Shipbucket

Ok. I surrender. The Harpy is crap. I adjusted the speed to 28.3 knots maximum (71,301 SHP), cruise speed to 13 knots, displacement to 13,380 t standard; 14,920 t normal; 16,152 t full load and aircraft to 24 (designed); 18 (typical). Will that be sufficient, or are there other alterations I should make? I really don't want to have to do any significant redrawing, but I would be open to minor alterations.

Now, any suggestions/recomendations for the Titania of 1924? Built from the keel up as a CV, not a conversion of a cruiser hull. Size, displacement, air complement, things like that? (serious question, not snarky) I figure they would probably take experience with the Harpy into consideration when making the design and incorporate any corrections to design flaws or whatever, right?

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Harpy is a fine drawing - you were just trying to get to much out of the design and not allowing for the time it was built.

For the new ship(s)

Washington Treaty (if it exists) was 23,000 tons for carriers. If no WT then something in the order of 25-30,000 tons will be a big enough ship to play with. The main facet is the armoured to unarmoured type question which depends on where you want to operate. If your main theater of operations is close to coast with plenty of opposition land based airpower then you may need some flightdeck armour. If operating in open sea the unarmoured is fine as your own ship will provide the air cover necessary. If you are British based designs then you are looking at either Illustrious or Ark Royal types. Or else you could try a compromise type like Jap Taiho which carried enough aircraft with some armour.

Because we are building with 20/20 hindsight we do not have to fall into the same errors that were made by that other timeline. Guns which require cutting into the hull for mounting purposes impacts on the number of aircraft carried (like the 5.5" on Harpy). The best one i've seen is the sponsons on Unicorn for its twin 4". Just because a Treaty says 'you can have 8" guns on the carriers' does not mean you have to. Hopefully you get my drift and stick to AA light and heavy that can hang off the side of the ship, and then you can have a few more aircraft.

I have seen a formula somewhere for calculating aircraft in a hangar - calculate square footage of hangar and divide by something like 120 to get aircraft carried. Some books give the dimensions of the hangar and you have to make allowance for the elevators.

Sorry to be longwinded but you did ask....

As I have said before a few times, my AU is really alternate; Not earth, not the UK, not the US, but an alternate dimension I guess you could say, based on the "world" of my nations longtime region on NS. Similar, but not identical, timelines to earth though. That said, no, there is no Washington or London naval treaties here, so thats not a real consideration for me. Common sense and feasibility are my only limitations I guess you could say. Probably cost and industrial capabilities as well.

I've never been a fan of big guns on CV's. They seem rather superfluous for the most part. (Although I'm sure that the Captain of the Glorious might have wished for a few large caliber guns in 1940) Deck armor is something my navy (meaning me, of course) insists upon for carriers, and I also prefer enclosed hangers and bows to the open style. Other than that, not much else as far as "I have to have these features" springs to mind at the moment.

Don't worry about "long-winded". That is preferable to me than quick one-liners that don't give any information or open themselves for discussion.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Or you could be like me and not bother with (heavier than) aircraft carriers in the first place.

But that's just me.

Umm, not sure where you are going with that. If you mean "forget about CV's completely", well, thats not gonna happen. The GHRN has CV's, lots of 'em.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

In my personal opinion the 1920s may be a little early for deck ae
Armour and I don't know if designers of the time would have invisioned it yet I perfectly understand that's it's an alternate universe so I guess u could have some earlier ideas
For the carrier design I would invision an enlarged harpy design or maybe even something along the lines of hosho or if your designers are advanced enough in carrier design something on the lines of the USS ranger

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

It was the Washington Treaty in that other timeline that gave that 10 year gap between the end of the conversions (Glorious) and the completion of Ark Royal in 1938. That 10 year gap can be filled by a number of carriers being built in Zephyrs AU with new innovations being incorporated in each design.

I was just having a read on the angle deck which is the biggest change to carriers for 30 years (1915-45). It is when you introduce the angle deck that you improve the efficiency of your ship by about 50%, cut down on the amount of aircraft losses due to deck landing accidents. Allows bigger Bridge superstructures for aircraft control and radar instalations, larger deck parks for increased capacity. Aircraft carrier design is driven as much by the aircraft available as the ships themselves. Heavier/Bigger aircraft require better catapults, strengthened arrester wires, stronger and longer decks etc.

