|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 18, 2019 14:51:56 GMT -6
This will likely spur me to move away from the ultralight cruisers as my early game escort of choice since I doubt I can convert anything in the 2100-2500t range into any sort of useful flight deck. Who knows though(...)
Some people would call that a desperate lack of possibilities. I say you'll call that... ...an opportunity to revolutionize naval warfare - again!
|
|
saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on Jan 18, 2019 20:07:58 GMT -6
Did...did you make that?
|
|
|
Post by halseyincarnate on Jan 18, 2019 20:44:47 GMT -6
I think it has promise, it'll probably mess with torpedo aiming. I see dive bombers as this ships biggest threat.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 19, 2019 12:27:33 GMT -6
This will likely spur me to move away from the ultralight cruisers as my early game escort of choice since I doubt I can convert anything in the 2100-2500t range into any sort of useful flight deck. Who knows though(...)
Some people would call that a desperate lack of possibilities. I say you'll call that... ...an opportunity to revolutionize naval warfare - again! If we can convert CLs to catamarans I'm boycotting this game.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 19, 2019 17:28:52 GMT -6
Some people would call that a desperate lack of possibilities. I say you'll call that... ...an opportunity to revolutionize naval warfare - again! If we can convert CLs to catamarans I'm boycotting this game. You could always lay planks between two of them! And we thought the navies of today we're budget navies!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 19, 2019 18:55:35 GMT -6
You could always lay planks between two of them! And we thought the navies of today we're budget navies! Catamarans have two parallel hulls of equal size connected by a structure running between the two hulls. Unless by "between" the cruisers you mean laying planks from the bow of one to the stern of the other with the longitudinal axes of the two hulls colinear, I do not see how laying planks between the two cruiser hulls would address Airy_W's complaint of turning the two cruiser hulls into a catamaran. If you do mean laying planks from the bow of one cruiser hull to the stern of the other with the longitudinal axes of the hulls colinear, then I see a serious weakness in your hull which may result in the ship breaking in two in rough weather or possibly even during hard maneuvers. I would also have some concern for the maneuverability of the composite vessel, as it would likely be very long and narrow for its displacement.
If you were building a fairweather navy, a multi-hulled light or escort carrier might be workable with WWI-WWII era technology, but I would not want to risk it in rough or particularly cold weather - especially if, as the "concept sketch" suggests, the flight deck and supporting structure forms the entirety of the connecting platform between the hulls. Two other issues that I see are the adequacy of the flight deck for operation of the larger and heavier aircraft post-dating the carrier's design - small early-game cruisers are likely to be short, especially if they're the really small ~2100-3500t equivalents of historical third class, scout, and smaller second class cruisers rather than the ~4000-6000t equivalents of the larger historical second class cruisers and most early light cruisers or the ~8000t quasi-equivalents of some of the smaller first class cruisers - and the adequacy of the hangar facilities of the carrier for pretty much anything at all - once again, especially if the platform connecting the hulls consists only of the flight deck and supporting structures.
I would also suggest that, even assuming such a vessel was technologically feasible at the time, a multi-hulled carrier seems inappropriate for the period. So far as I am aware, no large multi-hulled warships were actually built in the period, and as far as I am aware no multi-hulled carrier has yet been built and commissioned.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 19, 2019 19:30:24 GMT -6
You could always lay planks between two of them! And we thought the navies of today we're budget navies! Catamarans have two parallel hulls of equal size connected by a structure running between the two hulls. Unless by "between" the cruisers you mean laying planks from the bow of one to the stern of the other with the longitudinal axes of the two hulls colinear, I do not see how laying planks between the two cruiser hulls would address Airy_W's complaint of turning the two cruiser hulls into a catamaran. If you do mean laying planks from the bow of one cruiser hull to the stern of the other with the longitudinal axes of the hulls colinear, then I see a serious weakness in your hull which may result in the ship breaking in two in rough weather or possibly even during hard maneuvers. I would also have some concern for the maneuverability of the composite vessel, as it would likely be very long and narrow for its displacement.
