN pilots of the IJN carriers having most likely more combat experience, with pearl harbour behind them at the very least.

Oh, i forgot HMS Eagle with 20 (40) aircraft, taking the totals to 412 (824)

First, there were two LEXINGTONs, not three.  The USN lost the CVL PRINCTON in very late 1944.

If you're going to include HERMES, EAGLE AND ARGUS, then you might as well bring the R class battleships since they were about the same speed, too slow for modern fleet operations.

 

Your estimates for increased a/c capacity are seriously unrealistic.  Even with using US built a/c, designed for on-deck stowage, and USN tricks like deck outriggers to increase space, the original ILLUSTRIOUS class ship were NEVER able to carry more than about 55 a/c.  The 'book' capacity for the two IMPLACABLEs of 72 was their capacity while already USING all those methods, AFTER the ships had been heavily re-built to increase their hanger deck area, and even then, their operational tempo was very slow due to the inadequate elevator capacity of the two ships.  The idea that the listed capacity of ALL RN carriers could be DOUBLED isn't supported by either the history or the technology.  And even the increases that actually took place during the real war, were based on real, wartime experience.  IMV, to ASSUME that the RN would, somehow, instinctively grasp in this situation what it took more than TWO YEARS of a real war to figure out, is being VERY optomistic.

 

As to the idea of building more carriers in response to a 1939 preception of a danger in the far east, the ILLUSTRIOUS class ships were laid down in 1937 and completed in 1940-41.  The IMPLACABLEs were laid down in 1939 and completed in 1944 (although much time was lost in the redesign and rebuilding).  Your idea that several extra fleet carriers could have been laid down in '39 and completed by the end of '41 seem, IMV to be VERY optimistic.

 

Using Midway as a comparison of the quality of the carrier forces of Japan and the US as of 1942 is also unrealistic.  That was an ambush situation, made possible by several serious mis-judgements by Yamamoto, the fact that Nimitz knew ahead of time what the general plan was (pure luck that messages providing that information were broadcast by the Japanese during mid-May, the couple of weeks out of all of 1942 when the US de-crypt efforts were by far the MOST effective) and a LOT of genuine luck on the tactical level.  I can provide you with a list of Yamamoto's errors and the USNs lucky breaks if you want it, but the information has been up on this site before.

Oh, yes, HMS FURIOUS was similar to, but not a sister ship of the GLORIOUS class, and had significantly smaller a/c capacity.  It is usually listed as 36 vs 48 for GLORIOUS.

 

Standard us air group in late 1941 was 72 a/c, four squadrons of 18 a/c each, one of fighters, one of torpedo bombers, and two of dive bombers (referred to as a bomber squadron and a scouting squadron, but equiped and trained identically).  At the time, there was a serious shortage of fighters.  The fighter squadron was SUPPOSED to be 24-27 a/c bringing the air group to 78-81, and all the USN carriers, even RANGER had that capacity, but USN didn't have enough F4Fs to provide a full 18 to all of the eight VF squadrons equiped with the Wildcat (one squadron --VF2 -- had F2As).  There was also a growing shortage of TBDs, and two carriers, RANGER and WASP actually had a second VF squadron instead, giving each ship two fighter squadrons, but they usually only had one on board at a time.

Dropping Argus off the list, the other two could make 24 and 25 knots, that is enough to keep up with the QE class Battleships. Dropping off the QE's and the other two old carriers means that every ship in the fleet can theoretically do 28-30 knots.

 

55/36=1.52.

If we use that for a "rough" estimate, that means ~610 aircraft, in regards to those two years, i suppose i could point out that it want until after those two years that the RN deployed to the pacific in numbers. I based my guesses on the number of ships possible on the number of ships battleships launched in 1939 and 1940, assuming a new ships was laid down immediately upon launch of the previous ship. I based construction time upon the 2 years from laying down to launch of the illustrious class and KGV class, and 3 years from laying down to commissioning in those classes. 2 KGV and 3 Illustrious class were launched in 1939 with 3 KGV and 1 Illustrious launched in 1940. Historically two lion class were laid down in 1939 after the slips were cleared from the previous launching (too lazy to check what was launched before, but i'd take a guess it was the pair of KGV's). I double checked the dates, the implacables were laid down before any of the illustrious class or KGV class were launched, meaning that in early 1939 the RN had 11 large capital ships on the slips. So "potentially" without the need for escorts and repairs sucking up manpower, those extra ships are theoretically possible. The RN did not lay down a single Battleship or Fleet Carrier between july 1939 when the second (of 4 projected) Lion  class was laid down and 1942 when the first of the Audacious class was laid down, with the single exception of HMS Vanguard in 1940.

