Converting AK/AP to CV

[Historiker]

There are at least a dozend German (and only german, also Italien, Russiam...) APs and AKs that are big and fast enough to be converted to a CVE, CVL or even CV.

One example is the Bremen (IV):
size: 286x31m
tonnage: 52.000
speed: 29kt
it was manned with 1000 sailors and 2228 passangers.

In theory, the size of the ship might say it can carry as much planes as an essex class - which is of course definitly wrong.

In this case, it must be stripped off everything except the pure hull and the engines and reconstructed from then on - which is nearly a new construction then.
But how would it be converted, what are the possibilities? How long would it take and how much ressources, shipyard place and workes would it need?

If the bridge is cut off and a simple (wooden) flight deck is put on it and the suites are used for spare parts, ammunition and fuel, it may not carry more than 10-20 planes I guess, which would be a waste for such a ship - while this might be done in just 2 month?

Building two full hangar decks means that severel decks of suites, ball rooms, theatres, etc. have to be scrapped wo construct the hangars there, and that needs time, workers, materials - and a lot of them all. But then, there's a lot of room for planes...

I guess that one would take a third option in between, that leads to just one hangar deck and 30-40 (?) planes.


I have a good idea (at least I think so) to simulate the reconstruction costs, but for that I need some help to calculate the "costs". As a conversion will only take 180 days (right?), it is too expensive for the simplest reconstruction while it's far to cheap for the largest version. To simulate this, I plan to calculate the necassary costs for such a conversion and give the converted CV a durability concerning this. To explain this, I give a simple example:
The easiest conversation would have a durability of just 5, which means it costs 5x180 = 900 merchant or naval points. The biggest conversation might have a durability of 250, which means, it'll cost 250x180 = 45.000 points!
Immeadiatly after its construction is completed, ther'll be an update which changes the ships durability to its correct size. To force the player to do this, the converted CV might only have a capacity of 1 plane.

If I haven't made any mistake, the convertion from AP to CV(E) will put the ship in the building list (which costs points), while its change in durability will only mean sysdamage (which doesn't cost points), no?

So please help me to find out how expensive the conversations may be, or let's find some formula to calculate this?
This should concern whether it's a relativly flat AK or an AP with big superstructures, as well as the size of the ship.

How much planes are possible for 150, 200 and 250m ships?

[el cid again]

Actually - there are lots of things one can do with a big hull. The main thing you need is speed - and size of course. You can even double stack hanger decks - to get more aircraft capacity - and the only problem left is that the resultant hull is not armored. Fine carriers can be had by this means -

IF the Germans know how to design one in the first place. The historical evicence is they did not. See Graf Zeppelin and three conversion plan sets for other ships.

The Italians came closer to getting a real carrier into service - and it was a better design as well (see Aircraft Carriers by Norman Polmar).

There is no technical problem in the game- if you simply start your converted design AFTER it is completed - just call it a class.
This gives you enough control as scenario designer to prevent gamey play- Germany is not going to convert vast fleets of auxiliaries to carriers - it does not understand air naval warfare institutionally - and even if you disagree with that - giving players the power to convert THOUSANDS more is not wise.

IF you WANT to let PLAYERS convert ships - you can do that too. Point the upgrade at the new class slot - and set it for the first possible date. But then you will get nearly "instant" conversions.

Your call.

[Historiker]

I've met too many White Russians tonight, so pleas appologize me, if this - in combinition with my poor english - means I don't understnad you correctly.

You can even double stack hanger decks - to get more aircraft capacity - and the only problem left is that the resultant hull is not armored.

You mean, that a CV without armour may carry the double number of aircraft than usual? How many conversations were seriously armoured? I considered my conversation concepts with no more armour than 10-30mm, which means nothing else than some steel panels were welded to the hull and the flight deck to offer at least some protection against aircraft guns.

IF the Germans know how to design one in the first place. The historical evicence is they did not. See Graf Zeppelin and three conversion plan sets for other ships.

ATM, I'm only working on HKD, which has more than 20 years of experience in constructin CVs, beginning with the Ausonia. This together with the known fact that German engineers were indeed able to construct fine ships will mean there's no demand to give german Carriers a handicap like it was IRL. IRL, the designs were indeed really poor, as even huge ships were planned to carry only a handfull of planes.

