WesWorld

Possible Italian ships for 1936, I'm not entirely sure what is going to be built at the moment so I'm looking for some input.

Designs are in SS3 at the moment.

A lightish cruiser following on from the previous classes. Lengthened in order to accomodate 6 duple turrets of the fast firing 152/53 gun. Problem is that to get 6 turrets on, the ship has to be rather long, which means its big and so displaces quite a lot. I'm not really sure it's worth it for the increase in firepower. Lots of armour and a TDS that wouldn't particularly work and theres still strength left over.

Guns are those 152/53 DP ones which here I've checked the box for "auto rapid fire guns" which adds 25% to the weight. This seems a reasonable weight increase looking at other similar weapons as they're not fully automatic, just mechanised.

47mm AA guns are in a new larger mounting. The older quadruple was rather cramped and has proved difficult to use in service. This is more angular with far more space inside.


Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1936

Displacement:
10,791 t light; 11,354 t standard; 13,121 t normal; 14,535 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(675.55 ft / 656.17 ft) x 65.62 ft (Bulges 72.93 ft) x (21.33 / 23.06 ft)
(205.91 m / 200.00 m) x 20.00 m (Bulges 22.23 m) x (6.50 / 7.03 m)

Armament:
12 - 5.98" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 99.21lbs / 45.00kg shells, 300 per gun
Auto rapid fire guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1936 Model
6 x 3-gun mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 raised mounts - superfiring
28 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
2 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, evenly spread
2 double raised mounts
Weight of broadside 1,283 lbs / 582 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.12" / 130 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 10.20 ft / 3.11 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.18" / 30 mm 426.51 ft / 130.00 m 24.61 ft / 7.50 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.31" / 135 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 3.11" / 79 mm For and Aft decks

- Conning towers: Forward 5.31" / 135 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 80,000 shp / 59,680 Kw = 31.78 kts
Range 4,000nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 3,181 tons

Complement:
612 - 796

Cost:
£4.480 million / $17.921 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 635 tons, 4.8 %
Armour: 3,238 tons, 24.7 %
- Belts: 913 tons, 7.0 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 459 tons, 3.5 %
- Armament: 456 tons, 3.5 %
- Armour Deck: 1,347 tons, 10.3 %
- Conning Tower: 64 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 2,245 tons, 17.1 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 4,472 tons, 34.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,331 tons, 17.8 %
Miscellaneous weights: 200 tons, 1.5 %
- Hull above water: 50 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 50 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
22,593 lbs / 10,248 Kg = 210.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 4.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.27
Metacentric height 4.1 ft / 1.2 m
Roll period: 15.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.16
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.15

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.450 / 0.461
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 29.67 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 53 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 27.89 ft / 8.50 m, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Forward deck: 30.00 %, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Aft deck: 35.00 %, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Average freeboard: 18.83 ft / 5.74 m
Ship tends to be wet forward

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 160.2 %
Waterplane Area: 28,529 Square feet or 2,650 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 139 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 112 lbs/sq ft or 546 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.02
- Longitudinal: 1.05
- Overall: 1.03
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent

Warning: Date too early for rapid fire gun - Main battery

Belt armour 30+100mm@15 + 30mm internal
Deck armour 100mm over vitals

The short fat ship design posted before. A proper escort vessel with good surface and anti-air armament. Seakeeping and stability are excellent. Might be a little overarmed with the 47mm but I'm not sure given the beam. The RN short fat ship design had lots of weight high up to make them less stable, rather than wallowing in a seaway. Design itself is quite similar to that tug being built, with auxiliary high speed diesels for dash speed and increased internal subdivision represented by the 10mm torpedo bulkhead.

Enter ship name, Enter country Enter ship type laid down 1936

Displacement:
1,506 t light; 1,710 t standard; 2,092 t normal; 2,398 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(302.90 ft / 295.28 ft) x 59.06 ft x (10.50 / 11.47 ft)
(92.32 m / 90.00 m) x 18.00 m x (3.20 / 3.50 m)

Armament:
4 - 5.31" / 135 mm 45.0 cal guns - 70.55lbs / 32.00kg shells, 400 per gun
Breech loading guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1936 Model
2 x Twin mounts on centreline, forward deck forward
1 raised mount - superfiring
24 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
6 x Quad mounts on sides, forward deck aft
2 raised mounts - superfiring
Weight of broadside 362 lbs / 164 kg
6 - 23.6" / 600 mm, 22.97 ft / 7.00 m torpedoes - 1.903 t each, 11.416 t total
In 2 sets of deck mounted side rotating tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Ends: Unarmoured

