-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, the Bearn is CV on par with the Graf Zeppelin, eg the equivalent tonnage would have been better served in anything else.
Bearn was a decent way to get some carrier practice while also making use of an incomplete battleship hull. Obviously somewhat ineffective usage of tonnage compared to purpose built carriers, but that was standard for all battleship-carrier conversions. Comparison with Graf Zeppelin is completely out of place, those ships were built in completely different times and different security situations.
Last edited:
Pre-WWI hull that the French had no idea what to make off after WWI, they decided to turn it into an experimental aircraft carrier in the early 20ies, so really a good usage of a tonnage that would have been otherwise wasted.
I did not know it was the ship that transported the gold reserve, so learning something new myself.
I did not know it was the ship that transported the gold reserve, so learning something new myself.
A 21.5 knot ship as a carrier, which cannot even outrun a Queen Elisabeth class BB? And based on that speed and the 180 meter long flight deck I can imagine what kind of aircrafts it could operate. Would have been more effective as scrap iron.
Fast enough to keep up with Bretagnes and Courbets forming the French battle line in 1920s. Too slow for WW II fleet carrier operations? Indeed, but that was obviously not the purpose of the ship anyway. If you want to get involved in carrier operations you gotta start somewhere. Your first one will most likely have some serious flaws, but this is normal as lessons learned can be later applied to next designs. Also 180 m flight deck is actually slightly longer than Independence class.
Last edited:
The French planners were indeed very stupid ! They should have known in 1920 that they should prepare for a war in 1940 where standard speed would be >30 knots and that planes in 1940 would need a flight deck of more than 180m.
Now, checking quickly wikipedia :
The first US aircraft carrier USS Langley had a top speed of less than 20 knots and the flight deck was definitely shorter - and it served in the Pacific.
The first UK aircraft carrier HMS Argus had a top speed of around 21 knots as well and a 170m flight deck, and it also served in WW2.
The first Japanese aircraft carrier was going at 25 knots and had a 170m flight deck and well yes it served in the Pacific.
This is the real life. You need to test stuff. And you fight with everything you have, not only your best ships.
But... 21 knots is pathetic indeed, even for the 20s...
HMS Furious achieved 30, Kaga 28,5 knots...
HMS Furious achieved 30, Kaga 28,5 knots...
Let's take the Battle History of USS Langley as your guide. She topped out at 15 knots and served in the Pacific during WWII.
During the Interwar Period, US Military had to BEG for money from a government not interested in investing in ships but preferred negotiating a treaty to prevent others from building ships. And when Billy Mitchell PROVED airplanes could sink ships, he was court-martialed and drummed out of the military only to become a national martyr for the concept of airpower.
USS Langley was commissioned in 1922. It was a piece of crap from the word go, BUT it was a functional aircraft carrier that filled a number of roles. One, it was a public relations godsend taken from State Fair to State Fair, sailed around the coastline of the country, and shown as a marvel of modern warfare to intrigue the general public (at the navy's expense) while pilots did barnstorming acts to fuel interest in flying. Second, it allowed Naval Aviators a platform to build operational guidelines and think about the future. Third, it allowed naval architects to point out its flaws and dream about tomorrow.
Out of Langley springs CV 3 and 4, Saratoga and Lexington, as a pair of genuine racehorses built as battlecruisers with the flaws you would expect from converted hulls, but for the time and for the Naval Aviators they were gifts from Heaven that permitted full blown carrier operations exercises to commence. The US Navy builds USS Ranger (badly) as its first true aircraft carrier, and it is adequate as an ASW platform in the Atlantic. CV-5 Yorktown Class, is exceptional. Yorktown is sunk early, but CV-6 USS Enterprise was such an elite ship and crew that it was not allowed to die but was reborn as the first nuclear powered carrier in the world: USS Enterprise, CVN-65. Indeed, its name is branded into the stars, and not by accident is it the ship assigned to Kirk and Spock as they fulfill their five year mission to boldly go where no man has gone before.
The rest of the story is known. Wasp and Hornet are slightly improved. The Essex class is legendary, forming the core of the Big Blue Fleet and providing it's Big Blue Blanket to keep it warm at night surrounding USS New Jersey as Halsey bulled his way into Tokyo Bay.
Langley is scuttled in 1942, after serving as a plane ferry and ASW escort in Australian waters before it was inevitably was spotted and later scuttled after being damaged by a Japanese bombing attack. But it served its purpose.
France built a Langley, and stopped. Why? They wanted to build a wall. Which should be a lesson to everyone who thinks building a wall is a solution to your problems.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!: There is a movie called 'Task Force' starring Gary Cooper and his usual crew made by the US Navy after WWII using real war footage of every carrier from Langley, Lady Lex and Saratoga, Pearl, Midway, up to the kamikazee attacks on USS Franklin (CV-13) that damaged it so badly it returned to port and never fought again. It demonstrates quite clearly the process by which the battleship Iowa class is built around the War Room that became the control center for the entire Fifth Fleet. This should be required viewed for anyone who has ever played Hearts of Iron, or are remotely interested in the Pacific during WWII, the US navy, or carrier forces in general. Highest recommendation!!!!!! I am not kidding - endure the backstory, revel in the Navy.
Last edited:
To be fair to the French, having proper carriers would have done less to prevent the fall of France than the Maginot line did.
There are other very real reasons for which the French did not go beyond their Langley, :
- interwar incapacity of France to ramp up its plane industry,
- a priority (logically) given to the army due to (correct) forecast that the next war would be in Europe,
- few interests to defend in the Pacific,
- a lot of land airbases in the Med,
- decent to excellent floatplanes for expected sub hunt in the Atlantic
- an incapacity to keep the same Ministry of War for more than say one year so anything beyond the WWI automatism ("build more battleships")was difficult to bear to fruition,
- conservative Navy and in general a lot of politics in the Navy,
The Maginot Lines was one of the few interwar military projects that managed to be (almost) completed, and a VERY good idea. The Germans did NOT pass through the Maginot line indeed.
Last edited:
- 1
I am in total agreement. If they built the Maginot Line from Alps to Sea, it would have been a formidable barrier and prevented what occurred. Or build no wall and invest in men and arms. Political compromise as a weapons design team was, as usual, a failure. When you build half a wall and a traitor allows your battleplans to be handed to the enemy, tough to win a war under those circumstances.
Last edited:
HMS Furious was a battlecruiser conversion, the Bearn was built on a battleship hull.
There was actually a follow up planned, but obviously 1940 cut it off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joffre-class_aircraft_carrier
France also had lower limits under the Washington Naval Treaties than USA, UK, or Japan for what it is worth, so had to allocate its tonnage more carefully.
As for the Maginot, it fulfilled its purpose of funneling the Germans into the Low Countries (ensuring Britain would join the war and allowing the Allies to concentrate their army there). The failure came from the armies sent to fight the Germans getting cut off and overwhelmed.
As for the Maginot, it fulfilled its purpose of funneling the Germans into the Low Countries (ensuring Britain would join the war and allowing the Allies to concentrate their army there). The failure came from the armies sent to fight the Germans getting cut off and overwhelmed.
- 1
This is not how it works, to understand carrier warfare you need a carrier, any carrier. Neither Bearn or GZ been really bad ships, just useless due to how the war developed.
Stooopid French surrendermonkies should have just built flying and watergoing Saint-Charmond tanks en masse. You could easily have put a few planes and a catapult on top of those potential merville des armes.
- 1
A worthy idea, but you neglect the amphibious possibilities inherent in retrofitting the Surcouf for land operations. Imagine: a land submarine aircraft carrier with cruiser guns. The mind boggles at the potential strategic implications.