|
Post by yemo on Sept 11, 2019 9:42:05 GMT -6
Is there any historical example of superimposed wing turrets? I'm not aware of one. Also at least with larger calibres I suspect it won't physically be feasible. The extended barbette and extra weight should be a major issue when it comes to stability and hull strain. Or at least cause a major and impractical displacement increase. With smaller calibres let alone dp guns on a cv (should normally be used for AA) I don't see any benefit gained for the extra weight whatsoever as AA has different angles anyway. The only thing a superimposed wing turret would possibly help is a battle carrier (CVB?) and maybe one or two wonky specialized chase cruisers with 6 forward turrets, but I really wonder how you're going to counterbalance that gigantic magazine. (+I can already see the amazing "6 turrets disabled by one shell what is this game" threads from those kinda ships) the 8" Gun turrets on Lexington, 5" Gun turrets on the Essex class, and at least the Tennessee class Standard Battleship had that on it's Secondary Battery The game requires 8" Guns on early carriers Afair only 6'' on small early carriers?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 11, 2019 9:43:32 GMT -6
the 8" Gun turrets on Lexington, 5" Gun turrets on the Essex class, and at least the Tennessee class Standard Battleship had that on it's Secondary Battery The game requires 8" Guns on early carriers Afair only 6'' on small early carriers? if they are less than 20,000 tons, yes
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 11, 2019 12:10:27 GMT -6
This short piece was placed here because of the title of the thread seemed to go with it.
Just some information about folding wings and hangar spaces. I am going to use US Navy data from WWII because it is typical and readily available.
The F4F-4 had a folded wing span of 14.4 feet. I am using it as an example. I checked the F6F and it had a similar wing span and the folded was about the same. The US Navy aircraft had the biggest folding wing system which folded up and rotated back. I am certain all of you have seen them. So, the wing span for the hangar was 14.4 feet and the length was 28 feet 10 inches. In theory, you need space for about 417 square feet. However, remember that the air wing had three different types of aircraft. Fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers. You have to find the wing span for each and probably the folded span is 50%. TBF Avenger had a wing span of 54 feet approx. So, a folded wing of 50% is 27 feet. Luckily there were only eighteen on board.
The final design of the Yorktown class had a hangar deck that was 546 feet by 63 feet. That is 34,398 square feet of hangar space. If we divide that by 90 aircraft, that is 382.2 square feet. Theoretically, that isn't enough for the F4F even with folded wings. Generally, you might have some aircraft hoisted up into the hangar ceiling as spares. Even so, this is basically how you have to calculate hangar space for aircraft. Deck parks are the answer. However, on a flight deck carrier, the deck is not as long, so most of the aircraft have to be in the hangar and hoisted up one at a time to provide enough take off length especially for torpedo bombers. They were launched last because they required the most takeoff length.
This is just some brief information about the sizing of carriers and the number of aircraft that can be supported. I emphasize supported. Maintenance, refueling, arming and disarming all have to be accounted for including moving ordnance between the ammunition elevators and the hangar deck.It gets complex and I cannot verify how the game handles this so that is all I am going to say.
If you want to try something, guess at the length of the flight deck for a battlecarrier. Let's say it is about 300 feet in length which might be half the length of the ship. Now, let's guess at its width. Let's estimate about 60 feet. Multiply those two numbers and divide that result by 750. The result is 24 aircraft and that is probably pretty close. For a Yorktown, you would have to use the length at the waterline and beam. This calculation good for US and Japanese carriers but for British, reduce the number by 2/3. It works for the Yorktown class carriers. They were 761 feet(waterline length) x 83 feet. Divide that by 750 and you get 83 which is almost perfect for the class. 80-90 was typical.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Sept 13, 2019 13:51:22 GMT -6
I figured I might as well share my (rather inconclusive) BBCV results from a currently ongoing campaign. I chose to play the Soviet Union, as I figured that the closer quarters and poor weather of the Baltic sea would prove worthy of such a tactic. My first experiment was the O.R-class, which was armed nearly identically compared to my current line of fast battleships. She carried a slightly lighter DP battery, although made up for it in light AA guns. However, to "make room" for her complement of aircraft, she dropped several inches of armor in various places. Sadly, she also proved incapable of making her design speed, making only 26kts at trials. The O.R carries 22 planes, roughly split between fighters for overhead cover and a squadron of dive bombers. The theory, at least, was that O.R could deliver an effective 1-2 punch, striking an enemy ship with torpedoes and guns as part of the battle line, while her fighters protected her from enemy carrier strikes. Soon after putting the O.R into production, Soviet engineers figured out 14" guns, and I thus had to create a new ship. However, I had a challenge. My docks were hardly any bigger, and in the current year the Soviet 12 and 13 inch guns were quite underwhelming. Thus I decided to go for a rather different philosophy with the next class of ships. The Sverdlov-class was slightly larger than the O.R, but carried only a small complement of 8 fighters. While enough to provide her a CAP force in battle, this was small enough that she need not sacrifice as much armor to remain competitive. Although unable to conduct air strikes, she was at time of commission the most powerful surface combatant of the Soviet Union. She also dispensed with the 6" guns of her predecessor, instead maxing out a defensive DP battery along with a respectable amount of LAA/MAA. So, what results did I find? Well, sadly the enemy AI proved rather frugal and essentially refused to build any true capital ships aside from occasional one-offs. However, these ships did engage with enemy CAs on occasion, to mixed results. The true weakness of the Battlecarrier seems to lie in two main issues: 1: A BBCV must turn into the wind on occasion. Thus it can be difficult to maintain a steady chase or battle line unless the wind lines up perfectly. 2: The hanger is a massive weakspot, difficult to protect to any real degree. Hanger side armor is twice as heavy as belt armor, and Flight deck armor nearly twice as much as deck, regardless of the "size" of the hanger. Bonus images: the next in line, the Murmansk. O.R and Sverdlov covering the Soviet battle line. Note O.R's fighter squadron overhead. Oh, and I have to ask, which flight deck design do people like best?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 13, 2019 17:02:53 GMT -6
Oh, and I have to ask, which flight deck design do people like best? Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya's, though I suspect the flight deck would be a bit short for operating bombers in reality.
Sverdlov and Murmansk look like they'd have the same trouble Furious had with dangerous turbulence over the flight deck due to airflow over the superstructure, and on top of that the space allowed for landing appears to be quite short.
|
|
|
Post by felixg92 on Sept 13, 2019 17:13:02 GMT -6
This citizen of the workers and farmers paradise will vote in support of the Sferdlov! Its cute.
|
|