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
0.39" / 10 mm 213.25 ft / 65.00 m 16.40 ft / 5.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 1.18" / 30 mm -
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Conning towers: Forward 2.76" / 70 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Diesel Internal combustion motors,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 4,000 shp / 2,984 Kw = 17.11 kts
Range 6,740nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 688 tons

Complement:
154 - 201

Cost:
£0.546 million / $2.184 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 98 tons, 4.7 %
- Guns: 86 tons, 4.1 %
- Torpedoes: 11 tons, 0.5 %
Armour: 92 tons, 4.4 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 51 tons, 2.4 %
- Armament: 32 tons, 1.5 %
- Conning Tower: 10 tons, 0.5 %
Machinery: 112 tons, 5.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 1,033 tons, 49.4 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 587 tons, 28.0 %
Miscellaneous weights: 170 tons, 8.1 %
- Hull below water: 50 tons
- On freeboard deck: 100 tons
- Above deck: 20 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
10,470 lbs / 4,749 Kg = 139.5 x 5.3 " / 135 mm shells or 3.6 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.70
Metacentric height 5.4 ft / 1.7 m
Roll period: 10.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.09
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has rise forward of midbreak,
a normal bow and small transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.400 / 0.420
Length to Beam Ratio: 5.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 19.35 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 44 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 35
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00 %, 24.61 ft / 7.50 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forward deck: 40.00 %, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 18.04 ft / 5.50 m
- Aft deck: 25.00 %, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Average freeboard: 15.81 ft / 4.82 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 65.1 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 198.9 %
Waterplane Area: 10,977 Square feet or 1,020 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 255 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 74 lbs/sq ft or 362 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.90
- Longitudinal: 3.35
- Overall: 1.03
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

5000miles at 15knts = 325tons main engines

2x5000hp Fiat-Guidoni Diesels + auxiliaries = 100tons
Full power = 2tons/hour
48hour Dash at full power = 96tons

Total fuel = 286 + 96 = 382tons

Speed with both engines at 100% = 24.7knts

I like the cruiser. But bulges, and no medium secondaries?

Do you really need all that length? The current Aussie cruisers have 5 triple turrets in 590ft and the OTL US Brooklyns also have 5 in 600ft. You probably could reduce length quite a bit.

Can you not make the guns triples? Having six double turrets seems a bit odd to me.

The reason for making them twins is that they're more mechanically assisted than most 6" mounts, they're a step towards the historically post-war 6" DP weapons.

But I agree with DFox, bulges?

Quoted

Do you really need all that length?

Yes. The Aussie ships might show what is possible in SS but not real life. The space is needed.

Why are medium secondaries needed? The 152mm guns are fine for heavy AA and against smaller vessels. The 47mm and 25mm guns are fine for light AA. There isn't a need for 100mm secondary weapons.

Could go for triples, but adds a lot of complication and the duple turrets already exist. I did draw up a new built quadruple turret following from the Pisa class, but DP is basically impossible and the ship gets quite large to mount 4 such turrets.

Bulges represent the wasp-waiste hullform like this.

The hull form, though, is part of the reason you're having more strength than you know what to do with. USS Worchester, which your design looks A LOT like, didn't agree on the lack of need for additional heavy AA, shipping 22 3" RF guns in addition to 12 6" DP guns.

Dimensions are pretty similar to the Worchester as well, though Worchester didn't bother with the bulges and was several feet bit deeper.

Similar to the Greek cruiser Konstantinoupolis .

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=4058&sid=

Cheers,

I have to agree with RA on the lack of need for medium AA; A mix of Heavy DP and 40mm-ish AAguns seems fine, and that's what the Canadians have done with the Labradors and Tribals. Adding an intermediate caliber means having to make provisions for yet another set of magazines and ammo-hoist equipment.

As I recall, the 3" guns on the Worchesters replaced the 40mm, and indeed all of the various postwar plans for modernizing old ships and building new ships showed the 3" guns replacing the 40mm, not supplementing them.

That's true IF you have a real DP gun, with a ROF of 12 rounds per minute or higher at any angle, and train and elevation rates high enough to get the job done (15+ degrees/second elevation, 20+ degrees/second train). The problem is, those didn't appear until 1946 or later.

Yes, the 3" guns were replacements for the 40mm, but they also had longer range than the 40mms.

Quoted

Yes. The Aussie ships might show what is possible in SS but not real life. The space is needed.

