RHSEBO: Updated - and expanded to ALL scenarios

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What about the Langley? Wouldn't the US have thought about reconverting it to a CV if it wasn't sunk? It already had 2/3 of it's deck covered with a flight deck and I guess there were still repair facilities, etc.

No. It was an aircraft transport, and would have been USELESS as any kind of carrier.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The first idea has some merit- and historical foundation.

The Argentines were more or less Axis - and the Brizialians were not going to get rid of their battleships as long as Argentina did not - they were competative fleets.

Do you know why they didn't sell it? Perhaps to keep a big ship as both Brazil and Argentina had some. So maybe if a good offer reaches all of them at the same time... ?!

What about the Langley? Wouldn't the US have thought about reconverting it to a CV if it wasn't sunk? It already had 2/3 of it's deck covered with a flight deck and I guess there were still repair facilities, etc.

Langley was hopeless. It got converted because it was unsuitable for carrier operations. It was an aviation ship - so they set it to support float and flying boat aircraft. In BBO it is a seaplane carrier - and the only reason it is not in CVO is that players don't want it so. It really IS a CS - and it carries seaplanes in addition to supporting flying boats. But it is not really functional as a CVL - and would be similar to Long Island - which flies - what - four of the planed embarked???

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What about the Langley? Wouldn't the US have thought about reconverting it to a CV if it wasn't sunk? It already had 2/3 of it's deck covered with a flight deck and I guess there were still repair facilities, etc.

No. It was an aircraft transport, and would have been USELESS as any kind of carrier.

As usual, a "typical Terminus" [:D]

USS Langley compared with USS Bogue:
length: 165m : 151,20m
width (flight deck): 20m : 21m
speed: 15,5kt : 18kt
displacement: 14000t : 9800t

It wasn't converted because there was no more use for it - it was converted to free a "washington-slot" for the USS Wasp, which was much more better.
Equip it with catapults and it can easily operate 20+ planes of it's original 34 as the size of planes grew.

@sid
don't misunderstand me. Convert in a CV means nothing than "convert in a Carrier". In Germany, all kinds of carriers (CV, CVL and CVE) are called carrier.
So I don't propose the Langley to be converted into a CV, which means a fleet carrier. It can easily be reclassified into a CVE or CVL - and it's definitly still good enough for the use as a CVE!

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Historiker


@sid
don't misunderstand me. Convert in a CV means nothing than "convert in a Carrier". In Germany, all kinds of carriers (CV, CVL and CVE) are called carrier.
So I don't propose the Langley to be converted into a CV, which means a fleet carrier. It can easily be reclassified into a CVE or CVL - and it's definitly still good enough for the use as a CVE!

Sid and Termi are correct, in reality the USS Langley would not even be a worthy CVE. And resources wasted to modernize her could be better spent in other areas.

[Historiker]

so tell me why...
There was already an almoust complete flightdeck and I'm sure still storage rooms for ammunition, aviation fuel, maintenance, spare parts.
What needs to be done to the ship itself? add 1/3 of the deck with one or two catapults. Would that be that much ressources that are desperatly needed elsewhere?
There are no known plans for reconverting it because it was sunk while doing desperatly needed transport missions, but if it had survived longer? Every single plane on a carrier is useful or why do you think the Brits constructed their MAC-Ships and CAM-Ships?
How long would it take a US shipyard to complete the flightdeck again and install a catapult?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What about the Langley? Wouldn't the US have thought about reconverting it to a CV if it wasn't sunk? It already had 2/3 of it's deck covered with a flight deck and I guess there were still repair facilities, etc.

No. It was an aircraft transport, and would have been USELESS as any kind of carrier.

As usual, a "typical Terminus" [:D]

USS Langley compared with USS Bogue:
length: 165m : 151,20m
width (flight deck): 20m : 21m
speed: 15,5kt : 18kt
displacement: 14000t : 9800t

It wasn't converted because there was no more use for it - it was converted to free a "washington-slot" for the USS Wasp, which was much more better.
Equip it with catapults and it can easily operate 20+ planes of it's original 34 as the size of planes grew.

