WesWorld

Here's a slightly scaled down Casablanca Class. I'm still not very familiar with how to design Carriers in Wesworld, but it seems like she can have an airgroup of 24 planes plus 6 spares. Likely to have 8 fighters and 16 attack planes?

Enter ship name, France Escort Carrier laid down 1936

Displacement:
5,565 t light; 5,811 t standard; 6,587 t normal; 7,207 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(533.61 ft / 524.93 ft) x 52.49 ft x (16.73 / 17.87 ft)
(162.64 m / 160.00 m) x 16.00 m x (5.10 / 5.45 m)

Armament:
8 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 55.0 cal guns - 27.56lbs / 12.50kg shells, 500 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1936 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 2.12lbs / 0.96kg shells, 1,600 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
6 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
24 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 80.0 cal guns - 0.28lbs / 0.13kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1936 Model
12 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
12 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 278 lbs / 126 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 344.49 ft / 105.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101% of normal length
Main Belt inclined 15.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

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

- Conning towers: Forward 1.97" / 50 mm, Aft 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 52,338 shp / 39,044 Kw = 31.00 kts
Range 7,500nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,396 tons

Complement:
365 - 475

Cost:
£2.306 million / $9.225 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 93 tons, 1.4%
- Guns: 93 tons, 1.4%
Armour: 849 tons, 12.9%
- Belts: 228 tons, 3.5%
- Armament: 38 tons, 0.6%
- Armour Deck: 561 tons, 8.5%
- Conning Towers: 22 tons, 0.3%
Machinery: 1,469 tons, 22.3%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,304 tons, 35.0%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,021 tons, 15.5%
Miscellaneous weights: 850 tons, 12.9%
- Hull above water: 150 tons
- On freeboard deck: 600 tons
- Above deck: 100 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
10,227 lbs / 4,639 Kg = 335.2 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 1.7 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.11
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.4 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 57 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.13

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.500 / 0.512
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 57 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 50
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00%, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00%, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Aft deck: 35.00%, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00%, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 18.08 ft / 5.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 82.1%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 171.0%
Waterplane Area: 19,093 Square feet or 1,774 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 132%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 78 lbs/sq ft or 382 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.35
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room

Quoted

Originally posted by gaiasabre11
I'm still not very familiar with how to design Carriers in Wesworld

Check the Rules section; Carriers and subs have more detailed rules @ http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=5466&sid=

As for the ship itself, I'm not sure one that small would be effective, but there is the Siamese attempt on record (now with China);
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=65933#post65933

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Check the Rules section; Carriers and subs have more detailed rules @ http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?threadid=5466&sid=

Yes I did check the rules for that matter.

So misc weight = 600 tons, sqrt that and that's slightly greater than 24, and 600 / 24 = 25 (just enough). Perhaps I should have gone for an airgroup of 25 planes.

regarding size: 160 m x 16 m / 70 gives around 37, so that's definitely enough space.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_IncAs for the ship itself, I'm not sure one that small would be effective, but there is the Siamese attempt on record (now with China);
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=65933#post65933

Hmmm, it seems that I have a far larger airgroup here with my design, but I did comply with the rules. Am I doing anything wrong?

Quoted

Originally posted by gaiasabre11
Hmmm, it seems that I have a far larger airgroup here with my design, but I did comply with the rules. Am I doing anything wrong?

I can't speak for the Siamese carrier, but for the Chilean carriers Chiloe and Mapuche, I've rated them as carrying fewer aircraft than the rules would otherwise permit. For instance, Chiloe is theoretically capable of carrying 46 aircraft, but I've rated her to only carry twenty-four due to her status as a CVE/training carrier and a merchant conversion. Mapuche, being purpose-built but not much larger, gets to carry thirty-six planes even though the rules permit a max of 47. I feel it's more realistic that way.

(I should note that Chiloe will not carry any combat aircraft - only ENAER Coati-N types for training and ASW, and a few Fanaero GIIAs for liaison and scout work.)

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I can't speak for the Siamese carrier, but for the Chilean carriers Chiloe and Mapuche, I've rated them as carrying fewer aircraft than the rules would otherwise permit. For instance, Chiloe is theoretically capable of carrying 46 aircraft, but I've rated her to only carry twenty-four due to her status as a CVE/training carrier and a merchant conversion. Mapuche, being purpose-built but not much larger, gets to carry thirty-six planes even though the rules permit a max of 47. I feel it's more realistic that way.

I compared my design with the RL Casablanca. The Casablanca has an airgroup of around 28 planes @ 7800 t standard, so it seems that 24 for this design is not impossible...