The Aussie ships are a mere 10ft shorter than the historical US Brooklyns, which are 50ft shorter than your ship. Do you really need an extra 50ft for one more turret?

Prior to WW2 AA guns were to drive off or spoil the aim of aircraft. After WW2 you had to blow the aircraft into bits and then chop the bits into fragments.

Cheers,

Length seems ok to me, the L:B ratio is still 9:1.

I agree on the AA issue, if you don't have a true DP weapon yet it would be nice to have a larger primary AA weapon, you can always remove them later for improvments if the DP guns are successsfull.

Very similar to Konstantinoupolis actually, and I'd completely forgotten that that design existed.

Heavy AA before proximity fuses is used to scare away aircraft and disrupt their aim, big shell bursts from a 152mm gun will do that a lot better than 5"/38 even if there are fewer bursts. As for actually trying to shoot an aircraft down, close in, high elevation and training rates are important, which means larger motors, better stabilisation and extra weight. At longer range, the elevation and training rates won't be as important. As an example take a dive bomber in a vertical dive over another ship 1000m away (close range) ; dive bomber will be doing ~450km/h which means 125m/s. A big of trig and you can find that the target is travelling through 7° per second. At longer range, the bigger and faster shell of the 152/53 will be far more accurate even if there aren't as many of them. The FC system plots the intercept course and fires the gun with RPC, the high velocity, big shell 152mm gun gets to the target area first and also gets closest to the target area. Look at HMS Lion's 6" QF mounts post war, against air targets it was typical for the first round fired to hit the target which sorts of negates the RoF issue. Obviously, with period FC systems that isn't possible until 1945-50 with proper centimetric radar tied into the main FC.

Close range FC is handled by the 47mm mountings, effective range similar to the Bofors at 3000-4000m.

Quoted

Very similar to Konstantinoupolis actually, and I'd completely forgotten that that design existed.

Design? Its been in service since August 1934.

Ah, Italian Naval Intelligence is letting the side down.

Cheers,

Your light cruiser reminds me of the USN's Worchester class that had 6 twin 6" automatic guns.
It was indeed larger than contemporary designs - some due to the size of the turret/ammo handling and the need to carry a larger supply of main battery ammo.
Also, it had no real secondary battery.
It was more like a CLAA on steroids.

I was considering this as well. A bigger brother to Garibaldi with more beam and full double hangars. Need to accommodate more aircraft than the 60 on Garibaldi and need for heavier armament. Main changes are increased beam and draught to increase displacement. The weight is used for a bigger hangar and the 152mm duple turrets. Also designed for larger, heavier aircraft with bigger lifts and more below deck space. Port deck is offset to counteract the weight of the 152mm turrets around the island which also allowed for moving the 3rd catapult forwards. I still haven't really decided whether or not she is worth building. Has the ability to operate more and larger aircraft but is obviously more expensive than Garibaldi.

Italian Portaaerei laid down 1936

Displacement:
36,481 t light; 37,941 t standard; 44,133 t normal; 49,087 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(913.88 ft / 885.83 ft) x 118.11 ft x (29.53 / 31.92 ft)
(278.55 m / 270.00 m) x 36.00 m x (9.00 / 9.73 m)

Armament:
10 - 5.98" / 152 mm 53.0 cal guns - 99.21lbs / 45.00kg shells, 300 per gun
Auto rapid fire guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1936 Model
4 x 2-gun mounts on sides, forward evenly spread
2 raised mounts
1 x 2-gun mount on sides, forward deck centre
1 double raised mount
56 - 1.85" / 47.0 mm 40.0 cal guns - 3.31lbs / 1.50kg shells, 4,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
14 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,177 lbs / 534 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Ends: 1.42" / 36 mm 393.70 ft / 120.00 m 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
Upper: 1.42" / 36 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 49.21 ft / 15.00 m
Main Belt covers 85 % of normal length

- Torpedo Bulkhead:
1.57" / 40 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 26.25 ft / 8.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.31" / 135 mm 2.76" / 70 mm 2.76" / 70 mm
2nd: 0.39" / 10 mm 0.39" / 10 mm -

- Armoured deck - multiple decks: 1.57" / 40 mm For and Aft decks
Forecastle: 1.57" / 40 mm Quarter deck: 1.57" / 40 mm

- Conning towers: Forward 2.76" / 70 mm, Aft 0.00" / 0 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 180,000 shp / 134,280 Kw = 32.80 kts
Range 6,900nm at 25.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 11,146 tons

