Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »


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

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by warspite1 »

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.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by 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
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Capt Cliff
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
Location: Northwest, USA

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Capt Cliff »

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
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

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
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by dr.hal »

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
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by btbw »

Why need convert if can build?
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Terminus »

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.
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by geofflambert »

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

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

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 [:-]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
msieving1
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:24 am
Location: Missouri

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by msieving1 »

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.
-- Mark Sieving
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by wdolson »

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]
ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Bill, c'mon, you're the flippin' moderator
warspite1
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
Image
User avatar
MateDow
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:00 am

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by 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
Attachments
President..nversion.jpg
President..nversion.jpg (38.46 KiB) Viewed 182 times
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Lokasenna »

60 planes!

But pretty much no protection. And slow. Very slow.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Terminus »

Even slower than the Hiyos. Good luck operating those with the fleet.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

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
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:17 am

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by 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.
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by String »

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
Amoral
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:17 am

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Amoral »

ORIGINAL: String

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.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Allied passenger liners to CV conversions?

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

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

That's one fuggly ship.
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”