Alternate warships of nations

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
(^^^) Springsharp is clumsy with aircraft carriers, but it can get you in the ballpark within 10% of RTL expected values.
Still a huge gap in the market for a more detailed illustration and aircraft carrier options for Springsharp 4.0. That one should be lightly commercial though; $10 or so. Number of hangers, hanger height and area, lift capacities limited by year of production and all that good stuff. Top weight of equipment and aircraft on each deck seems like an important design consideration that is hard to eyeball. Plan, end and sides views with a summary would be splendid for illustrating an AH.
 
1. The block coefficient is wrong for an aircraft carrier.
2. Armored deck is wasted tonnage.
3. AAA should be at the four corner quadrants and NOT evenly distributed.
4. 6/45s not distributed properly.
5. Belt armor too thick.
6. torpedo bulkhead inadequate.
7. Void space for aircraft above and in hull @ 100 tonnes per aircraft + 10% is 72 planes x 100 tonnes =7,200 tonnes + 720 tonnes wastage space, thus round up to 7.500 tonnes; where is that void space listed in the spring sharp?
8. 10 x 2 quad mounts pom poms = 20 x 4 barrels = 80 barrels. Not in 1922 would that happen and that is a notation error as well.
1. Its a Conversion of the G3 Class Battlecruisers, it has the block coefficient of a Battlecruiser
2. Its a Conversion of a G3 Class Battlecruiser, its the Armoured Deck of a G3 Class Battlecruiser.
3. Its a 1st generation Conversion
HMS_Glorious.jpg

4. Its a 1st Generation Conversion
Akagi_1929.jpg

5. Its reduced from the G3 base hull, Lexington had a 7 inch belt, the same as the Battlecruiser design.
6. Its actually slightly thicker than the G3 specification. (1.75 inches) Or the Nelson Class (1.5 inches)
7. See below ...
8. 10 x 2 row quad mounts. As in 4 barrels stacked two on two!? (The original specification in my Conway's All the World's Battleships. Some sources say 4 x 2 row octuple mounts, 4 barrels in two stacks)
HMAS_Nizam_AWM-009496.jpg

or
MkVIIIpompomsHMSRodney1940.jpg

[The original G3 design is from 1921]

See below ...
Found this on a board for springsharp so it should work for carriers.

By Rick Robinson

"Carriers.

Spring Style is designed for ships armed
primarily with guns, but carriers become important from the end of World War I on. Here is a method for simming carriers:

Design the ship as you normally would. Put in as much
miscellaneous weight" as you can - that will usually
determine how big an airgroup your CV can carry. Now,
get out your pocket calculator. You'll make two pretty simple calculations, each of which gives a possible airgroup limit.

1) Take the square root of miscellaneous weight; e.g., if miscellaneous weight is 10,000 tons, the eight-based limit for your carrier is 100 aircraft. (In addition, allow at least 25 tons per aircraft, i.e., if miscellaneous weight is just 100 tons, your ship can carry 4 planes, not 10.)

2) Multiply length x beam (both waterline) and divide by 750; e.g., if your CV is 900 ft x 100 ft, the space limit is 120 aircraft.

For the metric gang, divide by 70 instead; if your CV is 280 metres x 30 metres, the size limit is also 120 aircraft.

Use waterline dimensions (if available), NOT flight deck dimensions; they can vary a lot more, and we want a consistent rule.

Your carrier's airgroup is whichever number is LOWER.
So in the example above, your CV has an airgroup of 100
aircraft. (That is for WW II or earlier planes. For postwar CVs with jets, I'd estimate about 2/3 of the airgroup calculated by this method.) Usually, the weight rule gives a lower number of planes and thus sets the limit; the size limit will usually apply to CVEs converted from merchant ships with a great deal of miscellaneous weight.

Conversions: If you convert a battlecruiser, etc., to a CV, follow the same basic procedure. Start with the original ship, modify main guns, armor, etc., put in miscellaneous weight and there is your carrier.
 

