The Ship Model Forum

I think that's been gone over before. It is true everyone was told to tighten belt by the treasury and RN scaled its demands accordingly. But nevertheless through the 1920s FAA pretty got everything it wanted despite RAF. If there is any complaint against the RAF it would be that RAF got any money at all when RN was told to tighten belt. But one can't blame the problems of the RN on the mere existence of RAF, for where would RN be if the Blitz comes without there being a RAF to respond to it.

Read [i]Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East, 1919-1939: Preparing for War against Japan[/i] (Cass Series: Naval Policy & History)

I will leave a response here to someone who is closer to the FAA's history, but it was obvious that the RAF influence on the FAA was in repeated failure of procurement and lack of staffing and coordination with the Admiralty.

[quote="Pieter"]Not much more than the existing Large Light Cruisers I think. The FAA was kept short of funds by people who believed in the bomber that always gets through. [/quote]

Not sure if that was true. I don't think the British were much behind the general thinking and implementation of naval aviation until the mid-1930s. In 1930s the British refocused fighting in the Mediterranean and North Sea, where it could really be argued that the fleet would usually be in range of land base aircraft, and that land based airpower will enjoy considerable performance and massive numerical advantages over FAA, and therefore fleet air defense by fighters is a lost cause and bombing strikes by FAA would make little difference.
Prior to mid 1930s the British were focused primarily on fighting the Japanese north of Singapore. In this situation there would little land base airpower in range, and the notion that the bombers will always get through will work both way - It would discourage putting too many fighters on the carriers, but it would encourage putting more bombers on the carriers. Up to middle of 1930s, I think all the major carrier powers operated under the same assumption, that bombers will always get through, so one ought to put as many bombers as possible on the carriers since only the first massive strike would count.

Not much more than the existing Large Light Cruisers I think. The FAA was kept short of funds by people who believed in the bomber that always gets through. A converted Hood was just as irrelevant to the Air Ministry as a converted Glorious. For the limited amount of funding available the 48 aircarft capacity of the ex large light cruisers was just about right and they gave the RN much experience in working with a multi carrier task force under Henderson. I wonder what their reputation would have been had they not been thrown away so easily in 1939/40.
[quote="chuck"]I
I wonder what effect it would have had on British naval outlook and the role of fleet air arms had Britain been able to convert 2 incomplete Hood hulls or G-3 hulls to carriers in a similar fashion to Akagi and Lexington.[/quote]

:cool_2: for middle_watch
As an Englishman Ark Royal would not be my first choice. Vanguard did it for me.
I was on Foudroyant in Pompey harbour when Vanguard grounded on her way to the breakers. As a 16 year old boy I thought then, and still do, that without doubt she was the finest looking warship ever produced for the Andrew. She was reputed to be, and I believe it, that she was the best capital seaboat of all time, able to steam at high speed in all sea states. The Americans attempt at a flared bow with the Iowa class was good but not as good as Vanguards.
As a young boy I remember the visits to Brighton by RN ships and we all would pester our parents for the couple of bob charged by local fishermen to row us out to the anchored ships usually up to a mile from the beach.
The last one I boarded was HMS Glasgow, a Town class cruiser.

Dear Warner,
You are correct about the Lexington.
Goodall turned the US Design teams upside down. It was eye opening for them. One gets the impression that Goodall took over the American design bureau.
I have read the official papers (British and American) on this. They make very interesting reading, especially as many of them are written in a style unlike the normal turgid ones.
Godall's own reports, I believe are required reading, as it puts so much into perspective. ie how two major navies think, design, construct, and operate.

[quote="Werner"]Sir Stanley Goodall submitted the plans for the final version of [i]Hood[/i] to the US Board of Construction. His fingerprints are all over the original 2-funnel [i]Lexington[/i]. I wouldn't be too harsh on her.[/quote]

What always surprised me with Lex & Sara is the huge jump the USN seemed to take with them, when in other areas, like as already pointed out, the Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship by 1918-1922. Their lack of wartime activity and lack of design testing in WW1 and just after meant their designs were lagging behind in that area. Though I would say their engines were superior. 

This wasn't the case with Lex & Sara and it has always struck me how it almost seemed one whole area of their warship design seemed to improve by 'leaps and bounds' whilst others had lagged. 

