Matrix Games Forums

It was designed for real planes so my thought would be to start it off with Buffalo. Perhaps it could have 12 planes out of a maximum of 18? Hmmm...

Figure as a CVL UPgrade we could make it into a form of the Independence Class.

I was under the impression when it was designed the only planes were the F2b and the Helldiver. Using your scenario, the ship is in the PI with the older planes. Not sure what year the Independence was designed but what might happen is this design is considered a failure and its converted to its own class of CVL.

Whatever "It" was designed to do, it would probably spend it's life as a high speed aircraft transport taking planes to combat zones in totally desperate need of aircraft at the base, but couldn't dare getting a supply TF near it for enemy air action. This sounds like using a Penn Senator 6/0 reel with 10# test line, or a fly reel with 80# test mono, take your choice..

Thats not a bad theory Rev, it would be easy to convert and when not being used as a transport they have a deck to train on.

The soviets came close to ordering a couple of hybrid battleship / aircraft carriers pre-war. These monsters would have been still building at the start of the war and almost certainly taken over by the US Navy (especially after Pearl Harbor). I suspect they were designed with an angled deck. The front of the ship had six battleship sized guns and the tonnage was much higher than an Iowa although less than the Yamato.

They would have been a death trap in a surface battle. All that aviation fuel, all those bombs and other ammunition ON TOP of the bunker fuel and ammunition for its cruiser armament. No thanks.

This is the design for the proposed Soviet Battleship/Carrier. 61,840 tons standard, 1005 feet overall, 34 knots, 12 16inch, 36 aircraft (plus 4 floatplanes). Design A was similar but slightly larger, with twin 18inch instead of triple 16inch. There was also a cut-down design C, 46,520 tons, 845 feet, 10 16inch (two triple forward, one quadruple aft), 31 knots, 24 aircraft (also plus four floatplanes).

Interesting design. Either thats a really optimistic number for displacement, or its armour isnt up to battleship standards. Any information on which it is?

For Design B, armor is given as 13in main belt sloped 15 degrees, 2nd deck 4.75, 3rd deck 3.75, barbettes 15in, 16in turrets: 15in face, 10in sides, 7-8 roofs. Conning tower 15in sides, 8in roof. Lots of little notes for machinery and magazine armor, all as modifications to deck armor.

Machinery is 6 sets geared turbines, 6 shafts. 17,800 nm endurance at 20kts, 29,000 at 12 kts!

Rest of the armament is 28 5inch in twins, 32 1.1 in (28mm) in quads, and 12 50cal.

(edit)

Oh, displacement is given as 71850 normal, 74000 full load.

I can see it now, FOW states there is a CV with 4 DD's you rush in with a couple of cruisers and a few DD's and find this. [X(]

It probably would have been both a poor battleship and poor carrier.

Bill

Well, jack-of-all-trades and whatnot...

It's a monster, a waste of resources because if engages in close combat the flight deck is a trap, and as carrier is too cumbersome.

In a personal mod of mine a few years ago, I designed a conjectural US "scout cruiser" called the Kansas City class. The idea here was the US started building one of those proposed "aviation cruiser" ships in the mid-30s but thought better of the design when it was still under construction. The hull was too far along to scrap however, so it was re-designed and completed as something similar to the way that Mogami was refitted by the Japanese in 1943.

This Kansas City design has the forward hull of a Brooklyn-class CL (3x3 6-inch) but instead of the rear turrets it had expanded seaplane facilities, say 6 aircraft.

I posted this in the 8-8-8 thread first but I think it is more relevant here. Didn't mean to thread-hog.

There is a good model image of that Soviet monstrosity here:

http://www.steelnavy.com/1250AnkerOlsen.htm

Gives a 3-D perspective.

ORIGINAL: FDRLincoln

There is a good model image of that Soviet monstrosity here:

http://www.steelnavy.com/1250AnkerOlsen.htm

Gives a 3-D perspective.

They would have been a lot better off it they had torn all that hanger away and added a couple of cruisers worth of 5" and Light AAA amidships. Say another 20 5" mounts, and he probably could have had another 20 Quad 40s per side as well. They would have had the room. Trouble is that when the air raid began, every ship within 5 NM would have to run as far away as possible, because it also would have been a floating ammo dump.

The Russians have never needed to have great naval designs. They have always been a continental power and the navy's primary role is supporting the army. Their attempts to be a naval power have been less than stellar.

Larger continental powers historically tend to spend some effort on their navies, but it tends to be driven by political whims and fads than any long term commitment to naval power. During the Age of Sail the French tried to compete with Britain, but ultimately lost most of the naval battles because Britain needed a navy for survival and for France it was a luxury.

Germany in WW II built some very good ships, but ultimately they served to sit in port and drive the British nuts rather than compete. Their empire was won and lost on the land, not the sea. I've also read that the Germans screwed up at Dunkirk and didn't wipe out the BEF because for a continental power, having an army boxed in with their backs to the sea is a trap. For a naval power, it's an opportunity. The Germans were thinking like a continental power and the British like a naval one.

Britain, the Netherlands, and Japan all were forced to be continental powers because of geography. They were always dependent on overseas trade to keep their nation strong. The US is the only power in history that became both at once. In the early years a navy was necessary because of the threat from Britain and the early states all along a long coastline with little land defense. Later it became the dominant land power in North America.

Bill

There was some discussion in the Admiralty of a hybrid, half-battleship, half carrier.

That came to a stop when Goodall (Director of Naval Construction) asked which the admirals would rather command : 5 hybrids (225,000t, 30x15", 70 aircraft) or 3 Lions and 3 Indomitables (200,000t, 27x16", 144 aircraft)