HMS Invincible
- Thread starter Lord Wyclif
- Start date
What was the opposition doing? The Japanese
The Japanese have 42,200 tons out of 96,000 tons left after Kaga and Akagi were converted to aircraft carriers instead of 27,200 tons.
I propose that the Japanese order a pair of aircraft carriers in 1927 instead of one.
The first carrier is laid down in 1929 and completed in 1933. It is named Ryujo, but is built to the Soryu design. Officially it displaces 10,050 tons, but in reality it displaces 15,900 tons.
The second carrier is laid down in 1931 and completed in 1935 to the Hiryu design. Officially this ships also displaces 10,500 tons, but in reality it displaces 17,300 tons.
Hiryu and Soryu are still ordered in the 1931-32 programme. Soryu is still laid down in 1934 and competed in 1937. Hiryu is still laid down in 1936 and completed in 1939. However, the trend I started with the 1927 ships is continued because they are both built to the Shokaku design. The Japanese continue to lie about the displacements by saying were 11,050 tons each instead of 25,675 tons so that they can appear to be abiding to the Washington and First London Treaties.
The next pair of carriers was ordered in 1937, that is after the 96,000 ton limit expired. Here I think the Japanese would have built Shokaku and Zuikaku to the same design as the real world rather than to the Tahio design.
So the Japanese also have one extra carrier in December 1941, that is 11 instead of 10. However, they have 8 fleet carriers plus Hosho, Zuiho and Taiyo, instead of 6 fleet carriers, plus Ryujo, Hosho, Zuiho and Taiyo.
The Japanese have 42,200 tons out of 96,000 tons left after Kaga and Akagi were converted to aircraft carriers instead of 27,200 tons.
I propose that the Japanese order a pair of aircraft carriers in 1927 instead of one.
The first carrier is laid down in 1929 and completed in 1933. It is named Ryujo, but is built to the Soryu design. Officially it displaces 10,050 tons, but in reality it displaces 15,900 tons.
The second carrier is laid down in 1931 and completed in 1935 to the Hiryu design. Officially this ships also displaces 10,500 tons, but in reality it displaces 17,300 tons.
Hiryu and Soryu are still ordered in the 1931-32 programme. Soryu is still laid down in 1934 and competed in 1937. Hiryu is still laid down in 1936 and completed in 1939. However, the trend I started with the 1927 ships is continued because they are both built to the Shokaku design. The Japanese continue to lie about the displacements by saying were 11,050 tons each instead of 25,675 tons so that they can appear to be abiding to the Washington and First London Treaties.
The next pair of carriers was ordered in 1937, that is after the 96,000 ton limit expired. Here I think the Japanese would have built Shokaku and Zuikaku to the same design as the real world rather than to the Tahio design.
So the Japanese also have one extra carrier in December 1941, that is 11 instead of 10. However, they have 8 fleet carriers plus Hosho, Zuiho and Taiyo, instead of 6 fleet carriers, plus Ryujo, Hosho, Zuiho and Taiyo.
Question is, will the *Spitfire be as big an export success as the Gloster Gladiator?
sharlin
Banned
Could the IJN squeeze the tonnage in for a third Shokaku type ship? I like the idea of them bending the truth about tonnage re Soryu type ships to get another in as well. It would still require a considerable expansion of their naval air arm and you've got to fight an incredibly strong battleship lobby at this time as well.
Maybe, particularly if they fudge the numbers a hair more to list the Soryu/Hiryu type as sub-10,000 ton "escort" carriers, which are more of a thing ITTL. They were already calling them 10,500 IOTL when they were really almost 17,000, so...
No. I thought I was pushing it by upgrading Soryu and Hiryu to Shokaku class and still giving their official displacements as 11,050 tons. Though Jane's Fighting Ships for 1939 says that Shokaku was a Soryu class ship and that it displaced 10,050 tons.
I did think about having the Japanese order a second Tahio class fleet carrier in their 1939 programme. But the American response would be to build a 6th Yorktown in FY39 as well as Hornet so the Japanese would not get any long or short-term advantage from it.
The Japanese delibearately built up to the treaty limits in every category of warship in the real world in spite of the battleship lobby. I expect them to do the same here, where the limitations will be finance and industrial capacity.