Not being a USN navalist hopefully someone can tell me why?
_________________[quote]

I'm no expert, but I have an idea. 

The US was committed to being a Pacific power, so even in a USN dominated by battleship admirals the navy wanted to build as much power into the Lex and Sara as possible. Their speed and range probably had as much to do with the vast distances in the Pacific as their battlecruiser origins. If you compare that aspect wit the RN and their multitude of refuleing bases literally all lover the world, that may help to account for the lower ranges/radii of action of your typical RN carrier.  Vast Pacific distances may also explain the Lexingtons' larger aircraft complements and USN deck park practices, as scouting for the battlefleet took on a greater role. 

Also, since the Lex and Sara were literally entering uncharted territory, the USN went to great lengths to try to make everything as "just right" as possible. The fact that they were the perfect hulls (at the time) to convert into carriers only made them better. The RN, on the other hand, was very interested in cost-cutting, so the "large cruiser" conversions perhaps weren't all that they could have been had more money been available. I've always wondered what a really modernized Furious would have looked like and been capable of. 

I'm not sure that I'd say the Lexingtons were perfect conversions by any means. Rather, I'd say a lot of things came together at just the right moment to create a better carrier conversion than anyone else: the exigencies of operating in the Pacific, having a good hull available, being able to observe RN carrier practices and learn from them, weight-saving turboelectric drives (which were actually not as bad as people pillory them for being), and a Congress willing to spend some money for a change. Anyway, that's my nickel's worth.

Robert


[/quote]

[code]What always surprised me with Lex & Sara is the huge jump the USN seemed to take with them, when in other areas, like as already pointed out, the Battlecruiser or Fast Battleship by 1918-1922. Their lack of wartime activity and lack of design testing in WW1 and just after meant their designs were lagging behind in that area. Though I would say their engines were superior.

This wasn't the case with Lex & Sara and it has always struck me how it almost seemed one whole area of their warship design seemed to improve by 'leaps and bounds' whilst others had lagged.

Not being a USN navalist hopefully someone can tell me why?
_________________[quote]

I'm no expert, but I have an idea.

The US was committed to being a Pacific power, so even in a USN dominated by battleship admirals the navy wanted to build as much power into the Lex and Sara as possible. Their speed and range probably had as much to do with the vast distances in the Pacific as their battlecruiser origins. If you compare that aspect wit the RN and their multitude of refuleing bases literally all lover the world, that may help to account for the lower ranges/radii of action of your typical RN carrier. Vast Pacific distances may also explain the Lexingtons' larger aircraft complements and USN deck park practices, as scouting for the battlefleet took on a greater role.

Also, since the Lex and Sara were literally entering uncharted territory, the USN went to great lengths to try to make everything as "just right" as possible. The fact that they were the perfect hulls (at the time) to convert into carriers only made them better. The RN, on the other hand, was very interested in cost-cutting, so the "large cruiser" conversions perhaps weren't all that they could have been had more money been available. I've always wondered what a really modernized Furious would have looked like and been capable of.

I'm not sure that I'd say the Lexingtons were perfect conversions by any means. Rather, I'd say a lot of things came together at just the right moment to create a better carrier conversion than anyone else: the exigencies of operating in the Pacific, having a good hull available, being able to observe RN carrier practices and learn from them, weight-saving turboelectric drives (which were actually not as bad as people pillory them for being), and a Congress willing to spend some money for a change. Anyway, that's my nickel's worth.

Robert


[/quote][/code]

I wonder if your question answers one that puzzled me for some time: Why HMS Vanguard was completed, even during the war building work was slowed as priority shifted to other ships, and after the war battleships were decommissioned at a dizzy rate, yet Vanguard went ahead.

Makes me wonder if there was a deliberate attempt to make her the "new Hood" particularly as one of her first assignments was to act as the Royal Yacht on a world cruise.

If so it failed, ask any Englishman in the last half of the 20th century to name a warship and the top answer would have been a prompt "Ark Royal, mate!" There was a failed attempt again to preserve the magic of the name by renaming the Through Deck Cruiser :lol_1: Indomitable to Ark Royal but all it did was remind everyone just how far down the toilet the Fleet was being flushed.