There is no technical problem in the game- if you simply start your converted design AFTER it is completed - just call it a class.
This gives you enough control as scenario designer to prevent gamey play

If I understand that correctly, you are saying, that my intended "conversation to a CV with alogic durability to show the construction cost with a modernisation to the usual durability and "cargo"" will work?

ermany is not going to convert vast fleets of auxiliaries to carriers - it does not understand air naval warfare institutionally - and even if you disagree with that - giving players the power to convert THOUSANDS more is not wise.

My scenario starts with a focus on BBs to show that the BBs are still considered to be the decisive ships. My conversations will not start before 8 month of the war have been over to inflict the first experiences and the first CV-battles that have happend until than for sure.
In HKD, Germany will not suffer of ressource shortages, as it can get most of its needs from russia. BUT while Germany will have enough ressurces to feed its HI, the HI itself will not be enough to feed all the armement, vehicle and aircraft plants as well as the shipyards. I think this doesn't only make sense in the way I intend the game to be, this is also "historical correct" (as far as one can talk about that in HKD...). Even with enough ressources, there are educated workers needed. But if the player expands its HI, he'll lack manpower for his armys - which is logical for me, too. Of course this will need extensive balance testing, but - at least for me - this makes sense.
So after this concept, there's no danger in converting too much (as well as I intend to write recommended house rules that include the numbers of conversations allowed), because if the player will start to convert 10 ships to CVEs at one time, he'll have to stop most of the other ships under construction, as well as he has to redirect HI to the shipyards (which will always demand to stop other branches to run at full speed).
If Germany would have stopped EVERY other construction of ships, boats and subs, there would have been enough workers and drydocks for a lot of reconstructions - but at the cost of all other ships to be halted.
I want to have this in HKD...

IF you WANT to let PLAYERS convert ships - you can do that too. Point the upgrade at the new class slot - and set it for the first possible date. But then you will get nearly "instant" conversions.

I'm not sure about whether I'll allow players to convert usual AKs to CVEs, but if I do this, it'll be restriced by house rules, building costs and the CVEs really won't be so strong that its affordable to convert hundreds of them.
Anyway, I will definitly add "planned reconstructions" into the DB. The Bremen (IV) is definitly a perfect ship for the convertion to a CV. To let the "oomph, CVs are more important than BBs" experience happen to the naval command, I don't intend to start the first of this conversaionts before about 8 month of the war are over.


So back to my main question: Do you think we can develope a formula that shows how much planes may be put on ships after adding their data - and how much this will cost?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I've met too many White Russians tonight, so pleas appologize me, if this - in combinition with my poor english - means I don't understnad you correctly.

You can even double stack hanger decks - to get more aircraft capacity - and the only problem left is that the resultant hull is not armored.

You mean, that a CV without armour may carry the double number of aircraft than usual? How many conversations were seriously armoured? I considered my conversation concepts with no more armour than 10-30mm, which means nothing else than some steel panels were welded to the hull and the flight deck to offer at least some protection against aircraft guns.

.

I mean a carrier WITHOUT armor is ALL YOU CAN have from a conversion - NEVER is there any armor. Well - they sort of put "concrete armor" on the less than successful Hiyo and Junyo - new engines too - but these didn't work either - but no stell armor is possible. The problem is structural - the ship is not designed for the weight of armor plate - and the trick often used of using armor as a structural member is also impossible for them.

I was talking about AIRCRAFT capacity - you can have a half deck length - a full deck length - one and a half deck lengths - or two deck lengths - depending on how you build the hangers. This is still used (see Russian carriers - some have only half a deck of hanger). The British liked double stacked hangers - and Hiyo and Junyo had two hangers - but the lower one was not full height - so only small planes could fit in it.
The big issue is stability - and there are things one can do about that. If you put too much weight topside - and then ballast to counter that - you will slow the ship badly- so you might need more powerful engines - problematical in the same space - but sometimes possible. conversion - like design - is a set of compromises - and hanger capacity may be possible - but not armor on a converted hull in useful terms.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.
.

