WesWorld

Not bad, but I think 100,000shp on 1927 boilers and a unit system those funnels should be bigger, wider and atleast one should be much further forward.

Cheers,

I´m not sure what it is: An ESSEX-class carrier of 1942 warped back in time into the 1927 Or an EAGLE class CV?

Anyway, she seems to be 15 years ahead of her time. Both classes mentioned above where not laid down prior to 1942. I thus applaud the Italian designer to be such a great visionary.... He skipped the 30s. If he had implemented an angled flight deck and steam catapults he could have made it right into the late-50s. Logic should ask for these features like for the deck edge lift anyway.... :o/

*shrug* But this is WesWorld for you....

It´s a great drawing, great concept, no matter what. Propably moving her funnels further forward would slightly improve her look even though she´s already a beauty.

The loading of A/C in the lower hangar is not a good idea, as already pointed out. I also think her rudder/screw configuration is flawed - at least her manoverability should be heavily impaired... Probably a topic for the BB vs BB - I wonder what the professionals think of this?

"Technology and you....[SIZE=1]a public service announcement[/SIZE]."

15 years?....I didn't think we were that far ahead in terms of innovation. Looking at some navies, they are either on target for technology, or perhaps a few years ahead. In a few you are nearly as the correct technology, but have an overload equipment for the time period (innovation before an event which would cause one to enact any such practise), such as the enlarged and deadly anti-aircraft battery clusters that sometime appear. And then some have things that would have scared the crap out of a designer or admiral in the mid-1920s.

While we know the Americans and Japanese built fast carriers from the start (or nearly the start), it was mostly because of what they used originally (battlecruisers). And while the Italian motto has become "speed is armor", is this reflected in a carrier with heavy deck armor? Is there really a need for an edge elevator at this time or in the next five years after her commissioning date? (remember, biplanes, slow, relatively ineffective as of yet in terms of naval warfare). This is partly why I asked if Italy would need 3 large carriers in the late 1920s...they, and to some extent the airplane in naval warfare, are fairly unproven concepts at this time. In 1926 and 1927 when this carrier would be designed, there wouldn't be more than a handful of large carriers undergoing trails and seeing their first deployments. All the Italians of Wesworld will have to go on in terms of carrier efficiently in combat is the Indian carrier Otta. While that may give way to the need for a larger carrier, would this give rise to very late 1930's and early 1940's innovations a decade to a decade and a half early?

I'm not asking you to stop or redesign....just to think about the implications and consequences of this design on the world in the late 1920's.

Speaking of switch, when it this ship due to be commissioned.

The Italians are building on extensive experience with MM Morosini, after all.

And she's armored against 2000lb bombs from dive bombers. So how many dive bombers are there in the WesWorld, and how many can carry a 2000lb bomb?

Quoted

I think loading weapons on your aircraft on the lower hanger is a flawed concept. A carrier a/c with fuel and weapons on board is a potential time bomb.

However the only way around that is to not have carriers. She is far less vulnerable than other carriers. Theres also extensive Italian experience with damage control on carriers. Italy is aware of the risks, their first carrier got burnt a lot causing her to be rebuilt. Lucky it was raining.

Quoted

My own personal taste shudders at the sight of Europa's Island structure, I think the two funnel arrangement is a waste of space and a single funnel would significantly improve her appearance.

Two funnels are needed for the propulsion system. Far better than having 1 huge funnel. The propulsion system is a unit en echelon, not B_E_B_E but BE_BB_EB sorta. I think the funnels are large enough. Compared to Joffre(well a similar project) that has 110,000shp Europa has an extra funnel and both are bigger.

The gun armament is grouped together on grounds of space and maximising deck area. THe director in between the funnels isn't a great position, but it gives some coverage. The island doesn't look too cluttered yet. Wait until 1940s with loads of radars and radio equipment.

The picture shows port and starboard views BTW, because a carrier is asymmetrical.

Quoted

I´m not sure what it is: An ESSEX-class carrier of 1942 warped back in time into the 1927 Or an EAGLE class CV?

Neither. She is unlike any other carrier ever. More like ARK III than anything else though. I don't see what is wrong with the ship? She skips nothing. The deck edge lift is ahead of time but I've already partially explained that. Its a really bad idea to put the lift in the middle of the ship because it reduces structual strength and makes a hole in the armour. I want 3 lifts because my ships don't have flying off platforms for launching lots of aircraft. I want to launch aircraft as quickly as possible, thus needing more lifts.

