I must be going senile, I completely forgot about this topic I stated late last year and then I post the following on ericr's floatplane topic:
Re: catapult, blue, with Saab 91 : primary seaplanes
« Reply #177 on: Yesterday at 11:58:55 AM »
Been doing a bit of reading on British battleships and cruisers and was surprised to see just how important float and seaplanes were to the RN plans between the wars. The were requirements for light reconnaissance/spotting (Seafox), long range reconnaissance (Fairey IIIF), floatplane fighter (Flycatcher), reconnaissance fighter (Osprey, later Skua and Roc) and torpedo bomber (Swordfish).
The idea was each cruiser in the force intended to hold the Japanese until the arrival of the Mediterranean Fleet would each carry a number of aircraft and together provide an adequate mix of types in sufficient numbers to be effective. Light cruisers would carry a minimum of a Seafox but the larger ships would have a mix of fighters and reconnaissance types while some would carry torpedo bombers instead of one or more of the other types. The battleships and battlecruisers in particular would carry fighters to defend themselves against torpedo bombers. It was realised that carriers would be more effective but also that due to treaty limitations they would often not be available where needed, hence the requirement for what was basically a fleet unit of a capital ship or two plus several cruisers to be able to put up their own force of reconnaissance, fighter and strike aircraft.
Off topic but pre Washington treaty one option the RN was looking at for operations in SEA was a new large cruiser along the lines of the Courageous class, that, in addition to big guns, torpedos and aircraft, also carried a couple of MTBs (motor torpedo boats) in addition to the ships boats. now that would be a ship and a half, multiple catapults (or at least a midriff one flanked by large hangers) as well as a pair of MBTs on davits.
How weird that I read that what I thought was my bright idea was actually RN "between the wars" strategy for pretty much the reasons I brought up. Anyway having read the actual RN thinking what I am really talking about is a new generation of aircraft to replace existing or retired types.
One of the factors that killed off the plan was the Seagull V / Walrus, it was apparently the first ship based aircraft capable of operating from rough (or at least rougher than glass flat) seas, so dramatically expanding the operational envelope of ship based aircraft operation, that it simply made sense to transition to that more versatile and effective type.
The concept of capital ships and large cruisers carrying MTBs was also very interesting but obviously completely unviable once the Washington Treaty displacement limits came in. While an option on a 15-20000 ton cruiser or 50000 plus ton battleship there was no way a 10,000 cruiser or 35000 ton capital ship could afford the space or wait such an arrangement would require, or more to the point the reduction in other areas it would entail. My thoughts of how it could have come about while still having a naval limitation treaty would be that instead of an overall and individual maximum displacement limits for each type there was simply a maximum number of ships of each type that could be built, while retaining minimum replacement age and maximum calibre limits, plus maybe a maximum number of guns at maximum calibre. This would still limit the maximum reasonable size for a battleship or cruiser because it would just be wasteful building a ship greater than a particular size if the number and size of guns were capped but the British could probably surprise everyone when their new ships appeared in the late 20s with half a dozen or more float planes of different types and a pair of MBTs.