It's worth noting that
a) Our rather simplified square root rule somewhat inflates the capabilities of smaller carriers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
b) Your miscellaneous weights would likely be allocated to various other equipment; the square root rule basically assumes the weight of the planes and the bare-bones equipment needed to support them. Radar, CIC, more accomdating spaces for the aircrews, etc would need seperate weight accounting.

Does this ship have a long enough flight deck to fly off a F4F or similar plane? Yeah. Does it have enough natural capacity to carry 24 of them? Yeah. But would it be a stable enough platform to operate them (or larger planes) efficiently? That's the real question.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
It's worth noting that
a) Our rather simplified square root rule somewhat inflates the capabilities of smaller carriers, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
b) Your miscellaneous weights would likely be allocated to various other equipment; the square root rule basically assumes the weight of the planes and the bare-bones equipment needed to support them. Radar, CIC, more accomdating spaces for the aircrews, etc would need seperate weight accounting.

Very well, I shall increase my misc weight for this design. Will post the edited design later.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_IncDoes this ship have a long enough flight deck to fly off a F4F or similar plane? Yeah. Does it have enough natural capacity to carry 24 of them? Yeah. But would it be a stable enough platform to operate them (or larger planes) efficiently? That's the real question.

Then how can I determine whether or not it's stable enough?

Revised version, still going for an airgroup of 24 and 6 spares at 25 tons each


Enter ship name, France Escort Carrier laid down 1938

Displacement:
5,750 t light; 6,000 t standard; 6,974 t normal; 7,754 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(533.61 ft / 524.93 ft) x 52.49 ft x (17.72 / 19.15 ft)
(162.64 m / 160.00 m) x 16.00 m x (5.40 / 5.84 m)

Armament:
8 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 55.0 cal guns - 27.56lbs / 12.50kg shells, 500 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck and hoist mounts, 1938 Model
4 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
4 raised mounts
24 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 2.12lbs / 0.96kg shells, 1,600 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
6 x Quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
16 - 0.79" / 20.0 mm 80.0 cal guns - 0.29lbs / 0.13kg shells, 1,600 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1938 Model
8 x Twin mounts on sides, evenly spread
8 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 276 lbs / 125 kg

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 344.49 ft / 105.00 m 8.20 ft / 2.50 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 101% of normal length
Main Belt inclined 15.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm
2nd: 0.79" / 20 mm - -
3rd: 0.39" / 10 mm - -

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

- Conning towers: Forward 1.97" / 50 mm, Aft 0.98" / 25 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 47,639 shp / 35,539 Kw = 30.00 kts
Range 9,360nm at 15.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 1,754 tons

Complement:
381 - 496

Cost:
£2.369 million / $9.477 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 92 tons, 1.3%
- Guns: 92 tons, 1.3%
Armour: 848 tons, 12.2%
- Belts: 228 tons, 3.3%
- Armament: 36 tons, 0.5%
- Armour Deck: 561 tons, 8.0%
- Conning Towers: 23 tons, 0.3%
Machinery: 1,304 tons, 18.7%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 2,330 tons, 33.4%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,224 tons, 17.6%
Miscellaneous weights: 1,175 tons, 16.8%
- Hull above water: 300 tons
- On freeboard deck: 625 tons
- Above deck: 250 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
11,777 lbs / 5,342 Kg = 386.0 x 3.9 " / 100 mm shells or 1.9 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 2.3 ft / 0.7 m
Roll period: 14.6 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 54 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.13
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck,
a normal bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.500 / 0.514
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.00 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.15 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 56 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 45
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 15.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 1.64 ft / 0.50 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00%, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m
- Forward deck: 30.00%, 19.69 ft / 6.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Aft deck: 35.00%, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00%, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m, 16.40 ft / 5.00 m
- Average freeboard: 18.08 ft / 5.51 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 72.3%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 163.8%
Waterplane Area: 19,093 Square feet or 1,774 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 140%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 78 lbs/sq ft or 381 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.96
- Longitudinal: 1.36
- Overall: 1.00
Excellent machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Quoted

Originally posted by gaiasabre11
Then how can I determine whether or not it's stable enough?

When it comes to carriers, there isn't really a specific value on Springsharp that'll do it; The stability and similar indicators are relative to the ship's size. Ultimately, a ship's size is what gives it the stability and seakeeping to conduct aircraft operatons in heavier weather; No matter how ballasted or relatively seaworthy, a 20k ton carrier is going to be a better platform than a 6k, or 10k design.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

When it comes to carriers, there isn't really a specific value on Springsharp that'll do it; The stability and similar indicators are relative to the ship's size. Ultimately, a ship's size is what gives it the stability and seakeeping to conduct aircraft operatons in heavier weather; No matter how ballasted or relatively seaworthy, a 20k ton carrier is going to be a better platform than a 6k, or 10k design.

