BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Fri May 21, 2010 1:36 pm

neil hilton wrote:Fighters can be fitted with drop tanks and used as recon planes.
But this presents other problems as well. For instance can the fighters get off the shorter decks of the BCV's with drop tanks? How many drop tanks are you carrying?
So the BCV force could detect the BB and CV. Assuming they do, as well as assuming the CVs scouts detect the 2 BCVs, then the 2 BCVs full airgroups can be scrambled and waiting.
Multicrew aircraft do a better job of scouting. How long can they wait? If you don't know a raid is incoming (ie you haven't spotted the actual raid) scrambling your airgroups is a waste of fuel and may leave you more vulnerable.
The hypothetical scenario I posted could be interpreted as either a full single airstrike or as two or three lesser strikes over the course of a day (the point being if one side does it one way the other side can do so to, fairs fair).
During WWII, especially prior to good air detection radar the CAP you had aloft was likely to be all the CAP you got when a raid came in. You simply don't have time to launch a bunch of planes and get them to effective altitude if you can see the attackers from your ships.
If the BCVs have a similar construction and armour to a BB as I originally posited (as an example) how can a single torp hit cause serious damage when it wouldn't do so to a BB?
Because it will slow them down and make them more vulnerable to follow up raids and eventually the opposing BB. Furthermore by haveing flight decks and aircraft fueling and arming facilities the BCVs will be more suseptable to both bomb and shell damage.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Fri May 21, 2010 1:40 pm

alecsandros wrote:Let's don't forget BCV's realy existed.

THe Japanese Ise and Hyuga displaced ~ 40.000 tons, were equiped with 8 x 356mm guns (2 fw, 2 aft) AND with a hangar and a catapult each.
They were designed to carry 14 dive bombers and 8 float planes.

Good picture, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ise_c ... rawing.png
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battl ... _Hyuga.jpg

As you can see, te flight deck was quite short ~ 70 meters (the entire ship was 215 meters long). If they would have eliminated the aft turrets, and lenghtened the flight deck, it could have been ~ 110 meters long. And, of course, the ship could have carried more planes...
Another significant thing to note on these ships (thanks for posting the links to the pictures by the way and bringing this up) is where the flight deck is located. Note that the standard practice for carriers launching planes was to turn into the wind and accelerate to full speed. This alowed the aircraft to use the wind speed and carrier speed to take off. This doesn't work when the flight deck is on the rear of the carrier and theirs a large superstructure in the way and blocking the wind.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by Bgile » Fri May 21, 2010 2:03 pm

How many aircraft could they launch quickly? Two?

Compare this ship (Hyuga) to Yorktown, which is 7,000 tons lighter and carries 80 or so aircraft, most of which can be launched quickly. You build your BCVs. I will build Essex class carriers.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Fri May 21, 2010 2:48 pm

Bgile wrote:How many aircraft could they launch quickly? Two? ...
If you are talking fully loaded aircraft I think they were pretty much limited to catapult launches (and even these were a bit tricky). I'm not aware of the turnaround cycle on Japanese catapults but I think they used a trolly system. Maybe I'll ask over on the IJN board.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Fri May 21, 2010 5:11 pm

While reading some material elsewhere I came across the name of an individual who may have some impact on this. Haven't read enough yet to be sure but he had an interesting enough life that I'm going to post a couple of links here:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Percy_Scott
http://www.archive.org/details/fiftyyea ... 00scotuoft

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Fri May 21, 2010 6:15 pm

Looks like I posted the above on the wrong thread. My apologies (it's too late to edit it). In any case Sir Percy Moreton Scott seems to have been a very interesting individual and his book looks to be well worth reading (especially since it is free).

User avatar
neil hilton
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:31 pm

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by neil hilton » Mon May 24, 2010 12:13 pm

Good points posted by lwd regarding spotting and radar.

How about this then?
What if the Fuso/Hyuga design had its after 2 main turrets removed and the whole superstructure leveled to form a 3/4 length flight deck (installing an armoured offset bridge and citadel), good enough to launch fighters. The weight and volume could then have been used for hanger space, increasing the airgroup size while still maintaining half a BBs broadside.
Being a standard flight deck design planes could be launched and recovered as quickly as a standard CV.

Didn't most carriers by mid war have decent radars, good enough to spot an incoming air raids at long range with enough time to scramble their CAP? But their fighters were often not numerous enough to stop the raid, thus they had multiple CVs in a unit?

A clever naval architect would be able to design the aircraft arming and fueling systems to be just as well protected as the ships main armament magazines I think, so they wouldn't be any more vulnerable than normal.
Veni, vidi, verrimus!
I came, I saw, I swept the floor!

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Tue May 25, 2010 7:31 pm

My first thought is you have now incurred a significant gunnery disadvantage. Where is your main director goiong to be?

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by Legend » Tue May 25, 2010 10:40 pm

Hehehe inside an aircraft! :lol:
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by alecsandros » Wed May 26, 2010 5:44 am

lwd wrote:My first thought is you have now incurred a significant gunnery disadvantage. Where is your main director goiong to be?
But why wouldn't it be located on the top of the main tower, as in all battleships.. ?

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Wed May 26, 2010 2:30 pm

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote:My first thought is you have now incurred a significant gunnery disadvantage. Where is your main director goiong to be?
But why wouldn't it be located on the top of the main tower, as in all battleships.. ?
Well I was replying to this:
neil hilton wrote:... What if the Fuso/Hyuga design had its after 2 main turrets removed and the whole superstructure leveled to form a 3/4 length flight deck (installing an armoured offset bridge and citadel), ....
Note that http://www.combinedfleet.com/Ise.htm says this about thair aircarft capabilities:
The aircraft cannot not take off from, or land on, the small flight deck; rather, they are to be catapult-launched and land either on conventional carriers or land bases.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by alecsandros » Wed May 26, 2010 5:50 pm

Ok, I understand now.
My idea would be to remove only the 2 aft turrets, leaving a ~ 110-120 meters flight deck.

The rest of the superstructure would stay the same.

I guess a ship like that could house ~ 30 warplanes in 2 hangars, launchable on 2 catapults. It would be difficult to land them back, but not impossible...

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by lwd » Thu May 27, 2010 4:26 pm

A thread with some interesting relevant info on Ise and Hyuga: http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php ... pic=9386.0

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by alecsandros » Thu May 27, 2010 5:12 pm

Thanks man!

About Ise or Hyuga, I read on Wiki that one of them was attacked by ~ 80 dive bombers in 1944, and their AA shot down 10 :shock: for no hits.

Does anybody have any reference to confirm or infirm this?

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: BattleCarriers, a stupid idea?

Post by Bgile » Thu May 27, 2010 6:24 pm

alecsandros wrote:Thanks man!

About Ise or Hyuga, I read on Wiki that one of them was attacked by ~ 80 dive bombers in 1944, and their AA shot down 10 :shock: for no hits.

Does anybody have any reference to confirm or infirm this?
No, and it's an interesting anecdote. Does it have any relevance to the efficacy of "BattleCarriers"? I don't see any.

Post Reply