Lord Wyclif has relaxed the terms of the naval arms limitation treaties so that the British Empire can have more battleships too. That will have a knock on effect on what the number and quality of battleships the USA, Japan, France and Italy can do because of the quota system.
Yes the Japanese would also have to expand their naval air force to conform with the increase in the combined capacity of their aircraft carriers. In the real world I think it was Akagi and Kaga 72 each (after they were rebuilt), Ryujo 36, Soryu and Hiryu 63 each, Shokaku and Zuikaku 72 each - grand total 450 in 7 carriers. Here it would be 54 each for Ryujo and the second 1927 Carrier and 72 each for the other 6 carriers - grand total 558 aircraft in 8 carriers.
However, the Americans would also increase the size of their naval air arm to conform with the increase in the combined capacity of thier aircraft carriers too. It's going to be USA 8 aircraft carriers against 11 Japanese instead of 7 against 10 and the Americans have probably done better in terms of quality as they have 7 first-class fleet carriers instead of 5 while the Japanese have 8 first-class fleet carriers insted of 6½ (because I'm classing the real Ryujo as half a first class fleet carrier).
What the Japanese Did in the Real World
According to my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1939:
Kaga and Akagi each displaced 26,900 tons;
Ruyjo 7,100 tons;
Soryu 10,050 tons; and Hiryu also 10,050 tons.
A grand total of 81,000 tons.
However, Kaga and Akagi had what would now be called a mid-life upgrade, which considerably increased their displacements. Ryujo actually displaced 8,000 tons as built and after she was refitted weighed 10,600 tons. Soryu and Hiryu actually dispalced 15,900 and 17,300 tons respectively. However, none of that mattered in the end because the tonnage quota had been abolished by the time they came into service.
As an alternative I though of building a pair of carriers to the same design as Ryujo as rebuilt, but with an official displacement of 9,000 tons. However, that was to allow the official displacements of Soryu and Hiryu which would still be built to the Shokaku design to be closer to their actual displacements and therefore seem plausible to the British and Americans.
However, it would be possible to build 4 Shokakus instead of 2 Soryus out of the remaining tonnage from the quota if their official displacement was 10,050 tons. That would give them the equivalent of 9 fleet carriers (2 Kagas, 6 Shokakus and 2 Ryujos) in November 1941. However, once the US had realised they had been fooled over the deisplacements Congresss would have authorsied an increase to 240,000 tons of aircraft carriers instead of 200,000 tons and ordered 4 repeat Yorktowns in 1939, which would all be in service in the first half of 1942.
Japan didn't have the industrial capacity to win a naval arms race with the Americans in the real world and I presume it doesn't in this one either.
According to my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1939:
Kaga and Akagi each displaced 26,900 tons;
Ruyjo 7,100 tons;
Soryu 10,050 tons; and Hiryu also 10,050 tons.
A grand total of 81,000 tons.
However, Kaga and Akagi had what would now be called a mid-life upgrade, which considerably increased their displacements. Ryujo actually displaced 8,000 tons as built and after she was refitted weighed 10,600 tons. Soryu and Hiryu actually dispalced 15,900 and 17,300 tons respectively. However, none of that mattered in the end because the tonnage quota had been abolished by the time they came into service.
As an alternative I though of building a pair of carriers to the same design as Ryujo as rebuilt, but with an official displacement of 9,000 tons. However, that was to allow the official displacements of Soryu and Hiryu which would still be built to the Shokaku design to be closer to their actual displacements and therefore seem plausible to the British and Americans.
However, it would be possible to build 4 Shokakus instead of 2 Soryus out of the remaining tonnage from the quota if their official displacement was 10,050 tons. That would give them the equivalent of 9 fleet carriers (2 Kagas, 6 Shokakus and 2 Ryujos) in November 1941. However, once the US had realised they had been fooled over the deisplacements Congresss would have authorsied an increase to 240,000 tons of aircraft carriers instead of 200,000 tons and ordered 4 repeat Yorktowns in 1939, which would all be in service in the first half of 1942.
Japan didn't have the industrial capacity to win a naval arms race with the Americans in the real world and I presume it doesn't in this one either.
