WesWorld

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 12
(4/9/03 4:08:22 pm)
Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are five possible light carrier projects; the 14,572 t design is the most likely design for Indian carriers to come in the late twenties...

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 13
(4/9/03 4:11:08 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the smallest, and could function as a conversion of India's Hyderabad heavy cruiser, which has the same dimensions...


CV, laid down 1926

Length, 600 ft x Beam, 60.0 ft x Depth, 18.5 ft
9514 tons normal displacement (8789 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
AA battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 288 lbs

Main belt, 2.0 inches; full length
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 2.5 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 1.0" shields / secondary, 0.8" shields
AA, 0.5" shields

Maximum speed for 48123 shp = 28.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Maximum Air Group: 44 (limited by miscellaneous weight)

Typical complement: 482-626


Estimated cost, $7.545 million (£1.886 million)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are cramped, with poor
watertight subdivision.

Roomy upper decks; superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 36 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 1828 tons = 19 pct

Belt 442 tons = 5 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 267 tons = 3 pct
Deck 1046 tons = 11 pct
C.T. 58 tons = 1 pct
Armament 15 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 1540 tons = 16 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 3170 tons = 33 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 939 tons = 10 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 2000 tons = 21 pct
-----
9514 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 2.8 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 8575 tons
Standard displacement: 8789 tons
Normal service: 9514 tons
Full load: 10056 tons

Loading submergence 646 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.10

Shellfire needed to sink: 8120 lbs = 235.6 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.4
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 73 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.04

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.47

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.50
Sharpness coefficient: 0.33
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.66
'Natural speed' for length = 24.5 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 48 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 119 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 170 percent


Displacement factor: 132 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.00
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 86 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.05
(for 19.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.0 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.01

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

600.00 x 60.00 x 18.50; 19.00 -- Dimensions
0.50 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
28.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
2000 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.00 / 2.00 / 0.00 / 1.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.50 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
1.00 / 0.80 / 0.50 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 14
(4/9/03 4:14:32 pm)
Second design - 9,949 t standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cv, laid down 1926

Length, 625 ft x Beam, 65.0 ft x Depth, 18.5 ft
10737 tons normal displacement (9949 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
AA battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 288 lbs

Main belt, 2.5 inches; full length
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 2.5 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 1.0" shields / secondary, 0.8" shields
AA, 0.5" shields

Maximum speed for 51474 shp = 28.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Maximum air group: 45 (limited by miscellaneous weight)


Typical complement: 527-686


Estimated cost, $8.301 million (£2.075 million)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 36 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 2138 tons = 20 pct

Belt 600 tons = 6 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 278 tons = 3 pct
Deck 1181 tons = 11 pct
C.T. 63 tons = 1 pct
Armament 16 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 1648 tons = 15 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 3863 tons = 36 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1027 tons = 10 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 2025 tons = 19 pct
-----
10737 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 3.3 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 9710 tons
Standard displacement: 9949 tons
Normal service: 10737 tons
Full load: 11324 tons

Loading submergence 730 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.13

Shellfire needed to sink: 11907 lbs = 345.5 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.8
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 75 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.03

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.50

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.50
Sharpness coefficient: 0.34
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.66
'Natural speed' for length = 25.0 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 47 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 106 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 184 percent


Displacement factor: 139 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.06
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 96 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.09
(for 20.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.6 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.06

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

625.00 x 65.00 x 18.50; 20.00 -- Dimensions
0.50 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
28.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
2025 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.50 / 2.50 / 0.00 / 1.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.50 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
1.00 / 0.80 / 0.50 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 15
(4/9/03 4:17:04 pm)
Third design - 11,643 t standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CV, laid down 1926

Length, 625 ft x Beam, 67.0 ft x Depth, 19.0 ft
12503 tons normal displacement (11643 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
AA battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 288 lbs

Main belt, 2.0 inches; full length
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 2.5 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 2.0" shields / secondary, 0.8" shields
AA, 0.5" shields

Maximum speed for 62042 shp = 28.50 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Maximum Airgroup: 50 (limited by misc. weight)

Typical complement: 591-769


Estimated cost, $9.758 million (£2.440 million)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 36 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 2169 tons = 17 pct