 

HMS Renown completed its rebuild in 1939, with HMS Queen Elizabeth entering for reconstruction immediately afterwards.  I use the words rebuild and reconstruction deliberately as the ships were completely modernized and rebuilt during their times in refit. As i understand it (may be wrong) HMS Hood was to enter for her reconstruction when HMS Queen Elizabeth left the yards. From what i remember from "Pursuit: Sink the Bismark" Rodney was headed to the US

  Let's look at this slightly differently.  Since the war started in 1939, that was the jumpstart to motivate the British to get their act together.  Had war not started until December 1941, the RN would have been worse off instead of better.  The FAA still would have had crappy aircraft.  The RN never had any plans for a carrier task force.  CVs were always attached to a battleship division.  Coastal Command wouldn't have had any decent patrol planes as Lend-Lease wouldn't have given them Hudsons and Catalinas. 

 

  The IJN was much better than the Brits.  The IJN had combat experienced pilots from China.  They had perfected carrier ops for their fleet.  The Pacific Brit colonies would still have easily been captured.  The Dutch colonies would also have quickly fallen.  The one thing the Brits had going for them in 1941-1942 was good naval combat experience.  Without that, the RN would have been swept from the seas.  The Nazi U-boat fleet was much better off in late 1941.  It would have been much more dangerous sailing around the Home Islands.  Had the Nazis used a brain cell and had the UK surrounded with U-boats as the war began, the RN would have had serious problems. 

 

  Plus, by late 1941, the KM would have more surface units.  Bismarck and Tirpitz would have been commissioned and ready to go.  If the war was delayed then the Germans wouldn't have needed to sign the Non-Agression Pact with Russia.  The would give two more CAs to the KM.  The Luftwaffe would have been better armed with Ju-88s and Fw-190s.  The IJN was ready to go. The USN was as good as it could be.  USN benefitted from RN experience but would have survived without.  All of the major WWII US ship designs (Fletchers, Clevelands, Atlantas, Baltimores, Essex, South Dakotas, North Carolinas, and Iowas) were already planned for in 1939 and were building and started commissioning in 1941-1942 anyway.  The war just expeditied the new ships joining the fleet.

 

   The major interesting factor would be if the full French fleet had willingly joined the RN as partners.  The combined RN/French fleet running through the Med would have been interesting to watch even if Vichy France exisited.  Had France held out, it would have been really interesting.  If the Nazis never went into Russia, western Europe would still be German today.

 

BTW, the last US Fleet carrier sunk was Hornet in October 1942.  Princeton was sunk in late 1944 but she was a CVL, mainly used to provide fighter cover. 

Our dates don't agree.  According to my sources, the first IMPLACABLE was laid down immediately after the launching of KING GEORGE V same day, in fact), and the second wasn't laid down until AFTER the first three ILLUSTRIOUS class ships and PRINCE OF WALES had all been launched.  As the two IMPLACABLEs were authorized at the same time as the four ILLUSTRIOUSs, why weren't they laid down for two years if the yard space was available??

 

Remember, that it took the RN until well into 1944 -- that is five years of wartime experience with full co-operation from the USN, and the use of air groups of largely US built a/c (liquid cooled engine a/c don't go well with deck stowage) to get up to a 54 a/c air group on an ILLUSTRIOUS.  Add that neither the Sea Hurricain or the Sea Spitfire (as they existed in 1941) could be operated from an ILLUSTRIOUS due to the small elevators on those ships.  Even then, the reletively small flight decks of the class (due to the need to minimize the high level weight of the armored flight deck) meant that tricks like the deck outriggers gained a disproportionately great advantage compared to more conventional ships like ARK ROYAL. Figuring from the YORKTOWN class, my estimate would be that the hanger capacity lost due to the use of enclosed hangers would (more or less) balance the slightly greater tonnage of AR compared to the YORKs.  That would give ARK ROYAL a possible air group of about 90 a/c. 

 

The RN was still being run by battleship admirals who considered the aircraft carrier a support system for the battle line.  You're assuming that they would give up new battleship construction for more carriers.  That MIGHT make sense from wartime experience, and certainly WOULD with a Pearl Harbor example to look at, but neither would be the case here.