Quoted

The loading of A/C in the lower hangar is not a good idea, as already pointed out. I also think her rudder/screw configuration is flawed - at least her manoverability should be heavily impaired... Probably a topic for the BB vs BB - I wonder what the professionals think of this?

I think it is a good idea. Far better than loading on the flight deck, which removes all the advantages of having lots of armour. For the rudders/scews I took it off a French carrier project, PA-5B. I hope the French architects knew what they were doing. I can't see too many problems with it. If I get a negative answer I'll revert back to 4 shafts.

Quoted

And while the Italian motto has become "speed is armor", is this reflected in a carrier with heavy deck armor? Is there really a need for an edge elevator at this time or in the next five years after her commissioning date? (remember, biplanes, slow, relatively ineffective as of yet in terms of naval warfare).

I can't remember any speed is armour ships? Cruisers are heavily armoured, Battleships have overwhelming firepower and enough armour. I don't have Trento et al. Your 2nd point is answered above.

Quoted

I'm not asking you to stop or redesign....just to think about the implications and consequences of this design on the world in the late 1920's.

Probably none. Maybe other countries adopt the deck edge elevator, maybe not. Morosini is essentially the design but bigger. And she is already in existance. Comissioning is 1931 IIRC.

They are being built now as in the 1930s I will build BBs.

Quoted

And she's armored against 2000lb bombs from dive bombers. So how many dive bombers are there in the WesWorld, and how many can carry a 2000lb bomb?

Some and some. There are a few dive bombers appearing at this time, and 1000kg bombs from WWI. I just threw that in as a anecdote really. The reason the deck armour is that thick is because Morosini was converted from a battleship, and that battleship had 100mm deck armour. The dive bomber in question would be a Dauntless.

A general point.

Remember that this is the more conservative design. I don't have an angled flight deck. I haven't built that catamaran aircraft carrier.

Fortunately SS doesn´t offer the nuclear power plant option yet... ;o)

Quoted

Fortunately SS doesn´t offer the nuclear power plant option yet... ;o)

And Nuclear fission isn't discovered until 1938. I tried explaining this to an American who was sure they started work on the bomb in the 1920s.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Fortunately SS doesn´t offer the nuclear power plant option yet... ;o)

And Nuclear fission isn't discovered until 1938. I tried explaining this to an American who was sure they started work on the bomb in the 1920s.

This might help.........
http://library.thinkquest.org/27954/Fermi.html

I have to agree with Hoo, she still seems way too advanced for 1927. Her deck edge elevator inovation alone is already 10 years in advance of the historical U.S.S. Wasp and that "10 year's ahead of her time" designation only gets solidified with her being compaired to Ark Royal III, a 1935 design.

In contrast My own Alioth design can be discribed as a Hermes class carrier on steroids, without any significant improvements other than newer mounts.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

But it should not be used when one is trying to rewrite history from the point of view of those living in it.

Quoted

I have to agree with Hoo, she still seems way too advanced for 1927. Her deck edge elevator inovation alone is already 10 years in advance of the historical U.S.S. Wasp and that "10 year's ahead of her time" designation only gets solidified with her being compaired to Ark Royal III, a 1935 design.

Why is she too advanced? She incorporates a deck edge elevator. Its not hindsight, its a natural consequence of having an armoured carrier. I compared her to ARK III to give you some idea of what she is like. Ark III is from a design from 1929 that was cancelled due to lack of funds anyway.

Quoted

In contrast My own Alioth design can be discribed as a Hermes class carrier on steroids, without any significant improvements other than newer mounts.

However HERMES was already realised to be too small to be of any real use. And too slow as well. Alioth carries a lot more than 12 aircraft as well.

Quoted

But it should not be used when one is trying to rewrite history from the point of view of those living in it.

Which is why I try to use historical Italian projects. But that one was kicked out in 1925 so I came up with something different.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Why is she too advanced? She incorporates a deck edge elevator. Its not hindsight, its a natural consequence of having an armoured carrier. I compared her to ARK III to give you some idea of what she is like. Ark III is from a design from 1929 that was cancelled due to lack of funds anyway.