There is no technical problem in the game- if you simply start your converted design AFTER it is completed - just call it a class.
This gives you enough control as scenario designer to prevent gamey play

If I understand that correctly, you are saying, that my intended "conversation to a CV with alogic durability to show the construction cost with a modernisation to the usual durability and "cargo"" will work?

.

Nope. You got it wrong.

You cannot change code - ships have one function. The same HULL can CONVERT from AK to CVL - say - but when it is converted - it is no longer an AK. Capacity changes meaning - instead of cargo it means "number of planes" for a CVL. Nothing is going to change that - ever. Except - a tanker conversion to CVE can have a large fuel capacity - (see USS Bogue) - and it WILL refuel ships in its Task Force somewhat like a tanker does.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.

ermany is not going to convert vast fleets of auxiliaries to carriers - it does not understand air naval warfare institutionally - and even if you disagree with that - giving players the power to convert THOUSANDS more is not wise.

My scenario starts with a focus on BBs to show that the BBs are still considered to be the decisive ships. My conversations will not start before 8 month of the war have been over to inflict the first experiences and the first CV-battles that have happend until than for sure.
In HKD, Germany will not suffer of ressource shortages, as it can get most of its needs from russia. BUT while Germany will have enough ressurces to feed its HI, the HI itself will not be enough to feed all the armement, vehicle and aircraft plants as well as the shipyards. I think this doesn't only make sense in the way I intend the game to be, this is also "historical correct" (as far as one can talk about that in HKD...). Even with enough ressources, there are educated workers needed. But if the player expands its HI, he'll lack manpower for his armys - which is logical for me, too. Of course this will need extensive balance testing, but - at least for me - this makes sense.
So after this concept, there's no danger in converting too much (as well as I intend to write recommended house rules that include the numbers of conversations allowed), because if the player will start to convert 10 ships to CVEs at one time, he'll have to stop most of the other ships under construction, as well as he has to redirect HI to the shipyards (which will always demand to stop other branches to run at full speed).
If Germany would have stopped EVERY other construction of ships, boats and subs, there would have been enough workers and drydocks for a lot of reconstructions - but at the cost of all other ships to be halted.
I want to have this in HKD...

.

I am completely out of sync with your reasoning here. I see the emnity between Stalin and Hitler - or more properly between the USSR and Germany no matter who leads either - as the foundation of the political crisis which leads to war. I see no possibility of sustained cooperation between them - and any delay as only meaning Germany must lose faster once war comes. The Germans believed it was acceptable to invade Russia for "living space" and for resources - and it appears (now we have Soviet archival materials) that Stalin believed he needed to crush Germany before it established something of a Napoleonic Europe - and invaded Russia with lots of allies feeding its army. If Germans deluded themselves into a sort of Hitler-Stalin Pact - they would just be hurt badly when it went south - and their resources were cut off. The longer it takes - the greater the number of T-34s and such they would have to deal with.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.

So back to my main question: Do you think we can develope a formula that shows how much planes may be put on ships after adding their data - and how much this will cost?

Just use real data - calculate nothing.

Use a historical design.

Failing that, take a historical design of similar size - and modify from there.

If you believe in Axis aircraft carriers - the way to rationalize it is to bring Italy in. It has a good carrier plane - Germany does not - and a good design as well. Get the Italians to build them - maybe a couple more in Germany. The game conversion mechanism is poor - it takes way too little time - unless you use the slots for the Chitose - and you either leave them empty or you WILL use them - it is hard code. You get what you put in those slots - so you have control of the ship characteristics - and here the dates are hard coded (and in the manual).

You can do the same thing with the Hyuga slots. My Hyuga has both regular carrier planes and seaplanes - the real one did - and while we logn believed this was not possible in WITP - it is.

[Historiker]

I mean a carrier WITHOUT armor is ALL YOU CAN have from a conversion - NEVER is there any armor. Well - they sort of put "concrete armor" on the less than successful Hiyo and Junyo - new engines too - but these didn't work either - but no stell armor is possible. The problem is structural - the ship is not designed for the weight of armor plate - and the trick often used of using armor as a structural member is also impossible for them.