What was the opposition doing? Battleships
If I am reading this correctly you plan a one-to-one replacement of the 20 capital ships the Royal Navy had at the end of the 1920s. The real Washington Treaty allowed the British Empire enough money to build fifteen 35,000 ton battleships (15 x 35,000 = 525,000 tons). Twenty capital ships at 35,000 tons is 700,000 tons. You haven't specifically said this, but I presume that your version of the Washington Treaty allows this. But if it does the 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 ratio means that:
700,000 tons instead of 525,000 tons for the United States
420,000 tons instead of 315,000 tons for Japan
245,000 tons instead of 175,000 tons for France
245,000 tons instead of 175,000 tons for Italy
Or expressed in terms of the number of 35,000 ton ships:
20 instead of 15 for the United States
12 instead of 9 for Japan
7 instead of 5 for France
7 instead of 5 for Italy
No signatory was allowed to lay down new ships until the end of 1931, which was extended to the end of 1936 by the 1930 London Treaty. Except: Great Britain, France and Italy which were each allowed to build 70,000 tons of new ships. The British used it to build Nelson and Rodney, which in your version of history are KGVs with nine 15". The French used their allowance to build Dunquerke and Strasbourg and the Italians used theirs to build Littorio and Vittorio Vento. However, as you don't have a London Treaty the French and Italians could build several more ships between 1931 and 1936 if they wanted to, but probably couldn't afford to.
The Americans kept 18 battleships under the Washington Treaty and scrapped the 3 oldest without replacement under the First London Treaty. I suggest that here you allow the Americans to have 20 battleships. That is keep newest ship scrapped under the Washington Treaty (BB-28 USS Delaware) and complete the fourth Colorado (BB-47 USS Washington) turning the "Big Five" of the real world into the "Big Six." Then they lay down five 35,000 ton battleships 1931-35 to replace their five oldest ships and to match your replacements for the Iron Dukes and Tiger one-to-one because the Americans wanted parity with the British. I suggest that they be additional North Carolina class.
The Japanese kept 12 battleships under the Washington Treaty. They scrapped their two oldest dreadnoughts without replacement and the Hiei was de-militarised (but re-militarised later) under the First London Treaty. As the British are allowed to keep the Hood and the Americans are allowed to complete the Washington the Japanese are allowed to complete Kaga and Tosa even though they displace more than 35,000 tons. Kawachi and Settsu are therefore scrapped under the Washington Treaty rather than the London Treaty. Except that there is no London Treaty allowing the Japanese to lay down 4 capital ships between 1931 and 1936 to replace the Kongo class battle cruisers. I'm not sure that they would build another 4 Yamatos, but as the Japanese have a habit of exceeding the allowed displacements by up to 30% they would displace at least 45,000 tons.
If I am reading this correctly you plan a one-to-one replacement of the 20 capital ships the Royal Navy had at the end of the 1920s. The real Washington Treaty allowed the British Empire enough money to build fifteen 35,000 ton battleships (15 x 35,000 = 525,000 tons). Twenty capital ships at 35,000 tons is 700,000 tons. You haven't specifically said this, but I presume that your version of the Washington Treaty allows this. But if it does the 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 ratio means that:
700,000 tons instead of 525,000 tons for the United States
420,000 tons instead of 315,000 tons for Japan
245,000 tons instead of 175,000 tons for France
245,000 tons instead of 175,000 tons for Italy
Or expressed in terms of the number of 35,000 ton ships:
20 instead of 15 for the United States
12 instead of 9 for Japan
7 instead of 5 for France
7 instead of 5 for Italy
No signatory was allowed to lay down new ships until the end of 1931, which was extended to the end of 1936 by the 1930 London Treaty. Except: Great Britain, France and Italy which were each allowed to build 70,000 tons of new ships. The British used it to build Nelson and Rodney, which in your version of history are KGVs with nine 15". The French used their allowance to build Dunquerke and Strasbourg and the Italians used theirs to build Littorio and Vittorio Vento. However, as you don't have a London Treaty the French and Italians could build several more ships between 1931 and 1936 if they wanted to, but probably couldn't afford to.
