WesWorld

Is she worth it? Meant to replace losses (if any ;o)) and to operate most modern aircraft then in service during fleet operations, strike and scouting missions.

CV37B, South African Fleet Carrier laid down 1937

Displacement:
26.920 t light; 27.770 t standard; 30.675 t normal; 32.998 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
750,13 ft / 734,91 ft x 98,43 ft x 25,59 ft (normal load)
228,64 m / 224,00 m x 30,00 m x 7,80 m

Armament:
24 - 4,53" / 115 mm guns (12x2 guns), 46,40lbs / 21,05kg shells, 1937 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 1,57" / 40,0 mm guns (8x3 guns), 1,95lbs / 0,88kg shells, 1937 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (4x6 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1937 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on centreline, evenly spread, all raised mounts
20 - 0,79" / 20,0 mm guns (10x2 guns), 0,24lbs / 0,11kg shells, 1937 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1.171 lbs / 531 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 350

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 3,15" / 80 mm 524,93 ft / 160,00 m 15,09 ft / 4,60 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 110% of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1,18" / 30 mm 590,55 ft / 180,00 m 25,59 ft / 7,80 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1,38" / 35 mm 0,98" / 25 mm 1,38" / 35 mm
2nd: 0,59" / 15 mm - -
3rd: 0,39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2,36" / 60 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 174.000 shp / 129.804 Kw = 33,57 kts
Range 8.500nm at 18,00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 5.228 tons

Complement:
1.158 - 1.506

Cost:
£9,493 million / $37,972 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 146 tons, 0,5%
Armour: 4.170 tons, 13,6%
- Belts: 1.053 tons, 3,4%
- Torpedo bulkhead: 660 tons, 2,2%
- Armament: 93 tons, 0,3%
- Armour Deck: 2.364 tons, 7,7%
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0,0%
Machinery: 4.823 tons, 15,7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 9.282 tons, 30,3%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 3.754 tons, 12,2%
Miscellaneous weights: 8.500 tons, 27,7%

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
42.476 lbs / 19.267 Kg = 915,3 x 4,5 " / 115 mm shells or 5,6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1,14
Metacentric height 6,3 ft / 1,9 m
Roll period: 16,5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 52 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0,07
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1,00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0,580
Length to Beam Ratio: 7,47 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 31,39 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 59 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 52
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22,00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2,62 ft / 0,80 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 31,17 ft / 9,50 m
- Forecastle (20%): 24,28 ft / 7,40 m
- Mid (50%): 24,28 ft / 7,40 m
- Quarterdeck (15%): 24,28 ft / 7,40 m
- Stern: 24,28 ft / 7,40 m
- Average freeboard: 24,83 ft / 7,57 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 107,7%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 216,0%
Waterplane Area: 54.091 Square feet or 5.025 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 131%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 126 lbs/sq ft or 617 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0,98
- Longitudinal: 1,18
- Overall: 1,00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

How many aircraft is she expected to operate?


Germany's thought is that 24 4.5" guns might be a bit excessive, while the armor might be a little bit light (no armor on the hangar, thin anti-torpedo armor). She's about the same size as the under-construction Peter Strasser class that is being built, faster, but bit more lightly protected. That may be OK, she's likely to be operating in less constricted waters, but......

90 I would think which would leave 400 tons for other useful stuff.

That's my guess as well, but if stated that makes it clearer.

I expect her to carry about 7 combat squadrons (84 planes) plus another squadron demounted.

Those 24 115mm guns would be installed in groups of three at each end of her flight deck. Why would you reduce their number?

Why would I reduce the number of 4.5" guns? Mostly to get down to a historical number, which I think was around 16 or so, and to get some more weight for armor.

I came to the conclusion that more guns were better and ended up with 24x100mm AA guns on Italy's large carrier. Then I opted for 152mm guns instead as the 100mm was a bit too small against surface targets.

The problem is we haven't had any CV's come under heavy air attack to prove that AA is still weak, not to mention that Wesworld AA is much heavier than historical already.

24 - 4,53" to me lends itself to a very large CV and not a quazi-emergency build carrier.

She's nice, and quite large.
I'm not familiar enough with the RSAN fleet to know if you have 18knt cruise escort vessels to accompany, or would need to build special.

The Secondary 115mm is numerically large. So?
The question is- is it enough to fend off marauding CLs and DDs in a heavy storm? 12 per side is nice. I'd be inclined to go a little larger.

I remember reading that hoists for deck edge mounts were difficult on carriers, especially if the deck extended past the hull. Hence the odd angled columns below OTL IJN mounts. Having clusters of 3 would make for an interesting appearance.

For a vessel representing this level of investment, I would think it desirable to have a slightly thicker torpedo bulkhead, and a slightly thicker belt.

Thanks for your comments.

The 115mm caliber is standard among the RSAN. There is no heavier DP gun design available but DP is what I want on a carrier as there is not enough weight reserve and room on these modern vessels to go with SP guns for AAA and anti-ship. On my old CVs things were different. Those had 15cm casemats. So without installing casemats for several reasons and no desire to install turret mounts all I could do is increase the number of medium-caliber DP guns. The barrage of fire possible should help to keep enemy lattackers away from the ship. Additionally doctrines have been modified due to experience.

Armour - Originally I went for carriers with relatively heavy armor. This new design puts more emphasis on speed and range due to the experience made during the South American War. Without increasing her size beyond 30000ts (due to costs) there is no reserve left for heavier armor.

TB - According to SS she can withstand up to 5 TTs which I´d consider good enough for a ship her size. (Knowing that this doesn´t mean 5 TTs on one side. If not at the extreme ends 3 TTs from one side will capsize her anyway.)

Size and range - She actually is the larges carrier ever designed for the RSAN at ~27000ts. Her cruise speed was set to 18kn to follow a trend in WesWorld designs. I expect her to operate with an average 15kn which puts her on the same level as most cruisers and escorts. It also opens a window should 18kn become standard cruise speed for the next generation of ships designed for the RSAN.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn

TB - According to SS she can withstand up to 5 TTs which I´d consider good enough for a ship her size. (Knowing that this doesn´t mean 5 TTs on one side. If not at the extreme ends 3 TTs from one side will capsize her anyway.)

Springsharp's funny about TDS thickness. You get huge returns for simply having one- of any thickness, and diminishing returns later. Further there is no consideration of Torpedo size and blast.

My comment was more based in two half-remembered things I read in the dim past. Which of course is a *great* basis to comment.

The first was a comment that the USN considered 20mm/0.8" armor sufficient vs. light splinters and blast. I figure that's good for a holding bulkhead meant to contain damage, or guard against sprung seams and light warheads- the 25mm TDS you see in someplaces. The second was I think in relation to Bismarck, that some 40mm plate was sufficient against all splinters and so was good.

Your TDS is in between, but I'd rather see it over the latter mark, so that splinters/hull members don't pierce it, even if it holds vs. the torpedo.

But I'll admit I don't have great footing on this one.