You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

1

Thursday, June 26th 2003, 10:00pm

Through-deck cruisers

Anybody out there considering a through-deck cruiser design as part of their aircraft carrier program? Has anybody simmed one?

2

Thursday, June 26th 2003, 10:10pm

Italy has not considered a through-deck cruiser. Bigger carriers are better, more aircraft, faster and better protected.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

3

Thursday, June 26th 2003, 11:39pm

Eh....?

"through-deck cruiser"?!

What exactly do you mean? I momentarily don´t understand you because that expression is unknown to me. :o(

You´re not talking about flush deck hull, right?

4

Friday, June 27th 2003, 10:06am

HMS Invincible(present day) is a through deck cruiser. I assume he meant a cruiser hull with superstructure to one side and a flight deck put in the other side.

5

Friday, June 27th 2003, 3:03pm

A cruiser hull with cruiser armament, with a flight deck and hangar superimposed upon it. The Tarrantry alternative history includes a couple. The historical treaty was worded such that the idea was theoretically legal, though nobody built one. Here our treaty is less kind to the notion.

I'm asking as I'm considering the idea for India's first custom built aviation ship. She'd probably be a dead-end, but an interesting one to sim and draw, and I'd be interested in seeing what might be out there for designs.

J

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

6

Friday, June 27th 2003, 3:19pm

Hmmmm....

The CT doesn´t allow such a vessel except you rate it against your CV-tonnage - and that´s not a good idea, though.

7

Friday, June 27th 2003, 3:54pm

Agreed, but it might be a fun idea. She could always be converted to a proper carrier (or proper cruiser) later in her life.

J

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

8

Friday, June 27th 2003, 4:15pm

Well, but

I´m pretty sure she would fall behind in detail both against a CV once fully converted as well as against a cruiser once converted this way.

I simply think it´s not worth the effort.

harry the red

Unregistered

9

Thursday, July 3rd 2003, 5:02pm

Greek through deck cruiser

Greece already has one in operation based on a rebuilt Pericles class cruiser. If you check the Greek navy post in the infrastructure section you would see a mention of a “Hybrid Aircraft Carrier”.

I had originally mentioned it in a Greek governmental communiqué that was posted several months ago on the warship 1 site. The through deck cruiser was the second item of interest on that communiqué. The main item of interest was the revelation of an up to then secret Greek submarine project. Unfortunately somewhere along the line it did not survive the shift to this sight.

The reason I decided to adapt this type of conversion in the first place was to circumnavigate the 36000 tonne limitation on heavy cruisers imposed on Greece. I had the intention of retaining all of my cruisers by exploiting the ruling that classed any ship able to lunch and land aircraft on its deck as an aircraft carrier The treaty also stated that such ships where limited to a maximum main battery of 6 guns no grater then 8 inch. So all I had to do was remove one turret, convert that space into a hanger and build a deck on it.

With this in mind I asked during the negotiation for a major increase of aircraft carrier tonnage at the expense of light cruiser tonnage. I had realised that if I where to convert my cruisers into through deck cruiser I would have very little tonnage remaining for proper carriers. The request for extra tonnage set alarm bells going with some of the treaty members, specifically South Africa. Bellow is a quote from HoOmAn


The SAE has the strong feeling that you are trying to trick us all. This we will not allow. Our wrath (and that of our numerous allies) upon you if you try to do so!

You ask us for more but when we ask, "For what" your delegation said "wait and find out". Very clever, indeed. What a smart guy your diplomate is.

In Germany we have a word for this situation. It says that the information necessary is a "Bringschuld", not a "Holschuld". This means that we don’t have to call for the information, you have to bring them if you want something from us. Exactly this is the case here.



Well I finally got what I wanted without needing to "Bringschuld" the information. A subclause was added into the treaty that allowed Greece to retain the ships until they where able to replace them with treaty compliant cruisers. With that change to the treaty there was no need to convert the remaining two cruisers nor persist with the increase in carrier tonnage.

HoOmAn you once asked me why did I need so much carrier tonnage, well I hope I finally answered your question.


Wink wink say no more

harry

P.S. I will poste the ships stat’s above showing the ship as originally built then converted to a through deck cruiser and finally into an Aircraft carrier for experimental purposes.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

10

Thursday, July 3rd 2003, 5:25pm

Game dynamics

Interesting...

If I had continued to roleplay the SAE you would have never gotten more CV tonnage nor an extra clause for your cruiser but I _as a player_ was tired of it all and wanted to go on.

So game dynamics worked for you in this case. :o)

11

Thursday, July 3rd 2003, 5:35pm

That's an interesting perspective. Harry, do you see a need for true aircraft carriers for Greece?

Pericles technically fits the criteria for experimental aircraft carrier, so long as a replacement is laid down before the end of 1926. Would you take advantage of this clause, and if so, what would you produce - a true carrier or a hybrid?

harry the red

Unregistered

12

Thursday, July 3rd 2003, 7:03pm

A need for true aircraft carriers for Greece?

The retention of my cruisers at that stage of the game was most important to me. If I was not allowed to retain them nor given extra carrier tonnage then all three ships would have been converted into through deck cruisers. As a small nation having the option of building one or two carriers as a states symbol would be nice but in the overall scheme they are not that important

Besides having a proper carrier would cause political problems that may out way the benefit of having such a ship. The problem is that some countries may see it as an offensive weapon, which in some ways it is but it also plays a major defensive roll. Unlike airfields you cannot be certain were it is at any given moment and this makes it hard for an opponent to stage a surprise attack against you.

But lets move on, at this point in time “1921” all Supper Dreadnoughts are Yamatos, and aircraft are nothing more then play things for theorist who read too much Joule Vern and H.G Wells.


Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor

Pericles technically fits the criteria for experimental aircraft carrier, so long as a replacement is laid down before the end of 1926. Would you take advantage of this clause, and if so, what would you produce - a true carrier or a hybrid?



Sorry cannot answer that at this moment in time. The Greek Secret service just informed me that this peace of information is classified.

So put your self in my shoes and just read between the lines



Harry