WesWorld

Quoted

Your current carrier is ex-Italian. If you want to consult with Italy on more CVs, let me know.

Peru test Italian carrier since end 1942.
Atahualpa (1945) & Inca Roca (1946) are going to be a smaller version of this 12000t carrier.

Jef

While I understand that Peru doesn't have much tonnage to play with, nor a plethora of large slips/docks, I don't see the utility in 2 8,000t carriers. They just don't have the space to operate a useful airgroup. More often than not, small carriers have proven (IRL granted) to not only be less useful than bigger carriers, but that lack of ability is not linear. An 8,000t carrier isn't half as useful as a 16,000t carrier, it's morel like 1/3 as useful.

I would not base everything on the basis WW ends in 1950. There is no fixed reason why 1950 should be the end date. Really any gameplay should be looking beyond 1950 for any kind of realism.

8,000 tons is too small, realistically 12-15,000 tons is a reasonable size for a small carrier. Squeezing 30 aircraft onto 8,000 tons is a big task.
I think you really need to look at what Peru actually needs rather than these prestige projects. Building baby battleships and carriers only increases the need for escorts and destroyers and generally your main potential enemy, Chile, has modern and powerful ships which far outclass these pint-pot designs.

Destructive potential for 2 x 8000t carriers with 48 aircrafts is probably equal to a 30000t battleship.

Build 2 x 8000t with 48 aircrafts or 30000t with 4T2x350 ?

I made my choice.
--
Peru (Rocky) build a very good escort force with modern Cruisers & Destroyers.
Yes but escort what ?
=>Escort the Battle Fleet, not big guns but 110 aircrafts.

Jef

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte
Destructive potential for 2 x 8000t carriers with 48 aircrafts is probably equal to a 30000t battleship.

Please explain why you think so.

Explain...

To be short;

Every body know that Carriers - aircrafts - win Pacific War, not Battleships with big guns.
This is an absolute rule & again today.
In the battle, If you have total control of the air space, you win.

Jef

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte
Explain...

To be short;

Every body know that Carriers - aircrafts - win Pacific War, not Battleships with big guns.

If I may point out - World War II has not happened in Wesworld, and thus any carrier experience is mostly conjectural.

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte
In the battle, If you have total control of the air space, you win.

Yay! Chile wins!

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte
Explain...

To be short;

Every body know that Carriers - aircrafts - win Pacific War, not Battleships with big guns.
This is an absolute rule & again today.
In the battle, If you have total control of the air space, you win.

Jef

The old problem using present know how in 1944

I have stoped in the Plan the big 2800t DD of Liberty class. The 2nd actualy in the shipyards w"ll be finish.
They are changed with a 2500t DDAA
2T2x152+4T2x105AA+6M4x37+6M4x25+10TT

=>...4T2x105AA+6M4x37+6M4x25...
To contest to the enemy the total control of the air space around my ships.

Jef

Quoted

The old problem using present know how in 1944

Your right.
Idem for taller carriers using jets...

IMO, we could n't escape real History

Jef

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte
Destructive potential for 2 x 8000t carriers with 48 aircrafts is probably equal to a 30000t battleship.

Urm, your SS report says 30 aircraft not 48!
I have serious doubts you can even fit 30 aircraft onto an 8,000 ton hull let alone 48. Even lash-up CVEs like HMS Archer and the Avengers were over 8,000 tons. The 8,200 ton Casablanca's could only carry 28 aircraft. These are not worth the tonnage to build.
Take some time and read what's happened to carriers in WW. They get shredded, either by surface ships or opposing air forces. A puny floating bomb like this is not battleworthy. A few exercises in WW have pointed out the carrier's worth, but not as a war-winning weapon.

Actually taller hangar decks were a pre-jet problem. Piston-engine aircraft were getting bigger and heavier, they had longer-span wings which took more height folded and they had larger propeller diameters and taller tails. Jet's by contrast are more compact, although you need more hull space for fuel bunkerage. Also, destructive potential depends on the aircraft. Your small decks mean small carrier-based aircraft in the Wildcat range at best. Chile has the latest heavy fighters and torpedo-bombers on its flight decks, your aircraft will be constrained by dimensions and wing-loading to be older types (unless you can find a modern and compact carrier-based fighter and torpedo-bomber and I can't think of any in WW).

For reference, the types you currently operate are the Caproni Ariete and the Breda Ba.67 Occhione. Both of these types work on the Lima, but only in smaller numbers then Italy's Fleet Carriers (48 in total vs 60+spares on the smallest Italian CV).

Just for comparison's sake, thets stack Atahualpa against the Pisa CL conversions that were undertaken in Italy. Given that unless you intend to change suppliers of your naval aircraft these will be expected to handle the same airframes, I feel this is a fair comparison. Atahualpa is expected to be able to handle 30 aircraft, the Pisa's 36 max, but 24 standard. Atahualpa is a hair over 170m in length while the Pisa's are ~185m. Her deck is 15m shorter and yet she is expected to handle more of the same sort of aircraft? Given that, I do not feel that the Atahualpa would be a worthwhile CV. I would take that 16000t and build one larger carrier to be a semi-sister to the Lima. Italy has open slipways, and seeing as Peru currently operates Italian naval aircraft Italy would be happy to help build a second carrier for Peru. Give me a bit and I will hash out exactly what the Taranto yard has in mind.

Quoted

Originally posted by snip
For reference, the types you currently operate are the Caproni Ariete

I think Peru only bought eight Arietes, judging from the news posts.

Atahualpa class is reSS with 192m lenght & about 8400t.

Peru hope to have a total of 100 aircrafts on the CVs

Jef

The Taranto yard forwards this proposal to the Peruvian Navy Department. It is a beefed up Lima in most respects. Armament is based on modern Peruvian designs, but if it is wanted, a version of the design with armament constant with Italian carrier design doctrine can be provided.

Taranto Export Design "Preu Alpha" , Italian Export Aircraft Carrier laid down 1945

Displacement:
16,000 t light; 16,513 t standard; 18,875 t normal; 20,764 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
656.17 ft / 639.76 ft x 85.30 ft x 23.95 ft (normal load)
200.00 m / 195.00 m x 26.00 m x 7.30 m

Armament:
8 - 4.72" / 120 mm guns (4x2 guns), 52.72lbs / 23.92kg shells, 1945 Model
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts with hoists
on centreline ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, all amidships, all raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm guns (24x2 guns), 0.24lbs / 0.11kg shells, 1945 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 458 lbs / 208 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.42" / 36 mm 415.85 ft / 126.75 m 11.09 ft / 3.38 m
Ends: 1.42" / 36 mm 223.88 ft / 68.24 m 11.09 ft / 3.38 m
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 415.85 ft / 126.75 m 21.19 ft / 6.46 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 2.95" / 75 mm, Conning tower: 2.76" / 70 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 84,000 shp / 62,664 Kw = 30.06 kts
Range 8,000nm at 20.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 4,251 tons

Complement:
804 - 1,046

Cost:
£6.253 million / $25.013 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 57 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 3,065 tons, 16.2 %
- Belts: 410 tons, 2.2 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 514 tons, 2.7 %
- Armament: 23 tons, 0.1 %
- Armour Deck: 2,076 tons, 11.0 %
- Conning Tower: 42 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 2,121 tons, 11.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,756 tons, 30.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,875 tons, 15.2 %
Miscellaneous weights: 5,000 tons, 26.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
31,312 lbs / 14,203 Kg = 593.9 x 4.7 " / 120 mm shells or 5.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 5.1 ft / 1.6 m
Roll period: 15.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 60 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.27

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.505
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.54 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 55 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 47
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.87 ft / 1.18 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 34.45 ft / 10.50 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 34.45 ft / 10.50 m (19.69 ft / 6.00 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Stern: 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Average freeboard: 22.64 ft / 6.90 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 90.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 177.2 %
Waterplane Area: 38,005 Square feet or 3,531 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 148 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 107 lbs/sq ft or 522 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.33
- 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

60 Combat-ready Aircraft (3600t)
10 Crated spares (1000t)
Electronics Fit (100t)
Flag Facilities (100t)
Inert Gas shielding for AVGAS storage and transfer lines (100)
Enhanced crew comfort (50t)
Enhanced Tropicalization (50t)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by Jefgte
Explain...

To be short;

Every body know that Carriers - aircrafts - win Pacific War, not Battleships with big guns.

If I may point out - World War II has not happened in Wesworld, and thus any carrier experience is mostly conjectural.

Busy, but eating lunch..

My thought is had WWII ended at Barbarossa with the collapse of Russia, and Britain taking Germany's olive branch... then the "carrier actions" would include
1. Vulnerability of Glorious to surface action
2. British strike on Taranto- unprepared ships are sinkable. Though I also agree with the detractors of the Pugilees system.
3. Wounding of Bismarck - in line with thoughts on aircraft- wound not sink.
4. ~500 Stukas coming in waves at fleet off Crete. Armored Decks keep carrier alive, as she can't field enough fighters to stop the Luftwaffe, while the naval losses were the ships that strayed from the fleet and out of the mutually supporting AA. Fleet returned to Alexandria after admiral asked about AA ammo remaining...and was told the % expended instead, so with bad info he left. And this is with the @$ HCAS system.

So, I'd say 2 years into WWII, Carrier still wasn't king. That took December 1941 to achieve, and longer to sink in. Radar gave intercept times and made operating multiple carriers in one area more defensible- imagine if the IJN at midway had top notch radar showing them the incoming American waves. Add in that RAF study that showed 1 wing of bombers had the same lifetime cost as 1 battleship...airpower at the scale that overwhelmed the BBs was not cheap to maintain, and not as flexible until aircraft ranges soar.

Heck, look at the fate of Hornet vs. SoDak's prox fused 26-kills in the Battle of Santa Cruz. Right after that, one might have reasonably thought torpedo planes obsolete against modern BBs, and that single dive bomber strike did little.

So, I agree with Brock, that No WWII, no good experience yet, and things are evolving very fast. Carriers are more important than they were..

Good points, indeed.

Thanks Snip for your proposition.
Since end 1942, Peru made tests on the new carrier Lima.
In 1944, Peru prefer to have 2 other hulls.
From the first Atahualpa project, the choice is now for a taller hull,; 192m & a displacement increase to 8400t. aircraft capacity is 25 planes.
--

DDAA is also on study.
starting caracteristics are:
2500t - 145m max
2T2x152+4T2x102-24x37+24x25+10TT-33kts

DDAA "ll build in place of the 2844 tons Libertad class.


Jef

Atahualpa - Inca Roca, Peru CV laid down 1945

Displacement:
8 400 t light; 8 640 t standard; 9 710 t normal; 10 566 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
637.31 ft / 629.92 ft x 68.90 ft x 16.31 ft (normal load)
194.25 m / 192.00 m x 21.00 m x 4.97 m

Armament:
8 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (4x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
16 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (4x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1945 Model
Quick firing guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1945 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 319 lbs / 145 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 240

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.18" / 30 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 10.50 ft / 3.20 m
Ends: 1.18" / 30 mm 131.23 ft / 40.00 m 10.50 ft / 3.20 m
72.18 ft / 22.00 m Unarmoured ends
Main Belt covers 104 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.79" / 20 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 0.79" / 20 mm
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

- Armour deck: 1.18" / 30 mm, Conning tower: 1.97" / 50 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 56 285 shp / 41 989 Kw = 30.11 kts
Range 10 000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1 926 tons

Complement:
488 - 635

Cost:
£3.637 million / $14.549 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 40 tons, 0.4 %
Armour: 1 232 tons, 12.7 %
- Belts: 280 tons, 2.9 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 245 tons, 2.5 %
- Armament: 42 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 645 tons, 6.6 %
- Conning Tower: 19 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 1 421 tons, 14.6 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 3 807 tons, 39.2 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1 310 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 1 900 tons, 19.6 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
19 455 lbs / 8 825 Kg = 550.8 x 4.1 " / 105 mm shells or 3.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.16
Metacentric height 3.8 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 14.9 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.07
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.30

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.480
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.14 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 28.92 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 50 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 54
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: 27.56 ft / 8.40 m
- Forecastle (18 %): 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Mid (50 %): 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Stern: 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Average freeboard: 20.50 ft / 6.25 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 102.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 228.7 %
Waterplane Area: 29 522 Square feet or 2 743 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 154 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 91 lbs/sq ft or 445 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.99
- Longitudinal: 1.09
- 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
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

1500 tons for 25 aircrafts
200 tons reserve weight
170 tons for deck operations facilities - ext bridge poles
30 tons radar

DDAA, Peru DDAA laid down 1945

Displacement:
2 600 t light; 2 760 t standard; 3 188 t normal; 3 531 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
474.00 ft / 465.88 ft x 46.59 ft x 12.24 ft (normal load)
144.48 m / 142.00 m x 14.20 m x 3.73 m

Armament:
4 - 5.98" / 152 mm guns (2x2 guns), 107.15lbs / 48.60kg shells, 1945 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline, evenly spread
8 - 4.13" / 105 mm guns (4x2 guns), 35.32lbs / 16.02kg shells, 1945 Model
Quick firing guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, evenly spread
24 - 1.46" / 37.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 1.55lbs / 0.70kg shells, 1945 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 2 raised mounts
24 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (6x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1945 Model
Machine guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 760 lbs / 345 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 200
10 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.79" / 20 mm 1.97" / 50 mm
2nd: 1.18" / 30 mm 0.39" / 10 mm 1.18" / 30 mm
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -
4th: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 44 800 shp / 33 421 Kw = 33.38 kts
Range 8 000nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 770 tons

Complement:
211 - 275

Cost:
£2.273 million / $9.091 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 95 tons, 3.0 %
Armour: 97 tons, 3.1 %
- Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 97 tons, 3.1 %
- Armour Deck: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Conning Tower: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 1 130 tons, 35.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1 198 tons, 37.6 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 588 tons, 18.4 %
Miscellaneous weights: 80 tons, 2.5 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1 686 lbs / 765 Kg = 15.7 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 0.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.15
Metacentric height 2.1 ft / 0.6 m
Roll period: 13.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.53
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.02

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 24.89 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 60 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 69
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.31 ft / 6.80 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 19.03 ft / 5.80 m
- Mid (50 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Quarterdeck (18 %): 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Stern: 15.75 ft / 4.80 m
- Average freeboard: 17.16 ft / 5.23 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 141.4 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 143.1 %
Waterplane Area: 14 047 Square feet or 1 305 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 100 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 53 lbs/sq ft or 259 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.59
- Longitudinal: 1.23
- Overall: 0.64
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is cramped
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

30tons for radar
20 tons reserved for DC