WI (UK's) G-3's turned into carriers?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Browsing thru Wiki, and I saw that the G-3's contemporaries (Akagi and Lexington classes) were turned into carriers per the Washington Treaty. If the G-3's had the same fate, any guesses what there makeup and fates would be? The UK had several carriers, so might scrap some older ones (guess the other option is completing them as battle-cruisers). IMO no butterflies till the war, as either one should be stronger than Courageous in 1939, and could have 16 foot hangars, seems a nice size. Any other guesses?

 

[Flubber]

I guess the first question would be how far along the G-3s' construction was prior to conversion. IIRC, the US designs were laid down a year or two before the G-3s and, of the 5 or 6 Lexington-class ships actually under construction, only the two furthest along were felt worth converting. If you delay the WNT slightly or bring forward the G-3 construction process slightly, you could have the hulls you need.

As for your other questions, would it be safe to presume that the G-3 carriers would have issues similar to the Lexingtons? Again, IIRC, the Lexingtons had smaller hangar capacity despite being larger than the other "pure" US carriers. The Lexington's flight deck were also narrower.

Finally, will the RN ITTL retain control of it's aircraft? The benefits derived from a big fast carrier can easily be offset by obsolescent aircraft. Will the converted G-3s keep guns like the Lexington's 8-inch batteries?

 

[Captain Jack]

I guess the first question would be how far along the G-3s' construction was prior to conversion. IIRC, the US designs were laid down a year or two before the G-3s and, of the 5 or 6 Lexington-class ships actually under construction, only the two furthest along were felt worth converting. If you delay the WNT slightly or bring forward the G-3 construction process slightly, you could have the hulls you need.

As for your other questions, would it be safe to presume that the G-3 carriers would have issues similar to the Lexingtons? Again, IIRC, the Lexingtons had smaller hangar capacity despite being larger than the other "pure" US carriers. The Lexington's flight deck were also narrower.

Finally, will the RN ITTL retain control of it's aircraft? The benefits derived from a big fast carrier can easily be offset by obsolescent aircraft. Will the converted G-3s keep guns like the Lexington's 8-inch batteries?

Upon cancellation none of the G3's had actually been laid down. If they were completed as carriers I imagine the hangar capacity would be closer to purpose built carriers which they essentially would be. I think the RN keeping control of its aircraft is a prerequisite for TTL.

 

[Flubber]

Upon cancellation none of the G3's had actually been laid down.

If no hulls under construction exist to convert then the OP's questions are moot. As I noted, he'll either need to delay the WNT so G-3s are laid down or bring forward the start of their construction.

If they were completed as carriers I imagine the hangar capacity would be closer to purpose built carriers which they essentially would be.

Without existing hulls to convert, the RN isn't going to turn G-3s into carriers. They'll design carriers from the keel up rather than convert battlecruiser blueprints into carrier blueprints.

I think the RN keeping control of its aircraft is a prerequisite for TTL.

Agreed.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Yeah, the other classes seemed to be laid down in 1920, so the UK would have to do the same (somehow). Didn't think of any 8 inch guns... might make an alt-Glorious battle mildly interesting. So probably not too much change, although I wonder if experience with a bigger ship may butterfly away the idea of 6 plane groups. The RN used the other old carriers at the beginning of the war, but I don't see any major battles going differently except for the alt-Courageous surviving.

 

[Flubber]

Yeah, the other classes seemed to be laid down in 1920, so the UK would have to do the same (somehow).

You'll think of something, no worries there.

Didn't think of any 8 inch guns... might make an alt-Glorious battle mildly interesting.

Hopefully one or more the real warship enthusiasts will pop in to explain why the Lexingtons had those 8-inch guns. I know the idea of aviation cruisers was well thought of until years of practice and experimentation disproved it.

Just because the Lexingtons kept large calibre guns doesn't mean the G-3s necessarily will. Akagi and Kaga did keep guns, however, along with each having three flight decks initially.

So probably not too much change, although I wonder if experience with a bigger ship may butterfly away the idea of 6 plane groups.

I simply don't know enough even to speculate about that.

The RN used the other old carriers at the beginning of the war, but I don't see any major battles going differently except for the alt-Courageous surviving.

Like the Lexingtons compared with Enterprise/Yorktown-class, a G-3 derived carrier may have better torpedo protection than a purpose built carrier.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Hopefully one or more the real warship enthusiasts will pop in to explain why the Lexingtons had those 8-inch guns. I know the idea of aviation cruisers was well thought of until years of practice and experimentation disproved it.

Just because the Lexingtons kept large calibre guns doesn't mean the G-3s necessarily will. Akagi and Kaga did keep guns, however, along with each having three flight decks initially.

The 8in battery was considered necessary in the 1920s to defend the ship against cruisers. The carrier's exact roll, let alone position, in the battle fleet was still being decided.

 

[Alcatur]

There is the problem of size limits - both Akagi, Kaga and Lexingtons as carriers were slightly above treaty limits, and the G3s were supposed to be quite a bit larger than any of the orginal converted designs. It would be hard to fit G3 conversion into something treaty-compliant, and the British were already granted the right to preserve above-limit Hood. Other nations propably wouldn't agree for Royal Navy to keep additionally two 40 000 ton carriers.

 

[HMS Warspite]

An alternative might have been to use the not completed hulls of the Hood class ships, as there were still three avaibalbel hulls under construction at the time. These hulls were not very advanced yet, but had powerfull; engines and the size was certainly useable for CV conversion, more on the lines of a Courageous, or possibly something simmilar to a Lexington. (as both were about the same size actually as battlecruisers.) G-3 might still be started with in a pure BB (actually fast BB) at least on paper, as the design was too revolutionary to be used on something else.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Akagi would have been about the same size, and cutting out the heavy armor and turrets should help enough. I intend to write a TL before I do (and looks not much sooner lol) where the Hoods are carriers, and the G-3's are built. That is my optimal mix, just was browsing Wiki and noticed the contemporary BCs morphed into carriers, and wondered what a G-3 carrier would look like.

 

[zert]

I wonder what the max plane carried would be. Also as planes became larger and longer, could the hangers handle them?

 

[Alcatur]

Akagi would have been about the same size,

Amagi class was supposed to displace 41,217 tonnes standard and 47,000 tonnes full load compared to G3 49,200 tonnes standard and 54,774 tonnes full load. Sure, a lot would be saved without armour and artillery, but still its reasonable to assume that carrier conversions would roughly maintain the ratio - giving a possible G3 carrier 43 000 standard - and anyway, certainly far above 40 000 tonnes.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Amagi class was supposed to displace 41,217 tonnes standard and 47,000 tonnes full load compared to G3 49,200 tonnes standard and 54,774 tonnes full load. Sure, a lot would be saved without armour and artillery, but still its reasonable to assume that carrier conversions would roughly maintain the ratio - giving a possible G3 carrier 43 000 standard - and anyway, certainly far above 40 000 tonnes.

Bummer, didn't realize the G3 was that heavy. Too bad the RN wasn't as creative at accounting as the USN; another 3,000 tons would have been nice. I am supposed to be doing homework, so I should ignore this until the weekend, but guessing upscale (keeping ratios constant) a Courageous to 33,000 tons as a basic model for this?

 

[e of pi]

Hrm. I wonder...what about the other three Admiral-class BCs? They're actually on about the right time-frame if you can stop them from being scrapped on the slips. Maybe that could do it?