WesWorld

I must admit, I do not see where RA's post was abusive. The ESSEX class is widely known as a really good and powerful design for the era. Easily the best balanced CV I can think of, a masterpiece of US navy yards. So to as why somebody is willing to pay 15k more for little gains seems reasonable to me.

Anyway, I like the drawings a lot. Kit bashing from historical drawings gives a very distinctive feeling of "this is real", although minor details are probably an issue.

Just me two cents...

I can see both sides of this arguement. It may seem like rediculous ammounts of AA but keep in mind the U.S. is not using AA above 26mm and below 5" DP.
CV's are trending towards larger than 30,000 tons in Wesworld and nations like Atlantis, the SAE and Italy are finding that their CV's in the 30,000 ton range are still somewhat cramped. The U.S. has used their CV's extensively in naval exersizes and would most likely learn as a result.

The SAE has never laid down a CV of more than 27,000ts standard...

I can see where the longer, larger huill makes sense - when you are preparing for jets already. But this has not yet been an argument.

Btw, I find it rather odd that the USN has no caliber in use between 26mm and 127mm.

I think they have a modern 3'' gun, IIRC.

Naval exercises mean nothing beyond what the nation wants them to show. For all the "simuated" combat, it's all in the hands of the judges, who can bias it any way they want...well, besides incidents such as crashes on carriers and whatnot.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE has never laid down a CV of more than 27,000ts standard...

I can see where the longer, larger huill makes sense - when you are preparing for jets already. But this has not yet been an argument.

While the larger carriers will adapt to operate jets more easily than small CVs, there are other factors which can produce a large carrier without requiring foresight into jet aircraft. For instance, let's not forget that the Midway-class, even larger than this design, was drawn up and laid down in 1942, long before the capabilities of jets began to drive aircraft carrier design.

This isn't even the largest carrier ever proposed in Wesworld, let's remember: Japan has already laid down two which are seven thousand tons heavier, and while the Italian Andread Doria class displaces less than this, it's larger dimension-wise. Speaking of which, the Andrea Doria still needs to be converted back to Springsharp 2.0.

Let me suggest this as an alternative vessel. It provides a more balanced and modernized AA armament, a more suitable (IMHO) armour scheme, and less cost. In addition, the lesser draft and beam will make these ships more handy.

Quoted

Essex Alternative, United States Fleet Carrier laid down 1941

Displacement:
36,733 t light; 37,824 t standard; 41,806 t normal; 44,990 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
921.21 ft / 866.00 ft x 96.00 ft x 32.00 ft (normal load)
280.78 m / 263.96 m x 29.26 m x 9.75 m

Armament:
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (4x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (12x4 guns), 1.95lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
48 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (12x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,126 lbs / 511 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 350

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 2.50" / 64 mm 545.00 ft / 166.12 m 13.00 ft / 3.96 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 97 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.75" / 70 mm 545.00 ft / 166.12 m 32.00 ft / 9.75 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm 0.50" / 13 mm
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 3.50" / 89 mm, Conning tower: 2.50" / 64 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 181,078 shp / 135,084 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 7,166 tons

Complement:
1,461 - 1,900

Cost:
£12.820 million / $51.279 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 141 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 6,637 tons, 15.9 %
- Belts: 750 tons, 1.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,775 tons, 4.2 %
- Armament: 136 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 3,911 tons, 9.4 %
- Conning Tower: 65 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,785 tons, 11.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,920 tons, 28.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 5,073 tons, 12.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 13,250 tons, 31.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
59,361 lbs / 26,926 Kg = 949.8 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 8.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 5.7 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 16.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.07
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.38

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.550
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.02 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 33.67 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 36
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 30.00 ft / 9.14 m
- Mid (50 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Stern: 24.00 ft / 7.32 m
- Average freeboard: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 95.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 197.6 %
Waterplane Area: 60,404 Square feet or 5,612 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 137 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 134 lbs/sq ft or 652 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.00
- Longitudinal: 1.10
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
While the larger carriers will adapt to operate jets more easily than small CVs, there are other factors which can produce a large carrier without requiring foresight into jet aircraft. For instance, let's not forget that the Midway-class, even larger than this design, was drawn up and laid down in 1942, long before the capabilities of jets began to drive aircraft carrier design.

Ah, but the Midways as designed 1942 were meant to provide the capabilities of an Essex (or better) PLUS armor suited to provide full protection against 8" shells and 1,000kg bomb hits (a result of the USN being impressed by Royal Navy carriers and their armored hangar).