Sir Stanley Goodall submitted the plans for the final version of [i]Hood[/i] to the US Board of Construction. His fingerprints are all over the original 2-funnel [i]Lexington[/i]. I wouldn't be too harsh on her.

Yes, 7 stack Lexington was ugly. 2 stack Lexington isn't all that pretty either, being too low, too squat, and lacking long sweeping curves somewhat expected of a fast ship.

I think G-3 and N-3's suffers from the fact that their overall appearance in profile suggests several high rise apartment blocks connected by a common ground floor rather than a single cohesive ship.

A different sort aesthetics than those commonly used to appreciate ships is required to appreciate the G-3 and N-3.

I meant even pre-war they would have had many more deck fittings than is shown in the plans the kit is based from.
Things like vents, cable reels, hatches etc.

She's still a lovely built and ship though, I really like your deck weathering! :lol_3:

Laurence,

I did the G3 as I guessed she would look pre-1930 and thus as a comparison to my early Rodney. I did toy with the idea of an aircraft atop Q turret, but decided against it as the crane would foul the training of that turret. Although I fleshed out the build quite a bit, I think any ship of this concept will suffer from large dead spaces. I tend to think the French ships did as well.

When you test-fit Q turret you will see that as the barbette is quite low, there's a limit to what you can do here.

I did the N3 as per WW2 - she is in WW2 admiralty disruptive scheme with a fairly heavy AA battery, extra pom-poms and about 20-30 20mm.

I cluttered up the roof of both of B and Q turrets, pls there's extra AA on the boat deck and foc's'l plus a full radar fit.

So the N3, it pretty mcuh ends up lookig like a big mid-war Rodney.

Not got round to posting the N3 - then again I post about a quarter of what I build.

Cheers,

Rob

I'll check your gallery again then Rob.
I don't seem to remember much hull detail/armour belt detail/ superstructure detail and on-deck detail on those kits regardless if using Tamiya parts to help superdetail.

I just had a peek at your lovely G3 once again, and once I wiped the drool from my mouth.
I see you worked lots of detail into the forecastle, but it looks barren around Q-turret, and around the funnel area.
This is a lack of detail in the kit stemming from Mike only being able to go on the basic plans published for this class.
The hull also is very flat, but againt thats the kit and due to a set of hull lines not having been published.
I couldn't see a stern photograph to make out the detail in that area.
But I think they would have had those Hood like squarish windows around where the Admirals cabin would have been.
Also these ships would have likely had 10-barrelled pom-poms, so they would have to be scratched.

But comparing the kit to my NMM plan and the artists impressions I've seen drawn if one would have been in service there would be a heck of a lot more deck detail for fittings etc.
But then again as its a 'what if ship', thats the fun of it it doesn't have to be and can never be accurate.

Don't get me wrong I'm not criticising your fine build, just stating the ship would look less barren if one actually got into service.

Have you built the N3 yet? I didn't see that in your gallery, or am I having another blind moment? :heh:

[quote="Laurence Batchelor"]I think the barren look with the G3 & N3 is partly down to the IHP kits not having vast amounts of detail, and the plans published of them likewise.

You have to admit the 7 funnel Lexington looked terrible also! :heh:[/quote]

Mine do! Plenty you can add to flesh out both kits, but you do still end up with a lot of dead space.

Actually, I was tempted to build the Lex with 7 funnels.....might do if I ever buy another one.

Cheers,

Rob

I think the barren look with the G3 & N3 is partly down to the IHP kits not having vast amounts of detail, and the plans published of them likewise.

You have to admit the 7 funnel Lexington looked terrible also! :heh:

[quote="Laurence Batchelor"]...and likewise a 1921 G3 Invincible class would have looked more impressive than a Hood or a Lex :heh:

Though Hood's silouette is better balanced from all angles :big_grin:[/quote]

Actually.......having built a G3, an N3, Hood and Lexington, I have to say that in terms of looks Lexington takes top prize.

Purely from the aesthetical point of view, the G3 and N3 both have very large bare spaces and have the tanker-ish look the RN seemed to like at the time.

Lexington just pips Hood IMHO due to the hull shape and also the siting of the secondary battery.