I was talking about AIRCRAFT capacity - you can have a half deck length - a full deck length - one and a half deck lengths - or two deck lengths - depending on how you build the hangers. This is still used (see Russian carriers - some have only half a deck of hanger). The British liked double stacked hangers - and Hiyo and Junyo had two hangers - but the lower one was not full height - so only small planes could fit in it.
The big issue is stability - and there are things one can do about that. If you put too much weight topside - and then ballast to counter that - you will slow the ship badly- so you might need more powerful engines - problematical in the same space - but sometimes possible. conversion - like design - is a set of compromises - and hanger capacity may be possible - but not armor on a converted hull in useful terms.

Hmm... So if a ship has the size of 200x25, I might assume the hangar size of 190x22 for each hangar?

The speed don't seem to be a problem for me, because a) there are a lot of ships with enough speed reserves which can afford to loose 5 kt and b) the real Germany planned to equip its carriers with catapults. Together with the 20 years of experience in CV building, this should be enough to allow even somewhat slower ships to operate aircraft.

Nope. You got it wrong.

You cannot change code - ships have one function. The same HULL can CONVERT from AK to CVL - say - but when it is converted - it is no longer an AK. Capacity changes meaning - instead of cargo it means "number of planes" for a CVL. Nothing is going to change that - ever. Except - a tanker conversion to CVE can have a large fuel capacity - (see USS Bogue) - and it WILL refuel ships in its Task Force somewhat like a tanker does.

I know that. I still called it "cargo" because of the data field in the editor.

I am completely out of sync with your reasoning here. I see the emnity between Stalin and Hitler - or more properly between the USSR and Germany no matter who leads either - as the foundation of the political crisis which leads to war. I see no possibility of sustained cooperation between them - and any delay as only meaning Germany must lose faster once war comes. The Germans believed it was acceptable to invade Russia for "living space" and for resources - and it appears (now we have Soviet archival materials) that Stalin believed he needed to crush Germany before it established something of a Napoleonic Europe - and invaded Russia with lots of allies feeding its army. If Germans deluded themselves into a sort of Hitler-Stalin Pact - they would just be hurt badly when it went south - and their resources were cut off. The longer it takes - the greater the number of T-34s and such they would have to deal with.

I already explained the scenario in the War in the West thread. To keep it short:
WW1 ended 2/17 with a draw.
Germany: Emperor
Austria-Hungary: Emperor
Russia: Tsar
Yugoslavia: King of the House Habsburg
Poland: King of the House Saxonia
Lithuania: Mindaugas II.
Baltic Dutchy: German King
Finnland: German King

in the 1920th, The rest of the Osman Empire collaps, there are massacres, so Russia helps its brothers in faith and occupies the armenian territories, the bosporus and the dardanelles. Greece also seizes territoriy.
in the late 1930th or 1940, a kommunist revolution in Persia, Russia intervenes to help the Shah, but also seeks a harbour in the Persian Gulf. Great Britain tries to stop Russia and seens no other way than to support the Rebels with armement.
In 1/41, Russia bombs a harbour held by the rebels to stop the flood of supplies. As British ships are sunk, Britain declares war.

Germany was part of Washington 1922 and left the Treaty as well as Japan in 1936. Japan joins the Allies to seize Siberia

So no bloodthirsty Hitlers and Stalins, only the Glory of the Three Emperors [;)]

Just use real data - calculate nothing.

Use a historical design.

Failing that, take a historical design of similar size - and modify from there.

I already try this, but the real German designs were that worse, that it isn't worth the work! I won't order to reconstruct a great AP into a CVE, that can only carry 12-15 planes while it is 200m or even more of size. There was much more potential, but the lack of experience, the differences between the navy and "all that flies belongs to me" Göring, the lack of a real carrier concept and doctrine - all that is obvious in the real German designs in the 30th and WW2. So this designs will appear somewhen in the historical correct scenario, but not in HKD.