To quite Roger Chesneau:
"In this sense, the Midways were a product of the Washington Treaty, despite that agreement having lapsed some years before they were laid down, since the original requirement for armor protection stemmed from the desire to immunise the ships against 8in cruiser fire, the heaviest abailable from such ships for the foreseable future and the heaviest permitted under Washington.

The specification of armouring the new carriers to such an extent was the basis for their increased size."

The armour of the Midways included an 8" belt, 6,3" bulkheads, 2" upper belt up to hangar deck level, 2" main deck, 2" armoured hangar deck and finally a 2,5" flight deck.

However, I do not see the Essex proposed above to be armoured to such an extend to justify their size nor has the USN in WesWorld the experience of seeing armoured carriers survive Stuka attacks and keep going.

So I am back to RA's questions: What justifies their increased size?

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
The SAE has never laid down a CV of more than 27,000ts standard...

I can see where the longer, larger huill makes sense - when you are preparing for jets already. But this has not yet been an argument.

Btw, I find it rather odd that the USN has no caliber in use between 26mm and 127mm.

Thats why I said 30,000 ton range.

Well, if you don't like my simmed one then perhaps I could go with Canis's original design?

USS Ticonderoga, United States Aircraft Carrier laid down 1942

Displacement:
44,031 t light; 45,161 t standard; 48,635 t normal; 51,414 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
926.22 ft / 866.00 ft x 108.00 ft x 35.00 ft (normal load)
282.31 m / 263.96 m x 32.92 m x 10.67 m

Armament:
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (4x2 guns), 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
4 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 62.50lbs / 28.35kg shells, 1942 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
96 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (24x4 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1942 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
98 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (49x2 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1942 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 820 lbs / 372 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 562.90 ft / 171.57 m 12.47 ft / 3.80 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.00" / 51 mm 562.90 ft / 171.57 m 31.40 ft / 9.57 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 2.00" / 51 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm

- Armour deck: 6.00" / 152 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 196,243 shp / 146,397 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 12,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,253 tons

Complement:
1,636 - 2,128

Cost:
£14.922 million / $59.688 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 103 tons, 0.2 %
Armour: 11,066 tons, 22.8 %
- Belts: 2,388 tons, 4.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,308 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 41 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 7,330 tons, 15.1 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 5,127 tons, 10.5 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 13,736 tons, 28.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,603 tons, 9.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 14,000 tons, 28.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
75,345 lbs / 34,176 Kg = 1,205.5 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 11.1 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.07
Metacentric height 6.4 ft / 1.9 m
Roll period: 18.0 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.61

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.520
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.02 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.11 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 44
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 22.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 38.00 ft / 11.58 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 55.00 ft / 16.76 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 55.00 ft / 16.76 m (27.00 ft / 8.23 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Stern: 27.00 ft / 8.23 m
- Average freeboard: 31.90 ft / 9.72 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 83.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 207.6 %
Waterplane Area: 66,035 Square feet or 6,135 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 135 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 139 lbs/sq ft or 678 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.43
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

118 aircraft capacity

And here's a quick carrier based on OTL Essex. Actually its probably more like an Essex 1.5. The reason for there being no 40mm or 20mm in the USN is likely that the USN has not yet seen the need for a gun between its new 3in just coming out in destroyers this year and its 1.1in.

USS Essex, United States Aircraft Carrier laid down 1941

Displacement:
33,241 t light; 34,203 t standard; 37,988 t normal; 41,017 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
871.74 ft / 820.00 ft x 93.00 ft x 27.50 ft (normal load)
265.71 m / 249.94 m x 28.35 m x 8.38 m

Armament:
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns (4x2 guns), 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
8 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 55.18lbs / 25.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (6x8 guns), 0.66lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
48 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns (6x8 guns), 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 918 lbs / 416 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 350

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.00" / 102 mm 535.28 ft / 163.15 m 11.57 ft / 3.53 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.75" / 70 mm 535.28 ft / 163.15 m 26.18 ft / 7.98 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
2nd: 3.00" / 76 mm 1.00" / 25 mm 2.00" / 51 mm
3rd: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -
4th: 1.00" / 25 mm 0.50" / 13 mm -

- Armour deck: 2.50" / 64 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 181,412 shp / 135,333 Kw = 33.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 6,814 tons

Complement:
1,359 - 1,768

Cost:
£12.013 million / $48.052 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 129 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 5,443 tons, 14.3 %
- Belts: 1,048 tons, 2.8 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,426 tons, 3.8 %
- Armament: 119 tons, 0.3 %
- Armour Deck: 2,777 tons, 7.3 %
- Conning Tower: 73 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,794 tons, 12.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 11,124 tons, 29.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 4,747 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 11,750 tons, 30.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
58,273 lbs / 26,432 Kg = 932.4 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 7.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.08
Metacentric height 5.2 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 17.1 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 59 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.08
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.32