If you were building a fairweather navy, a multi-hulled light or escort carrier might be workable with WWI-WWII era technology, but I would not want to risk it in rough or particularly cold weather - especially if, as the "concept sketch" suggests, the flight deck and supporting structure forms the entirety of the connecting platform between the hulls. Two other issues that I see are the adequacy of the flight deck for operation of the larger and heavier aircraft post-dating the carrier's design - small early-game cruisers are likely to be short, especially if they're the really small ~2100-3500t equivalents of historical third class, scout, and smaller second class cruisers rather than the ~4000-6000t equivalents of the larger historical second class cruisers and most early light cruisers or the ~8000t quasi-equivalents of some of the smaller first class cruisers - and the adequacy of the hangar facilities of the carrier for pretty much anything at all - once again, especially if the platform connecting the hulls consists only of the flight deck and supporting structures.
I would also suggest that, even assuming such a vessel was technologically feasible at the time, a multi-hulled carrier seems inappropriate for the period. So far as I am aware, no large multi-hulled warships were actually built in the period, and as far as I am aware no multi-hulled carrier has yet been built and commissioned.
It was but a light-hearted joke. I know what a catamaran is; I have sailed them for years. The planking that I referred to was over the bow and stern but I think we can all agree that it's a ridiculous proposal, hence the joke. On the subject of multihulled carriers, there is absolutely no reason why this should be unfeasible. One could have a large flight deck at a fraction of the displacement of a equivalent conventional carrier. The lifts would be in the hills and there would likely have to be two hangers in the hills so as not to overload the side-supported flight deck. A catamaran would also be more stable with a broader effective beam than a conventional carrier, allowing it to operate in heavier weather. Whilst I agree that using 2 obsolete 3000t CLs would not provide enough support in a length-beam ratio for heavier, there is no reason why 4 should not. A dedicated carrier would be more effective and a conventional carrier would be more efficient to build from scratch but I believe that this cobbling together of relatively fast ships could allow a minor naval nation its first steps towards being a carrier power.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 19, 2019 21:27:30 GMT -6
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 21, 2019 17:06:11 GMT -6
Upon reflection a catamaran is ridiculous. So the boycott will be called off. However if I can't convert 3 CLs into a trimaran, blood will flow in the streets. Also, I realize now that I wrote "can" when I meant to wrote "can't" in my earlier post. Sorry akosjaccik , I didn't mean to sound negative about the greatest naval innovation since the sail! That is neat but sadly the Russians have a track record lately of claiming they are just about to start building things that aren't possible with current technology.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 21, 2019 17:25:16 GMT -6
That thing is the ultimate expression of all or nothing armor, though it does lean heavily toward the nothing side.
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on Jan 21, 2019 21:24:45 GMT -6
That thing is the ultimate expression of all or nothing armor, though it does lean heavily toward the nothing side. Shoot all you want. It won't sink! Amazing how that armor works! It's like Nike charging top dollar for shoes with "air" in them!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 21, 2019 21:49:57 GMT -6
Upon reflection a catamaran is ridiculous. So the boycott will be called off. However if I can't convert 3 CLs into a trimaran, blood will flow in the streets. Also, I realize now that I wrote "can" when I meant to wrote "can't" in my earlier post. Sorry akosjaccik , I didn't mean to sound negative about the greatest naval innovation since the sail! That is neat but sadly the Russians have a track record lately of claiming they are just about to start building things that aren't possible with current technology. Well, I tend to agree on naval issues, but their tanks are good and their aircraft aren't too bad..... they make great targets. The Russian's have always had a problem with naval warfare, which doesn't make sense with their Viking heritage.
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on Jan 21, 2019 22:41:24 GMT -6
This will likely spur me to move away from the ultralight cruisers as my early game escort of choice since I doubt I can convert anything in the 2100-2500t range into any sort of useful flight deck. Who knows though(...)
Some people would call that a desperate lack of possibilities. I say you'll call that... ...an opportunity to revolutionize naval warfare - again! Maybe meant in jest but this caused me to remember an article I once saw in the Naval Journal "Proceedings" back in the 1980s. Had to google but here is the article speculating on what future warships could look like: www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1985-02/new-shape-shipsMaybe a little too Buck Rogers at this point, but...
|
|