If you believe in Axis aircraft carriers - the way to rationalize it is to bring Italy in. It has a good carrier plane - Germany does not - and a good design as well. Get the Italians to build them - maybe a couple more in Germany. The game conversion mechanism is poor - it takes way too little time - unless you use the slots for the Chitose - and you either leave them empty or you WILL use them - it is hard code. You get what you put in those slots - so you have control of the ship characteristics - and here the dates are hard coded (and in the manual)

Which were the Italien aircraft planes?
Italy is in! As well as Russia, Austria-Hungary, ... but my focus lies on Germany, as it is the major nation in naval warefare in my scenario - because of all the story that I've constructed around it... So German carriers my well use Italien AC!

You can do the same thing with the Hyuga slots. My Hyuga has both regular carrier planes and seaplanes - the real one did - and while we logn believed this was not possible in WITP - it is.

Good to know, thx. There was indeed a design that should use both in serious numbers...

[Historiker]

I guess most of the CVEs and CVLs - if not all -from WW2 have just one hangar deck?
What about the Bogue, Casablanca, Commencement Bay, Long Islands classes? All just one hangar?

Is it wrong when I take a CVE like the Commencement Bay to calculate a similar CVE in this way (In the case of a 200m ship with compareable size):
169m : 200m = 0,845
33 (planes of the CVE) : 0,845 = 39,05 - so this 200m CVE can carry 39 planes?

In the case of the Bremen (IV), the ship seems to be too valuable for just one hangar, especially as it runs 29kt. So I would say: two hangars, 280m length: (169:280=0,60357; 33:0,60357=54,675; 54,675x2=109) it might be possible to put 109 planes on it. I would reduce the speed to 26kt because of the additional weight. Of course, such a reconstruction must be expensive and take its time, (which needs to be calculated again) but would this calculation be false?

The other reconstructions would be calculated in this way - with just one hangar deck.

[el cid again]

The problem is not that Germany would not have built catapults- but it had nothing to catapult from them. Carrier aircraft development was messed up - for the same reason as in UK - because of a lack of a naval air force. Luftwaffe was as bad or even possibly worse than RAF was with naval aircraft - more or less not interested - and to the extent it was interested - not competent. By the time a design was ready for use it was already obsolescent and not competative. Italy had the same problem - until just a few years ago - but somehow the Regia Aeronautica was able to overcome its structural problems - and amazingly in spite of low powered engine limitations - came up with a truly great idea - more or less better than anyone else anywhere: have a uniform air group with ONE plane - it can do recon, be a fighter - or a dive bomber. This is fantastically efficient.

[el cid again]

In a hypothetical battleship oriented world - you should not be assuming better carrier design than in the real world.

However - if you somehow can get around your own assumptions contradictions -

use FOREIGN ships of similar size.

In particular Japanese ones. Japan consulted on the design of the Graf - and provided plans for a carrier - probably Shokaku.
It could have provided plans for converted APs - including Scharnhorst - and her sister IS in Germany (Gneisnau). Here I mean the Liners - not the battlecruisers. Ironically both were studied for carrier conversions.

[el cid again]

You cannot use the hard code for "serious numbers" of Chitose or Hyuga's - because in this case the SHIP slots are hard coded - not just the class slots. You get two - and only two - of each.

[el cid again]

I like the Austro Hungarian Navy - but it is the bitter rival of the Italian Navy - and having both on the same side is another problem my mind has with your concept. It does not compute.

I also do not believe AH would survive in any case. The Imperial and Royal Austro Hungarian Navy was the ONLY national institution in the country - which was not a country - but an Empire - and not in any sense a unified one. It was doomed in the 20th century - whatever happened in WWI - and it was not going to survive any more than the Ottoman Empire was.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I guess most of the CVEs and CVLs - if not all -from WW2 have just one hangar deck?
What about the Bogue, Casablanca, Commencement Bay, Long Islands classes? All just one hangar?

Is it wrong when I take a CVE like the Commencement Bay to calculate a similar CVE in this way (In the case of a 200m ship with compareable size):
169m : 200m = 0,845
33 (planes of the CVE) : 0,845 = 39,05 - so this 200m CVE can carry 39 planes?