@sid
don't misunderstand me. Convert in a CV means nothing than "convert in a Carrier". In Germany, all kinds of carriers (CV, CVL and CVE) are called carrier.
So I don't propose the Langley to be converted into a CV, which means a fleet carrier. It can easily be reclassified into a CVE or CVL - and it's definitly still good enough for the use as a CVE!

Observers: Please mark this semi-historical occasion on which I am forced to agree with Terminus.

Because T is right - and my own words were only slightly hyperbole.

Look at the "hanger" of Langley. They have to hand the planes from the overhead (cieling in civilian talk) - the planes are carried by crane from one station to another - the word hopeless is not much of an exaggeration in terms of handling efficiency. There are also problems with lift, missing deck, name it. This ship CAN handle FLOATPLANES - and actually could embark about 14 of them and operate them with catapults - but that is not a CV type ship - it is a CS type ship in game terms.

T

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

so tell me why...
There was already an almoust complete flightdeck and I'm sure still storage rooms for ammunition, aviation fuel, maintenance, spare parts.
What needs to be done to the ship itself? add 1/3 of the deck with one or two catapults. Would that be that much ressources that are desperatly needed elsewhere?
There are no known plans for reconverting it because it was sunk while doing desperatly needed transport missions, but if it had survived longer? Every single plane on a carrier is useful or why do you think the Brits constructed their MAC-Ships and CAM-Ships?
How long would it take a US shipyard to complete the flightdeck again and install a catapult?

The Dutch and British Merchant aircraft carriers had broad decks with nothing on them - Langley is not like that. They did not tear out anything - just put stuff on top. The cargo was left the same - and they had very limited aviation capability. But something was better than nothing. Langley indeed can store fuel, munitions and parts - it just cannot use them to service regular carrier planes efficiently - due to its wierd internal structure. So it was used to service seaplanes and flying boats - and never in the numbers you would like. It was also used just to carry planes - in the open deck - not on the "hanger" deck - which was the worst ever built - and probably should not be called that.

The US has no need for such things - its experiments with CVEs were well along and it can do them properly by mid 1942 (Long Island being almost as bad as Langley - and other half baked jobs went to the UK ).

Note there is controversy about wether Langley or Hosho is the first carrier? Regardless of what one believes, Hosho was a far better design - still useful in WWII - if only barely so.

[Historiker]

Ok, I looked into my books and must agree with you. Despite the fact, that the shere number of up to 42 planes may sound good, it's inner structure was a catastrophe.
But would it take so long to link its four coal holds were the planes were stored with the coal deck of the elevator by breaking through the bulkheads? If anyone has a blueprint he may look at that. Adding a full flight deck can't be the work of more than just some weeks, too.

In a scenario of massive Japanese superiority at the beginning, would the US really renounce the possibility to get a ship wihtin just some weeks that can carry at least a dozend planes?


I talked about the MAC- and CAM- ships to show, that on the other side of the US continent, there were some nationons that tried everything even to get just 4 planes at sea.

[el cid again]

If all you want is four planes - Langley will work. That number of light planes was usually embarked - and while they were seaplanes - they really could be anything - as the two catapults will launch em. They just have a problem landing. Extend the flight deck - and they can land again. IF you don't allow big later war planes.


Langley is more useful early in the war as a CS - and if we could do it - as an aircaft transport. [We can do either but not both]

Langley is an ancient hull not worth major investment.

Time to tear apart the hull is excessive - so is cost - and it does not yield a good CVL. To do that - tear off the main deck - rebuild the engines - and with more efficient engiens, a new hanger and flight deck - you have something. But it is going to take longer and cost more - and still not be standard with other CVLs. So you would not do that - you would convert a CL in preference.

What this brings to my memory is some US cruiser designs not implemented - they US MIGHT have converted early thin armored CAs - barely CAs anyway - the first two in particular. These were contemplated as semi-carriers - CVL aft - with heavy guns forward. They might be very cool. See The Hybred Battleship. The original design for Hiryu was similar - so was the second design.