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.634
Length to Beam Ratio: 8.82 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 32.55 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 35.00 ft / 10.67 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Forecastle (30 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Mid (50 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 29.00 ft / 8.84 m
- Stern: 23.00 ft / 7.01 m
- Average freeboard: 28.55 ft / 8.70 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 244.0 %
Waterplane Area: 60,039 Square feet or 5,578 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 137 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 129 lbs/sq ft or 629 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.98
- Longitudinal: 1.15
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

91 aircraft carried

I like that one - good for economy builds, and just large enough to pack a decent modern air-group.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
Well, if you don't like my simmed one then perhaps I could go with Canis's original design?

I think you misunderstand me. It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't understand the reason for it.

The historical Essex-Class ships were fine operating the period aircraft, but not late 1940s F7F, XTB2F etc. however we're some way away from those aircraft. For current F6F, TBF etc. the ~27,000t ~250m carrier is fine. An airgroup of over 100 aircraft becomes unwieldy pretty much whatever the ship size. The USN should have plenty of experience already with what is possible given the two Lexingtons being around for 20 years.

Adding more armour to the designs - well, not only has there been no WWII experience of the British AFD ships in action, but the AFD ships themselves don't actually exist. I think the only AFD carriers around are Garibaldi and Cavour and they haven't been hit either. The rationale there is similar to the British ships. Operations in the Med. lead to common encounters with land based aircraft.

I'd be interested to know why the USN has decided that aircraft carriers with greatly increased armour are necessary.

Quoted

It may seem like rediculous ammounts of AA but keep in mind the U.S. is not using AA above 26mm and below 5" DP.

It's pretty difficult to see where 24 quadruple 1.1" and 49 duple 0.5" mountings would actually fit on the ships - especially with multiple deck edge elevators taking up valuable real estate.

Quoted

The reason for there being no 40mm or 20mm in the USN is likely that the USN has not yet seen the need for a gun between its new 3in just coming out in destroyers this year and its 1.1in.

I thought one of the major reasons for the change over was that the 1.1" simply didn't work very well.

What is the new 3" gun? Interesting to mount it on destroyers along with the 5"/38 DP.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

The reason for there being no 40mm or 20mm in the USN is likely that the USN has not yet seen the need for a gun between its new 3in just coming out in destroyers this year and its 1.1in.

I thought one of the major reasons for the change over was that the 1.1" simply didn't work very well.

The 1.1" automatic was not particularly well-liked due to maintenance issues.

There are a variety of problems with building a ~27,000 ton carrier. First of all, the US like everyone else is abiding by the aircraft rule and therefore late 1940's propeller powered aircraft will become mid 1940's aircraft in Wesworld. Building a historical Essex is a waste of tonnage, because once the historical ship is complete it won't be operating F6F fighters like they did historically, they will be operating F7F and F8F fighters. Therefore I would have a nice shiny carrier, and no modern aircraft to fly off of it. I did that with Brazil once already, I would prefer not to do it with the US. Also, the USN has the indignity of having the second largest carrier in the Americas by tonnage, and would like to reticfy that, so a carrier around ~27,000 tons is out. If I were to build that, I might as well wait until 1943 and build a historical Midway on the historical date and skip Essex altogether. Due to the +3 rule aircraft carriers also have to move ahead, otherwise we will have nice shiny planes that cannot be used on our nice shiny carriers because they are to small.

I cannot directly answer your question about why the USN has decided that aircraft carriers with greatly increased armour is necessary seeing as I did not design a carrier with greatly increased armour. Canis did. That being said, the experience of RSAN Hammer in the South American War seems to indicate to the USN that carriers need both protectors and protection, and in classic American style if we are going to armour the sides of the thing we might as well armour the top too.

As for the 3in DP, its to be used on some destroyer refits.

Actually, the top is the only part worth armoring, as it's much more likely you'll need to keep bombs out than shells. If your carrier is getting shot at by surface ships, then you've already majorly goofed and no amount of armor is likely to redeem it - so save the weight, I say.

Some new submarines to be built for the USN, here are the first class of which 4 are to be built. All designed by Canis.

