Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 5:15:46 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
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



_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 5:25:20 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 2
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 5:42:11 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 3
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 6:13:27 AM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 4
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 10:27:49 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________


(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 5
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 11:56:47 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3335
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline 		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!

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 6
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 1:20:22 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline 		Why need convert if can build?

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 7
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 3:16:55 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 8
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 9:05:07 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
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

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 9
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 10:30:07 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 10
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 10:32:11 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by msieving1 -- 9/7/2013 10:51:54 PM >

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 11
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 11:13:38 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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...



Bill
(Had to look twice to see what you were referring to. Damn typos.)

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 12
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/7/2013 11:27:54 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline 		There were plans for US conversions of passenger ships. The Navy didn't think that they were going to be worth the effort.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 13
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/8/2013 4:43:28 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		60 planes!

But pretty much no protection. And slow. Very slow.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 14
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/8/2013 10:57:51 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Even slower than the Hiyos. Good luck operating those with the fleet.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 15
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/9/2013 12:48:19 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/9/2013 6:13:56 PM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 17
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/9/2013 7:10:28 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 18
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/9/2013 7:35:03 PM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 19
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/9/2013 8:39:09 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
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.







That's one fuggly ship.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 20
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/9/2013 11:28:57 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 21
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 12:59:36 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
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...
B

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 22
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 1:11:32 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 23
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 1:38:39 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 686
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 24
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 1:45:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
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 . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 25
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 7:44:07 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 26
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 7:58:15 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
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...
B


Rocket Wheel was in one episode of Dad's Army comedy series...and it was hilarious episode indeed.


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 27
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 8:11:33 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 686
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 28
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 8:14:06 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 29
RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? - 9/10/2013 8:15:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Rocket Wheel was in one episode of Dad's Army comedy series...and it was hilarious episode indeed.



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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Allied passenger liners to CV conversions? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.336