Cheers,

Rob

It is somewhat unfortunate for Britain that she stopped the Hood class at one ship and did not proceed with 3 remaining ships of class. The fact that the other 3 Hoods were cancelled without serious work being done, combined with the fact that British response to 8-8 and Lexington/South Dakota was late and has not started at the conclusion of Washinton negotiation, meant Britain had no large unfinished battlecruiser hulls available for carrier conversion as had US and Japan.

I wonder what effect it would have had on British naval outlook and the role of fleet air arms had Britain been able to convert 2 incomplete Hood hulls or G-3 hulls to carriers in a similar fashion to Akagi and Lexington.

[quote="Lesforan"]I think we are overlooking a major point here.

While the Lexington/Saratoga may have carried the same symbolism as the Hood, they were not used in the same way. The Hood is way beyond comparision to anybody else's ship in this regard.

The Hood was the very symbol of British Imperial Naval Power. An exercise in state-of-the-art battlecruiser construction when commissioned,
she was the biggest and baddest ship of her type for many years. For most of the interwar period, she was the largest capital ship in the world and one of the fastest. Subjected to repeated refittings, she emerged as a prototype of the fast battleship concept.

The novel use of the Hood was as a PR device for the RN. She was used to host public open houses on many occassions, including events specially planned for children. She was sent on a heavily-promoted round-the-world tour, open for public visitation at the ports she called at. For many British subjects, as well as others around the world, she was literally the face of the RN. As such, she ran the risk of being a "national treasure", too valuable to risk in combat. Her appearance and capability were markedly reduced in her last refitting before her loss. Maybe she could have given a better accounting of herself had she not been stripped of her secondary armament.

I see no ship in the USN that had been used in the promotional way Hood was. In the relatively innocent world of the 1920's, perhaps a navy's supership could be spared for a tour like Hood's. Security concerns alone would prevent such a tour today.[/quote]

While I agree with most of the above, it was not so novel for HMS Hood to open to the public as a PR device. In fact reading first hand accounts of service in the Royal Navy, one finds ships often made cruises to other UK ports and were very often opened to public tours. Even the small ships hosted the public in many out of the way little harbors and ports. This was simply a part of the RNs standard procedure.
That said, of course HOOD was a massive draw for the people of Britain. Who wouldn't want an onboard visit if she was in your home harbor? I had a friend in Edinburgh who got the chance to go aboard a number of RN BBs and Cruisers in the 1937-39 period as part of open public days.
Lex and Sara were really a great leap forward in Carrier design. A small stroke of genius to come up with the standard carrier layout at such an early stage. One drawback with the big BC hulls was their unhandiness in combat. Slow respose to helm and huge turning circles plus long hulls for targets made them vulnerable against torpedo attacks of all types.

Bob B.

I think we are overlooking a major point here.

While the Lexington/Saratoga may have carried the same symbolism as the Hood, they were not used in the same way. The Hood is way beyond comparision to anybody else's ship in this regard.

The Hood was the very symbol of British Imperial Naval Power. An exercise in state-of-the-art battlecruiser construction when commissioned,
she was the biggest and baddest ship of her type for many years. For most of the interwar period, she was the largest capital ship in the world and one of the fastest. Subjected to repeated refittings, she emerged as a prototype of the fast battleship concept.

The novel use of the Hood was as a PR device for the RN. She was used to host public open houses on many occassions, including events specially planned for children. She was sent on a heavily-promoted round-the-world tour, open for public visitation at the ports she called at. For many British subjects, as well as others around the world, she was literally the face of the RN. As such, she ran the risk of being a "national treasure", too valuable to risk in combat. Her appearance and capability were markedly reduced in her last refitting before her loss. Maybe she could have given a better accounting of herself had she not been stripped of her secondary armament.

I see no ship in the USN that had been used in the promotional way Hood was. In the relatively innocent world of the 1920's, perhaps a navy's supership could be spared for a tour like Hood's. Security concerns alone would prevent such a tour today.

Although considered battlecruisers, these ships were in reality very large scouting cruisers. They were not expected to combine with the battle force in any way, but instead act to support light forces or possibly the predreadnoughts depending on the problem.

They were meant to defeat cruisers of the [i]Hawkins[/i] type which were trying to turn the corner of the screen and attack the train.

Do not be too hard on them; since the USN was given the final details of [i]Hood[/i], they are in fact that ship with the few details seen from American eyes corrected.