Argonaut, United States Submarine laid down 1941

Displacement:
2,910 t light; 2,996 t standard; 3,383 t normal; 3,693 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
358.03 ft / 358.00 ft x 34.00 ft x 23.00 ft (normal load)
109.13 m / 109.12 m x 10.36 m x 7.01 m

Armament:
2 - 5.00" / 127 mm guns in single mounts, 55.12lbs / 25.00kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts
2 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (1x2 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft
2 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 112 lbs / 51 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
10 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators plus batteries,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 9,914 shp / 7,396 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 15,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 697 tons

Complement:
221 - 288

Cost:
£0.938 million / $3.754 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 16 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 262 tons, 7.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,892 tons, 55.9 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 474 tons, 14.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 740 tons, 21.9 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
2,055 lbs / 932 Kg = 32.9 x 5.0 " / 127 mm shells or 0.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 1.0 ft / 0.3 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 1 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.423
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.53 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 18.92 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 42 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Mid (50 %): 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Stern: 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Average freeboard: 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.3 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 0.7 %
Waterplane Area: 7,605 Square feet or 706 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 243 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 158 lbs/sq ft or 772 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 3.22
- Longitudinal: 1.97
- Overall: 2.23
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

And the other submarine class for the USN, 8 are to be built.

Gato, United States Submarine laid down 1941

Displacement:
1,611 t light; 1,651 t standard; 1,848 t normal; 2,006 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
311.03 ft / 311.00 ft x 27.00 ft x 18.00 ft (normal load)
94.80 m / 94.79 m x 8.23 m x 5.49 m

Armament:
1 - 3.00" / 76.2 mm guns in single mounts, 13.50lbs / 6.12kg shells, 1941 Model
Dual purpose gun in deck mount
on centreline forward, 1 raised gun
2 - 1.10" / 27.9 mm guns (1x2 guns), 0.67lbs / 0.30kg shells, 1941 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mount
on centreline aft
2 - 0.50" / 12.7 mm guns in single mounts, 0.06lbs / 0.03kg shells, 1941 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 15 lbs / 7 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 300
10 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm submerged torpedo tubes

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion generators plus batteries,
Electric motors, 2 shafts, 7,065 shp / 5,270 Kw = 21.00 kts
Range 11,000nm at 10.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 355 tons

Complement:
140 - 183

Cost:
£0.520 million / $2.080 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 2 tons, 0.1 %
Machinery: 187 tons, 10.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,023 tons, 55.3 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 237 tons, 12.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 400 tons, 21.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
678 lbs / 308 Kg = 50.2 x 3.0 " / 76 mm shells or 0.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.00
Metacentric height 0.7 ft / 0.2 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 1 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.428
Length to Beam Ratio: 11.52 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 17.64 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Mid (50 %): 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Stern: 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
- Average freeboard: 0.10 ft / 0.03 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 116.5 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 0.7 %
Waterplane Area: 5,265 Square feet or 489 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 234 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 124 lbs/sq ft or 607 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 3.23
- Longitudinal: 1.59
- Overall: 1.90
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is extremely poor
Ship has quick, lively roll, not a steady gun platform
Caution: Lacks seaworthiness - very limited seakeeping ability

Yes, now that is a good submarine.

Quoted

Due to the +3 rule aircraft carriers also have to move ahead, otherwise we will have nice shiny planes that cannot be used on our nice shiny carriers because they are to small.

You sound as if an aircraft HAS to be three years ahead of OTL. This is not the case. It is not even a rule. It is a gentlemen´s agreement to allow some leeway, to set at least some kind of limit to the power gamers among us (and back then when the agreement was born to life).

If you - or any other player - think your ship and aircraft development cannot be ahead of OTL without loosing grip on reality, you are not forced to do it. Stay OTL or even behind that if you like. IT is questionable at best that the lack of depression would really result in earlier development of things. And there is no WW2 to quicken things.

Also, what do you think is a reasonable decision for your navy NOW? From an IC point of view? What you have presented is pure hindsight.

Quoted

Originally posted by TheCanadian
There are a variety of problems with building a ~27,000 ton carrier. First of all, the US like everyone else is abiding by the aircraft rule and therefore late 1940's propeller powered aircraft will become mid 1940's aircraft in Wesworld. Building a historical Essex is a waste of tonnage, because once the historical ship is complete it won't be operating F6F fighters like they did historically, they will be operating F7F and F8F fighters. Therefore I would have a nice shiny carrier, and no modern aircraft to fly off of it.

I think I've got to disagree with that. F6F and F4U are barely into service and you can definitely operate F8F off an Essex sized ship. You're getting up towards A3Ds before you have massive problems with the size of the ship. (Actually it looks like A3Ds did operate off the Essex-Class). Does the USN really need to operate the F7F off aircraft carriers? It's pretty big an unnecessary given the other aircraft around. They're lightweight AI sets for the single engined fighters to be used as night fighters.

In essence, one aircraft design has driven the ship size up a lot, but what extra capability has that brought you for the cost?

Historically, the USN managed just fine with the Essex-Class up until the 1970s. It's only when you put really big and heavy aircraft on them that it's too much.