Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (Full Version)

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

Message

Jorge_Stanbury -> Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 5:15:46 AM)
Question on CV conversions Was there any Allied attempt to convert passenger liners to carriers? Japan was relatively succesful with the Hiyô class. a passenger liner CVE would be almost as fast as a fleet carrier and could carry more planes than a CVL. Between December 1941 and the end of 1942, they could had helped a lot. My guess is that liners were badly needed for the invasion of Europe and/ or conversion would had taken so long that it was better to wait to the superior Independence/ Essex

warspite1 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 5:25:20 AM)
I understood there were plans drawn up to convert both Queens - Elizabeth and Mary - into carriers early in the war, but they were too important as troopships to be spared.

wdolson -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 5:42:11 AM)
The fastest passenger ships were only about 22-24 knots top speed. With the added weight topside for the deck and hanger, they may have been even slower. That's too slow for a fleet carrier and a conversion would lack much in the way of armor. Another drawback for being a fleet carrier. These were problems with the Hiyo and Junyo as well ass the other passenger ship conversions. Most of the Japanese conversions were originally built with conversion in mind. The Allied passenger ships didn't have the "hooks" built in to convert them to carriers quickly, so it would have taken more effort to do the conversions. Among the first CVEs built by the US were converted tankers. They were quite good carriers with capabilities approaching the Independence CVLs. However, the hulls were too valuable as tankers to make a lot of conversions. In the end making CVEs out of more common merchant hulls made a lot more sense. For invasion support a larger carrier might have been more useful, but for convoy escort the smaller CVEs proved to be very good. Converting large passenger ships would have been costly, taken quite a while, and may not have been as useful as the CVEs that were built. In the end I think the Allied CVEs were a more successful production strategy. Bill

Capt Cliff -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 6:13:27 AM)
With all the CVE's and CVL's the Allies get it's not worth it, IMHO. Like the Japanese conversions they would carry a small air group anyway and be slow not 30 knots. Anyway a proper conversion would most like take as long as building a new CVL from scratch. The Allies had such vast shipyard capacity and the Japanese such limited capacity conversion of passenger liners was a must for Japan. Besides carving out a hanger deck and getting cg just right on a liner would have been a pain. You'd have to blue print the liner to be sure. No the allies needed those liners, but for some strange reason the allies don't need them in WitP. Most of my allied liners have been sitting in San Francisco since 12/7/41, I don't need them. So I think the load capacity of troopship might not be modeled properly.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 10:27:49 AM)
Yes, I was not taking into account the "sneaky" factor...Japanese were able to convert liners and auxiliaries quite easy because their design was dual purpose

dr.hal -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 11:56:47 AM)
The key is, as stated above, that the liners were built with conversion in mind. The British did the same thing but with "troop ships" in mind. The put "hard points" in their liners for gun emplacements and other things (ammo storage) that would make the ship very easy to convert. It's much like our airliners today where the seats are made to take out at a moment's notice!

btbw -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 1:20:22 PM)
Why need convert if can build?

Terminus -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 3:16:55 PM)
The Hiyos were in no way successful. As for the Allies, their passenger liners were far too useful for troop transport duties to waste time converting. The MAC ship programme and later CVE classes fulfilled their needs adequately.

geofflambert -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 9:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The fastest passenger ships were only about 22-24 knots top speed. With the added weight topside for the deck and hanger, they may have been even slower. That's too slow for a fleet carrier and a conversion would lack much in the way of armor. Another drawback for being a fleet carrier. These were problems with the Hiyo and Junyo as well ass the other passenger ship conversions. Most of the Japanese conversions were originally built with conversion in mind. The Allied passenger ships didn't have the "hooks" built in to convert them to carriers quickly, so it would have taken more effort to do the conversions. Among the first CVEs built by the US were converted tankers. They were quite good carriers with capabilities approaching the Independence CVLs. However, the hulls were too valuable as tankers to make a lot of conversions. In the end making CVEs out of more common merchant hulls made a lot more sense. For invasion support a larger carrier might have been more useful, but for convoy escort the smaller CVEs proved to be very good. Converting large passenger ships would have been costly, taken quite a while, and may not have been as useful as the CVEs that were built. In the end I think the Allied CVEs were a more successful production strategy. Bill Bill, c'mon, you're the flippin' moderator

warspite1 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 10:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The fastest passenger ships were only about 22-24 knots top speed. With the added weight topside for the deck and hanger, they may have been even slower. That's too slow for a fleet carrier and a conversion would lack much in the way of armor. Another drawback for being a fleet carrier. These were problems with the Hiyo and Junyo as well ass the other passenger ship conversions. Most of the Japanese conversions were originally built with conversion in mind. The Allied passenger ships didn't have the "hooks" built in to convert them to carriers quickly, so it would have taken more effort to do the conversions. Among the first CVEs built by the US were converted tankers. They were quite good carriers with capabilities approaching the Independence CVLs. However, the hulls were too valuable as tankers to make a lot of conversions. In the end making CVEs out of more common merchant hulls made a lot more sense. For invasion support a larger carrier might have been more useful, but for convoy escort the smaller CVEs proved to be very good. Converting large passenger ships would have been costly, taken quite a while, and may not have been as useful as the CVEs that were built. In the end I think the Allied CVEs were a more successful production strategy. Bill Bill, c'mon, you're the flippin' moderator warspite1 Agreed. That sort of language is just completely out of place here Mr Potty Mouth [:-]

