Converting AK/AP to CV

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
The 190 was not a carrier plane - and by the time it could be modified - it would be obsolete. Worse - it is not suitable for carrier use - for the reason you specify - even if it were strong enough (which it was not). It lacks the legs.
How long would it take to modify it for carrier use?

..

Since it is not suitable for carrier use - I don't think it would be modified.

But for an indicator look at the Me-109 T (for Trager = carrier in English).

Too long.

There actually were other carrier planes - and carrier fighters. Pretty awful - but these show the nature of German carrier aircraft concepts in the 1930s. Japan actually has one of these in service - ashore - and mainly before WITP as such begins - in China. The Germans lacked the experience to do this right - and they had the wrong politics and institutional concepts to compound this. Fleet Air Arm was almost fatally hurt by the same idea - that the "air force" should do the naval aircraft. It had terrible aircraft because of many years of development by an institution not oritented toward the sea. Luftwaffe is the same sort of institution, with even less sea orientation because - everyone in Britain lives within a short distance of the sea - and it sort of creeps into your thinking.

The lack of a suitable fleet base means that carriers could never be operated in a way that would work up proper experience. Only the proposal for a base complex in Morocco - and another on the Canary Islands - might change that. Franco demurred - even Gibraltar was not a high enough price for him - and it could not have happened until the 1940s in any case. Without a base ON THE ATLANTIC the carriers would never be operated in a way that would work out well - and the concern would always be like with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen - how even to get to the Atlantic?

The "two carriers" were to be supplimented by CVLs and even CVEs - and these were originally to be operating about 1940 - others were to follow if the Z plan could be implemented. [It could not. The plan was "utopian" according to Siegfried Breyer - an authoritative naval architect and historian in Germany. Germany could never fuel them - no matter what assumptions were made - if he is right. I think he is right.]
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

Well, the Spit wasn't suitable for carriers, too...
The construction of the Würger was robust, its landing gear wide enough... But I'm prepared to learn, tell my why not.
Moreover, the Me 109 T recieved an additional 300l fuel tank, the Fw 190 D was made longer to balance the other engine... So there are some possibilitys for a Fw 190 T...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

There actually were other carrier planes - and carrier fighters. Pretty awful - but these show the nature of German carrier aircraft concepts in the 1930s. Japan actually has one of these in service - ashore - and mainly before WITP as such begins - in China. The Germans lacked the experience to do this right - and they had the wrong politics and institutional concepts to compound this. Fleet Air Arm was almost fatally hurt by the same idea - that the "air force" should do the naval aircraft. It had terrible aircraft because of many years of development by an institution not oritented toward the sea. Luftwaffe is the same sort of institution, with even less sea orientation because - everyone in Britain lives within a short distance of the sea - and it sort of creeps into your thinking.

The lack of a suitable fleet base means that carriers could never be operated in a way that would work up proper experience. Only the proposal for a base complex in Morocco - and another on the Canary Islands - might change that. Franco demurred - even Gibraltar was not a high enough price for him - and it could not have happened until the 1940s in any case. Without a base ON THE ATLANTIC the carriers would never be operated in a way that would work out well - and the concern would always be like with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen - how even to get to the Atlantic?

The "two carriers" were to be supplimented by CVLs and even CVEs - and these were originally to be operating about 1940 - others were to follow if the Z plan could be implemented. [It could not. The plan was "utopian" according to Siegfried Breyer - an authoritative naval architect and historian in Germany. Germany could never fuel them - no matter what assumptions were made - if he is right. I think he is right.]

You make the wrong assumptions, as you don't know the story that's behind the HKD scenario. It starts getting ahistorical already in 1916, so 24 years of different developement...
I know Siegfried Breyer very well, but my universe starts getting different 25 years before the game will begin.
About CVs, fuel etc. were already enough discussions in the Fleet thread, so I hope you understand I don't want to restart them.
The whole HKD scenario is nothing for someone who wants a 100% correct scenario. Instead, it intends to even the sides by all costs to allow long and heavy fighting. I write a history for every major ship to give the game a soul, but to acchieve the intended scenario, I am willing to cheat a bit. That doesn't mean I will construct carriers with 400 planes and 500mm armour, but if Germany prooved to be able to construct superior aircraft - why not design a totally fictional carrier plane if needed? As I said, my Germany had a totally different history than the real one (in the HKD scenario).
Do you really think the nation that constructed the Me 109, the Fw 190, the Ju 88, the Ar 234, the Me 262, the Me 163... isn't able to construct competitive carrierplanes after 20 years of owning carriers? I don't...