Belt 488 tons = 4 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 286 tons = 2 pct
Deck 1298 tons = 10 pct
C.T. 70 tons = 1 pct
Armament 28 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 1986 tons = 16 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 4678 tons = 37 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1133 tons = 9 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 2500 tons = 20 pct
-----
12503 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 3.2 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 11369 tons
Standard displacement: 11643 tons
Normal service: 12503 tons
Full load: 13140 tons

Loading submergence 802 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.09

Shellfire needed to sink: 12615 lbs = 366.1 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 1.9
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 73 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.03

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.33

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.24
'Natural speed' for length = 25.0 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 50 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 109 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 181 percent


Displacement factor: 140 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.18
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 109 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.18
(for 20.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.2 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.18

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

625.00 x 67.00 x 19.00; 20.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
28.50 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
2500 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.00 / 2.00 / 0.00 / 1.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.50 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
2.00 / 0.80 / 0.50 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 16
(4/9/03 4:20:44 pm)
Fourth design - 14,572 t standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could likely get this up to 70% steadiness with a little tinkering...

CV, laid down 1926

Length, 660 ft x Beam, 75.0 ft x Depth, 20.0 ft
15557 tons normal displacement (14572 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
AA battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 288 lbs

Main belt, 2.5 inches; full length
Armor deck, average 3.5 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 2.0" shields / secondary, 0.8" shields
AA, 0.5" shields

Maximum speed for 75241 shp = 29.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Maximum Airgroup: 61 (limited by misc. weight)

Typical complement: 696-905


Estimated cost, $11.962 million (£2.991 million)

Remarks:

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 36 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 2942 tons = 19 pct

Belt 685 tons = 4 pct
Deck 2147 tons = 14 pct
C.T. 81 tons = 1 pct
Armament 29 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 2408 tons = 15 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 5050 tons = 32 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1321 tons = 8 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 3800 tons = 24 pct
-----
15557 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 4.1 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 14237 tons
Standard displacement: 14572 tons
Normal service: 15557 tons
Full load: 16283 tons

Loading submergence 948 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.13

Shellfire needed to sink: 23774 lbs = 689.9 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.6
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 65 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.02

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.31

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.09
'Natural speed' for length = 25.7 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 51 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 79 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 190 percent


Displacement factor: 131 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.03
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 102 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.02
(for 21.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.5 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.02

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

660.00 x 75.00 x 20.00; 21.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
29.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
3800 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.50 / 2.50 / 0.00 / 0.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
3.50 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
2.00 / 0.80 / 0.50 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 17
(4/9/03 4:23:52 pm)
Fifth design - 14,909 t standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With India's initial 30,000 t carrier limit, a pair of these would have been the most likely result...

CV, laid down 1926

Length, 675 ft x Beam, 75.0 ft x Depth, 20.0 ft
15911 tons normal displacement (14909 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
AA battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 288 lbs

Main belt, 2.5 inches; full length
Torpedo bulkhead, 1.0 inches
Armor deck, average 2.5 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 2.0" shields / secondary, 0.8" shields
AA, 0.5" shields

Maximum speed for 75520 shp = 29.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Typical complement: 708-921

Maximum Airgroup: 60 (limited by misc. weight)


Estimated cost, $12.140 million (£3.035 million)

Remarks:

Ship has slow, easy roll; a good, steady gun platform.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 36 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 2703 tons = 17 pct

Belt 699 tons = 4 pct
Torpedo bulkhead 325 tons = 2 pct
Deck 1569 tons = 10 pct
C.T. 82 tons = 1 pct
Armament 29 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 2417 tons = 15 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 5810 tons = 37 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1344 tons = 8 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 3600 tons = 23 pct
-----
15911 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 3.9 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 14567 tons
Standard displacement: 14909 tons
Normal service: 15911 tons
Full load: 16648 tons

Loading submergence 969 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.10

Shellfire needed to sink: 17553 lbs = 509.4 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.4
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 73 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.02

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.32

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.21
'Natural speed' for length = 26.0 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 50 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 104 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 192 percent


Displacement factor: 139 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.16
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 115 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.09
(for 21.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.4 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.11

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

675.00 x 75.00 x 20.00; 21.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
29.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
3600 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.50 / 2.50 / 0.00 / 1.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.50 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
2.00 / 0.80 / 0.50 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 2
(4/9/03 5:57:45 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your carriers are too slow and except for the 8,000 tons design they don´t carry enough planes, IMHO.

