A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (Full Version)

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



Message

Don Bowen -> A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/2/2014 12:15:54 AM)


Looking at the Ark Royal ii (or Audacious) and Hermes ii classes of carriers.

The Ark Royals had all been laid down in late 42 into 1943, and the Hermes (first three) in the first half of 1944 (plus one more in 5/45).

None of these were even launched by the end of the war, and completion (of those not cancelled) stretched on for years.

My question:

If the war in the pacific had not ended in late 1945 but continued for a couple more years... would these ships have been completed to their original designs? And, if so, about when would they be available?



Don Bowen -> OK, let me try a different tact (5/3/2014 7:30:27 PM)


Does anyone have ship art for these two classes? I know Gary Childress has an excellent Malta but I don't know of any Ark Royal ii or Hermes ii sides/shills...



oldman45 -> RE: OK, let me try a different tact (5/4/2014 1:50:42 AM)

I think I have the Audacious class in a folder, but I won't be home till sometime Sunday. I wish I could remember where I got it from.

To the original question, none of my books go into why there were the delays, if we knew that we might be able to extrapolate how long it would have taken to finish them if the war needed them.

Another thing to think about, all the Essex class that got cancelled in 44/45. Did you include those in your game?



Terminus -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 9:24:28 AM)

I think the delays were ascribed to the same reason that the Lion class got cancelled: limited yard space that had to be used for more urgent tasks. None of the ships were expected to enter service until 1950/51.



warspite1 -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 9:45:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Looking at the Ark Royal ii (or Audacious) and Hermes ii classes of carriers.

The Ark Royals had all been laid down in late 42 into 1943, and the Hermes (first three) in the first half of 1944 (plus one more in 5/45).

None of these were even launched by the end of the war, and completion (of those not cancelled) stretched on for years.

My question:

If the war in the pacific had not ended in late 1945 but continued for a couple more years... would these ships have been completed to their original designs? And, if so, about when would they be available?
warspite1

Never mind.....[8|]



Terminus -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 10:06:33 AM)

Plus, the RN built their series of light carriers IRL, where are they in this scenario?



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 3:11:34 PM)


I'm looking at possibilities for an extended war in the Pacific. Basic premise has Japan holding out longer and Kamikazes taking a heavy toll.

The British had only the six large fleet carriers and were concentrating on slower CVL that were really improved CVE - merchant construction standards and medium speeds (Colossus/Majestic). These would have (obviously I think) been completed had the war continued. Also the classes of cruisers and destroyers currently in production.

Sitting (languishing) on the ways were the Audacious and Hermes ii classes, with some more Hermes planned but not yet laid down.

So, what would have happened if the existing British carrier fleet was decimated in late 1945/early 1946?

I am simply exploring the possibility of the British really needing these new carriers, and how long it would take to get them into service if they were assigned top priority.





Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 4:20:13 PM)

Are these any good? Audacious CV and Centaur CVL

[image]local://upfiles/20142/77C4C475A24F459B9BB9491218E3153F.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 4:44:43 PM)


Those look great! Do you happen to have them in .bmp ??



Symon -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 5:21:57 PM)

To figure this out, you need to step way back and then feed-forward. When things were hot and decks were a priority, this is what the Brits could do.

Illustrious Class
Avg 24 months from Keel to launch. Launch included flight deck layout.
Avg 21 months from launch to completion.
Avg 6 months from completion to commission. Includes sea trials.
Add a couple months for workup to deployment.

Indefatigable Class
Avg 26 months from Keel to launch. Launch included flight deck layout
Avg 16 months from launch to completion.
Avg 6 months from completion to commission. Includes sea trials.

So they took the Indefatigables from 51 months to 48. Sounds about right given the heat. But your paradigm needs to determine where your vessels were in the flow when the Admiralty Order to “Gimme them Now!” came down. Shipbuilding is a three part process. You gotta build the hulls, and that ain’t hard, because who wants something on the ways that’s gonna interfere with commercial enterprise?

So if they are finished “enough” then get ‘em done and launch ‘em; let the RN sort it out. Otherwise, cannibalize the steel and do something else. So your paradigm needs to think about where these vessels were in the construction flow.

Some of them, depending on timing, could have been accelerated, depending on their positioning in the flow. The others, would drift into the nether-land of immediate post war imperatives and die a natural death.

Just myo. John



RedLancer -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 5:46:13 PM)

Dixie's artwork is way, way better but here are the versions I use in my mod.



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 6:03:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

To figure this out, you need to step way back and then feed-forward. When things were hot and decks were a priority, this is what the Brits could do.

Illustrious Class
Avg 24 months from Keel to launch. Launch included flight deck layout.
Avg 21 months from launch to completion.
Avg 6 months from completion to commission. Includes sea trials.
Add a couple months for workup to deployment.

Indefatigable Class
Avg 26 months from Keel to launch. Launch included flight deck layout
Avg 16 months from launch to completion.
Avg 6 months from completion to commission. Includes sea trials.