[Historiker]

My thought concerns an actual PBEM I play. I took the USS Long Iland there and equipped it with 16 marine F-4F to offer more protection to the whole fleet. My thoughts are, that within some weeks or not more than about two month, the langley might be converted into a platform to offer some fighter cover, and every single fighter is better than none, no?
I understand - especially after reading about the structure of the Langley - that the Langley can't be converted into a competitive CVL or CVE, but in the case of a superior Japanese attack, one might think about the option to get at least some extra fighter cover against the Bettys fast, no?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

My thought concerns an actual PBEM I play. I took the USS Long Iland there and equipped it with 16 marine F-4F to offer more protection to the whole fleet. My thoughts are, that within some weeks or not more than about two month, the langley might be converted into a platform to offer some fighter cover, and every single fighter is better than none, no?
I understand - especially after reading about the structure of the Langley - that the Langley can't be converted into a competitive CVL or CVE, but in the case of a superior Japanese attack, one might think about the option to get at least some extra fighter cover against the Bettys fast, no?

Not for fighters - but for ASW work - anything is good.

But then so are seaplanes.

Planes SPOT the subs - and sometimes also attack them. But spotting is enough to mess them up - and get away - and bring in escorts on them.

The need for aircraft transport is acute - if there was such a thing - assembled aircraft delivery would be a good feature of such a ship - and we might be able to get there if we mess with its numbers = but I am skeptical. It is not worth the work.

It takes more than two months to plan an austere conversion - never mind the issues of assembling material - waiting for yard space - then doing the work - then working up the ship. This is a gamer's idea - not a real world staff idea - it cannot be done in much less than a year.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Would the pride of the Durch navy really only get the name of a city?
AFAIK, the Netherlands have more than just this three provinces, no?

de zeven provenzien implies seven - so I suspect you are right

These zeven Proviciën where the first Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden. It's alike the first 13 states of America.

They where Holland, Zeeland, Groningen, Utrecht, Friesland, Gelderland & Overijssel

Here is a Link about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic

[el cid again]

If the Japanese - say - do not agree to the London extension to the Battleship buiilding holliday - what might have been built by other nations?

I think the Dutch might get the first of the BC - and perhsps de zeven provinzien and even her sister - but we might want to give that name to the BC - in which case we need cruiser names. Perhaps they replace the WWI cruisers and take their names ? Like Sumatra?

But what might the US build?

The UK?

Anybody else? Would France have built - say - more of the Dunkerque type - or something like it? Maybe got rid of some of the very old ships - to permit manning and maintenance?

[DuckofTindalos]

The Provincien and the Eendracht were meant to replace the Java and the Sumatra, so those names would be free. Besides, there's always the question of how many ships the Dutch can realistically find the manpower to operate.

[DuckofTindalos]

As for the UK, maybe the Lions could have gone ahead?

[el cid again]

And we already have them in BBO - so we have the definitions and the art. Good show. Well - we have the first one anyway. Ironic that they were laid down - not completed as such because "there was not enough time" - and then there was enough time after all. One hull more or less ended up as HMS Vanguard - with completely different armament - after the war was over.

[el cid again]

I found the Dutch light cruisers had gone through an evolutionary path - and originally were eight guns ships - with four twins.
Because we need early production to get them in the game - and because it is indeed a historical design - I used this.

I also found two names associated with these ships - which curiously enough IRL exchanged names twice (both were at one point called
Eendracht and also de Zeven Provencien) - so we will use the two names which free up the one we want for the BC:

Kijkduin and Eendracht will replace Java and Sumatra.

They are more or less scaled up De Ruyters - with torpedoes added. They have 8 twin 40 mm Bofors mountings and 16 single .50s as built.
Mid war they upgrade - gaining radar - replacing the TT with quad 40mm and the .50s with 20mm. They have a cruising radius of 5000 nm at 20 knots on 1750 tons of fuel. Full speed is 32 knots. Their durability is about 33 % better than de Ruyter. The use of twin mounts solves another problem: the twins were DP guns but the triples were not - and we don't have a slot for another gun. Being fitted with all DP guns is probably better operationally as well. These mounts elevate 60 degrees. They have 100 mm of side armor but only 25 mm of deck armor. The turrets are better than many treaty era cruisers - and up to US CA standards - 100 mm.