I notived the bulkheads you used on all those ships. Scratch it on all ships until you reach 15,000 tons. It just eats up your weight and room without doing much good. That´s springstyle for you.


The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 20
(4/10/03 9:15:16 am)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed they are on the slow side; it's part of Indian doctrine at the time. The ship can still outrun capital ships of the time, can launch and recover aircraft at that speed, and a few extra knots won't help outrun the other guy's aircraft.

I think the airgroup is acceptable given the size of the ships; US ships of similar size - Wasp and Ranger - carried more aircraft and were faster, but I gather that they were rather delicate vessels. Given that India's restricted to 44,000 tons of carriers in this sim, I'd rather they have three robust hulls with smaller airgroups than three flimsy hulls with large airgroups.

Still, I appreciate the comments, and will see what modifications can be inflicted upon the 14,700 t design...



Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 18
(4/10/03 12:59:19 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King of Riva is right about the torpedo bulkheads. Originally I had them on all my carriers and cruisers. That meant that with 100 percent main belt coverage numerous ships didn't have a complete coverage. One of the light cruisers had a "Relative underwater volume absorbed by magazines and engineering spaces" percentage getting close to 150 percent. I decided to remove the torpedo bulkhead and it then dropped below 100 percent. After that I removed the torpedo bulkheads from all my carriers and cruisers with the exception of the Zuiho class carriers. Other things that improved by removing the torpedo bulkhead were "Shellfire needed to sink" and "Torpedoes needed to sink".

Walter

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 21
(4/10/03 1:36:06 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What're your thought on speed and plane capacity?

Consensus seems to be against the bulkheads...guess I know what I'm doing tonight...

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 19
(4/10/03 1:53:41 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's your fifth design without the torpedo bulkheads.

CV, laid down 1926

Length, 675 ft x Beam, 75.0 ft x Depth, 20.0 ft
15911 tons normal displacement (14909 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 4.1-inch
Secondary battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
AA battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 288 lbs

Main belt, 2.5 inches; full length
Armor deck, average 2.5 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 2.0" shields / secondary, 0.8" shields
AA, 0.5" shields

Maximum speed for 75520 shp = 29.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Typical complement: 708-921


Estimated cost, $12.140 million (£3.035 million)

Remarks:

Relative extent of belt armor, 80 percent of 'typical' coverage.

Good seaboat; rides out heavy weather easily.

Magazines and engineering spaces are roomy, with superior
watertight subdivision.

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 36 tons = 0 pct
Armor, total ..................... 2239 tons = 14 pct

Belt 559 tons = 4 pct
Deck 1569 tons = 10 pct
C.T. 82 tons = 1 pct
Armament 29 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 2417 tons = 15 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 6275 tons = 39 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1344 tons = 8 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 3600 tons = 23 pct
-----
15911 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 4.1 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 14567 tons
Standard displacement: 14909 tons
Normal service: 15911 tons
Full load: 16648 tons

Loading submergence 969 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.13

Shellfire needed to sink: 25198 lbs = 731.2 x 4.1-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.8
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 66 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.02

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.32

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.21
'Natural speed' for length = 26.0 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 50 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 76 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 192 percent


Displacement factor: 145 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.25
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 124 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.19
(for 21.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.4 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.21

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

675.00 x 75.00 x 20.00; 21.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1926 -- Year laid down
29.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
3600 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 4.10; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
0 -- No fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.50 / 2.50 / 0.00 / 0.00; 80 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.50 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
2.00 / 0.80 / 0.50 / 0.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Walter

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 4
(4/10/03 7:09:27 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Indeed they are on the slow side; it's part of Indian doctrine at the time. The ship can still outrun capital ships of the time, can launch and recover aircraft at that speed, and a few extra knots won't help outrun the other guy's aircraft.*

I don´t think they can outrun capital ships of the time. Every british BC from the Cats to Hood can catch them and so can Kongo and her sisters. Given the alternate history and all those navies in this alternate world, there are even more BBs or BCs around in 1926 that can easily catch a 28kn carrier. What about designs laid down only a few years later? Your carriers speed will make the ship obsolete within a few years.

Think Glorious........

Note: No capital ship is needed to sink a CV. Everything larger than a destroyer packs enough firepower to easily sink every of your carrier designs.
All cruisers will easily make 29kn and more. CL or CA - it doesn´t matter. Your CV will be toast if it can´t run.