McPherson

Banned
1. Its a Conversion of the G3 Class Battlecruisers, it has the block coefficient of a Battlecruiser
1. So was the Lexington class but the hulls were eventually bulged to fix the volume and stability issues.
2. Its a Conversion of a G3 Class Battlecruiser, its the Armoured Deck of a G3 Class Battlecruiser.
2. The deck is unnecessarily thick and introduces too much topweight and instability.
3. Its a 1st generation Conversion
HMS_Glorious.jpg

(^^^)
4. Notice the flight deck? It begins at the cheeks of the prow because that is where the sectionals of the float sausage can begin to take the top weight added high up without driving the bow DOWN or twisting the frame. The shipwrights knew what they were up against.
4. Its a 1st Generation Conversion
Akagi_1929.jpg
6. Same again from a top view.
5. Its reduced from the G3 base hull, Lexington had a 7 inch belt, the same as the Battlecruiser design.
7. Two wrongs do not make it right. See 2.? THAT was why the Lexingtons were bulged.
6. Its actually slightly thicker than the G3 specification. (1.75 inches) Or the Nelson Class (1.5 inches)
8. That is the barrier plating or stops. You confuse that plating with THE VOIDS which allow gas expansion to dissipate.
7. See below ...
8. 10 x 2 row quad mounts. As in 4 barrels stacked two on two!? (The original specification in my Conway's All the World's Battleships. Some sources say 4 x 2 row octuple mounts, 4 barrels in two stacks)
HMAS_Nizam_AWM-009496.jpg
9. Your springsharp lists 20 quads for 80 barrels. Those are OCTUPLEs illustrated and were so RN listed. You don't have the room for that many.
or
MkVIIIpompomsHMSRodney1940.jpg

[The original G3 design is from 1921]

See below ...
10. Same again with the same objections.

Found this on a board for springsharp so it should work for carriers.

By Rick Robinson

"Carriers.

Spring Style is designed for ships armed
primarily with guns, but carriers become important from the end of World War I on. Here is a method for simming carriers:

Design the ship as you normally would. Put in as much
miscellaneous weight" as you can - that will usually
determine how big an airgroup your CV can carry. Now,
get out your pocket calculator. You'll make two pretty simple calculations, each of which gives a possible airgroup limit.

1) Take the square root of miscellaneous weight; e.g., if miscellaneous weight is 10,000 tons, the eight-based limit for your carrier is 100 aircraft. (In addition, allow at least 25 tons per aircraft, i.e., if miscellaneous weight is just 100 tons, your ship can carry 4 planes, not 10.)

2) Multiply length x beam (both waterline) and divide by 750; e.g., if your CV is 900 ft x 100 ft, the space limit is 120 aircraft.

For the metric gang, divide by 70 instead; if your CV is 280 metres x 30 metres, the size limit is also 120 aircraft.

Use waterline dimensions (if available), NOT flight deck dimensions; they can vary a lot more, and we want a consistent rule.

Your carrier's airgroup is whichever number is LOWER.
So in the example above, your CV has an airgroup of 100
aircraft. (That is for WW II or earlier planes. For postwar CVs with jets, I'd estimate about 2/3 of the airgroup calculated by this method.) Usually, the weight rule gives a lower number of planes and thus sets the limit; the size limit will usually apply to CVEs converted from merchant ships with a great deal of miscellaneous weight.

Conversions: If you convert a battlecruiser, etc., to a CV, follow the same basic procedure. Start with the original ship, modify main guns, armor, etc., put in miscellaneous weight and there is your carrier.

11. In the REAL world, one can take the working area of an aircraft 10 x 10 x 10 meters and apply DWT calculations for void tonnage needed. That works out to about 100 tonnes per Avenger.

 
Last edited:
Can just imagine being a young officer, walking up the docks to my proud 1st posting, and thinking....
"Yep, gonna die on this thing...." :confounded:
To be fair that's basically late war Japan anyway.
They made up for it after the war though, when they had to rebuild their shipbuilding industry from scratch and ended up being so effective at it that they built over 40% of the world's ship tonnage in the 1960's and 1970's.
 
The aircraft carrier Lilienthal and the destroyer Z49 from the Drake's Drum timeline (Shameless plug!) which has a separate thread on this forum. (These images have not been posted in that thread.)

