It’s a doctrinal thing again. As long as she only goes up against 6” cruisers or destroyers (or merchant raiders) her 8” will allow her to set the range of the engagement. The squadrons embarked will allow her to dominate the South China Sea, say, outside of a War against a hostile Pacific Great Power.

She’d have been incredibly useful at the Falklands or Coronel, for example. Transported to WWII she’d have been excellent as a raider hunter in the Indian Ocean.

As long as she stays away from anything carrying more than 8” guns, that is.

With 26 aircraft, a Pegasus could probably do a decent job against a heavy cruiser as long as she can stay out of gun range. I doubt the bombs and torpedoes available at this point can deal with an actual capital ship (at least not with only 26 aircraft) but they can probably sink or cripple an 8" cruiser. At worst, they could set the conditions for the Pegasus to finish off her adversary with gunfire.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

As a matter of interest what is the natural speed of an Orion?
They were designed for 21 knots, but by now are probably closer to 18-19 from being on foreign stations and I presume less attention than the 15-inch ships
And throw in several years of wartime service which is hard on machinery

@sonofpegasus when you asked that did you mean the designed speed or the natural speed figure that comes up on these shipbucket sets that people are adding to the thread?
 
Well I made this, with the idea of reconciling all types of vessels, using a combination of its stated or intended role and its combined general characteristics, a table that can be fill by anyone according to its taste and one that can be applied according to a given time period and/or frame:

so the scale goes like this:

  1. First line vessels: full combat capability. Excellent against similars, good against bigger.
  2. Second line: limited combat capability. Good against similars, average against bigger or better
  3. Third line: minimal combat capability. Average against similars, weak against bigger or better
  4. Fourth line: marginal combat capability. Weak against similars, effective against anything smaller.
Note: the table is made on a top-down basis and can be applied equally but separately to Capital ships and non-capital ships.
Note 2: a given ship or class, can be classified on two ranks at the same time as according to each one personal opinions and/or perspective.

For example:

OTL Royal Navy, between the wars.

type​
FIRST​
SECOND​
THIRD​
FOURTH​
Fast battleshipHMS Hood (as build), KGV class
battleshipQE class, R class, Nelson classQE class, R class (both post-1939)
battlecruiserHMS Hood (as build)HMS Hood (post-1939)R&R (post-1936) R&R (pre-1924)

or TTL Royal Navy, currently to 1924:


typeFIRSTSECONDTHIRDFOURTH
Fast battleshipQE class, R class (pre-1920), Rodney
battleshipKGV and Iron Duke classes, QE class, R class, Nelson class
battlecruiserRodneyHood, Howe,Furious, Lion Class (as build)R&R (post-1916), Hood, Howe, Furious, Lion class (post-1916)R&R (as build)
LBB/LBC?, to be seen?, to be seen?, to be seen?, to be seen
 
So basically the OTL London class. Consider the use Britain got out of the OTL ships this is good news.
Yes, with a little more armour and a few more horsepower, paid for by a more flexible attitude to the 10,000 ton pseudo-limit.
Well it's fast and has a good hull so once it's been rebuilt it might be a good carrier and will teach the RN some important lessons. As built she's....... a learning experience.

Good name, good ship. Assuming the 1925 programs tonnage allowance is devoted to a light battlecruiser I hope the RN comes back in 1926 and builds a fourth to give a nice round squadron.

Well that's foreshadowing if ever I heard it.
:)
 
The Cruiser/carrier sounds like an 'interesting' experiment, there was a bit of a designing fad in the 20's and 30's of mixing a cruiser and a carrier

aviation-ship-1937-remodel-png.401669


For example was a design the US was actually looking at in the late 20's early 30s.