Rooijen10
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 23
(4/11/03 9:56:22 am)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, at least he won't have to worry about the Kongo class ships.

Walter

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 24
(4/11/03 2:00:47 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glorious went under because she had no aerial recce to warn her of approaching battlecruisers; speed was perhaps the nail in the coffin, but detecting the twins even thirty kilometers away might've allowed her to avoid them.

Apart from Taffy 3 at Samar, I can't think of any other circumstance where a carrier has been caught by a capital ship. Are there others?

Let me spin this a different way. India of 1921 is somewhat fixated on fighting a Guadacanal-style cruiser campaign somewhere in the myriad islands of the South Pacific. Her initial philosophy regarding the aircraft carrier is that it's a platform for air defense and reconnaissance, travelling with cruisers that in turn engage the enemy directly. The strike role is a secondary consideration.

I'm not saying this is really a sensible strategy in the long run, but it's the one that my navy has adopted until it learns otherwise. So should the carrier instead be designed as a large cruiser with a flight deck and aircraft?

J

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 7
(4/11/03 7:43:54 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambier Bay? All other CVs were saved just because of some good fortune that day...

What about bad weather? You may not be able to use your planes while a cruiser or capital unit may be able to use its guns.

What about night? Is airborne reconnaissance that good in those years (late 20s to mid 30s)? I doubt it. History proofed that even another few years later there will be no certainty you will not be surprise by surface warships one fine day.

What was the reason for the USN to build fast (33kn) carriers?

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 29
(4/14/03 1:56:15 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambier Bay was part of Taffy 3 at Samar. I won't argue that the Americans got lucky; only that the circumstances haven't happened to carriers very often.

Weather and night will undoubtedly hamper aerial recce. However, will an extra five knots of speed save the carrier's bacon if a capital ship gets close enough to detect it with the naked eye in those conditions? If the BB is giving chase, the carrier needs several minutes to put a single additional nautical mile between them. The battleship has time to throw a lot of metal at her, and even a couple of hits are going to doom the carrier.

I have no idea why the American carriers were so fast; my limited reading suggests that converted battlecruisers - Akagi, the Lexingtons, Courageous and Furious - were the only carriers built before 1930 that exceeded 30 kts. Were the Yorktowns and later units built for high speed to evade capital ships, to avoid slowing down the Lexingtons, or to impart greater strategic mobility? Anybody?

Nonetheless...here's a retooling of the 14,700 t carrier. She's two knots faster, and more heavily armed, but with less protection. How would you rate this version:


carrier, laid down 1925

Length, 665 ft x Beam, 75.0 ft x Depth, 20.0 ft
15675 tons normal displacement (14673 tons standard)

Main battery: 8 x 5.9-inch
Secondary battery: 6 x 4.1-inch
AA battery: 8 x 1.4-inch
Light battery: 12 x 0.6-inch

Weight of broadside: 1041 lbs

Main belt, 2.5 inches; full length
Armor deck, average 2.0 inches
C.T., 6.0 inches

Battery armor:
Main, 2.0" shields / secondary, 1.0" shields
AA, 1.0" shields / light guns, 1.0" shields

Maximum speed for 98116 shp = 31.00 knots
Approximate cruising radius, 9000 nm / 12 kts

Airgroup: Maximum 60

Typical complement: 700-911


Estimated cost, $13.808 million (£3.452 million)

Remarks:

Ship is roomy, with superior accommodation and working space.


Distribution of weights:
Percent
normal
displacement:

Armament ......................... 130 tons = 1 pct
Armor, total ..................... 2064 tons = 13 pct

Belt 690 tons = 4 pct
Deck 1236 tons = 8 pct
C.T. 81 tons = 1 pct
Armament 57 tons = 0 pct

Machinery ........................ 3186 tons = 20 pct
Hull and fittings; equipment ..... 5293 tons = 34 pct
Fuel, ammunition, stores ......... 1403 tons = 9 pct
Miscellaneous weights ............ 3600 tons = 23 pct
-----
15675 tons = 100 pct

Estimated metacentric height, 4.0 ft

Displacement summary:

Light ship: 14272 tons
Standard displacement: 14673 tons
Normal service: 15675 tons
Full load: 16414 tons