The Americans kept 18 battleships under the Washington Treaty and scrapped the 3 oldest without replacement under the First London Treaty. I suggest that here you allow the Americans to have 20 battleships. That is keep newest ship scrapped under the Washington Treaty (BB-28 USS Delaware) and complete the fourth Colorado (BB-47 USS Washington) turning the "Big Five" of the real world into the "Big Six." Then they lay down five 35,000 ton battleships 1931-35 to replace their five oldest ships and to match your replacements for the Iron Dukes and Tiger one-to-one because the Americans wanted parity with the British. I suggest that they be additional North Carolina class.
The Japanese kept 12 battleships under the Washington Treaty. They scrapped their two oldest dreadnoughts without replacement and the Hiei was de-militarised (but re-militarised later) under the First London Treaty. As the British are allowed to keep the Hood and the Americans are allowed to complete the Washington the Japanese are allowed to complete Kaga and Tosa even though they displace more than 35,000 tons. Kawachi and Settsu are therefore scrapped under the Washington Treaty rather than the London Treaty. Except that there is no London Treaty allowing the Japanese to lay down 4 capital ships between 1931 and 1936 to replace the Kongo class battle cruisers. I'm not sure that they would build another 4 Yamatos, but as the Japanese have a habit of exceeding the allowed displacements by up to 30% they would displace at least 45,000 tons.
In a nutshell no.
As first produced the Seafire is not really a success, same problems OTL several years earlier, but no war so RNAS not desperate for aircraft. However with ongoing teething problems geting sorted we see the RAF spec F10/35 still being issued for the aeroplane in January 1935, the up gunning in April '35 and the Spitfire's (RAF version) going ahead as per OTL March '36.
F37/34 went ahead for the development of the Supermarine 224/300 (Seafire) design a few months earlier than OLT which resulted in the 26/35 production order for 100 Seafire's and not the Osprey 4 just into 1935. The first aeroplanes being delivered at the start of May and two squadrons being fully equipped by the end of September.
Gloster go into production with their Gladiators, to recover development costs, as foreign powers buy the 216 airframes as per OTL.
Was going for RN wish list of 20, though don't really think Parliament would allow it, hence keeping it open to suggestion. Then again would Congress permit the USN the money to spend? Like the idea though, and will probably go for it as you suggest.
What do the rest of you think?
I think Congress would authorise the expenditure if the British and Japanese did. They would want to maintain superiority over the Japanese because they considered Japan to be their main potential enemy. (E.g. it authorised the increase from 135,000 tons of aircraft carriers to 175,000 tons in response to the Japanese building Shokaku and Zuikatku.) And it was also American policy to have parity with the British in all categories of warship - which caused some problems with cruisers, but that is another story. America could afford to build them and FDR might be able to justify the expenditure as unemployment relief as part of the New Deal.
The British called the First London Conference because they wanted to avoid having to pay for new battleships. Perhaps we could still have the conference, but it fails to produce a treaty. In the real world the French and Italians wouldn't agree to any limitations on submarines, cruisers and destroyers. Perhaps here the converence could fail completely because Mussolini won't agree to any reduction in the size of his battle fleet and the Japanese are determined to build replacements for their Kongo class. They wanted parity with the British and Americans in the first place. They called the 5:5:3 ratio Rolls-Rolls-Ford.
However, if they can't get an agreement the British Government could go to Parliament and say, "We did our best to negotiate a further reduction in naval armaments, but some of the other nations would not agree. Therefore we are compelled to maintain a larger force of captial ships than would otherwise have been the case and each battleship has to be replaced when it reaches the end of its useful life." The pacifist and disarmament lobby would be furious, but there would be enough Parliamentary support to get them built. "The man on the Clapham omnibus," would regard them as a necessary evil that reduces unemployment in the shipbuilding areas.
If the Government can use this argument for building the Invincible class aircraft carriers, it can also use it for building some battleships in the first half of the 1930s. The Admiralty used the same argument in the real world for its 1924 Modernisation Programme, but only suceeded in getting about half the ships it wanted built.
The above is 2 earlier posts combined and edited. I missed them when I was drafting the "What was the opposition doing posts." The part about the Japanese wanting to build battleships outside the treaty limits fits in with my idea for them to wreck the 1930 London Naval Conference and my idea that the Americans would at least want to match the Japanese.