Just answer me this little question if an armored deck on a carrier automatically leads to a deck edge elevator:

Why didn´t the British introduce this feature on their armored carriers?

The Americans hadn´t armored decks after all...

To answer my own question partly: It has a lot to do with doctrine and handling procedures for which you need a lot of experience - more than 5 years I assume.

In the 20s two centerline lifts seemed to have been easily capable of handling air operations. Otherwise we might have seen other deck layouts (deck edge lifts, angled flight deck, deck parking etc.) much earlier than historically. Hence a deck edge lift seems off on such an early design. ARCIII hadn´t one if that´s your reference...

Anyway, it is technically possible in the 20s and looks good so,,, *shrug*

Quoted

Taiho or Shinano.

... or Junyo.

Quoted

I think it is a good idea. Far better than loading on the flight deck, which removes all the advantages of having lots of armour.

I'm not sure... After all, an explosion has to go somewhere... and there aren't many places to go inside a hangar.

Quoted

For the rudders/scews I took it off a French carrier project, PA-5B. I hope the French architects knew what they were doing.

That's a real gamble you're taking there. :-)

Quoted

I can't remember any speed is armour ships?

I seem to remember that you did once or twice... but I don't think it was about your own ships... could be wrong though...

Quoted

Fortunately SS doesn´t offer the nuclear power plant option yet... ;o)

Whoops... better remove that from my next design BB. :-)

Quoted

I tried explaining this to an American who was sure they started work on the bomb in the 1920s.

President Bush? *Runs for cover* :-)

Quoted

In the 20s two centerline lifts seemed to have been easily capable of handling air operations.

Hmm... makes me wonder why I used the Shokaku top view and dumped three elevators on the Zuiho...

Are those 1920er designs (away from sources)?

Which ones?
(either mine or those of others; it's not mentioned)

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Just answer me this little question if an armored deck on a carrier automatically leads to a deck edge elevator:

Why didn´t the British introduce this feature on their armored carriers?

The Americans hadn´t armored decks after all...

Building deck-edge elevators on an armoured deck was done for the first time on USS Forrestal. It apparently is quite difficult to mix both features, that's why the British didn't go for that on their armoured carriers.

Perhaps it has something to do with the weight of a side elevator on an already heavy deck, plus the cut in the side of the support structure for the planes in the hanger (hangers in this case) to access that elevator?

I might point out that the American Yorktown-class was originally built with side cataputs on the hanger deck to launch scouting planes so the flight deck might be kept clear for fighters and bombers. From what I understand, this system was not used much as the scouts became the bomber they were originally suppose to clear the decks for during the late 30s. Such a system is quite probably at this time in Wesworld, since catapults are being equipped on battleships and cruisers now. With proper structural bracing I suppose you could cut holes in the hanger levels for catapults and do launches from below the flight deck, or if the flight deck is damaged or blocked, but the lower hanger decks are still intact (thanks to the armored deck) then you could still launch a strike while undergoing repairs to the deck (at least enough so you can recover the craft you are launching out the sides). With two on a side you could launch at a reasonable rate still. This could also suppliment your deck launches without the need for an third elevator.

Depending on the sorces Either Wasp (CV-7) or the Essex class (CV-9-on) were the first carriers to mount deck edge elevators. I haven't been able to get my hands on a top veiw of Wasp (CV-7) to confirm the T shaped deck edge elevator but the second Wasp (CV-1 certainly had one. 1935 is definately the earliest the Americans used them.

I beleive I found something useful in this image of a japanese model of the CV-7 Wasp



That thing sticking out of the port forward side in the elevator....not very impressive is it? plane was to be backed onto this little support on its tail wheel and raised up to the flight deck.

With Wasp it apparently was a weight saving measure since it was a very tight design to begin with. The Navy required the parts to be made to install a normal elevator in case the deck edge version didn't work. Needless to say it worked, and hence the Essex. One interesting fact though, the deck edge elevator was NOT in the Essex's early designs. The Naval Historical Center has Spring Styles on their site showing Essex designs from 1939 and 1940 with centerline elevators like the Yorktown. Even the early Midway designs were all centerline elevators. By 1941, however, there were designs for carriers with nothing but deck edge elevators and there was pressure to replace the forward elevator on the Essex with a second deck edge elevator by the end of the war.