The BC was much more of a problem. We needed a device slot for the 28 cm (11 inch) guns. I ended up using the existing 11 inch gun slot for old Soerabaja - a pre dreadnaught serving as a coast defense ship. So this ship too is gone - you are getting three modern warships in place of two WWI light cruisers and a pre WWI coast defense battleship. But solving the problem of the guns was just the beginning. They are nice guns though - accuracy = 25 - because ROF is 2.5 rounds per minute - and range = 45 - very nice.

The big problem is the gun mountings - both primary and secondary - were not to be available until 1943 - if there was no war. But since the guns themselves were earlier designs - and since Bofors was hungry during the depression - I was able to rationalize a way that earlier design work could have completed in time for the lead ship (the war preventing the sisters getting their guns - or even their hulls completed).

We already had a name - de Zeven Provencien - which seems very fitting given the significance explained to us by a Dutch poster. [It is something like "the thirteen colonies" would be in the USA - an early name for the country]

The ships make 33 knots and are remarkably similar to Repulse - and have the same durability - but different armor. There is 225 mm of belt, turrets have 250 mm (but NOTHING on the secondary guns), and deck is 130 mm. They can steam 6000 nm at 20 knots using 4000 tons of fuel - which is very efficient.


If we follow this pattern - slot replacement of older ships with newer ones build just before the war - we will be able to release this in a day. This is a very easy modification of EEO.

Changing only these three vessels does not sound like much - but it completely changes the combat value of the RNN in NEI waters. I am not sure Soerabaja ever finds a job - even in a game - but the BC is in a different league entirely - and a real threat to heavy cruisers. Java and Sumatra are not terrible - but modern centerline battery light cruisers with proper AA are much better. Taken together this is a nice change.

[el cid again]

Lion and Temeraire were brought over from BBO. I do not remember why, but I found cause to think the "second" ship would complete one month and three days before the first one.

These ships do not replace anything. But we ALSO should modify the KGV design - there was an alternative in vogue with the conservatives and the battleship situation would have likely made that version be adopted. EDIT: This means the KGVs would have three triple 15 inch turrets. Not a bad idea at all. The range is almost the same (2000 yards less for the 15) but the ROF is much higher (2 vs 1.3 rounds per minute) and the shell weighs almost 30 per cent more - and has more penetration. In this case, the conservatives were right.

[el cid again]

Duplicated posting due to delay in transmission - apparently.

[el cid again]

There is another irony about the Dutch CL: both were eventually completed with four twin six inch DP mounts. These were entirely different from the mounts of the 1930s - fully automatic and firing 15 rounds per minute - they were more like USN and RN post war projects. They may not have been entirely practical. It was believed both ships would benefit by losing half of them in favor of a Terrier SAM mounting - only the second ship got converted due to the short remaining life of the first one - and that is a dubious (and very costly) trade to make: early Terrier was bloody awful - and probably not capable of actually working in anger. [See When the Birds Didn't Fly, USNI Proceedings] Rushed into service, there was no training because no one knew what to teach - and the tales of the early days (just before my time) are legion. Ultimately the Terrier survived only by adopting the Tarter guidance system - which had the virtue of working - and both used the same fire control radar - so that was an option. This survives today under the name Standard - a modified version with different engines - actually slower to give more range. But the point is - eight reliable six inch automatic guns were far more useful than any number of early Terrier mounts. Anything is better than nothing. The problem with the automatic sixes - all of them - was they were too heavy and too fast for the technology of the day - so they broke down often. A similar problem was never overcome with the USN 5 inch program - and the modern 5 inch derivitive is not a DP weapon at all - because to get it reliable they had to reduce the ROF - and because they no longer even fit the gun with the fire control that would be required. This weapon fires shells bigger than WWII era six inch - so that is essentially the same problem. On the other hand, both Sweden and Italy have 5 inch automatic naval guns that work very well indeed. We gave up - and even adopted the Italian 3 inch for a while. It was the last true DP gun in USN - and also probably the very best we ever had.