Up to 1935 it looks like there are 5 Admiral class. That is the pair build in the 1920s in place of Nelson and Rodney plus 3 ordered 1930-35 presumably to replace 3 of the Iron Dukes. For a one-to-one replacement of the Iron Dukes and Tiger a total of 5 need to be ordered 1930-35. Is there another pair laid down betweent Anson and Howe in 1933 and the battleship ordered in 1935?
On the evening of January 20th the invincible accompanied by the Rodney sailed into HMS Sheba. It was a typically Arabian sunny evening. With her sailors lined up along the edge of the flight deck and a quintet on naval aircraft on the centre line of the deck. From bow to stern there was a Seafire, an Osprey and two of the brand new torpedo bombers just flown in from Alexandria, the Swordfish. Despite all the ceremony attached it was a somber occasion as the news of the passing away of the King had just been relayed to all onboard.
The politicians were all flown back to England that night onboard a RNAS Singapore via Alexandria and Malta.
The Invincible remained berthed in Aden along with the big battleship mainly to keep a powerful show of presence in the region. 801 squadron was forward deployed with 10 Seafires at Berbera, 803 squadron was flying out of Khormaksar with 11 Seafires; 813 was also at Khormaksar with 9 Rippons and 2 Swordfish; 823 with 14 Ospreys one flight of 6 Ospreys from 828, the other flight on board the Vengeance out in the Indian Ocean on trade protection duty with two light cruisers. RAF Khormaksar was also home to 41 RAF with their Hawker Demons, 12RAF with Hawker Harts and 1700 RNAS maritime patrol Singapores.
As the principal threat was the Italian Navy the RAF & RNAS light bomber squadrons spent many daytime hours on bombing runs on the two big ships at anchor. 823 squadron with their Ospreys performed both aggressor and fleet defensive roles. Despite being the newest type the swordfish were easily caught by the Ospreys, which were over 40 MPH faster, whereas the Seafires wiped the floor with everything that both the RAF & RNAS employed during daylight as aggressor. The RAF pilots were suitably impressed with the Seafires performance and 41 squadron were extremely delighted when they got the news that they were to be one of the first RAF squadrons to be receiving the new, even faster better armed Spitfires.
It was during these trials the the Swordfish demonstrated her unique ability to take off and land from a stationary ship and incredible ability to sneak up and launch a torpedo attack during the hours of darkness.
As the Invincible was originally suppose to be in refit, engineers were onboard during the period she was in Aden. Preparations were made for the removal of her 4" guns and the placement of the 4.5" twin turrets. In addition she was also being prepared to receive the new twin 40mm Bofor AA gun system in place of her 7 pom-pom mountings. The four quadruple 0.5" Vickers HMG's would also be replaced by the single mounted Bofors.
With the arrival at the end of March of a battalion of troops from the Royal West African Frontier Force and another battalion of the Kings African Rifles, 9 & 11 RMLI were stood down in British Somailia. 11 returned to Aden and 9 were to be redeployed in Malta. Invincible was again to be their troop ship. On Wednesday April 8th the HMS Invincible accompanied by the battleship HMS Rodney left Aden bound for Malta.
Within the next two week, the Invincible's now much needed refit would again be cancelled.
The politicians were all flown back to England that night onboard a RNAS Singapore via Alexandria and Malta.
The Invincible remained berthed in Aden along with the big battleship mainly to keep a powerful show of presence in the region. 801 squadron was forward deployed with 10 Seafires at Berbera, 803 squadron was flying out of Khormaksar with 11 Seafires; 813 was also at Khormaksar with 9 Rippons and 2 Swordfish; 823 with 14 Ospreys one flight of 6 Ospreys from 828, the other flight on board the Vengeance out in the Indian Ocean on trade protection duty with two light cruisers. RAF Khormaksar was also home to 41 RAF with their Hawker Demons, 12RAF with Hawker Harts and 1700 RNAS maritime patrol Singapores.
As the principal threat was the Italian Navy the RAF & RNAS light bomber squadrons spent many daytime hours on bombing runs on the two big ships at anchor. 823 squadron with their Ospreys performed both aggressor and fleet defensive roles. Despite being the newest type the swordfish were easily caught by the Ospreys, which were over 40 MPH faster, whereas the Seafires wiped the floor with everything that both the RAF & RNAS employed during daylight as aggressor. The RAF pilots were suitably impressed with the Seafires performance and 41 squadron were extremely delighted when they got the news that they were to be one of the first RAF squadrons to be receiving the new, even faster better armed Spitfires.