btw:
you still make the mistake, that you consider the scenario I'm working on as (quite) historical correct. The HKD scenario has nothing to do with the Z-Plan or something like this.
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by DuckofTindalos »

The Germans had barely established a surface combat fleet over the 40+ years after HMS Dreadnought. They had only shown any interest in carrier aviation since the second half of the 1930's, and pretty much did everything wrong with them. Should have stuck with U-Boats...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Germans had barely established a surface combat fleet over the 40+ years after HMS Dreadnought. They had only shown any interest in carrier aviation since the second half of the 1930's, and pretty much did everything wrong with them. Should have stuck with U-Boats...
IRL, yes.
Hitler made the big mistake to believe that the allied (biological) English will allow him to conquer everything in the east. But Hitler believed sooo much [8|]

I don't know whether you talk about my scenario, but IRL, it was already planned in 1918 to construct a carrier - already with island...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Well, the Spit wasn't suitable for carriers, too...
The construction of the Würger was robust, its landing gear wide enough... But I'm prepared to learn, tell my why not.
Moreover, the Me 109 T recieved an additional 300l fuel tank, the Fw 190 D was made longer to balance the other engine... So there are some possibilitys for a Fw 190 T...

you are of course quite correct - given enough time - and investment

The rub is the time part - it will not be competative when it is done - it must face Hellcats and Corsairs - themselves later than the were supposed to be - and they might appear sooner in a world with different priorities

The basic problem is the structure. A carrier plane more or less must crash to land on a deck - it is a controlled (hopefully anyway) crash - but it ALWAYS reduces the life of the plane. If not designed specifically with that in mind - the life of the plane is very low - perhaps 10 sortees - instead of a few hundred.

el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
There actually were other carrier planes - and carrier fighters. Pretty awful - but these show the nature of German carrier aircraft concepts in the 1930s. Japan actually has one of these in service - ashore - and mainly before WITP as such begins - in China. The Germans lacked the experience to do this right - and they had the wrong politics and institutional concepts to compound this. Fleet Air Arm was almost fatally hurt by the same idea - that the "air force" should do the naval aircraft. It had terrible aircraft because of many years of development by an institution not oritented toward the sea. Luftwaffe is the same sort of institution, with even less sea orientation because - everyone in Britain lives within a short distance of the sea - and it sort of creeps into your thinking.

The lack of a suitable fleet base means that carriers could never be operated in a way that would work up proper experience. Only the proposal for a base complex in Morocco - and another on the Canary Islands - might change that. Franco demurred - even Gibraltar was not a high enough price for him - and it could not have happened until the 1940s in any case. Without a base ON THE ATLANTIC the carriers would never be operated in a way that would work out well - and the concern would always be like with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen - how even to get to the Atlantic?

The "two carriers" were to be supplimented by CVLs and even CVEs - and these were originally to be operating about 1940 - others were to follow if the Z plan could be implemented. [It could not. The plan was "utopian" according to Siegfried Breyer - an authoritative naval architect and historian in Germany. Germany could never fuel them - no matter what assumptions were made - if he is right. I think he is right.]

You make the wrong assumptions, as you don't know the story that's behind the HKD scenario. It starts getting ahistorical already in 1916, so 24 years of different developement...
I know Siegfried Breyer very well, but my universe starts getting different 25 years before the game will begin.
About CVs, fuel etc. were already enough discussions in the Fleet thread, so I hope you understand I don't want to restart them.
The whole HKD scenario is nothing for someone who wants a 100% correct scenario. Instead, it intends to even the sides by all costs to allow long and heavy fighting. I write a history for every major ship to give the game a soul, but to acchieve the intended scenario, I am willing to cheat a bit. That doesn't mean I will construct carriers with 400 planes and 500mm armour, but if Germany prooved to be able to construct superior aircraft - why not design a totally fictional carrier plane if needed? As I said, my Germany had a totally different history than the real one (in the HKD scenario).
Do you really think the nation that constructed the Me 109, the Fw 190, the Ju 88, the Ar 234, the Me 262, the Me 163... isn't able to construct competitive carrierplanes after 20 years of owning carriers? I don't...

btw:
you still make the mistake, that you consider the scenario I'm working on as (quite) historical correct. The HKD scenario has nothing to do with the Z-Plan or something like this.