Loading submergence 955 tons/foot

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Estimated overall survivability and seakeeping ability:

Relative margin of stability: 1.11

Shellfire needed to sink: 19286 lbs = 187.8 x 5.9-inch shells
(Approximates weight of penetrating
shell hits needed to sink ship,
not counting critical hits)

Torpedoes needed to sink: 2.1
(Approximates number of 'typical'
torpedo hits needed to sink ship)

Relative steadiness as gun platform, 62 percent
(50 percent is 'average')

Relative rocking effect from firing to beam, 0.06

Relative quality as a seaboat: 1.13

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Hull form characteristics:

Block coefficient: 0.55
Sharpness coefficient: 0.36
Hull speed coefficient 'M' = 8.13
'Natural speed' for length = 25.8 knots
Power going to wave formation
at top speed: 54 percent


Estimated hull characteristics and strength:

Relative underwater volume absorbed by
magazines and engineering spaces: 98 percent

Relative accommodation and working space: 191 percent


Displacement factor: 120 percent
(Displacement relative to loading factors)


Relative cross-sectional hull strength: 1.01
(Structure weight per square
foot of hull surface: 106 lbs)

Relative longitudinal hull strength: 1.03
(for 21.0 ft average freeboard;
freeboard adjustment +4.4 ft)

Relative composite hull strength: 1.01

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


[Machine-readable parameters: Spring Style v. 1.2.1]

665.00 x 75.00 x 20.00; 21.00 -- Dimensions
0.55 -- Block coefficient
1925 -- Year laid down
31.00 / 9000 / 12.00; Oil-fired turbine or equivalent -- Speed / radius / cruise
3600 tons -- Miscellaneous weights
++++++++++
8 x 5.90; 0 -- Main battery; turrets
Central positioning of guns
Gun-shields
:
6 x 4.10; 0 -- Secondary battery; turrets
Gun-shields
:
8 x 1.40 -- Tertiary (QF/AA) battery
Gun-shields
:
12 x 0.60 -- Fourth (light) battery
0 -- No torpedo armament
++++++++++
2.50 / 2.50 / 0.00 / 0.00; 100 -- Belt armor; relative extent
2.00 / 6.00 -- Deck / CT
2.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 / 1.00 -- Battery armor


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 17
(4/14/03 5:22:04 pm)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would take this one. It looks quite balanced and realistic.

What good is a 50mm (2") deck for? Shouldn´t it be somewhat thicker? What was the thickness of the british carriers decks?

A good design. Those 5.9"ers are not that useful but very realistic, though. Range should fit your needs as well. 60 planes is less as on RANGER and WASP but we all know they were always rated as cramped and their design somewhat over ambitious.

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 32
(4/15/03 11:36:22 am)
Re: Light carrier alternatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Brit carriers had decks around 100 mm (~4 inches) or so, though again, I'm not sure if this was going on in the '20s. A two inch deck isn't as sturdy as I'd like, but it's the best I've been able to do so far. I'll be tinkering with it, but I've got almost five sim-years to get a final design.

The guns are a concession to realism; even if I personally don't see a need for anti-surface capabilities, most designers of the time did seem to assume it was necessary.

Thanks for your many comments...anybody else have carrier designs to introduce?

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 15
(4/16/03 8:03:26 pm)
British carrier specs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example heres a few specs on some of the British carriers. The HMS Eagle was as we all know originally laid down as a BB and as such originally had 9" side armor. This was removed and replaced by 4.5" of armor, and her deck armor of 1.5" remained but this was at the original deck level. The HMS Hermes, the first purpose built carrier for the British apears to be completely unarmored, currently i can find no specs for her amor scheme, but she was built on a cruiser type hull so I emagine the hull would be similarly armored possibly a 1.5" deck and 4.5" sides. HMS Couragious and Glorious when converted retained thier original armor, with 3" belt, and 1 and 3/4" armor deck while the HMS furious had a 3" belt and 1" deck.

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 16
(4/16/03 8:17:28 pm)
later british carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HMS Ark Royal had a 4.5" belt and 3" deck with 2.5" bulkhead but she was laid down in 1935. The Illustrious class ships also had 3" decks (between the lifts) but the main difference was that the main belt AND hangar sides was 4.5 inches thick, while the Indomitable had 1.5" hangar walls and the Implacible and Indefatigable had 2" hangar walls.