It was during these trials the the Swordfish demonstrated her unique ability to take off and land from a stationary ship and incredible ability to sneak up and launch a torpedo attack during the hours of darkness.
As the Invincible was originally suppose to be in refit, engineers were onboard during the period she was in Aden. Preparations were made for the removal of her 4" guns and the placement of the 4.5" twin turrets. In addition she was also being prepared to receive the new twin 40mm Bofor AA gun system in place of her 7 pom-pom mountings. The four quadruple 0.5" Vickers HMG's would also be replaced by the single mounted Bofors.
With the arrival at the end of March of a battalion of troops from the Royal West African Frontier Force and another battalion of the Kings African Rifles, 9 & 11 RMLI were stood down in British Somailia. 11 returned to Aden and 9 were to be redeployed in Malta. Invincible was again to be their troop ship. On Wednesday April 8th the HMS Invincible accompanied by the battleship HMS Rodney left Aden bound for Malta.
Within the next two week, the Invincible's now much needed refit would again be cancelled.
Relative background info from the House of Commons.
On the morning of February 25th 1936 Duff Cooper rose to his feet. He glanced over to Churchill, who gave a friendly nod of approval. He gave a very grim view of the current state of affairs.
He named the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible and acknowledged her contribution in halting Italian aggression in North Eastern Africa. Then he announced, "even though the British had always sought peace through disarmament. Let it be known that the actions of other nations prevented this. Britain must maintain a large naval presence to defend her processions and her trade from threats known and unknown, and as a direct consequence of the global situation the government had no choice, and an order had just been placed for three new aircraft carriers, the 1936 design. I have been requested by the Admiralty that the navy has a requirement for a total of 14 aircraft carriers. Currently the fleet has a total of five operational, two in refit, one fitting out, one under construction and two inadequate vessels in reserve giving a current total of ten. The new fleet carriers would be of 46,000 tons standard displacement. Hull dimensions 850x115.5x34.5 feet 5 shaft geared turbines of 190,000 shp capable of 31 knots. They will have 16 (8x2) 4.5" DP guns, 28 (12x2, 4x1) Bofor anti-aircraft guns and capable of carrying 72 aircraft. They will have a full length flight deck of 840x110 feet.
As well as new aircraft being developed it is necessary to form volunteer reserve squadrons for the RNAS. Pilots and aircrew with previous experience of naval aviation are actively encouraged to join.
The treaties previous had permitted the Royal Navy 20 battleships and at present the number of these types of ships are considerably less, to remedy this short coming an order has been placed for three new battleships of 45,700 tons standard displacement. Hull dimensions will be 800x108x30.5 feet powered by 4shaft geared turbines producing 130,000 shp making them capable of 31 knots. Their armament will consist of 12 (4x3) 15" guns, 16 (8x2) 4.5" DP guns, 24 (12x2) bofor guns for anti-aircraft defence.
The actions, and rapid response of His Majesties Royal Marines elements of the Maritime strike group have indicated a short coming in certain items of equipment. A new armoured car wi be developed by BSA to replace the vehicles currently used.
A new design of warship is underway by a team being led by Rowland Baker to improve the amphibious delivery of these strike groups. It is hoped that the design will be approved by the end of this year and orders be placed for a total of seven vessels in the next two financial years. Plans are afoot to scrap Furious, Hermes and Argus, and eventually the Vindictive class giving the fleet seven fleet carriers and seven amphibious/ trade protection carriers by 1942. Authorisation has been granted to bring the cruiser force up to 100 vessels also by this date.
To ensure there will be an appropriate response to our commitment on the continent, the Army is to form a Mobile Division. This is simply a division sized formation capable of deploying with the speed of their Royal Marine counterparts.
Competition is currently ongoing for a new 4 cannon armed fighter. Trials begin next month between an improved Hurricane, entrance from Supermarine and Westland.'
Looking over to Edward Turnour, who was representing the Air Ministry, he continued "can I state again that Gloster aircraft have not entered this contest, and there is no such plane as the Gladiator 2. Rover are car manufacturers not aero-engineers and their plant beside RAF Cranwell is to facilitate their commitment to the motor vehicle industry.