There is no doubt Germany could DESIGN any aircraft.. It did design wholly impractical aircraft - in the sense they could not be produced at all - nor operated from any airfield in ETO - yet they wasted vast amounts of talent on them (see Luftwaffe Over Amerika for one). Germany designed more types of aircraft than any other nation - and put more kinds of combat aircraft into production - and it was one of its biggest weaknesses: TOO MANY types - too little concentration on what matters.

Surely you are right - a political move by a Goering type could get them doing the wrong thing - developing aircraft for a war they do not need to fight and could never win - a naval war.

Possibly some sort of Capt Kusaka ("the God of Operations") or Capt Fujida might somehow warp this effort into a rational one - a balanced one which does NOT try to compete in numbers with the USA after it is mobilized. War without carriers is a big problem - and there are many reasons to have some - although gigantic carrier vs carrier battles is not on the list.

Your idea of modifying existing aircraft is also right - Germany did that - even Italy did that - and it would be more credible if you went that way. A Ju-87 dive bomber and an Me-109T are very reasonable - just not long legged enough to work in carrier air combat with the USN.
Later in the war a FW-190T is also reasonable - again with the same problem - and remember a carrier version always has less performance than the land plane version (it is heavier - and less aerodynamic). If you have big ships you might do something like a Ju-88 T - wow - that would be deadly. It also can carry torpedoes - as you may know. I think an RE fighter bomber is wiser than any of this - particularly in ETO - where you are never far from enemy land bases - numbers may matter. In a press you put everyone left in the air as fighters - and you might still win - or survive anyway.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Germans had barely established a surface combat fleet over the 40+ years after HMS Dreadnought. They had only shown any interest in carrier aviation since the second half of the 1930's, and pretty much did everything wrong with them. Should have stuck with U-Boats...


There is a wonderful book called something like "War Without Carriers" which argues the opposite thesis. It tries to show all the problems of being limited to land based air in a naval campaign. There are lots of applications for sea based air - and our gamer tendency to thing of glorious massive carrier battles is not the only one - or even the main one.

Carriers can make it far more feasible to move convoys - and even surface action groups - without catastrophic losses.

Submarines in the period have serious limitations - and it is not clear that they can succeed without far more support from SIGNINT and air recon. The only submarine campaign in history that came close to working was the US one vs Japan - and there we did NOT face good ASW defenses - or proper convoy organization. The subs that worked in PTO would not look good vs the USA and RN in ETO. Germany never did well with submarines in WWII - no month ever scored as well as much more primitive subs did in April 1917 for example - and more critically the goal of monthly sinkings was never met even one time. If it had been - it would not win the war unless it could be sustained for a long series of months. There is no reason in the historical body of evidence to think Germany was up to mounting a campaign on the scale required to do that.

Submarines as a pure weapon of war are a variation of the Guerre de course theory - one that has never worked (unless it worked vs Japan - in which case YOU must believe atom bombings were NOT required - nor invasions - both of which USSBS curiously says). The guarre de course is a cumulative strategy - it only matters if you accumulate enough losses. A direct strategy gets rid of enemy forces - or takes enemy positions - in a way that matters as such - every time. This has worked many times - and it a better bet. Only the Russians in the Cold War had enough subs before the hot war began to seriously threaten to close the Atlantic sea lanes. It is anything but clear they would have been enough to win the war.

Submarines are far more useful in a balanced force campaign. They can contribute in many useful ways without being the only - or primary - means of waging war on the sea. I am a combined arms theorist - and a direct strategy advocate - and I don't think a submarine campaign using the cumulative guerre de course strategy is likely ever to work. Even in Germany most analysts believed it was only a way to increase the cost to the enemy of sending things to ETO - not a way to actually achieve victory.

User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by DuckofTindalos »

As I see it, the main problem the German navy had in both world wars was lack of enthusiasm and knowledge in their political leadership. In WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm hogtied them to their piers, and in WWII, Hitler showed no interest in the Kriegsmarine at all. He even admitted this pre-war with his statement "On land, nothing scares me, but at sea, I'm a coward".
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

You are right - but as Historiker reminds us - his fictional world is peopled by different politicians.