2 Lil A.jpg


2 Z49.jpg
 
Probably gets the sixth QE, Agincourt complete in whatever form the admiralty intended, I personally enjoy the idea she was armed with 18in guns.
I am a little late responding to this, but I figured I would throw this in. The 18"/40 intended for Furious was 40 calibres long because that was how long the existing machinery could make an 18" gun. If the British had intended to go to 18" for their battleships any time soon they likely would have indicated that to Vickers, Armstrongs and maybe Coventry (Coventry was the new kid in that market and was still trying to break into the big gun orders) that this was the case and those companies would have invested in machinery that allowed them to make a 45 calibre weapon.

AIUI the 18"/40 on Furious was mostly down to Churchill. I am given to understand that Fisher did not really want it as the LLC's were not intended as monitors. However, Churchill did not entirely understand Fishers plans (can't blame him for that, we have been debating them for decades since) and got fixated on the need for a big gun for shore bombardment. Fisher went along with it as it allowed him to get another LLC approved. However he had twin 15" turrets made as well and made sure the single 18" turret ring would be the same size. The idea was to remove the 18" gun after it had done its job and replace it with the 15".

Additionally, the RN was (or at least had been) of the opinion that there was a certain size increase over the previous calibre that made switching worth while and it was about 1.5". Hence you had the 12" replaced with the 13.5" and the 13.5" replaced with the 15". In the unlikely event that the RN felt they needed a larger gun calibre when they had only just started the 15" they probably would have followed the pattern and gone for 16.5".

All that to say that an 18" Agincourt is unfortunately unlikely.
 
So another out there question, say in the 1912 period the RN decides to rebuild the Powerful and Terrible armored cruisers. Say they didnt get a battlecruiser that year or something but they are allowed to refit existing vessels. What could you get on the hull assuming money was not an issue?
 
So another out there question, say in the 1912 period the RN decides to rebuild the Powerful and Terrible armored cruisers. Say they didnt get a battlecruiser that year or something but they are allowed to refit existing vessels. What could you get on the hull assuming money was not an issue?
Not much. You might be able to fit a decent belt in, and maybe some shielded 6" guns on the deck in place of the casemates, but two 9.2" guns is the best heavy armament you can fit, can't really stick another barbette in.
 
9. Your springsharp lists 20 quads for 80 barrels. Those are OCTUPLEs illustrated and were so RN listed. You don't have the room for that many.
Le sigh!
40 - 1.57" / 40.0 mm 39.0 cal guns - 1.85lbs / 0.84kg shells, 1,500 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1922 Model
10 x 2 row quad mounts on sides, evenly spread
(Although I do feel a little uncomfortable with this ... my apologies to the mods if I am being inappropriate)
 
Not much. You might be able to fit a decent belt in, and maybe some shielded 6" guns on the deck in place of the casemates, but two 9.2" guns is the best heavy armament you can fit, can't really stick another barbette in.
Yeah I see the arguement. Though a Italian style rebuild may work.

As another question how could the Tennessee armored cruisers while they were building? I ask for no reason at all...nothing to do with any upcoming games.
 

Driftless

Donor
As another question how could the Tennessee armored cruisers while they were building?

With that class, the whole midships is taken up with four funnels. I've not seen a cross-section drawing, but I'd guess you'd have to greatly alter the whole power-plant scheme to do much with the ACR Tennessee's
 
So another out there question, say in the 1912 period the RN decides to rebuild the Powerful and Terrible armored cruisers. Say they didnt get a battlecruiser that year or something but they are allowed to refit existing vessels. What could you get on the hull assuming money was not an issue?
Yeah I see the arguement. Though a Italian style rebuild may work.
Rebuilds only make sense when you have treaties that stop new builds or a short-term war measures (or when you have new tech developments like CVs and want a test ship quicker and cheaper) they simply dont offer good value over any new ship long term in terms of budgets and effectiveness.
 
Yeah I see the arguement. Though a Italian style rebuild may work.

