Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US Aircraft Cruisers

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> US Aircraft Cruisers Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/15/2013 11:42:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
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...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Post #: 1
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/15/2013 11:49:32 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 4/15/2013 11:50:30 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/15/2013 11:50:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
The information I just used comes from John Jordan's Warships After Washington.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/15/2013 11:54:31 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I know. When would you propose that the USN would construct this mutant? Not a lot of money to throw around in the Navy before the Two Ocean Act.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 4/15/2013 11:59:01 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 12:00:19 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Solid comment. Even Roosevelt couldn't squeeze more blood from the deficit turnip for his beloved Navy...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 12:11:32 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 6
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 12:52:07 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2821
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: online
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. 

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 1:25:39 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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.




(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 8
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 1:40:59 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
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...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 9
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 1:42:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Does anyone have ART WORK of this ship? Anyone interesting in trying to make some?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 1:56:30 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10237
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 11
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 2:54:56 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
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.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 12
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 3:10:18 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2821
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: online
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.

< Message edited by DOCUP -- 4/16/2013 4:20:29 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 13
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 4:24:18 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
I PM'd Gary about this.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 14
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 4:35:26 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10237
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 15
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 5:20:46 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online

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?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 16
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 6:34:43 PM   
Hotschi


Posts: 544
Joined: 1/18/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
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)

_____________________________

"A big butcher's bill is not necessarily evidence of good tactics"

- Wavell's reply to Churchill, after the latter complained about faint-heartedness, as he discovered that British casualties in the evacuation from Somaliland had been only 260 men.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 17
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/16/2013 7:53:58 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
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)

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 4/16/2013 8:34:57 PM >

(in reply to Hotschi)
Post #: 18
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/17/2013 2:41:07 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Fredericksburg certainly fits for BOTH categories.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 19
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/17/2013 1:10:11 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2318
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
What planes would you have on there in 1941? Not sure the Buffalo's would work and the SBD's might be too heavy.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 20
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/17/2013 4:24:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14766
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
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.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 21
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/17/2013 6:01:15 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2318
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 22
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 4:06:55 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2559
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline
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..

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 23
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 4:17:47 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2318
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 24
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 10:58:19 PM   
pcellsworth

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/28/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 25
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 11:06:25 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to pcellsworth)
Post #: 26
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 11:24:49 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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).






Attachment (1)

(in reply to pcellsworth)
Post #: 27
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 11:41:23 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Interesting design. Either thats a really optimistic number for displacement, or its armour isnt up to battleship standards. Any information on which it is?

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 28
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/29/2013 11:52:11 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 4/29/2013 11:53:59 PM >

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 29
RE: US Aircraft Cruisers - 4/30/2013 12:46:29 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2318
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> US Aircraft Cruisers Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.211