But at least we agree - which is not entirely normal for us.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

Historiker - tell us more about a 1918 German plan for a carrier (presumably before all things military were banned in Germany).
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by DuckofTindalos »

It's getting there...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Well, the Spit wasn't suitable for carriers, too...
The construction of the Würger was robust, its landing gear wide enough... But I'm prepared to learn, tell my why not.
Moreover, the Me 109 T recieved an additional 300l fuel tank, the Fw 190 D was made longer to balance the other engine... So there are some possibilitys for a Fw 190 T...

you are of course quite correct - given enough time - and investment

The rub is the time part - it will not be competative when it is done - it must face Hellcats and Corsairs - themselves later than the were supposed to be - and they might appear sooner in a world with different priorities

The basic problem is the structure. A carrier plane more or less must crash to land on a deck - it is a controlled (hopefully anyway) crash - but it ALWAYS reduces the life of the plane. If not designed specifically with that in mind - the life of the plane is very low - perhaps 10 sortees - instead of a few hundred.
There is - imo - still a mistake in the thinking.
In my scenario, Germany works on designs of carriers from 1918 on and has 4 huge carriers from the mid 20th on. So not just one small experimental with 5 planes on it which would make it unlikeley that there's a specific design just to fit the demand of this 5 planes.
When there's an existing carrier force of considerable size, there will be designs. Moreover, the call for designs from a RLM will be "seek carrier plane" or "seek fighter with a version for carriers". So in this case, a Fw 190T will be designed parallel to the Fw 190A and will appear in the same time or 1-2 month later.



Generally:
I design this mod for witp - and for no other game (except AE and later maybe witp II). So I have to consider how this game is! Moreover, I don't intend to design a game, that is totally historical correct in every detail, even if this is on cost of the fun players can have.
This changes everything! That means, that the continental power with a considerable fleet in 1914 will get more and more a naval power - as land warfar is worse in witp. The focus must lie on naval- and air warfare.
Many players especially on the Japanese side quit, when the loose the first bigger battle, or when the Allied player starts getting a CV "every week". My HKD scenario is intended to even the sides by all means, to allow players even suffer heavy losses and still be able to win! To achieve that goal, I have to get totally ahistorical.
I don't think that Germany, Russia (especially without an industrialization like Stalin forced it, with millions of dead on cost of more industrial power), AH and Italy are able to build enough ships while being continental powers to match the Japanese, British and US fleets when they start building at full speed - in a historc correct scenario. So Germany will turn (nearly) all old ships to hulks, even if the were IRL already falling into pieces because of rust. Moreover, all allied, smaller and puppet nations of this side will have fleets that are too big for reality (i.e. Poland 2 BBs, 2 pre-Dreads for coastal defence, 2 pre-Dreads in reserve/disarmed but ready to be turned back into action).

To give the game and the ships a story and a soul, I construct a story around that which is most unlikely but not totally impossible.


In this scenario, Germany has 4 CVs in 36, and runs a massice naval expansion program between 36 and 1/41, where the war begins. So there'll be several more carriers - which will assure good carrier planes!

Moreover, the Naval strategy and the naval expansion is done in a way that fits the demands of witp and my scenario. That means the old BBs are intendet do sweep into the denmark strait to wipe out spotting forces there, as well as they are a fleet in being which should force GB to keep always a lot of big ships in the Home Fleet. This old BBs will be supported by some "North Sea Carriers" which are too short legged to operate usefull in the Atlantic, but with huge Airgroups.
For the Colonies will be CVLs with a huge range but small airgroups as they should not operate against other carriers but against enemy shipping at the outscirts of the theater, where no heavy opposition is expected.

To operate against the convois between US and GB, there'll be heavy BBs with big range that are able to attack even heavily protected BBs. These BBs get aircover and support from LR-CVs that are long legged, good armoured (they must reach home even damaged) which will be on cost of the number of carried planes.

This strategy is ahistoric and unlikely - i know that! But such a naval expansion program should assure that Germany is really able to attack the North Atlantic Convois even later in the war.
If I start all this with the intention to consider Germanys continental thinking, with an Emperor that fears of loosing them, the lack of historic carrier aircraft... - the whole scenario will make no sense as the German ships are limited to the North sea while on land not much happens... - sounds very exciting such a scenario, no?