As another question how could the Tennessee armored cruisers while they were building? I ask for no reason at all...nothing to do with any upcoming games.
Depends on when honestly. Along with how much money you are willing to throw at the problem.

If during the treaty system is possibly the only way it makes sense from an economic POV. Otherwise its a question of why are you doing this. If you somehow are able to get it loopholed that the Tennessee's don't count to battleship tonnage and its waved from the cruiser limits where you can keep them and do a rebuild here is what I would do.

Bring them into dry dock and strip them down to basically the keel. Strip out the VTE engines and put in modern steam turbines and switch over to oil fired boilers. With early to mid 20s small tubed boilers you likely are looking at getting them into the high 20s of knots along with them being able to maintain that.

Move the armor around so the belt becomes all or nothing and is able to withstand 8 inch gun fire. Anything more is pointless. You aren't ever standing up to the British BCs and you can just out run the remaining capital ships so there is no point with armor that can stand up to more than 8 inch guns. Also for the love all that is holy I would put in a torpedo defense system.

Most likely do new turrets so you can get those 10 inch guns on a higher elevation than what you could with the turrets they were built with. For the secondaries I would strip out the casemates and since this is the early to mid 20s put in a couple pairs of twin 6/53 turrets on each side. How many depends on what the hull can handle. I would like 5/25s but you aren't doing that in the time frame that this is likely possible.

Then there are the basics like new fire control and all that jazz.

But given what you are doing it honestly would be cheaper to just build a new ship. The only this happens if it somehow gets loopholed into a naval treaty.
 
Though that might have more to do with having guns crews who grew up on rice rather than beef and bread.
I would like to point out the actual weights being used here and ask people to realisticly determine if they could load these shells at more then 2 per minute.

6 inch 45 cal from WW1 British. Shell weight 100 to 112 lb this is 50 plus KG. Propellant is 27 to 34 lb ie 12 to 15 KG.
5.5 inch British WW1 Shell weight 82lb and propellant is 22lb or 10kg.

This is a significant difference and also a valid example of it being irrelevant what a person grew up eating as the sheer mass of the Shell is at the rough edge of human performance. Yes you can load the 6 inch manually a few times but your rate of fire will drop rapidly due to exhaustion even if you have an assistant to help with loading.


If you look through the website you will find that 6 inch was eventually realised to be right on the edge of possibility for manual loading and in a long engagement the rate of fire rapidly dropped off. The experience from WW2 showed the 5 inch as the true upper limit of what was possible with manual loading.
 
The battleship Resolution and the heavy cruiser Nonpareil from the Drake's Drum timeline (Shameless plug!) which has a separate thread on this forum. (These images have not been posted in that thread.) Resolution is based on the OTL British Lion class preliminary, 16E/38. Nonpareil is also based on an OTL 1938 design, this one was a response from DNC to a request from the Hellenic Navy for a 'cruiser killer.' In the Drake's Drum timeline it is taken over from the Greeks, first by the Chileans, then by the RN. These images are Photoshopped.

3 Res 30.jpg


3 Nonpareil photo 2.jpg
 
Just had an idea for my TL. During the US civil war, which occurs similar to OTL, the kingdom of Alyska is also fighting a war with the US in the Puget sound region over Stuttland and the president islands, OTL Vancouver and San Juans islands. As a part of this conflict Alyska sends a convoy of warships to escort a convoy carrying weapons to the Confederacy. Five ships of the line, a first rate (122 guns) a second rate (98 guns) and three third rates (84 guns) and three frigates are sent. This force arrives outside Charleston sometime in 1863 and smashes their way into the harbor past three US ironclads and a few gunboats. Yes the USN has ironclads, but over five hundred guns and better maneuverability leads to those ships being essentially smashed to pieces.

Of course the real fireworks only start when the Alyskan squadron breaks out of Charleston once they have unloaded.
 
Just thought it was such an odd idea that I had to share. Ships of the line basically pummeling ostensibly superior ironclads to dust through sheer weight of fire.
 
Considering the kind of Columbiads that the Union ironclads faced in their bombardments of Fort Sumter, even a boat load of 32 pounders is not going to do much to the monitors.
 
Top