BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
That's very true.
Maybe the ships were very manouvreable, and/or very well lead?
As for US verified losses, it's very hard to say. I'll try to find something in my books, but I doubt it will be anytghing of significance.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:49 pm
Re: BattleCarriers - Here's one idea that could do it
IMHO the battlecarrier is only a useful idea in the following capacity:
Take an old battlewagon, say Revenge
Take the FRONT turrets away, side vent the boilers and remove the whole bridge superstructure
Replace with a small island on one side, opposite the vents, and with a small spotting tower
Put down the airstrip - airstrip length approx. 500 feet or so. No need for catapults.
Load in 10-15 Fairey Swordfish - they could take off without steaming into the wind - they could takeoff from merchant carriers, if I recall, even when anchored. But since your ship has the airstrip forward you get a longer strip than if you just remove the rear guns to the stacks (500 feet versus 300 feet).
Now you have the airplanes to do some good ol' fashioned recon, sub hunting, attack a vessel from some distance before she gets in gunnery range.
The key issue has getting them back on the deck...can a swordfish land on a 300 foot deck??? No, but a 500 foot deck on this version is long enough - you just make sure the deck is just slightly above the higher rear turret...
Anyhow, If a raider actually gets in gunnery range, the 15" twins on the broadside will make a raider think twice (since Hitler strictly forbade sustaining damage against other capital ships). Use the spotting tower/radar tower on the airstrip to get range - would be nicer if ya had triple turrets, say the Brazilian 12.5".
Seems to me that this would perhaps be a possibility - could you vent the boilers out the side?
I can't see it working in the USN - Pacific demands more speed - but the convoy method in the Atlantic or Med or Russian routes might allow this to work, since you're at a slow speed all the way that even the Revenge class could exceed.
It would also give some relief to Churchill who complained about the Revenge class, noting that he was anxious as he "...witnessed the Admiralty keep as many thousands of miles between them and the enemy as possible." A battlecarrier like this might just do the trick...
of course, is it even possible to strip the battleship of only the forward turrets and the bridge and keep her from being stern heavy??
The other battlecarrier solution is to just remove the rear turrets and perhaps side vent - you'll have the Ise-like 300+ foot airstrip - cheaper and faster to construct, I guess, but i like the airstrip up front.
mcb
Take an old battlewagon, say Revenge
Take the FRONT turrets away, side vent the boilers and remove the whole bridge superstructure
Replace with a small island on one side, opposite the vents, and with a small spotting tower
Put down the airstrip - airstrip length approx. 500 feet or so. No need for catapults.
Load in 10-15 Fairey Swordfish - they could take off without steaming into the wind - they could takeoff from merchant carriers, if I recall, even when anchored. But since your ship has the airstrip forward you get a longer strip than if you just remove the rear guns to the stacks (500 feet versus 300 feet).
Now you have the airplanes to do some good ol' fashioned recon, sub hunting, attack a vessel from some distance before she gets in gunnery range.
The key issue has getting them back on the deck...can a swordfish land on a 300 foot deck??? No, but a 500 foot deck on this version is long enough - you just make sure the deck is just slightly above the higher rear turret...
Anyhow, If a raider actually gets in gunnery range, the 15" twins on the broadside will make a raider think twice (since Hitler strictly forbade sustaining damage against other capital ships). Use the spotting tower/radar tower on the airstrip to get range - would be nicer if ya had triple turrets, say the Brazilian 12.5".
Seems to me that this would perhaps be a possibility - could you vent the boilers out the side?
I can't see it working in the USN - Pacific demands more speed - but the convoy method in the Atlantic or Med or Russian routes might allow this to work, since you're at a slow speed all the way that even the Revenge class could exceed.
It would also give some relief to Churchill who complained about the Revenge class, noting that he was anxious as he "...witnessed the Admiralty keep as many thousands of miles between them and the enemy as possible." A battlecarrier like this might just do the trick...
of course, is it even possible to strip the battleship of only the forward turrets and the bridge and keep her from being stern heavy??