In the case of the Bremen (IV), the ship seems to be too valuable for just one hangar, especially as it runs 29kt. So I would say: two hangars, 280m length: (169:280=0,60357; 33:0,60357=54,675; 54,675x2=109) it might be possible to put 109 planes on it. I would reduce the speed to 26kt because of the additional weight. Of course, such a reconstruction must be expensive and take its time, (which needs to be calculated again) but would this calculation be false?

The other reconstructions would be calculated in this way - with just one hangar deck.

Multiple hangers are more suitable on a really big ship. If on a small one - there is too much topweight - the ship is unstable - and would not be safe in a seaway - if it didn't capsize while building. But you were talking about some really big liners - and there it was done - consider the Hiyo and Junyo - which were not CVEs - but not exactly CVs either. And not as big as the ships you are thinking about.

A big ship has a broader beam - that help stability - and higher sides - and the combination means that extra weight above the main deck can be at a lower cost in increased draft. Also bigger ships tended to have lots of superstructure if liners - in which case tearing it off means you can use all that weight without any problems to speak of.

The problem with air groups is more than sheer hanger space - and a ship often cannot operate its full capacity - while sometimes it can operate more than its capacity. US CVLs were not ideal if the full group was embarked - but were wonderful aviation ships if only 20 planes were embarked. Gamers tend to ignore realities - and the reality is that small carriers are going to suffer in two ways:

fewer sortees per plane

fewer sortees per ship can get off the smaller deck - for lots of technical reasons the handling rate is less

On the other hand - if the same number of planes is on more hulls - it is harder to sink the force - because it is more targets.

Another consideration is range - smaller ships have less range -

and carriers steam at high speed so much this really matters. The practical range of a carrier is a tiny fraction of its range as a merchant ship - because a merchant sails at cruising speed - but a carrier cruises at much more speed - perhaps you get 1/4 the range - or less.



Your calculations are reasonable - but observe code limits. Never put more than 96 planes on a carrier. Never put more than 4 squadrons on a carrier. Since air combat never works with more than 50 planes on a side - this is not a good idea anyway - the routine is busted - and if you have ships with a lot more than 50 planes - you are likely to get excessive numbers in many air battles - leading to wierd things (combat with zero planes being the most obvious). But if you fail to observe these limits - things get really bad really fast. If you go to 5 squadrons - only 9 planes fly from each. If you go to 6 squadrons - it is a transport and none ever fly. If you go to too big a number it gets in lots of other kinds of trouble. The code does not expect carriers with more than about 84 planes - and it appears the design limit was 99 or 96.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem is not that Germany would not have built catapults- but it had nothing to catapult from them. Carrier aircraft development was messed up - for the same reason as in UK - because of a lack of a naval air force. Luftwaffe was as bad or even possibly worse than RAF was with naval aircraft - more or less not interested - and to the extent it was interested - not competent. By the time a design was ready for use it was already obsolescent and not competative. Italy had the same problem - until just a few years ago - but somehow the Regia Aeronautica was able to overcome its structural problems - and amazingly in spite of low powered engine limitations - came up with a truly great idea - more or less better than anyone else anywhere: have a uniform air group with ONE plane - it can do recon, be a fighter - or a dive bomber. This is fantastically efficient.

Germany has that, too. The FW-190. It can do recon, dive-bombing, fighter duty and even use torpedoes -with just one problem: a range of just 800km (without external bombload...). Its structure is stable enough to be used on carriers. The only real problem I see is the range. With just 3-4 hex its really not the best choice...
I still think about a german copy of the A6M to fix the range problems. Maybe Germany may also copy captured planes with a serious delay...

In a hypothetical battleship oriented world - you should not be assuming better carrier design than in the real world.

However - if you somehow can get around your own assumptions contradictions -

use FOREIGN ships of similar size.

In particular Japanese ones. Japan consulted on the design of the Graf - and provided plans for a carrier - probably Shokaku.
It could have provided plans for converted APs - including Scharnhorst - and her sister IS in Germany (Gneisnau). Here I mean the Liners - not the battlecruisers. Ironically both were studied for carrier conversions.