In that other timeline it is the jet age that requires the innovation of the angle deck, So for Grays Harbour when does the jet age begin? "Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent for the turbojet engine in 1930. Hans von Ohain was granted a patent for his turbojet engine in 1936. However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939. Frank Whittle's jet first flew in in 1941." Whittles design took so long to get into the air because it was all done with private funding. If Whittle had had 'Royal' money he could easily have had his prototype in the air 1935-36 and stolen a march on everybody. Meteors and Vampires flying off aircraft carriers in 1939-40, angled decks would have had to appear about the same time.

Their opinion of deck armor for carriers is pretty much the same philosophy as deck armor for BBs, BCs and Cruisers. It may not necessarily be for protection against air attack, but they realize how important deck armor is, and they see a flight deck as just a, well, really big deck.

Before my hardrive crash I had the Titania about 50% finished, and it was basically an enlarged Harpy, so that is most likely the direction I'm thinking of heading now, but getting ideas is never a bad thing.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Thought I might get back to my favorite class of ships for a change of pace... cruisers. What we have here are the "War Emergency Cruisers" of 1914-17, a group of 6 very similar classes all built to a common hull design, the main differences being armament and machinery. Authorized in early 1913, designs were quickly put together, with the first hull being laid down in Feb 1914. Those which survived the war underwent significant upgrades and rebuilds in the 1930's.

ILLUSTRIOUS CLASS

Displacement: 3,159 t standard; 3,435 t normal; 3,657 t full load
Length: 450 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Draught: 16 ft
Machinery: 8 Boilers, Triple expansion engines, 2 shafts
Speed: 29 knots
Range: 6200 NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 272
Armament:
2 x 6" (2 x 1)
8 x 4" (8 x 1)

RESOLUTE CLASS
Virtually identical to the Illustrious Class except for 2 funnels, 2 x 3" HA added, and geared turbines instead of triple expansion engines.

Displacement: 3,190 t standard; 3,435 t normal; 3,632 t full load
Length: 450 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Draught: 16 ft
Machinery: 8 Boilers, Geared steam turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 29 knots
Range: 6200 NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 272
Armament:
2 x 6" (2 x 1)
8 x 4" (8 x 1)
2 x 3" HA (2 x 1)

TEMPEST CLASS
Additional 6" gun mounts added in place of most of the 4" mounts.

Displacement: 3,160 t standard; 3,435 t normal; 3,656 t full load
Length: 450 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Draught: 16 ft
Machinery: 8 Boilers, Geared steam turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 28.5 knots
Range: 7000 NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 290
Armament:
7 x 6" (7 x 1)
4 x 4" (4 x 1)
2 x 3" HA (2 x 1)

BONAVENTURE CLASS
The two Bonaventures were given an all 4" armament, utilizing the new triple gun mount for fore and aft, and the semi-enclosed single mounts for midships. The triple mount did not prove as successful as hoped, and the Bonaventures were the first to be rebuilt and rearmed in the early 30's.

Displacement: 3,207 t standard; 3,435 t normal; 3,618 t full load
Length: 450 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Draught: 16 ft
Machinery: 8 Boilers, Geared steam turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 29 knots
Range: 6200 NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 290
Armament:
18 x 4" (4 x 3; 6 x 1)
2 x 3" HA (2 x 1)

ENTERPRISE CLASS
The Enterprises were identical to the earlier Tempest class, the major difference being #1 and #7 guns used the new fully enclosed "weatherproof" mount.

Displacement: 3,160 t standard; 3,435 t normal; 3,656 t full load
Length: 450 ft
Beam: 42 ft
Draught: 16 ft
Machinery: 8 Boilers, Geared steam turbines, 2 shafts
Speed: 29 knots
Range: 7000 NM @ 10 knots
Complement: 290
Armament:
7 x 6" (7 x 1)
4 x 4" (4 x 1)
2 x 3" HA (2 x 1)

A sixth class, the two ships of the Serpent Class, were completed after the war with an extended hull and the 6" main armament being in new twin turrets. (not finished drawing that one yet.)

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

Mate...those lines...beautiful

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME


______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket