WesWorld

I'm not sure who started using misc weight for flightdeck armour, probably RA?
I think it makes sense, I don't think there is much difference other than stability, I can add it back to misc weight. My only concern is that it may not fully represent the weight of additional supporting structure etc. but I don't think that matters too much (don't want to get too bogged down in calculations).
100 tons is too light, probably should be 180 tons at least, 200 tons would be good. Saying that 200 tons for fireproof partitions and fire-fighting gear seems a bit much perhaps, might make that 150 tons, add the 50 to the 100 for electronics and add 50 tons new weight to cover the rest.

These are proving expensive carriers but I think by the time they complete in 1952 they will be just the ticket.


As to my CA plans, found I actually built six General Class gunboats/ CDS so I could build three CA or keep the later two (which were slightly better overall) and build two CA (flagships for South Americas and African Stations).
I'm toying with actually keeping the Generals but re-arming them with 6in guns. My reasoning being there probably are surplus barrels from the 6in Vickers auto programme, enough to equip some new twin or triple turrets for both ships.

Next year I will also embark on a costly but vital Seaward Defence Programme for the Colonies, the idea is to improve local defence of harbours and provide nucleus navies for independence by using a mix of RN and locally-recruited sailors.
The total will be about 44 small craft (based on the new Ham/ Ley Class minesweeper hull) and 12 sloops (based on the new Bay Class hull).

Quoted

I'm not sure who started using misc weight for flightdeck armour, probably RA?

Sounds like something he'd do.

Quoted

I can add it back to misc weight

Well, that is up to you. Personally, I would do it as to me it makes sense and the previous big carrier class was simmed that way with the armored flightdeck.

Quoted

My only concern is that it may not fully represent the weight of additional supporting structure etc. but I don't think that matters too much (don't want to get too bogged down in calculations).

That is probably why the springstyle notes state that you should use about 2/3 the number of aircraft for such a carrier. That way part of the miscellaneous weights would be for "the weight of additional supporting structure etc."

Quoted

100 tons is too light, probably should be 180 tons at least, 200 tons would be good.

Something like that. My estimate (using a mix of 5,10 and 20 tons for the various things) would put it in the 200-250 range.

Quoted

Saying that 200 tons for fireproof partitions and fire-fighting gear seems a bit much perhaps

That depends on how extensive it is. I count it towards the "damage control and fire suppression systems" aboard my ships for which I use 1 ton per 100 tons light displacement but to me "damage control and fire suppression systems" is much more than just "fireproof partitions and fire-fighting gear".

Quoted

These are proving expensive carriers but I think by the time they complete in 1952 they will be just the ticket.

Jets are going to demand more from a carrier and force them to become bigger unless the jets in question are Harriers in which case you could build Invincible class carriers rather than Nimitz class carriers.

As mentioned, I was looking at a new design carrier for 1948, something a bit along the lines of the OTL Shinano. While the OTL Shinano was an OTL Yamato class BB converted to a carrier, the Wesworld carrier design, called the Ishinagenjo class, will be a purpose-built carrier built on top of a Wesworld Yamato-shaped hull so I am "limited" to the same length (wl), same beam, same bulges and roughly the same BC and only the draught to play with a bit. Why? I don't know (he's on third) but I just like the idea of doing that.

... unfortunately Wesworld Yamato is even heavier than the OTL Yamato which means that the Ishinagenjo will be bigger than the Shinano. The OTL Yamato is ~71,000 tons standard while the Wesworld Yamato is ~79,000 tons standard. The OTL Shinano was ~66,000 tons and while I have the Ishinagenjo currently at ~68,000 tons, though perhaps I should make the difference the same as with the OTL Yamato and the Wesworld Yamato (meaning that the Ishinagenjo would have to come in at 74,000 tons standard) and which would allow me to add a few more things. So all in all, your design is a lot cheaper than what I have planned but it is still big and expensive.

With the Ishinagenjo, I am currently at version 21, but there is no guarantee that that is the last version (or the heaviest).

Quoted

As to my CA plans, found I actually built six General Class gunboats/ CDS so I could build three CA or keep the later two (which were slightly better overall) and build two CA (flagships for South Americas and African Stations).

Actually, when I look in the British Encyclopedia, I can only find the General Picton class and the General Crawford class, both of which are armed with 12" guns and not with 9.2" guns. Also the General Picton uses 14"/8" armored turrets while the General Crawford 10.5"/6" armored turrets and you only have two turrets available from each class for a total of 4.

Now, HMS Gorgon is armed with 9.2" guns but they are in singles and there is only two of them.

... maybe I am looking in the wrong place...

The Generals can be found here: http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…d&threadID=3244

Okay thanks, although looking at it, I feel that it should have been in the "CDS / Monitors / Escort cruisers" (where I was looking for it). Also seems like they will have been a waste of time and materials if you were to scrap them, especially considering that they are only about 6/10 years old.

As for being cheaper than the Princess Royals and Iron Dukes, just remember that 20,950 tons were spent on the 6 Generals to begin with and you will only get 3142 tons back from scrapping them + 1668 tons from the turrets... so taking all that into consideration, the actual cost for 3 CA4 vessel would be ~18,000 tons (including the losses from the scrapped Generals). Seems to me it would be better to just keep the Generals as is and scrap them when they are old while building that CA4 design as brand new ships.

Quoted from "Hood"

I'm toying with actually keeping the Generals but re-arming them with 6in guns. My reasoning being there probably are surplus barrels from the 6in Vickers auto programme, enough to equip some new twin or triple turrets for both ships.

This sounds like a more reasonable choice IMHO.

As to the cruiser design itself, it almost feels like you ought to be getting "more ship" for your 14,000 tons. Perhaps it's the way the main and upper belt armour are set up; I'd rather have a longer main belt, and perhaps make that upper belt thinner...? Not sure what your thoughts are there, honestly. Otherwise, I don't really have that much problem with it.

Yeah scrapping probably isn't the right option. The Batch II Generals are decent enough but the Batch I are a compromise and some rebuilding will be the ticket.

The belts on the Northumberlands and the CA4 design is actually one single uniform belt but to sim the ends of the inverted 'T' belt layout I've split the upper and lower to account for the differing lengths. The original idea to sim as one central block and use end belts for the two prongs was just as messy and caused undesirable trim effects.


Anyhow, another Carrier Q.
Lowered the airgroup a bit further as realistically 76 is the most likely with the current squadron strengths (6x12 + space for 4 more).

HMS Colossus, Majestic, Powerful, Terrible, Great Britain Aircraft Carrier laid down 1948

Displacement:
40,484 t light; 41,677 t standard; 47,100 t normal; 51,438 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
887.65 ft / 850.00 ft x 120.00 ft x 31.20 ft (normal load)
270.55 m / 259.08 m x 36.58 m x 9.51 m

Armament:
16 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (8x2 guns), 45.00lbs / 20.41kg shells, 1945 Model
Automatic rapid fire guns in deck mounts with hoists
on side ends, evenly spread, all raised mounts - superfiring
48 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (8x6 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1947 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, 4 raised mounts
8 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 2.00lbs / 0.91kg shells, 1948 Model
Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread, all raised mounts
Weight of broadside 832 lbs / 377 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 500

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 4.50" / 114 mm 625.00 ft / 190.50 m 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 113 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
2.50" / 64 mm 800.00 ft / 243.84 m 26.00 ft / 7.92 m

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

- Armour deck: 4.00" / 102 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp / 134,280 Kw = 32.31 kts
Range 18,000nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 9,760 tons

Complement:
1,598 - 2,078

Cost:
£15.924 million / $63.695 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 123 tons, 0.3 %
Armour: 9,305 tons, 19.8 %
- Belts: 1,888 tons, 4.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 1,924 tons, 4.1 %
- Armament: 90 tons, 0.2 %
- Armour Deck: 5,319 tons, 11.3 %
- Conning Tower: 84 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 4,399 tons, 9.3 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,977 tons, 31.8 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 6,615 tons, 14.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 11,680 tons, 24.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
101,868 lbs / 46,206 Kg = 2,235.8 x 4.5 " / 114 mm shells or 18.4 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 9.4 ft / 2.9 m
Roll period: 16.5 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 71 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.03
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.77

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle
and transom stern
Block coefficient: 0.518
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.08 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.17 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 40
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 25.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 12.00 ft / 3.66 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 55.00 ft / 16.76 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 55.00 ft / 16.76 m (32.00 ft / 9.75 m aft of break)
- Mid (50 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Quarterdeck (22 %): 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Stern: 32.00 ft / 9.75 m
- Average freeboard: 36.60 ft / 11.16 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.8 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 274.2 %
Waterplane Area: 71,880 Square feet or 6,678 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 153 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 145 lbs/sq ft or 706 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.94
- Longitudinal: 1.70
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
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


Hangar deck: 625 x 96 x 18ft
Served by one deck-edge 56 x 35ft lift with a capacity for 40,000lbs and two centreline 54 x 46ft lifts with a capacity for 40,000lbs
Two BAH.II steam catapults with capacity for 40,000lbs aircraft
Arrestor gear of 8 wires, 1 trickle wire, 3 forward wires and two safety barriers
Air Group: 76

Deck Armour: 1in flight deck (simmed by 1330 tons misc weight), 3in main deck, 1in lower deck
Torpedo Bulkhead: One 1.5in and two 0.5in thick bulkheads

Endurance is 16,000nm at 16kts (8,723 tons), remaining 1,037 tons bunkerage for aviation fuel (341,399 imp gals)

Electronic Equipment:
One Type 971 aerial search set
Two Type 976 height-finding sets
One Type 975 Target Indication set
One Type 276 high-definition surface search set
Two Mk. VI directors with Type 288 with 'Tallboy' barrage unit and Flypane table
Twelve CRBF with Type 289
Asdic Type 146
Passive Intercept Type UA1
Radio-Location Jammer RU series (4 aerials)
Radio-Location Jammer Type 298 'Spooky'
VHF Direction Finder Type 295Q

Misc Weight
5900 tons for 76 aircraft
100 tons for spare airframe parts (= to 4 disassembled aircraft)
2000 tons for aircraft ammunition and spares
500 tons for steam catapults
300 tons for lifts
500 tons for hangar equipment
200 tons for fireproof partitions and fire-fighting gear in hangar
250 tons for electronic equipment
200 tons for CIC spaces
200 tons air conditioning and habitability
200 tons for board margin

Something a little different, a purpose-built hospital ship based on the design of the Royal Yacht Britannia.

HMHS Saviour, Great Britain Hospital Ship laid down 1948

Displacement:
4,465 t light; 4,572 t standard; 5,321 t normal; 5,921 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
420.97 ft / 415.00 ft x 55.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
128.31 m / 126.49 m x 16.76 m x 4.57 m

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 19,000 shp / 14,174 Kw = 23.11 kts
Range 8,400nm at 16.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,349 tons

Complement:
310 - 404

Cost:
£1.650 million / $6.599 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 0 tons, 0.0 %
Machinery: 464 tons, 8.7 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,621 tons, 30.5 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 856 tons, 16.1 %
Miscellaneous weights: 2,380 tons, 44.7 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
8,669 lbs / 3,932 Kg = 80.3 x 6 " / 152 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.4 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.8 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 51 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.49

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.544
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.55 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 20.37 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 52 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 34
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 2.00 ft / 0.61 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 22.50 ft / 6.86 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.00 ft / 5.49 m
- Mid (50 %): 16.50 ft / 5.03 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Stern: 16.00 ft / 4.88 m
- Average freeboard: 17.22 ft / 5.25 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 77.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 162.6 %
Waterplane Area: 15,840 Square feet or 1,472 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 161 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 68 lbs/sq ft or 334 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.56
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Misc Weight includes;
2 tons per 600 casulties = 1,200 tons
1,000 tons for Medical Facilities (operating theatres, X-Ray etc.)
5 tons for RDF set (Type 970)
25 tons for stabilisers
150 tons for medical stores

No fridge to hide store bodies?

I am curious regarding the speed of the vessel. Twenty-plus knots seems to be far more than would be required.

Well, it would depend on what you want. If Hood also looks at this vessel as helping out in areas hit by natural disasters, 23 knots might not be enough if you want to get to that place quickly to aid the injured.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Well, it would depend on what you want. If Hood also looks at this vessel as helping out in areas hit by natural disasters, 23 knots might not be enough if you want to get to that place quickly to aid the injured.

One would think that such immediate needs might be met by airlift, with a vessel of greater capacity following on. But it does depend on doctrine.

I'm not too fussed. I tried a 15,000hp plant and the speed was still around 22kts and the results were less satisfactory to the overall ship.
Cruising speed is fairly high at 16kts and the top speed would be for transit to operational areas or quick cross-channel runs or going through known submarine areas (Great War experience proves even hospital ships can be targets for submarines in wartime). Any higher speed would be wasteful.
I thought about adding a helipad but it still seems far too early for those thoughts. Maybe later on.

1948 Naval Planning Committee

The Committee finally ruled that there will be no future capital ships built for the Navy, existing ships will be refitted to keep them serviceable until the 1960s.

HMS Ocean continued trials with her prototype steam catapult alongside the refitted Ark Royal which also now carriers two production steam catapults. The design for Carriers Q and R was signed off and is a development of the Leviathan Class with one deck-edge lift and two steam catapults and revised aircraft facilities for 76 aircraft. To offset a perceived lack of carrier capacity and the replacement of the battleship as the premier capital asset at sea, two additional carriers have been approved, Carriers S and T.

After years of development and several aborted cruiser designs to use it, the Committee finally terminated the Vickers 6in automatic gun programme. The Canadian Vickers 7.5in and 5.5in weapons inducted as interim designs have served remarkably well and there seems little place in the fleet to economically employ a new 6in weapon.
The decision to rearm the flawed General Class Batch I coastal defence ships saw the DNC being asked to draw up a study of a heavy cruiser re-using the turrets on an existing hull. Taking the Northumberland hull as the starting point the result was a heavier and slower ship with two less 4.5in mounts but four twin 9.2in turrets would fit. The design was authorised to go ahead to detail design stages and two such ships could be built with the surplus turrets. The two cruisers would be fitted as Station Flagships for overseas duties. Two options were presented by the DNC, CA4 based on the Northumberland hull and CA5 on a modified hull with a much shallower but longer main belt extended 1ft lower beneath the waterline and a new machinery layout using three 30,000hp YARD units driving three shafts, the design just incapable of reaching 32kts. After lengthy discussion and study of a CA4 with the three shaft engine layout, the CA4 design was selected and two ships authorised.

Trials with the ‘Special’ HMS Revolution continue. The productionised version with B mount raised to be superfiring and Q mount moved to X position superfiring Y mount is now under construction, the first four Town Class vessels will be laid down in 1948 and four more will follow in 1949. Also under construction are the eight P Class destroyers armed with a single Mortar D (Limbo).

The new Bay Class standard sloop is now under construction and current plans will see four being laid down per year 1948-1952.
Long-standing plans to form new Seaward Defence Squadrons for the Colonies were approved by the Admiralty Board in mid-1947 and work began on new ships to equip the units which would be manned by a mix of RN and local personnel. The small Seaward Defence Boat would be a variant of the Ham and Ley Class hull while the larger sloop was based on the export variant of the Bay Class (Commonwealth Class) as being built for Egypt. This substitutes older pattern Mk.V 4.5in guns for the automatic Mk.VI and adds fixed torpedo tubes. The Seaward Defence version would have additional accommodation for 25 Royal Marines, an extra whaler and a slightly degraded version of the Bay ASW sensor and weapon system. A version of the Bay with only one Mk.VI forward and a twin 6pdr mount aft was rejected in favour of the Commonwealth Class variant which offered superior fire-support firepower and easier to maintain mounts.

Submarine construction will be restarted with the new 1948 Programme submarines No decision was reached on whether to order another batch of five W Class submarines. Designed during the past year, the DNC presented a series of designs that have been developed using model tests at Halsar. The design represents a clear break from the past, no deck gun is carried and the hull and conning tower is streamlined for higher speeds underwater. Propulsion will be provided by new batteries and the new Admiralty diesel rated at 3,000hp. An extensive passive and active asdic fit will be carried to allow attacks on surface and submerged targets. Although expensive boats, ultimately fifteen could be built into the 1950s. The first five were approved for laying down in 1948.

Two new auxiliary ships were authorised, one additional Fort Class dry cargo transport and a new purpose-built hospital ship to replace the HMHS Oxfordshire. The DNC drew up a quick sketch based off the plans of the Royal Yacht Britannia which were quickly approved.

A bit late, sir, but I remind you Majestic is still in service in the RCN, and has retained her RN name.

That's no big problem, can easily rename a ship at this stage that's not yet laid down.

So we can assume that it will become Majestic Britain instead?

No it will have another cool name.

Questions:

Will you operate jets from those carriers? If so you may need powerful catapults. Are they available? I may have missed them browsing your sim stats....

Those cruisers will reuse those gunboat turres - whole turret - or "just" reuse the guns but with new mountings (elevation etc.)? So no way making the autoloader or any other modification? (Btw, is it possible at all to modify a gun so much you can have a heavy autoloader from a standard gun/rifle?)

I would suspect an auto loading gun would have to have a stronger barrel given that barrel life will decrease with increased RoF, most of the wear I would think would be the gun liner. I don't recall ever reading about older barrels being reused in an auto loading set up but who knows, it could be possible with smaller guns.

I have my doubts that you could recycle a non-autoloading naval gun into an autoloader, particularly at a bore size as large as 9.2"; and I remain skeptical that you can make a workable autoloader of this caliber anyway. So much of the internal workings of the gun would have to be replaced that I doubt it would really be cost effective.