Salty
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Salty on May 11, 2019 18:42:07 GMT -6
I was thinking of a anti-aircraft cruiser/carrier. No heavy guns just AA with an aircraft deck.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2019 18:45:52 GMT -6
I was thinking of a anti-aircraft cruiser/carrier. No heavy guns just AA with an aircraft deck. If I recall, the Independence-class CVL didn't carry anything larger than a 40mm. Which I found to be strange because even the jeep carriers carried a single 5 inch/38.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2019 18:55:36 GMT -6
I was thinking of a anti-aircraft cruiser/carrier. No heavy guns just AA with an aircraft deck. If I recall, the Independence-class CVL didn't carry anything larger than a 40mm. Which I found to be strange because even the jeep carriers carried a single 5 inch/38. Originally she did have two 5 in 38's, but they were removed and replaced with 2 x quad 40-mm, 9 x twin 40-mm and 16 x 20mm. That is a pretty potent medium and short range AA system.
|
|
Salty
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Salty on May 11, 2019 19:22:37 GMT -6
Were the Independence Class built off cruiser hulls or a new design? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 11, 2019 19:29:23 GMT -6
Were the Independence Class built off cruiser hulls or a new design? Thanks. They were based on the Cleveland Class CL55 light cruisers hulls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 20:56:03 GMT -6
90k ton universal hybrid ship with flight deck, front turret giving one hell of a punch, strong belt armor and some deck, dual purpose secondaries, at least 60 planes and good top speed. Does not matter that such ship would not fit to any battle, maybe with the exception of being a solo mega raider, I want that ship. And not just one...
|
|
|
Post by forcea1 on May 12, 2019 5:25:59 GMT -6
I just remembered that in DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, in the chapter describing Malta preliminary designs, the DNC estimated, that to protect against 3000lb rocket-assisted weapon, an aircraft carrier would require 13in of Cemented or 15in of Non Cemented armour on both the deck and sides. I wonder if I could build an aircraft carrier with a closed hangar with this protection, and if so, how many aircraft could it carry?
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 12, 2019 5:40:15 GMT -6
I just remembered that in DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, in the chapter describing Malta preliminary designs, the DNC estimated, that to protect against 3000lb rocket-assisted weapon, an aircraft carrier would require 13in of Cemented or 15in of Non Cemented armour on both the deck and sides. I wonder if I could build an aircraft carrier with a closed hangar with this protection, and if so, how many aircraft could it carry? 40 - but seeing as they're all parked on deck, I can't see the point. Your ship's just a floating lump of armour!
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 12, 2019 7:14:15 GMT -6
I just remembered that in DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, in the chapter describing Malta preliminary designs, the DNC estimated, that to protect against 3000lb rocket-assisted weapon, an aircraft carrier would require 13in of Cemented or 15in of Non Cemented armour on both the deck and sides. I wonder if I could build an aircraft carrier with a closed hangar with this protection, and if so, how many aircraft could it carry? Isn't that pretty much the same for guided bombs? Which is why Friedman wrote it wasn't the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, or of Yamato, that marked the end of the battleship age; but the sinking of Roma by German glider bomb. Weapons had finally outpaced practical ability to protect a ship. I also wonder if the game designer even allows 15" deck.
|
|
|
Post by forcea1 on May 12, 2019 7:53:34 GMT -6
I just remembered that in DK Brown's Nelson to Vanguard, in the chapter describing Malta preliminary designs, the DNC estimated, that to protect against 3000lb rocket-assisted weapon, an aircraft carrier would require 13in of Cemented or 15in of Non Cemented armour on both the deck and sides. I wonder if I could build an aircraft carrier with a closed hangar with this protection, and if so, how many aircraft could it carry? Isn't that pretty much the same for guided bombs? Which is why Friedman wrote it wasn't the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, or of Yamato, that marked the end of the battleship age; but the sinking of Roma by German glider bomb. Weapons had finally outpaced practical ability to protect a ship. I also wonder if the game designer even allows 15" deck. I know that Britain had a large dumb-fire rocket called Uncle Tom with a 11.5 inch in diameter, 9ft length, a 1000lb warhead and powered by six 3 inch rocket motors. There was also a 170lb rocket with a 180lb warhead powered by three 3 inch rocket motors. I imagine that the 3000lb rocket-assisted weapon was essentially a scaled up hypothetical version of these rockets rather than a guided weapon, used mainly as a way of creating a standard against which the protection of new ships could be compared. Early in the design stages for the clean-sheet 1945 Lion designs, a 4000lb bomb, which was a scaled up version of the British 2000lb bomb, was initially used a the standard to which the ship's horizontal protection should be based upon (protection from the 4000lb bomb required 7.5 inches of deck armour, the 2000lb required 6.9 inches). Incidentally within the same passage of Norman Friedman's The British Battleship from which I got the information about the aircraft bombs also contained the minimum amount of armour to defend against Fritz X (5.7 inches).
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 12, 2019 9:06:43 GMT -6
Incidentally within the same passage of Norman Friedman's The British Battleship from which I got the information about the aircraft bombs also contained the minimum amount of armour to defend against Fritz X (5.7 inches). I have read that figure too, but I'm sceptical of what it really means. Even in case of Roma it possibly penetrated more, and an AP bomb with the mass and drop altitude of Fritz-X could be expected to penetrate much more. Even Yamato's 8" deck was expected to stand up to less massive ordnance dropped from lower altitudes (1000 kg from 3km as I recall). One theory I have read (online mind you) is that it might have to do with the fuse being set to explode after that much penetration, in which case you'd adjust the fuse if you wanted to destroy something heavier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 12:16:13 GMT -6
IMHO BBs are never obsolete if it is made correctly. If you make it fast enough with enough deck armour, it can just provide AA cover and eat so many hits that would sink any CV, while CVs provide air cover and offensive ops.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 12, 2019 13:10:33 GMT -6
IMHO BBs are never obsolete if it is made correctly. If you make it fast enough with enough deck armour, it can just provide AA cover and eat so many hits that would sink any CV, while CVs provide air cover and offensive ops. It's a lot easier to destroy something than to protect it. No amount of armour will ever protect such an asset against everything. A class can become obsolete because of many reasons. In the case of the BB, it was because they were too big and expensive for modern tasks like ASW and with too little range for bombardment attacks. However, there may be a return in the future due to electromagnetic rail guns as a projectile is much cheaper than a guided bomb and carrier jets. However, range of >300 miles will have to be achieved first - no mean feat.
|
|
|
Post by admdavis on May 12, 2019 13:36:58 GMT -6
I'm looking forward to when the modders get the custom nations dialled in, and I can make the Indian Ocean an orange lake with my huge Dutch CVs and BCs.
|
|
|
Post by hmssophia on May 12, 2019 14:45:24 GMT -6
Something else I'm looking forward to is developing 'through deck cruisers' for a smaller navy - big CVL's/small CV's to operate in packs without any big sisters.
|
|