The world isn't any more hypothetical than the reality in this means. As IRL, most navys relied on BBs until they were forced to accept that. So the German developement of Carriers is compareable with other nations, not more, not less - with the typical german restrictions. That means:
- "The first task of a ship is to swim": full armour
- good engineers and ship designers with a lot of experience

In fact, I already copied your reconstruction of the Scharnhorst class from RHS, but I must insist, that the Scharnhost class never was and never will be a BC - it was a BB - underarmed - but a BB!

You cannot use the hard code for "serious numbers" of Chitose or Hyuga's - because in this case the SHIP slots are hard coded - not just the class slots. You get two - and only two - of each.

I ment that there was a design that carried both FP and carrier planes in serious numbers.

I like the Austro Hungarian Navy - but it is the bitter rival of the Italian Navy - and having both on the same side is another problem my mind has with your concept. It does not compute.

I also do not believe AH would survive in any case. The Imperial and Royal Austro Hungarian Navy was the ONLY national institution in the country - which was not a country - but an Empire - and not in any sense a unified one. It was doomed in the 20th century - whatever happened in WWI - and it was not going to survive any more than the Ottoman Empire was.

Russia, Germany and AH re-form the Three Emperors Alliance after Germany helped to fight the communists and to save the Tsar and his family around 1920. Italy isn't a part of this alliance for a long time, so there is rivality for a long time.
Moreover, AH hasn't "survived". To solve the problems, Yugoslavia was founded (I thought of everything [:D]), so the only problem to solve is the CS-minority, but one may rename AH to Austria-Hungary-Bohemia - which it indeed should be as this were the three big parts of the Habsburg monarchy...

Multiple hangers are more suitable on a really big ship. If on a small one - there is too much topweight - the ship is unstable - and would not be safe in a seaway - if it didn't capsize while building. But you were talking about some really big liners - and there it was done - consider the Hiyo and Junyo - which were not CVEs - but not exactly CVs either. And not as big as the ships you are thinking about.

A big ship has a broader beam - that help stability - and higher sides - and the combination means that extra weight above the main deck can be at a lower cost in increased draft. Also bigger ships tended to have lots of superstructure if liners - in which case tearing it off means you can use all that weight without any problems to speak of.

So do you think, my calculation is (quite) correct?

edit:

Your calculations are reasonable - but observe code limits. Never put more than 96 planes on a carrier. Never put more than 4 squadrons on a carrier. Since air combat never works with more than 50 planes on a side - this is not a good idea anyway - the routine is busted - and if you have ships with a lot more than 50 planes - you are likely to get excessive numbers in many air battles - leading to wierd things (combat with zero planes being the most obvious). But if you fail to observe these limits - things get really bad really fast. If you go to 5 squadrons - only 9 planes fly from each. If you go to 6 squadrons - it is a transport and none ever fly. If you go to too big a number it gets in lots of other kinds of trouble. The code does not expect carriers with more than about 84 planes - and it appears the design limit was 99 or 96.

Thank you! So I'll give them 96 planes. The rest of the room may be used for some more fuel, more AAA (which needs ammo storages as well) and perhaps some armour?

[Historiker]

But if you fail to observe these limits - things get really bad really fast. If you go to 5 squadrons - only 9 planes fly from each. If you go to 6 squadrons - it is a transport and none ever fly. If you go to too big a number it gets in lots of other kinds of trouble. The code does not expect carriers with more than about 84 planes - and it appears the design limit was 99 or 96.

But I may use this, to let usual carriers start the scenario with a huge number of squadrons on them (all just one plane while with the correct max-size), to get carrier trained squadrons without the need to wast some slots for training carriers!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem is not that Germany would not have built catapults- but it had nothing to catapult from them. Carrier aircraft development was messed up - for the same reason as in UK - because of a lack of a naval air force. Luftwaffe was as bad or even possibly worse than RAF was with naval aircraft - more or less not interested - and to the extent it was interested - not competent. By the time a design was ready for use it was already obsolescent and not competative. Italy had the same problem - until just a few years ago - but somehow the Regia Aeronautica was able to overcome its structural problems - and amazingly in spite of low powered engine limitations - came up with a truly great idea - more or less better than anyone else anywhere: have a uniform air group with ONE plane - it can do recon, be a fighter - or a dive bomber. This is fantastically efficient.

