Direction of Naval technology and Strategy without Carriers

[old_pop2000]

To alleviate some confusion in the other thread, this thread proposes a similar discussion about the direction of naval technology and strategy without the presence of carrier based aircraft. It does not prohibit the development of long range maritime patrol aircraft with or without torpedoes. It does not prohibit the development of long range land based bombers both single, double and multiengined with torpedo carrying and launching capability.

Additionally, World War I occurs, as it was almost inevitable considerating the political and military alliances in place prior to it.

As an outgrowth of this, the Washington Navy Treaty occurs and it bans all development of carriers and carrier based aircraft for a period of 20 years. This means that carrier development cannot commence until 1940, IMO. It does not mention or ban the development of flight deck cruisers, but that point is under discussion by signatory nations.

Also, the treaty has no effect on submarine technology and its growth.

Now, with such parameters defined carefully, how does Naval technology progress? How does this scenario affect dreadnoughts, battlecruisers and other naval vessels? What about naval strategies like War Plan Orange etc.? How are they affected?

Enjoy?

[Ed Rotondaro]

To alleviate some confusion in the other thread, this thread proposes a similar discussion about the direction of naval technology and strategy without the presence of carrier based aircraft. It does not prohibit the development of long range maritime patrol aircraft with or without torpedoes. It does not prohibit the development of long range land based bombers both single, double and multiengined with torpedo carrying and launching capability.

Additionally, World War I occurs, as it was almost inevitable considerating the political and military alliances in place prior to it.

As an outgrowth of this, the Washington Navy Treaty occurs and it bans all development of carriers and carrier based aircraft for a period of 20 years. This means that carrier development cannot commence until 1940, IMO. It does not mention or ban the development of flight deck cruisers, but that point is under discussion by signatory nations.

Also, the treaty has no effect on submarine technology and its growth.

Now, with such parameters defined carefully, how does Naval technology progress? How does this scenario affect dreadnoughts, battlecruisers and other naval vessels? What about naval strategies like War Plan Orange etc.? How are they affected?

Enjoy?

Dennis:

Now this is a more plausible scenario. I imagine that you might see more navalized land aircraft drafted into carrier duty when carriers begin development. All aspects of carrier operations would have to be developed including dive bombing and torpedo attack. AA on ships would probably not be as developed since the perceived threat would not be there. Remembering that high altitude attacks were largely ineffective and not too many nations outside of Germany used dive bombers, navies might have felt that the existing AA was more than adequate to protect a ship.

If we further assume that the Naval limitation treaties continue to restrict capital ship size and numbers, I would expect more cruisers to be built if only to fufill the scouting requirements that aircraft carriers were envisioned to perform (at least for War Plan Orange). Submarines would probably assume some of this duty along with the deep strike mission that carriers would have had.

The big gun capital ship would still be seen as the ultimate arbitrator of naval combat and I would assume that every navy would have their ultimate battleships under construction once the treaties broke down.

[Kyle Holgate]

Dennis:

Now this is a more plausible scenario. I imagine that you might see more navalized land aircraft drafted into carrier duty when carriers begin development. All aspects of carrier operations would have to be developed including dive bombing and torpedo attack. AA on ships would probably not be as developed since the perceived threat would not be there. Remembering that high altitude attacks were largely ineffective and not too many nations outside of Germany used dive bombers, navies might have felt that the existing AA was more than adequate to protect a ship.

If we further assume that the Naval limitation treaties continue to restrict capital ship size and numbers, I would expect more cruisers to be built if only to fufill the scouting requirements that aircraft carriers were envisioned to perform (at least for War Plan Orange). Submarines would probably assume some of this duty along with the deep strike mission that carriers would have had.

The big gun capital ship would still be seen as the ultimate arbitrator of naval combat and I would assume that every navy would have their ultimate battleships under construction once the treaties broke down.

I'd expect to see more cruisers along the lines of the Tone class (lots of sea planes) as well as increased use of seaplanes launched from other ships - maybe even subs such as the Japanese had. Submarines would be the weapon of choice for the smaller navies, hoping to have some chance vs the large navies should a war break out. As with WW1's ending though, ASDIC will of course neutralize the use of subs - so we don't have to worry about them much do we?:eek:

[old_pop2000]

I would expect to see a move toward floatplanes and seaplanes for reconnaissance and scouting. Land based fighters configured as floatplanes could have a place in navies without carriers.

I would expect the submarine to take center stage in navies as the primary ship killer. They would get bigger in displacement, have longer ranges and more technology put into torpedoes.

As for surface ships, with the treaty still in place, not much would happen until the late 1930's after the treaties expired. Same problems with tonnage and size limitations will govern ship building and hence, strategies.

I would expect a change in strategies in the Pacific. With the Japanese occupying the Mandates with long ranged bombers and seaplanes, they could establish those areas with many submarine bases, using their I boats to attack our ships, if the war starts. Obviously, no Pearl Harbor. But without carriers, we are really no threat for at least a year. Without carrier based attack aircraft, island hopping is very difficult, so the strategy would have to be from Australia and India. We would have to solidify New Guinea, then move to Rabaul, and the Philippines used land based support. We would have to reinforce and use India to move towards Indochina along with strong forces in China to allow B-29's and fighters to attack Formosa and the mainland of Japan. The invasion of the Japanese Islands would have to come from China, shortest distance for air support.