msieving1 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 10:32:11 PM)
The US gave some thought to converting passenger liners to auxiliary fleet carriers. It was decided that the ships were more valuable as troop carriers. See http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_auxil.htm It might be something to consider, at least as an option, for an alt-history mod. Another possible conversion to consider would be the British MAC ships, or merchant aircraft carriers. These were cargo carriers with a flight deck added, but no hanger, and could operate 4 aircraft. IRL they were only used in the Atlantic, but if Japanese subs had been a greater threat to shipping it seems likely there would have been MAC ships in the Indian Ocean or Pacific.

wdolson -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 11:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson The fastest passenger ships were only about 22-24 knots top speed. With the added weight topside for the deck and hanger, they may have been even slower. That's too slow for a fleet carrier and a conversion would lack much in the way of armor. Another drawback for being a fleet carrier. These were problems with the Hiyo and Junyo as well ass the other passenger ship conversions. [snip] quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert Bill, c'mon, you're the flippin' moderator warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Agreed. That sort of language is just completely out of place here Mr Potty Mouth [:-] I'll go commit sepaku now... [sm=fighting0045.gif] Bill (Had to look twice to see what you were referring to. Damn typos.)

MateDow -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/7/2013 11:27:54 PM)
There were plans for US conversions of passenger ships. The Navy didn't think that they were going to be worth the effort. [image]local://upfiles/7311/A31A1F201ABE4A4CBCB37A089B5A8762.jpg[/image]

Lokasenna -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/8/2013 4:43:28 AM)
60 planes! But pretty much no protection. And slow. Very slow.

Terminus -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/8/2013 10:57:51 AM)
Even slower than the Hiyos. Good luck operating those with the fleet.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/9/2013 12:48:19 AM)
Yes, not that great; but if available in early or mid 1942, I would had taken them or maybe use as carrier flag in the Atlantic and move CV-4 Ranger to the Pacific

Amoral -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/9/2013 6:13:56 PM)
Akitsu maru is a passenger liner converted to be a flat-topped amphibious assult ship. In the game it can only carry float planes, but in real life it launched aircraft.

String -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/9/2013 7:10:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral Akitsu maru is a passenger liner converted to be a flat-topped amphibious assult ship. In the game it can only carry float planes, but in real life it launched aircraft. It launched them but IIRC it couldn't recover them. The idea being that the ship carried the aircraft to be flow off on to a newly captured airfield

Amoral -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/9/2013 7:35:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String quote: ORIGINAL: Amoral Akitsu maru is a passenger liner converted to be a flat-topped amphibious assult ship. In the game it can only carry float planes, but in real life it launched aircraft. It launched them but IIRC it couldn't recover them. The idea being that the ship carried the aircraft to be flow off on to a newly captured airfield That might be right. Akitsu was operated by the IJA, and didn't have access to trained carrier pilots nor the experience of carrier ops that the IJN would have. In the game it is valuable because it provides an unload bonus when it is in an amphibious TF. The air capacity is secondary.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/9/2013 8:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MateDow There were plans for US conversions of passenger ships. The Navy didn't think that they were going to be worth the effort. [image]local://upfiles/7311/A31A1F201ABE4A4CBCB37A089B5A8762.jpg[/image] That's one fuggly ship.

wdolson -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/9/2013 11:28:57 PM)
How about this one? http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20110915/concept-aircraft-carrier-ice-2/ A drawing next to a modern CVN http://airlinepilotguy.com/apg-048-part-2-project-habukkuk/ Only problem is that operating in the tropics could weaken hull integrity. Bill

Gunner98 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 12:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson How about this one? http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20110915/concept-aircraft-carrier-ice-2/ A drawing next to a modern CVN http://airlinepilotguy.com/apg-048-part-2-project-habukkuk/ Only problem is that operating in the tropics could weaken hull integrity. Bill I remember reading about this concept in the 80's, a way of saturating the North Atlantic with air power either to support Iceland and the GIUK gap or to replace the loss of Reykjavik and Keflavik should Iceland fall. Every conflict has to have its whacky ideas - the rocket wheel to clear beach obstacles for instance, (circa 43) was in there with the AVRE and Flail tanks. Some work, some don't, most make you scratch your head when you first see them though... [:D] B

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 1:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson How about this one? http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20110915/concept-aircraft-carrier-ice-2/ A drawing next to a modern CVN http://airlinepilotguy.com/apg-048-part-2-project-habukkuk/ Only problem is that operating in the tropics could weaken hull integrity. Bill "Only" problem?! [:)] The heat management from propulsion alone would have sent a division of naval architects screaming into the river. And the stresses imposed by freezing and melting ice on the structural members around the operational core? Wow. Ice is some powerful stuff when it gets into big chunks.