So they took the Indefatigables from 51 months to 48. Sounds about right given the heat. But your paradigm needs to determine where your vessels were in the flow when the Admiralty Order to “Gimme them Now!” came down. Shipbuilding is a three part process. You gotta build the hulls, and that ain’t hard, because who wants something on the ways that’s gonna interfere with commercial enterprise?

So if they are finished “enough” then get ‘em done and launch ‘em; let the RN sort it out. Otherwise, cannibalize the steel and do something else. So your paradigm needs to think about where these vessels were in the construction flow.

Some of them, depending on timing, could have been accelerated, depending on their positioning in the flow. The others, would drift into the nether-land of immediate post war imperatives and die a natural death.

Just myo. John



This is getting interesting.

A couple of things I don't know and wish I did.
- How close to launch were the most advanced units of each class as of 9/45?
- If some of the Illustrious and Unpronounceable classes had been lost prior to 9/45, would the British have accelerated the Audacious class?

In some ways I miss the Japanese-only functions to prioritize ships in the queue. For my mod, I'm considering putting in the first 2 Audacious and the first 4 Centaur with 1946 arrivals and lots of damage (at the UK Base). Also many other British ships not completed at the end of the war. Then emulate construction prioritization with repair prioritization.

Don't want to get too far out in left field, but I am intrigued by "what if" for a longer war.







wdolson -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/4/2014 10:20:01 PM)

This has the date each carrier was laid down. That might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

Bill



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/5/2014 2:38:34 AM)


Thanks Bill

I'm working from
http://www.amazon.com/British-Empire-Warships-Second-World/dp/1557500487/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1399257423&sr=1-20
which gives a lot of data and is what is generating all these questions...



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/5/2014 3:28:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Are these any good? Audacious CV and Centaur CVL

[image]local://upfiles/20142/77C4C475A24F459B9BB9491218E3153F.jpg[/image]


Is that Centaur a late-life version. I notice the large port side sponson - in the original design I believe there was a deck-edge lift instead???



oldman45 -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/6/2014 9:30:23 PM)

Don. after doing some more reading, I am not sure they really could have built them faster, maybe take off a year. It appears they had a hard time with the design.



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/6/2014 9:50:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Don. after doing some more reading, I am not sure they really could have built them faster, maybe take off a year. It appears they had a hard time with the design.


Very true. The Audacious class went through at least two major design changes which caused the extensive delay in completion.

During the war, they were redesigned to take the (larger) USN carrier aircraft. This required hanger heights to be increased to 17 1/2 feet, with corresponding upward changes in general size.

AFTER the end of the war, it was decided to re-design again "to incorporate the sum total of war experience". This, combined with post war conditions, led to even more delays in completion.

I note with chagrin that none of these ships were launched by the end of the war, but I am pressing ahead regardless.

What if the small number of British fleet carriers had been reduced by heavy losses in the Pacific? Perhaps even in 1942?

I think this gives two opportunities for the earlier completion of these ships:
1. Early to mid war losses would have to be replaced lest the Royal Navy end up with insufficient fleet carriers to conduct operations in late 1945 and on.
2, If the war did not end in late summer, 1945, the second redesign possibly/probably may not have taken place.

This is the historical justification that I am using. For game purposes, I am concerned that a little bad luck in early/mid war could reduce the Royal Navy's carrier forces to insignificance.

Edited to de-finger flub!



Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/6/2014 10:15:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Are these any good? Audacious CV and Centaur CVL

[image]local://upfiles/20142/77C4C475A24F459B9BB9491218E3153F.jpg[/image]


Is that Centaur a late-life version. I notice the large port side sponson - in the original design I believe there was a deck-edge lift instead???


The pics I've seen are two lifts in the flight deck. The image was made from this pic on navypedia but with a few changes to the mast and radar fit. Some other versions of HMS Centaur as built are on this page: http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1745



[image]local://upfiles/20142/51317A35A080449FA06AC7FB6DD63388.gif[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/6/2014 10:24:25 PM)

Obviously right, Sir.

That'll teach me to believe stuff from Wikipedia.

Don

edit: Great drawings on shipbucket. I wish someone had one for the original design (or as of 1945).
I can see that the sponson was always there. Used to support the port-side AA armament before becoming a deck extension support.



oldman45 -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/7/2014 11:47:11 AM)

Using your arguement, I could see at least one of the Audacious coming out in 45. On the flip side, perhaps they would build more in the CVL range to go in a support role with the US CV's. If the war was going badly for the Allies, you would have several US carriers completed instead of being canceled. Perhaps the US would turn them over to the Brits.



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/8/2014 12:57:09 PM)


Thanks all for your help.

I believe I will put these six ships into my mod with arrivals in late 1946 through mid-1947. Ships to arrive in a damaged state in the UK (about 33% systems and 10% major engine).

If the war does last that long, they will be needed.



Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/10/2014 8:54:42 PM)

How about putting these in? [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/20142/A8A5E9104BBB46FF89E5DA9A50159121.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/10/2014 9:19:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

How about putting these in? [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/20142/A8A5E9104BBB46FF89E5DA9A50159121.jpg[/image]



Hey, that's good art. I'll have to put them in so I can use it.

Got anything on USN CVNs?? Have to figure out how to represent the nuclear power though, the endurance field is too small!



wdolson -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/10/2014 10:22:00 PM)

Going to do the Final Countdown scenario with the Nimitz at Pearl Harbor?

Bill



Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 10:16:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

How about putting these in? [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/20142/A8A5E9104BBB46FF89E5DA9A50159121.jpg[/image]



Hey, that's good art. I'll have to put them in so I can use it.

Got anything on USN CVNs?? Have to figure out how to represent the nuclear power though, the endurance field is too small!


Not a lot really, I only made Hermes because I was bored and I had the basic Centaur to modify it from. I'm not sure how much stuff the USN had in development at the end of WW2 and immediate post war period, but the RN/FAA had quite a lot of stuff that would have/did fly from carriers prior to the jets coming aboard. Which is why I've got Sea Furies, Griffon Seafires, Firebrands, Sea Mosquitos, Sea Hornets, Seafangs and Firefly NFs in BPF markings. Plus the RN had some new carriers under construction.

Compared to the RN, I know little about the USN. Apart from the Midways were any 'new' CV types being built in the US?



Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 10:17:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Going to do the Final Countdown scenario with the Nimitz at Pearl Harbor?

Bill


They aren't great, but they only took 10 minutes to knock up by using some 'ready made' profiles. The markings are a best match from what's easily available...

[image]local://upfiles/20142/7393C6923E094605BE666EFE4FD7E43C.jpg[/image]



oldman45 -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 11:09:00 AM)

WoW. 10 minutes Dixie? It took me 10 minutes to find my glasses so I could look at your jets. Amazing stuff pal.



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 1:29:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Hey, that's good art. I'll have to put them in so I can use it.

Got anything on USN CVNs?? Have to figure out how to represent the nuclear power though, the endurance field is too small!


Not a lot really, I only made Hermes because I was bored and I had the basic Centaur to modify it from. I'm not sure how much stuff the USN had in development at the end of WW2 and immediate post war period, but the RN/FAA had quite a lot of stuff that would have/did fly from carriers prior to the jets coming aboard. Which is why I've got Sea Furies, Griffon Seafires, Firebrands, Sea Mosquitos, Sea Hornets, Seafangs and Firefly NFs in BPF markings. Plus the RN had some new carriers under construction.

Compared to the RN, I know little about the USN. Apart from the Midways were any 'new' CV types being built in the US?



OK, I admit that I was not serious. I know I'm out on a limb with the Audacious and Centaur classes and I figured you were pulling my leg a bit with the modern stuff.

But seriously, folks...

No, the USN did not have anything behind the Midways. Design work was in progress for the next class but it was still being debated when the war ended. CVB X, as it was known, continued under design until about the end of the 1940s and then was laid down (as USS United States) but quickly cancelled. I think it only spent about a week on the stocks.

One Midway was cancelled in early 1943 for resource reasons and two more when the 1945 program was shot down. No American carrier was ordered under the 1944 or 1945 programs except for some additional escort carriers.

If you think I'm stretching for the Audacious/Centaur classes, you should see what I've worked up for their airgroups!!!!



Dixie -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 4:56:02 PM)

These were my late war FAA airgroup types. There's a lot of room for what-if type and the Royal Navy, aircraft that were in development and ships that were cancelled or delayed. I did have art for quite a bit of the RN in the Korean War/early Cold War somewhere, most of it's gone now though.

[image]local://upfiles/20142/D89748510AF1404FBDE882638518C8E5.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: A question for you Royal Navy types (I know you are out there) (5/11/2014 6:30:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

These were my late war FAA airgroup types. There's a lot of room for what-if type and the Royal Navy, aircraft that were in development and ships that were cancelled or delayed. I did have art for quite a bit of the RN in the Korean War/early Cold War somewhere, most of it's gone now though.




I have data on the US-style Carrier Air Groups that were being formed for the Royal Navy Pacific Fleet. About 19 of them specified, some with intended ships and others just classes. I "assumed" the series would continue and made up more if I needed them - starting with the next higher number.

As for squadrons, I "extended" the squadron number series in use at the end of the war:
170x for amphibious Bomber-Recon (Sea Otters)
177x for 2-seat fighters (Firefly)
179x for Night Fighters (Firefly NF)
18xx for single seat fighters (mostly US Types)
8xx for early squadrons of most types, with several sub ranges.

In the end, I literally "assumed" that squadrons in the 8xx range that were disbanded in Europe late-war would be reformed when needed in the Pacific.

Impossible to replicate the movement of squadrons from carrier to carrier that happened in real life.

Anyway, I "assigned" CAGs to all CV and CVL (except Hermes I) and "found" squadrons to fill them out.

Don

P.S. What's that aircraft in the upper left?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375