Dark Earth: The History of the Aircraft Carrier

I am surprised that you did not make them like this: Molucca/Ijsselmeer

Interesting to hear, but i always the question the use of hybrid carriers/battleships as i always wondered, using the big guns would hampered flight operations and vice versa.

Would OTL Japanese battleship Ise also be consider a hybrid carrier, sorry if i am going of track.

Also are the carriers large enough to operate bombers like OTL B-25 as i seem to think with bigger ships in the Darkearth verse, the carrier also will be bigger and thus capable of operating medium bombers like OTL B-25.

Would they look like something as OTL USS United States (CVA-58).

Please tell me Project Habakkuk is real in the Darkearh verse.

Perhaps the major difference as of 1939 is that the four major fleets all have more carriers than in @, which will impact their options as the war progresses. Along with this, there are more modern battleships around.

Thanks Steve. There is a fair bit of expansion in the construction programmes, but even the New Standard Fleet Plan is based on historical 1930s expansion options.

1.) Austria-Hungary retains Trieste and Slovenia. Their fleet was badly impacted by defeat, with Italy taking two of their 350mm super dreadnoughts and Yugoslavia taking the other and their remaining second generation 305mm ship. They were limited to the four Viribus Unitis battleships, with the right to replace them with four new vessels after 1925. They weren't invited to Paris or given any carrier tonnage. The only reasons that they were permitted a residual fleet was as a British-backed method of ensuring that Italy didn't completely dominate the area, as part of plans to prop up Austria-Hungary to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union; creating a power vacuum was not seen as being in British interests.

2.) Japan was forced to accept parity with France as the French were in a much, much better naval position after the Great War. The historical nadir of the French battlefleet under the influence of the Jeune Ecole and other factors that resulted in France being behind the eight-ball in the period 1900-1914 did not occur here. The Japanese had the option of grudgingly accepting an unsatisfactory result, or seeing the British and Americans build them into bankruptcy.

Spain in 1921 had a GDP of £2,358,744,722/$141,524,683,295 (Defence Spending: £99,067,278 (4.2%)), compared to a Dutch GDP of $115 billion, so it is within the general vicinity, but clearly ahead. They were on the winning side, so merit an invitation. The circumstances of their 'parity' with Italy are a bit deceptive.

As a result of the Paris Naval Agreement, the fleets are as follows:

Italy (11 + 2)
Vittorio Emanuele: 32,000t, 12 x 356mm, 12 x 152mm, 12 x 120mm
Regina Elena: 32,000t, 12 x 356mm, 12 x 152mm, 12 x 120mm

Conte di Cavour: 45,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Leonadro da Vinci: 45,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Giulio Cesare: 45,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Andrea Doria: 45,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Caio Duilio: 45,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm

Cristoforo Colombo: 54,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Marcantonio Colonna: 54,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Francesco Ferruccio: 54,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm
Bartolomeo Colleoni: 54,000t, 9 x 425mm, 16 x 152mm


Vittorio Emanuele: 70,000t, 9 x 510mm, 16 x 152mm, 33kts
Ruggiero di Lauria: 70,000t, 9 x 510mm, 16 x 152mm, 33kts

Spain (11)
Santo Domingo: 42,000t, 8 x 380mm, 16 x 120mm, 12 x 75mm
San Carlos: 42,000t, 8 x 380mm, 16 x 120mm, 12 x 75mm
San Jose: 42,000t, 8 x 380mm, 16 x 120mm, 12 x 75mm
San Fernando: 42,000t, 8 x 380mm, 16 x 120mm, 12 x 75mm

Francisco Pizarro: 32,000t, 8 x 340mm, 16 x 120mm, 12 x 75mm
Hernando Cortez: 32,000t, 8 x 340mm, 16 x 120mm, 12 x 75mm

ex Lion: 42,000t, 8 x 15”, 16 x 6”, 16 x 4”
ex Tiger: 42,000t, 8 x 15”, 16 x 6”, 16 x 4”
ex Princess Royal: 42,000t, 8 x 15”, 16 x 6”, 16 x 4”
ex Queen Mary: 42,000t, 8 x 15”, 16 x 6”, 16 x 4”

Cristobal Colon: 46,000t, 8 x 380mm, 16 x 120mm, 16 x 75mm

Whilst there is nominal numerical parity, the Italians have ships with superior armament.

3.) On the size of carriers:

They hit a point of diminishing returns when WW2 technology and particularly aeroplanes are considered. This changes when airgroups shrink with the advent of jets, with further size increases coming from increased armaments stores and power plants. There is less of an advantage to trying to build a carrier capable of operating 150 planes than two carriers that can operate 80-90 planes each.