The other battlecarrier solution is to just remove the rear turrets and perhaps side vent - you'll have the Ise-like 300+ foot airstrip - cheaper and faster to construct, I guess, but i like the airstrip up front.
mcb
- neil hilton
- Senior Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Sorry for the delay in reply.lwd wrote:My first thought is you have now incurred a significant gunnery disadvantage. Where is your main director goiong to be?
The main gunnery director would mounted on top of the 'armoured offset bridge'. A second could be mounted in another offset housing structure further aft. Along with AAA directors.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
I have several of those beautifully illustrated Japanese Gakken 3D computer graphics books about warships. One of them is about proposed or planned or at least sketched 'battleships that never were' from between the wars.
And several of them were these BCVs of which you speak. They looked pretty cool, actually. Very big, like 50,000 tons and up. And a hell of a lot tougher looking than the Ise hybrids. But topheavy looking.
Hey if I was making a Hollywood movie about an alternate history WW Ii, I'd toss a few in there for sure!
But in terms of practicality, I'll take the equivalent tonnage in Essex class CVs I think.
Oh here is a cool link to USA planned (or this guy's fantasy planned in some cases) warships. There is a BCV in there, 3rd one down.
http://wolfsshipyard.mystarship.com/Mis ... united.htm
And several of them were these BCVs of which you speak. They looked pretty cool, actually. Very big, like 50,000 tons and up. And a hell of a lot tougher looking than the Ise hybrids. But topheavy looking.
Hey if I was making a Hollywood movie about an alternate history WW Ii, I'd toss a few in there for sure!
But in terms of practicality, I'll take the equivalent tonnage in Essex class CVs I think.
Oh here is a cool link to USA planned (or this guy's fantasy planned in some cases) warships. There is a BCV in there, 3rd one down.
http://wolfsshipyard.mystarship.com/Mis ... united.htm
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Cool vessel.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Some of the BCVs in that Gakken book make that one from the link look like a kitten.
But they don't look to be very effective in a real naval battle, either. Now I am wondering where the artists got these 'designs' from, since I cannot read the Japanese text. I'm not complaining, they are fun to look at. I will see if I can find some other pictures or links to post.
The one theoretical advantage a BCV might have over a single, equivalent sized (in other words massive) BB or CV; it could cripple a big BB in daytime with airstrikes, then close in to finish it off with the main battery, even if it were smaller than the super BB's battery.
Or it could force a 'super CV' to stay far away from its very lethal guns, while defending itself from airstrikes from the big carrier opponent with CAPs (probably from a fighter heavy air complement), until it could get close enough to sink that CV, maybe. But that's a pretty big maybe!
And that would only be in a 1 on 1 duel. A balanced force of CVs and BBs would always win out over the equivalent BCV task force, that is pretty clear.
But they don't look to be very effective in a real naval battle, either. Now I am wondering where the artists got these 'designs' from, since I cannot read the Japanese text. I'm not complaining, they are fun to look at. I will see if I can find some other pictures or links to post.
The one theoretical advantage a BCV might have over a single, equivalent sized (in other words massive) BB or CV; it could cripple a big BB in daytime with airstrikes, then close in to finish it off with the main battery, even if it were smaller than the super BB's battery.
Or it could force a 'super CV' to stay far away from its very lethal guns, while defending itself from airstrikes from the big carrier opponent with CAPs (probably from a fighter heavy air complement), until it could get close enough to sink that CV, maybe. But that's a pretty big maybe!
And that would only be in a 1 on 1 duel. A balanced force of CVs and BBs would always win out over the equivalent BCV task force, that is pretty clear.
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Hey look what I found!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -61-av.htm
That Gakken book was right on it, listen to this:
"The French, British and Italians also had designs for hybrids. The Russians were going to contract the US to build huge battleship-carriers for them but Congress refused to allow this. The Germans designed a huge ship of over 70,000 tons which carried only 42 aircraft with 6-11/54.5 cal. guns. They were immensely protected but were completely unrealistic as weapons of naval warfare.