1930s-us-navy-flight-deck-cruiser-hybrid-carrier-deck.gif


But I assume she's very much a testbed design and would be put under the list of "Things to never repeat." The RN's not got a 'light BB' out yet but HP machinery and other advances...forshadowing much? :D
 
Sorry, I have to ask:

Does anybody knows, finances apart, which reasons in OTL had the Treasury to cut down so much the defensive arm of the empire?, how they envisioned to protect the sea lanes if they didn't let space for sufficient margin of ships?, an curious now, how much it cost to build and run a County?
The Treasury rarely interfered with or even delayed naval plans during the period - they were cleverer than that.
The cost-cutting came from the political direction (naturally with a strong financial motivation).
In round figures, a County cost a third as much as a battleship to build, with the operating costs a bit higher than that - smaller crew and simpler systems, but a similar size ship.

The burning of the Treasury is not negotiable.
A sound principle, but better delayed until the '50s or '60s.

The same applies to the Americans?, at least in theory?
The tonnage limit yes, but they don't have the same level of need for global coverage or trade protection.
 
The Treasury rarely interfered with or even delayed naval plans during the period - they were cleverer than that.
The cost-cutting came from the political direction (naturally with a strong financial motivation).
Agreed. When people complain about the Treasury they always mean the politicians. The Treasury may advise that spending is high it's the politicians that tell the navy that they need to make cuts for it.
 
In addition, the overall Treaty restriction of 350,000 tons meant that the RN could never build enough 10,000-ton ships.
The same applies to the Americans?, at least in theory?
The tonnage limit yes, but they don't have the same level of need for global coverage or trade protection.

Agreed, the US needed big cruisers for the range to cover Pacific distances, but they didn't need cruisers in the same numbers as the RN due to lower requirements for trade protection (foreign trade for the US was a "nice to have" where it was essential for the UK) and many fewer foreign stations. The US has the Asiatic squadron/fleet, the Pacific fleet, and the Atlantic fleet. The UK has those along with a Med fleet and various ships/squadrons in places like the Med, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, etc. For example, I think the US conducted cruises in the Med, but didn't permanently station fleet elements there until after WW2.
 
Last edited:
Somewhat larger than her OTL namesake. The 6" guns are unnecessary and the 25-knot speed will be a handicap, but she sounds like a useful platform for learning about air operations with the fleet. Is she flush-decked like Argus or is an island structure included from the start?

Incidentally, how are other navies doing in aircraft carrier development? OTL, the USN converted Langley in 1922 and the IJN finished Hosho the same year, so I'd expect them to have some similar vessels operational by 1924. The question then becomes what they do next, given that TTL no-one has the battlecruiser conversions to experiment with larger carriers.
She has an island.
Yes, the 6" guns are undoubtedly going to prove unnecessary, but they're there to allow her to operate independently and defend herself ... or so the thinking goes.
Otherwise, she's someone's idea of a 'fleet carrier' - there to scout and defend the fleet.

Uggh. If the design is even marginally viable when commissioned (I pity the poor pilots trying to land on that deck in any sort of seaway, and it's not clear from the description where the bridge, masts, fire control etc all go) it's going to become very impractical very quickly once aircraft start to get bigger and heavier, landing speeds rise and catapult launches become standard. At best, she ends up as a proto-Tone carrying seaplanes for scouting; more likely she is eventually rebuilt with a flush deck or disarmed as an auxiliary. I foresee a future entry in the Big Book of Negative Examples.
She's a hybrid of County and a bigger version of the real Hermes - complete with island, spotting tops, directors and the rest.
In the near term, she looks like a cruiser with aircraft scouting abilities - superficially ideal for foreign stations to replace a few old cruisers. She can scout or monitor activities over a wide area, launch small strikes with aircraft and finish off the job with the 8".

In the long term ... rebuilds galore!

If the Treasury (or the Admiralty) thinks that even a smallish CV with 20-30 aircraft costs as little to run as half a battleship, they are in for a rude surprise when the bills come in. Aircraft need expensive fuel and lots of maintenance and spares.
I'm surprised they spent money even minimally refitting the Orions. Do we have a list of which older ships are still operational and which ones were disposed of to free up Treaty tonnage space for Trafalgar?
I was primarily referring to the cruisers on costs, but I can imagine a few raised eyebrows once they see the cost of cruiser-carrier rolled into one, particularly once the aircraft start to fall over the side...
A couple of Orions were minimally refitted for oil firing and operated with smaller crews prior to the WNT, as a sort-of replacement for the armoured cruisers. We're not talking about expensive refits.

