US Aircraft Cruisers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

John 3rd -> US Aircraft Cruisers (4/15/2013 11:42:12 PM)

Over in the RA Thread we are discussing the merits of allowing for one or two of the experimental US Aircraft Cruisers designs. The idea would be that they might be built in 1930--1932 and be classified as Adm. Moffat wanted as a CL (to count against Washington Naval Treaty cruiser tonnage and NOT CV tonnage). The design was for a 12,000 T vessel, moving at 30Kts, carry 24 planes (12 F and 12 DB), mount 3x3 6" turrets, and have 8x1 5"-25 Cal HA guns for AA.

Questions:
1. Does anyone have ship art for this experimental vessel?
2. Would the US have built one or two as their experiment?

What do you think? It is an INTERESTING vessel but not sure past that...



Terminus -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/15/2013 11:49:32 PM)

It was an interesting concept in building a vessel to implement a raiding doctrine that would be made obsolete by the half of the ship that was carrying aircraft...

I'd say the USN would probably only have built the one; they weren't shy about creating one-offs.



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/15/2013 11:50:00 PM)

The information I just used comes from John Jordan's Warships After Washington.



Terminus -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/15/2013 11:54:31 PM)

I know. When would you propose that the USN would construct this mutant?[:D] Not a lot of money to throw around in the Navy before the Two Ocean Act.



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 12:00:19 AM)

Solid comment. Even Roosevelt couldn't squeeze more blood from the deficit turnip for his beloved Navy...



Terminus -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 12:11:32 AM)

And delayed construction gives more time to look at the design and come to the historical conclusion, namely that it was too small for its intended role.



DOCUP -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 12:52:07 AM)

Not argueing with anyone, but it is a fantasy mod.  These ships werent good for much but they can be use in a similart fashion as the Jap CS ships.  Early in the war they can be used as a scout ship for raiding parties.  Due to the lack of CVs.  If they make it into the later parts of the war use it or them with amphib or other types of TFs.  

I vote for 2. 



Don Bowen -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 1:25:39 AM)


As a cruiser the aircraft handling portion was a detriment (and a danger). As a carrier the cruiser portion was a waste of valuable space. And, with 1942 sized aircraft, their aircraft complements would be negligible.

If these ships were built they would most likely be converted before or early in the war. Could be to CL, most likely to CVL. Either way they were still a poor tradeoff.






John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 1:40:59 AM)

We could allow for 1 or 2 built and seen as failures. Could we make them able to carry just fighters in 1941-42? Imagine a plane complement of 18-24. Would they have an organic air group/squadron OR would they be perfect for carrying a Marine Fighter Squadron?

As soon as possible we could allow for a conversion to a CVL possibility. If the player like having it then it can remain the same and have an upgrade path where more AA is added as the war progresses.

Wouldn't this be an interesting addition in the Philippines on Dec 7th. A refugee ship sent to the graveyard of ships: the Asiatic Fleet.

Just a thought...



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 1:42:00 AM)

Does anyone have ART WORK of this ship? Anyone interesting in trying to make some?



wdolson -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 1:56:30 AM)

Both the early IJN and US CVs were built with 8 inch guns. The Akagi and Kaga had triple flying off decks when built, though one of them had 8 inch guns at the end of the deck. Before the war began the idea of having ship to ship guns on a carrier was declared obsolete.

If the US had built these CL/CVL hybrids, they probably would have been converted to pure CVLs by the start of the war.

Bill



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 2:54:56 AM)

I tend to agree but would the Americans do a costly conversion in 1939-1940 when all that new construction was underway? Maybe. Maybe not. Those BBs at Pearl desperately NEEDED to be upgraded but weren't.



DOCUP -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 3:10:18 AM)

John

Post number 11

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2594041&mpage=1&key=�

They would of prob not been converted in my book.

edit: look at post 49 also.



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 4:24:18 AM)

I PM'd Gary about this.



wdolson -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 4:35:26 AM)

I suspect if the US did have such hybrids, they would have been converted early in the war if not before. The Lexingtons had the 8 inch turrets removed in March 42.

The US was conducting a crash program to convert the Independence class CVLs while under construction. If a couple of hybrid cruiser carriers have been around, the navy planners probably would have seen them as cheap CVLs faster to convert to full CVLs than the Independence class carriers. The Independence class only came about because the navy foresaw that there would likely be a shortage of deck capacity by early 43 and the Essex class wouldn't be available in numbers until late 43. The CVLs were a stopgap.

Bill



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 5:20:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I suspect if the US did have such hybrids, they would have been converted early in the war if not before. The Lexingtons had the 8 inch turrets removed in March 42.

The US was conducting a crash program to convert the Independence class CVLs while under construction. If a couple of hybrid cruiser carriers have been around, the navy planners probably would have seen them as cheap CVLs faster to convert to full CVLs than the Independence class carriers. The Independence class only came about because the navy foresaw that there would likely be a shortage of deck capacity by early 43 and the Essex class wouldn't be available in numbers until late 43. The CVLs were a stopgap.

Bill


Bill: Everything said in the above Post makes great sense. I think this is something that could be done.

RA allows for a near immediate set of conversions. A number of AOs can become CVEs as well as the Omaha-Class can become CLAA. Would only make sense to allow this option as well for the hybrid.

Any thoughts for a name to this unique little bird?



Hotschi -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 6:34:43 PM)

About names, if like CV's after famous ships or battles;

1.) Wright
2.) Constellation
3.) Constitution
4.) Kitty Hawk
5.) Any Civil War Battle not used for the Essex/Ticonderoga

Or take territories (just like the late-war CB's)



Don Bowen -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/16/2013 7:53:58 PM)

North Point (the land portion of the defense of Baltimore in the War of 1814)

Kings Mountain (the companion battle to Cowpens)

Stone Mountain (a civil war battle before Atlanta where, incidentally, my mother's grandfather was severely wounded)

Shiloh (civil war)

Fredericksburg (both a city and a civil war battle so both cruiser and carrier naming conventions work)



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/17/2013 2:41:07 AM)

Fredericksburg certainly fits for BOTH categories.



oldman45 -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/17/2013 1:10:11 PM)

What planes would you have on there in 1941? Not sure the Buffalo's would work and the SBD's might be too heavy.



John 3rd -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/17/2013 4:24:19 PM)

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.



oldman45 -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/17/2013 6:01:15 PM)

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.



RevRick -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 4:06:55 PM)

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..



oldman45 -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 4:17:47 PM)

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.



pcellsworth -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 10:58:19 PM)

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.



Terminus -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 11:06:25 PM)

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.



Don Bowen -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 11:24:49 PM)


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).



[image]local://upfiles/757/CFB9E3845BAC4A4DB228839FFCF4AA73.jpg[/image]



JuanG -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 11:41:23 PM)

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



Don Bowen -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/29/2013 11:52:11 PM)

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.



oldman45 -> RE: US Aircraft Cruisers (4/30/2013 12:46:29 AM)

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(]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125