This and other information regarding the future role of the RAF will be detailed by my Honourable colleague Viscount Swinton."
As Cooper sat down, Churchill rose to his feet, applauding. This was followed by the majority of Conservative MP's who had actually bothered to turn up at the House that day.
On the morning of February 25th 1936 Duff Cooper rose to his feet. He glanced over to Churchill, who gave a friendly nod of approval. He gave a very grim view of the current state of affairs.
He named the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible and acknowledged her contribution in halting Italian aggression in North Eastern Africa. Then he announced, "even though the British had always sought peace through disarmament. Let it be known that the actions of other nations prevented this. Britain must maintain a large naval presence to defend her processions and her trade from threats known and unknown, and as a direct consequence of the global situation the government had no choice, and an order had just been placed for three new aircraft carriers, the 1936 design. I have been requested by the Admiralty that the navy has a requirement for a total of 14 aircraft carriers. Currently the fleet has a total of five operational, two in refit, one fitting out, one under construction and two inadequate vessels in reserve giving a current total of ten. The new fleet carriers would be of 46,000 tons standard displacement. Hull dimensions 850x115.5x34.5 feet 5 shaft geared turbines of 190,000 shp capable of 31 knots. They will have 16 (8x2) 4.5" DP guns, 28 (12x2, 4x1) Bofor anti-aircraft guns and capable of carrying 72 aircraft. They will have a full length flight deck of 840x110 feet.
As well as new aircraft being developed it is necessary to form volunteer reserve squadrons for the RNAS. Pilots and aircrew with previous experience of naval aviation are actively encouraged to join.
The treaties previous had permitted the Royal Navy 20 battleships and at present the number of these types of ships are considerably less, to remedy this short coming an order has been placed for three new battleships of 45,700 tons standard displacement. Hull dimensions will be 800x108x30.5 feet powered by 4shaft geared turbines producing 130,000 shp making them capable of 31 knots. Their armament will consist of 12 (4x3) 15" guns, 16 (8x2) 4.5" DP guns, 24 (12x2) bofor guns for anti-aircraft defence.
The actions, and rapid response of His Majesties Royal Marines elements of the Maritime strike group have indicated a short coming in certain items of equipment. A new armoured car wi be developed by BSA to replace the vehicles currently used.
A new design of warship is underway by a team being led by Rowland Baker to improve the amphibious delivery of these strike groups. It is hoped that the design will be approved by the end of this year and orders be placed for a total of seven vessels in the next two financial years. Plans are afoot to scrap Furious, Hermes and Argus, and eventually the Vindictive class giving the fleet seven fleet carriers and seven amphibious/ trade protection carriers by 1942. Authorisation has been granted to bring the cruiser force up to 100 vessels also by this date.
To ensure there will be an appropriate response to our commitment on the continent, the Army is to form a Mobile Division. This is simply a division sized formation capable of deploying with the speed of their Royal Marine counterparts.
Competition is currently ongoing for a new 4 cannon armed fighter. Trials begin next month between an improved Hurricane, entrance from Supermarine and Westland.'
Looking over to Edward Turnour, who was representing the Air Ministry, he continued "can I state again that Gloster aircraft have not entered this contest, and there is no such plane as the Gladiator 2. Rover are car manufacturers not aero-engineers and their plant beside RAF Cranwell is to facilitate their commitment to the motor vehicle industry.
This and other information regarding the future role of the RAF will be detailed by my Honourable colleague Viscount Swinton."
As Cooper sat down, Churchill rose to his feet, applauding. This was followed by the majority of Conservative MP's who had actually bothered to turn up at the House that day.
Sior
Banned
The Daimler armoured car was OK!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Armoured_Car
but the AEC armoured car was better!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEC_Armoured_Car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Armoured_Car
but the AEC armoured car was better!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEC_Armoured_Car
BSA designed the Daimler A/C and Dingo, but they didn't reach the front line until 1941. Here with the experience in British Somilia and shortly Palistine the RNAS will have them deployed by early 1939.
Sior
Banned
But it was limited to a 2 pdr whilst the AEC could be up gunned to 6pdr/75mm and was armoured like a contemporary tank.