Hmmm... well it seems to me that this 6k design should at least be able to conduct aircraft operations in calmer seas such as the Med, and perhaps even slightly rougher seas...

That's what it amounts to; Where do you see the design serving? Most of the med can be covered by land-based aircraft at this juncture, and most other stations would find the ship hampered if bad weather becomes an issue.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
That's what it amounts to; Where do you see the design serving? Most of the med can be covered by land-based aircraft at this juncture, and most other stations would find the ship hampered if bad weather becomes an issue.

My bad, I should have mentioned it earlier.

Originally this design is designed for my AU France which I'm writing a novel about. My naval doctrine states that no ships other than carriers should carry aircrafts, so this means I should have tons of aircraft carriers anywhere where France has a naval presence. As my AU France is more powerful than in RL, this basically means everywhere.

I intend for this design to be a small and cheap design where air cover is needed but a fleet carrier cannot be present. Even though this design is not really ideal for rough seas (which is most certainly common in a lot of French colonies), having something is better than nothing.

Alternatively, this design can also be meant for a poor man's navy. A minor state may want to operate an aircraft carrier but things become unaffordable after they get too large, so an escort carrier like this might be a good solution to the country's needs.

In the end, this design is only an escort carrier. If it can't operate aircrafts in heavy weather, screw it, I won't be too demanding on her.

With my Mod had on (yet somewhat askew), my suggestion would be to spend some time reading up on the history and deployment of various powers, and put some thought into ships you think would suit one of the powers here in WesWorld. While more random designs can show us you can use springsharp, a more targeted design with rationale behind it gives us a better idea of how well you've got a grasp on how things are running in our own little AU that's running.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
With my Mod had on (yet somewhat askew), my suggestion would be to spend some time reading up on the history and deployment of various powers, and put some thought into ships you think would suit one of the powers here in WesWorld. While more random designs can show us you can use springsharp, a more targeted design with rationale behind it gives us a better idea of how well you've got a grasp on how things are running in our own little AU that's running.

Roger that Captain. Originally I was thinking that I should post some more random ship designs that everyone can adapt and use for their nation's needs. If that was inappropriate sorry for that.

But I should also state that this design is also meant for the minor state whatever I can get my hands on.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by gaiasabre11
Then how can I determine whether or not it's stable enough?

When it comes to carriers, there isn't really a specific value on Springsharp that'll do it; The stability and similar indicators are relative to the ship's size. Ultimately, a ship's size is what gives it the stability and seakeeping to conduct aircraft operatons in heavier weather; No matter how ballasted or relatively seaworthy, a 20k ton carrier is going to be a better platform than a 6k, or 10k design.

That's not quite true, in normal conditions the metacentric height and roll period (which are closely linked) are quite good indicators of seakeeping. Combined with freeboard and flight deck beam, I think we can probably devise a reasonably good metric for carrier operability.

I could maybe accept 24 aircraft on this thing if it had no armament or armour and less power. There's a big difference between being able to physically fit aircraft onto a ship and operating them effectively.

Italy has some small carriers this thread of similar size. Can they realistically operate the 28 aircraft made possible by the current rules here? No, maybe 8-10 with limited munitions storage.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I could maybe accept 24 aircraft on this thing if it had no armament or armour and less power. There's a big difference between being able to physically fit aircraft onto a ship and operating them effectively.

Italy has some small carriers this thread of similar size. Can they realistically operate the 28 aircraft made possible by the current rules here? No, maybe 8-10 with limited munitions storage.

Hmmm... looking at your design of similiar size (Condottieri I), before refit she can carry 12 aircrafts while having 400 t misc weight for them. After refit she can carry 700 t of aircrafts and vehicles. My design has a total of 1175 t of misc weight allocated for aircraft operations, so it seems like that I can safely say that an airgroup of 24 is possible.

Anyways, before anyone reply, I think I'll be opening up a new thread for this design to be tailored for a proposed new CVE for the Siamese Navy as a succesor to the Bangkok (which was sold to the Chinese).

I'm some what skeptic about aircraft carrier that small but it fit with in the rules so, I can not say now.

Still its power plant will make it an expensive ship.
Why do You want to give a ESCORT carrier such a high speed?

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
I'm some what skeptic about aircraft carrier that small but it fit with in the rules so, I can not say now.

Still its power plant will make it an expensive ship.
Why do You want to give a ESCORT carrier such a high speed?

She basically shares a hull with the same dimensions and machinery with another CL design I have. I can sure cut down the speed to make her cheaper, but I want to explore her possible potentials.

Anyways, I've moved the discussions regarding this design to another thread, the Proposed new Siamese CL/CVE thread. Plz head there.