To subsume it:
1. I want a competitive TEA-Alliance even at sea
2. To achieve this I cheat whereever possible
3. The goal is to assure a lot of wrecked ships on both sides which are even
4. The main goal is that both players can have fun - as long as they accept this scenario has few to do with reality!
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Historiker - tell us more about a 1918 German plan for a carrier (presumably before all things military were banned in Germany).
During world War I, the German Navy made its first experiments with aircraft mother ships which were the first steop into the design of a real aircraft carrier. Such ships were able to carry several float planes that were used for fleet reconnaisance. After the first succesful prototype, the conveted small cruiser Stuttgart (3 Floatplanes), it was then pland to convert the older armored cruiser Roon the same way (4 Floatplanes). This project was stopped in October 1918 for a more radical design.

It was then planed to convert the incomplte Italian passenger ship Ausonia - under construction at the Blohm&Voss shipyard in Hamburg - into a Flugzeugdampfer, a design which was a mixture between a aircraft mother ship and an aircraft carrier. This ship was projected to carry up to 19 float planes and 10 land based aircraft. Like other contemporary carrier designs, it had two flight decks, one large landing deck at the stern and a shorter start deck at the bow, where the aircraft could start out of the hangar directly. In difference to the exisiting British carrier, the Ausonia was planed to bet a island-type superstructore on the lfight deck, a feature that was later used on all aircraft carriers.

Altough the project was started in October 1918, it was never completed since the proect was stopped at the cease fire in 1918. The incomplete ship was scrapped on the shipyard in 1922.

Technical Data:
Dimensions
Size (Max): 12585 t
Length (Total): 158,8 m
Length (Waterline): 149,6 m
Beam: 18,8 m
Draft: 7,43 m
Crew:
Aircraft
Floatplanes: 13-19
Wheeled Aircraft: 10
Engines
Shafts: 2
Turbines: 2
Type: Blohm & Voss geared turbines
Performance
Total Performance: 18000 shp
Speed: 21 kn
Range: unknown
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

HMS Furious is instructive: the dual flight deck is wholly impractical - the winds are messed up by the superstructure and smoke obscures landings - so the ship really never can safely recover. IF build this ship would have taught exactly the same lessons - and anyone reading about Furious did not need to learn this lesson on their own. Either way - it is not a real aircaft carrier design in a functional sense. It is - however - interesting.

The FIRST aircraft carrier was Russian - and existed in time for the Russo Japanese war - but was not sent.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

How long does it take to convert an AK or AP to a CV/CVE?
I think the best way to find out the price for that, I need to find out with what the reconstruction can be compared.

An example:
converting ship X, an AP with 150m to a CVE will need the same amount of workers than the construction of a small CL Y. it will take 9 month but will only need 15% of the material, as many of the superstructer is cut off and scrapped.
If CL Y takes 12 month and has a durability of 30, the construction cost will be:
75% of the building time = 7,5
100% of the worker = 10
15% of the material = 1,5
As the building time is defined by the durability as well, it also plays a role. To keep it easy, the three parts shall all have parity in the costs.
So if the reconstruction may last for 9 month, it should have a durability of 19 to give it correct building costs. As it only takes 6 month instead of 9, which means it would take 50% longer, I will add an additional 50% of the points - so the building durability will be 27,5=28. If this already is (nearly) the correct durability, it may keep its 28, in other ways it will only have an aviation capacity of 1 to force the player letting the new CVE modernize to a class that has its correct durability and aircraft.

Of course, my calculation isn't that correct. 2 workers may do the work of 1 man in half of the time, but 10 usually don't do it in 10% - they'll need 15-20% of the time. But as the costs of a ship are defined by its durability and construction time, the costs itself will be correct, they will only appear too fast.
If I add a (aux.) CVE instead of i.e. the AD as a possible reconstruction for 5000+ cargo AKs, the number of converted ships will have to be limited by house rules. In the case of planned reconstructions, that means regular upgrade of an AP to an CVE), the upgrade may be later.