catwhoorg -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 1:38:39 PM)
Pykrete was tested by mythbusters a while back, they made a small boat and sailed in it, using their own version (which was made with newspaper rather than sawdust) It really is a unique material. Its a fascinating design study. Full of its own flaws to be sure.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 1:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catwhoorg Pykrete was tested by mythbusters a while back, they made a small boat and sailed in it, using their own version (which was made with newspaper rather than sawdust) It really is a unique material. Its a fascinating design study. Full of its own flaws to be sure. I don't know how different pykrete is than raw ice in its ability to squeeze, but I'll take your word for it. An 80/20 ice/sawdust ratio would be better I think, but how much I don't know. What I was somewhat reacting to was the picture of a BB being embedded in pykrete. A purpose-built core might work if it were designed from scratch to be encased in pykrete. A BB put inside the stuff? Disaster IMO. Just picturing how main seawater intakes would work if they had a vertical lift to get the engineroom . . .

MateDow -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 7:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I don't know how different pykrete is than raw ice in its ability to squeeze, but I'll take your word for it. An 80/20 ice/sawdust ratio would be better I think, but how much I don't know. What I was somewhat reacting to was the picture of a BB being embedded in pykrete. A purpose-built core might work if it were designed from scratch to be encased in pykrete. A BB put inside the stuff? Disaster IMO. Just picturing how main seawater intakes would work if they had a vertical lift to get the engineroom . . . I also don't know how the pykrete would work, but I can comment on lifting cooling water. The rig that I work on has the main engines mounted 29 meters (95 feet) above the keel. We pump cooling water up for 8 3,500 kW generators for cooling. The saltwater cooling pumps are mounted down at the seachests, and then have the vertical rise. The US Navy actually looked at using semi-submersible vessels (drilling rig types) as advanced airfields in the Indian Ocean around 2000. The chair of the Joint Chiefs came out to do a tour and ask questions about positioning and such. IIRC, they were talking about linking 6 together to make an 1800 foot runway for STOL operations. When they needed to move it, they would have divided into the component parts and transited at 6 knots. Even joined together, they could probably move at 3-4 knots if necessary.

Sardaukar -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 7:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gunner98 quote: ORIGINAL: wdolson How about this one? http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20110915/concept-aircraft-carrier-ice-2/ A drawing next to a modern CVN http://airlinepilotguy.com/apg-048-part-2-project-habukkuk/ Only problem is that operating in the tropics could weaken hull integrity. Bill I remember reading about this concept in the 80's, a way of saturating the North Atlantic with air power either to support Iceland and the GIUK gap or to replace the loss of Reykjavik and Keflavik should Iceland fall. Every conflict has to have its whacky ideas - the rocket wheel to clear beach obstacles for instance, (circa 43) was in there with the AVRE and Flail tanks. Some work, some don't, most make you scratch your head when you first see them though... [:D] B Rocket Wheel was in one episode of Dad's Army comedy series...and it was hilarious episode indeed. [:D]

catwhoorg -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 8:11:33 PM)
A fun little project for mooselings (grandmooslings ?) if of a reasonable age. Get two identical containers, that you can freeze water in and remove fairly easily. In one - do just that In the second add some hamster bedding/sawdust, water mix and freeze. (put on eye protection) Take hammer to 1st and watch it shatter Take hammer to second, and watch how it absorbs the blows.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 8:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MateDow quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I don't know how different pykrete is than raw ice in its ability to squeeze, but I'll take your word for it. An 80/20 ice/sawdust ratio would be better I think, but how much I don't know. What I was somewhat reacting to was the picture of a BB being embedded in pykrete. A purpose-built core might work if it were designed from scratch to be encased in pykrete. A BB put inside the stuff? Disaster IMO. Just picturing how main seawater intakes would work if they had a vertical lift to get the engineroom . . . I also don't know how the pykrete would work, but I can comment on lifting cooling water. The rig that I work on has the main engines mounted 29 meters (95 feet) above the keel. We pump cooling water up for 8 3,500 kW generators for cooling. The saltwater cooling pumps are mounted down at the seachests, and then have the vertical rise. The US Navy actually looked at using semi-submersible vessels (drilling rig types) as advanced airfields in the Indian Ocean around 2000. The chair of the Joint Chiefs came out to do a tour and ask questions about positioning and such. IIRC, they were talking about linking 6 together to make an 1800 foot runway for STOL operations. When they needed to move it, they would have divided into the component parts and transited at 6 knots. Even joined together, they could probably move at 3-4 knots if necessary. Yeah, but that rig was designed that way. A WWII BB had seawater intakes already designed, and didn't have to haul massive pumps around to lift against a 100 foot head. And that's only one system. Lots of aux. seawater systems. Then you have to deal with refueling, stack gases, potable water, sewage, etc., etc. Take a Honda Civic, encase it in ice, see how well it does on the interstate. [:)]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? (9/10/2013 8:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar Rocket Wheel was in one episode of Dad's Army comedy series...and it was hilarious episode indeed. [:D] I recently watched most of the documentary series "The World at War." It has footage of this device as well in the D-Day ep.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875