World War II Aviation Conversion Proposals
Even though the Iowa design was very remarkable, even as they were being laid down some policy analysts were not sold on that the United States needed more the idea that the United States needed more battleships. Instead, they advocated converting the hulls into aircraft carriers a la Saratoga
(CV-2) and Lexington (CV-3)."
I doubt they ever would have built hybrid Iowas, but it would be cool to see in a movie!
As I recall the biggest, toughest looking hybrids in the Gakken book were the Russian ones, now that I read that it came back to me--they were enormous.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -61-av.htm
That Gakken book was right on it, listen to this:
"The French, British and Italians also had designs for hybrids. The Russians were going to contract the US to build huge battleship-carriers for them but Congress refused to allow this. The Germans designed a huge ship of over 70,000 tons which carried only 42 aircraft with 6-11/54.5 cal. guns. They were immensely protected but were completely unrealistic as weapons of naval warfare.
World War II Aviation Conversion Proposals
Even though the Iowa design was very remarkable, even as they were being laid down some policy analysts were not sold on that the United States needed more the idea that the United States needed more battleships. Instead, they advocated converting the hulls into aircraft carriers a la Saratoga
(CV-2) and Lexington (CV-3)."
I doubt they ever would have built hybrid Iowas, but it would be cool to see in a movie!
As I recall the biggest, toughest looking hybrids in the Gakken book were the Russian ones, now that I read that it came back to me--they were enormous.
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Oh wow, here are models of them, 2 good pictures!
http://www.steelnavy.com/1250AnkerOlsen.htm
12 16" guns and a functioning (if a bit smallish) flight deck, not like the ridiculous Hyuga arrangement.
http://www.steelnavy.com/1250AnkerOlsen.htm
12 16" guns and a functioning (if a bit smallish) flight deck, not like the ridiculous Hyuga arrangement.
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
It looks like a Montana with a flying deck.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Right, that's basically what it would have been, from what I've read while looking for the pictures.
- neil hilton
- Senior Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
These BCV designs were the kind of thing I initially thought of with a flight deck from the stern to the foreward turrets and the bridge structure offset. They do look very cool. I was just wondering if a more generalised hybrid ship would be able tohold its own against more specialised designs.
I don't think they could. The armoured belt required by a BCVs necessarily high sides would make it a slab sided monster in a gunfight and the reduced airgroup even if composed entirely of fighters would give it little long range offensive firepower, thus forcing it to close to gun range and risk it flight deck to plunging fire.
Not a good idea overall IMO.
I don't think they could. The armoured belt required by a BCVs necessarily high sides would make it a slab sided monster in a gunfight and the reduced airgroup even if composed entirely of fighters would give it little long range offensive firepower, thus forcing it to close to gun range and risk it flight deck to plunging fire.
Not a good idea overall IMO.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Looking again at this thread, I don't think that one issue that springs to my mind has been covered - how do you have air operations whilst the heavy guns are firing?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- neil hilton
- Senior Member
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Can't. Before the invention of the steam catapult carriers had to turn into the wind and sail straight for a fairly long time to launch aircraft. They still do for safety reasons. This would make a carrier very vulnerable in a gunfight. Plus you don't want planes lying around on deck full of fuel and explosives with shells falling. The air operations would only be available before and after surface action, I would envisage the aircraft would be secured safely below decks during any surface action.RF wrote:Looking again at this thread, I don't think that one issue that springs to my mind has been covered - how do you have air operations whilst the heavy guns are firing?
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
Does that mean they (and their associated fuel and ammo) are stored below the armored deck? If so then the elevators represent weak spots in the deck armor and also will require considerable amount of space under said armor. If not they are a hazard.
Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?
If I'm spending enough money to build a large warship, I'd prefer a ship that does one thing well rather than a ship that does two things badly.