The question is now: how long does it take to:

1. convert an AK (flat superstructore) to a CVE/CVL with one hangar deck
2. convert an AK to an CVE/CVL with two hangar decks (I don't guess its exactly the doublth cost, time, material)
3. convert an AP to a CVE/CVL with 1 hangar decks
4. convert an AP to a CVE/CVL with 2 hangar decks

With the construction of which new ship can this reconstructions be compared, how much % of the material needed for the ship compared with will be needed?

To keep it easy I would consider a standard lenght of 160m - longer ships will be calculated from this base on.
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

It depends on two things:

1) What do you mean "how long?"

a) do you mean "from the date the decision is made until you get the first ready for operations ship?

b) do you mean "how long to just convert the hull - ignoring institutional decision time - ignoring long lead sub assembly production time - ignoring design time - ignoring working up time"


2) Is the design austere or robust? If you JUST want a minimal conversion - no fancy stuff - minimal conversion - minimum capacity - minimum armament and not the slightest concession to protection or engineering changes - it takes about six months to convert the hull - ignoring all the other factors listed in b above. A robust conversion takes years - and a lot depends on luck - doubly so in an Axis country.

No major shipbuilding decision ever takes less than a month to make - institution wise. It can take years.

Between the decision to build and the START of work you need long lead time. This never takes less than several months and the more you change the longer it takes. You need to schedule weapons production, maybe engineering component production, and even just get the structural steel fabricated and then delivered to the yard. You also need to find a building way - these do not grow on trees - they justify their existence by doing things - and so you have to wait for one big enough with the right sort of construction crews to finish what it is doing before you can start something else. The way usually needs time to change some things and train some people. Not every yard can build a carrier - indeed few can - and changing that takes a long time on top of this. Long lead time for a CVE would never take less than three months, usually takes longer, and might take a year - the more ambitious your conversion program - the more problems of this sort will delay units - because you are overtaxing the industry - and it is already doing what it can do - so it must have time to expand still more.


Actual time to convert varies with several factors. Unfinished hulls without superstructure take less time to convert than if you must spend months tearing it down to the main deck. If you change engines, you must open the main deck after you reach it- change them - THEN start the actual carrier work - so you added months plural - and I don't mean two either. From the main deck up a simple hanger and flight deck with MINIMAL island or no island takes at least 4 months for a yard that did the same class before - and 5 to 7 months the first time for the yard on this class. A robust design takes about twice as long - but often much longer - and often it is never completed.

Design time is always measured in months - plural - but it might be only two for an austere design.


User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by DuckofTindalos »

Six months would give you a conversion that would just about be useful as an airplane transport...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by el cid again »

I expanded the commentary -

in general no.

In general you need a year or more.

But once you have a design done and a series in production - six months might get you another one - if your industry is up to it - which is not likely in an Axis country in any conditions.

Only one nation ever mass produced CVEs - and a huge fraction of those were done in a radical program by a single shipyard that no longer exists at Vancouver, Washington near Portland Oregon. Organized by a near genius of industrial production named Kaiser - he mass produced 50 hulls to a single design - in a special custom designed yard built for that one job - which was allowed to die after the war. It took years to get it going - Winnie said "you get nothing the first year, a trickle the second year, a flood after that" and he has it right re ships. But the flood is never large numbers outside the USA for something complex like carriers. Germany needed many years to gear up to mass produce submarines - never came close to getting the hundreds actually on station Donitz wanted - and only approached production numbers that might have done that late in the war - by which time they were hopelessly obsolescent and operationally ineffective. The time it takes to get numbers - never mind the resources and manpower and production infrastructure - is such that by the time you can do it - the original plan is for the wrong thing anyway. A battleship oriented strategy is going to look more like the Z plan and it is not going to even try for carriers that are meaningful in time - nor will those carriers be well concieved. Look at the hopeless fighters on US and RN carriers - the lack of good AAA on the same ships - in spite of decades of development.

User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Converting AK/AP to CV

Post by Historiker »

I mean 1b.
I see no reason why I should force the player to pay shipyard points for the time that it takes to decide what to do. Moreover, my TEA nations even keep old ships disarmed as hulk and passed laws that order to fortify the coast line with turrets that fit exactly the disarmed ships to be able to rearm the ships...
In such a scenario, there would already be reconstruction plans...

Anyway, I see no reason to spend HI for planning, political decicions...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”