Princess Royal and Orion are going to make room for Trafalgar. Legally, that only has to be by 1927, but certainly Orion will go well before that to save money.
 
I like Trafalgar and the two Fox class, the carriers aren't optimal but then again the RN doesn't really know what it wants out of the ships or what they can do beyond scouting. Hopefully the RN high-pressure system is more reliable than the German one of OTL (shudders). The Counties are better than OTL, but I hope the British decide to go for some improved Fox class with the Fishers as the ships they run screaming to when attacked by large raiders.
The 300-psi boilers were a great success, they were used on every destroyer and many cruisers for the next 15 years (which was far too long ... but that's another story).
The 'Foxes' could certainly be further improved; a more compact design could be interesting.

I don't know if you've come across it but here is an interesting piece on interwar RN engineering explaining why they didn't follow the USN in adopting high pressure/high temperature boilers. I also assume that this tl's Amazon is OTL's HMS Ambuscade, which was fitted with experimental high pressure machinery while her sister OTL HMS Amazon had conventional machinery, after completion in OTL the RN sent both on a world tour and decided that the increased reliability of the old machinery was more important and thus the next generation of RN destroyers used lower psi systems.
It's a good article, and yes, I'd say there were several contributory reasons.
Amazon is Amazon, although she's a couple of years early.

I think you might be confusing Ambuscade and Acheron?
Both Amazon and Ambuscade were experimental ships, with 300-psi (ish) superheated machinery, although the turbine and boiler designs were different between the two. Yarrow's Ambuscade was typical of their destroyers - much more lightly built and could achieve her speed with less powerful machinery. Amazon was far more powerful, but heavier.

Acheron was a later A-class destroyer fitted with an experimental 500-psi, 700F plant, which was not entirely successful, and the design wasn't pursued.
 
The Cruiser/carrier sounds like an 'interesting' experiment, there was a bit of a designing fad in the 20's and 30's of mixing a cruiser and a carrier

aviation-ship-1937-remodel-png.401669


For example was a design the US was actually looking at in the late 20's early 30s.

1930s-us-navy-flight-deck-cruiser-hybrid-carrier-deck.gif


But I assume she's very much a testbed design and would be put under the list of "Things to never repeat." The RN's not got a 'light BB' out yet but HP machinery and other advances...forshadowing much? :D
And of course if taken to a 'logical' extreme you get something like

british-aircraft-carrier-battleship-from-popular-mechanics-1940.jpg


british-aircraft-carrier-battleship-from-popular-mechanics-1943.jpg

Quite pretty designs indeed, it looks like someone figure out the venator class destroyers on the oceans many years earlier than George Lucas.
 
True. I was just listing incidents off the top of my head. You are right that when something goes wrong everything else tends to too.



2.1 million to build. Let's say an average of 100k a year to maintain. More in refit years less on average but 5% a year is a good rule in general in this era.

Finance is enough of a reason in the treasury's mind. Also the Treasury would generally not support the idea that the Royal Navy should be protecting the sea lanes in general. They would instead reluctantly accept that the Royal Navy should be able to beat any one opponent with a reasonable margin for error. If you had to plan about facing two or three major opponents (as historical) the royal navy can face one and allies can face the others.

The more patriotic Treasury types would claim that a healthy Treasury is necessary for future defense and that by cutting spending they are keeping the Treasury healthy.

Anything can happen if you make it so the Treasury isnt a break on spending or get alternate source of funds. An economic boom through the 20s and 30s or an Indian princely state prince gets a fascination with naval shIps and buys the Royal Navy a couple of cruiser squadrons for the far east changes the maths completely.
Assuming that the Churchill chancellorship is butterflied away (Churchill was terrible at economics) and Britain doesn't go back onto the Gold Standard (maybe promises to someday soon but does not actually shoot itself in the foot with a credit crunch) the interwar British economy should be 8-10% better off than OTL.
 
Top