Complement:
1,522 - 1,979

Cost:
£11.181 million / $44.722 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 508 tons, 1.2 %
Armour: 6,103 tons, 13.8 %
- Belts: 2,967 tons, 6.7 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 753 tons, 1.7 %
- Armament: 178 tons, 0.4 %
- Armour Deck: 2,130 tons, 4.8 %
- Conning Tower: 74 tons, 0.2 %
Machinery: 5,051 tons, 11.4 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 14,996 tons, 34.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 7,652 tons, 17.3 %
Miscellaneous weights: 9,824 tons, 22.3 %
- Hull below water: 500 tons
- On freeboard deck: 5,500 tons
- Above deck: 3,824 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
124,818 lbs / 56,616 Kg = 1,164.9 x 6.0 " / 152 mm shells or 24.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.21
Metacentric height 9.2 ft / 2.8 m
Roll period: 16.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 76 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.04
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.52

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.500 / 0.514
Length to Beam Ratio: 7.50 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 34.79 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 51 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 20.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 12.00 %, 59.06 ft / 18.00 m, 59.06 ft / 18.00 m
- Forward deck: 40.00 %, 26.57 ft / 8.10 m, 26.57 ft / 8.10 m
- Aft deck: 33.00 %, 26.57 ft / 8.10 m, 26.57 ft / 8.10 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00 %, 26.57 ft / 8.10 m, 26.57 ft / 8.10 m
- Average freeboard: 30.47 ft / 9.29 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 52.7 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 241.1 %
Waterplane Area: 72,492 Square feet or 6,735 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 161 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 154 lbs/sq ft or 752 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 1.05
- Longitudinal: 1.33
- Overall: 1.08
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

Warning: Armour belts too tall for hull

100mm deck armour 150x30 = 3524tons
Proof against 1500lb bombs from dive bombers

72 aeroplanes = 5200tons + 12 spares = 300t
extra 750,000L AVGAS = 540tons
4x450mm extra torpedoes per aircraft = 182tons
8x500kg extra bombs per aircraft = 288tons
100 tons flag facilities
100 tons radars/comms

Well, Portaaerei is huge.
Nice drawings (of course).
I can't say I care for your funnel arrangement, but the side view is nicely detailed.

does the "A" twin 6" mount actually have sufficient field of fire to merit the top weight? Looks to be 120 degrees or so?

Appropriate tech level of weapons is a separate issue for completion, but you can always plan for them.

The deckplan is a different issue. It's not quite an angled deck, because you can't land on it. But it certainly doesn't look like anything I know of pre USS United States. So it might be way early... or might fall under that reasonableness / storyline argument. Is there any weight budgeted for that large sponson?

Armor scheme seems to have advanced from the Illustrious to the Implacable s. Do you have two 7.m hangers? It looks to be that from the side plan.

I am concerned that at 36m beam, the ship is not Panamax.
Considering Iberia holds Panama, I would think you might want to slim her down.

It's a very interesting vessel. Lots of protection vs. airgroup. Which may be reasonable. Much like the USS Midway class considerations, similar size as well.

I'd love to field an armored CV, but there are too many demands on Dutch resources, so we went with a modified Eendracht.

Quoted

I can't say I care for your funnel arrangement,

I quite like it. It makes the superstructure so much more compact. The one on Garibaldi was rather massive.

Quoted

does the "A" twin 6" mount actually have sufficient field of fire to merit the top weight?

Quite possibly not, but I like the look. At high elevation it can also fire to port over the flight deck similar to the 4.5" on the British carriers. Most attacks will be along the axis of the ship as well.

Deck plan is a bit strange admittedly, but some counter balance to the island and turrets was needed. No weight to account for it as I've no idea how to calculate it, but there is plenty of excess.

Not really a change in armour scheme from Garibaldi. The previous two carriers from 1927 had 100mm armour on the hangar sides (lower hangar anyway) but this was just far too expensive in terms of weight to adopt for the larger ships. It got replaced by more extensive splinter armour instead. Flight deck is 100mm over the hangar and a bit extra, 40mm down on the main deck.

Hangars should be 6m or 5.5m I can't remember.

Quoted

I am concerned that at 36m beam, the ship is not Panamax.

Because the Panama canal has locks it is rather difficult for carriers to fit through on account of the overhangs. The Essex class with 28m waterline beam were an interference fit with the locks, and as I remember they needed to remove some parts on the outer hull to fit through every time.

Quoted

It's a very interesting vessel. Lots of protection vs. airgroup. Which may be reasonable.

The problems with having a massive airgroup are that you can't operate them effectively. There just isn't space and things get confused very easily.