Germany has that, too. The FW-190. It can do recon, dive-bombing, fighter duty and even use torpedoes -with just one problem: a range of just 800km (without external bombload...). Its structure is stable enough to be used on carriers. The only real problem I see is the range. With just 3-4 hex its really not the best choice...
I still think about a german copy of the A6M to fix the range problems. Maybe Germany may also copy captured planes with a serious delay...

.

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.

There is a case for a short range carrier fighter in ETO - there are so many land based threats - but that would not permit an efficient one plane air group like Italy came up with. The Zero is not Germanic in conception - the lack of armor is deliberate - and it is a radical plane in several respects. This would be a problem sooner and in a greater sense in ETO - armor is vital or your planes and pilots do not survive. Not to understand that is to misunderstand the air war - which quickly relegated unarmored types to somewhere other than ETO.

Japan would sell the Zero to Germany - but Germany should not want it.

Germany should not want a carrier fleet of great size in the first place. It has primary interest in the Baltic and North Seas - and these do not require carriers in the sense the Atlantic does. Nor can its carriers reach the Atlantic. Allies Italy and AH (???) are interested in the med - same same. Carriers for escort are of some value here - local defense vs submarines and air strikes - but that can be adequately done from land as well in the narrow Med. Escaping the Med into the Atlantic is less feasible than the North Sea - you can hardly use Suez and Gibraltar is covered by guns from both shores.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

.
In fact, I already copied your reconstruction of the Scharnhorst class from RHS, but I must insist, that the Scharnhost class never was and never will be a BC - it was a BB - underarmed - but a BB!

.

In a legal sense - the Scharnhorst was indeed a BB - a treaty battleship with less than permitted main battery.

But the Scharnhorst carrier in RHS is NOT based on this class - rather on the liners of the same name. One of them was caught in the Far East by the start of the war.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

But if you fail to observe these limits - things get really bad really fast. If you go to 5 squadrons - only 9 planes fly from each. If you go to 6 squadrons - it is a transport and none ever fly. If you go to too big a number it gets in lots of other kinds of trouble. The code does not expect carriers with more than about 84 planes - and it appears the design limit was 99 or 96.

But I may use this, to let usual carriers start the scenario with a huge number of squadrons on them (all just one plane while with the correct max-size), to get carrier trained squadrons without the need to wast some slots for training carriers!

This will not work.

A squadron is tied to its carrier - forever - no matter if it is on the carrier or not - since a code revision.

A carrier resize will occur only if the carrier is in the right sort of port at the right time - and the time is secret from us.

The resize routine assumes only four squadrons on a CV and two on a CVL or CVE. Nothing else is going to work out with it.

Lots of other code routines expect the same thing - but there is a default case permitting a CVL to have only one squadron. It will resize to 80 per cent of deck capacty - and you never get 100 per cent in that case.

[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?
Moreover, the Problem for this scenario is, that I try to modify existing non-carrier planes for carrier use.
If there were existing carriers for the past 20 years, there can be no serious doubt that Germany had a competitive one, too!
Moreover, there was no need to design the Fw 190 for carriers, if there were only two CVs planned and there was already the Me 109 T. There was no need for a second design, yet.
The same about carrier DBs and TBs. One can't expect the first German design to be superior or just competetive, but with the last 20 years operating carriers, there would be a defenite higher chance for good planes of that type, as Germany prooved that it is able to design and construct the finest planes...

Well I'll see...

Germany should not want a carrier fleet of great size in the first place. It has primary interest in the Baltic and North Seas - and these do not require carriers in the sense the Atlantic does. Nor can its carriers reach the Atlantic. Allies Italy and AH (???) are interested in the med - same same. Carriers for escort are of some value here - local defense vs submarines and air strikes - but that can be adequately done from land as well in the narrow Med. Escaping the Med into the Atlantic is less feasible than the North Sea - you can hardly use Suez and Gibraltar is covered by guns from both shores.

Not in my scenario... [;)]

@Scharnhorst:
Of course, I know - but I should have expressed it more accurate.