when it comes to aircraft carriers in the hobby of model warship combat under the big gun rules which is better a big carrier with 3 pumps or a small carrier with 2 pumps. I am asking this to try to prove a point to my brother who seems to think that a smaller carrier is better because there is less area to hit but I personally think a bigger carrier is better because there is more area inside to fill which means longer sink time. can any of you help me prove my bro wrong for if i don't i will never hear the end of him trying to tell me a light carrier or escort carrier is better then a regular carrier or supercarrier.
Honestly it depends on the captain. The smaller carriers will turn better which makes them harder targets to hit, but will sink with less damage. The bigger carriers will be less maneuverable, and thus easier to hit, but will take more damage to sink. I think it's a wash.
Crazy what do you know about washing it’s not Saturday yet [] I agree with crazy and who ever lady luck is sailing with[]
well for the sake of opinion on ship don't count for how good the captain is who is piloting the carrier and worry about just the carrier itself ok and sure the small carriers are more manuvable but look at the yorktown for example it is faster then almost all the battleships in the hobby at a speed of 33 knots where as a typical escort carrier will only be allowed to do 25 knots as their regular speed was 19 knots so sure they turn quick that don't help much when you are the slowest combatant ship on the pond.
Well my carrier is the Graf Zeppelin and it only has two pumps, but it also is set up with 4 -1/4/inch cannons and 16 bb side defence weapons and will have 3 torpedoes per side . so maybe the pumps were unnecessary? Bob
Well, eventually that Yorktown will run out of pond, and that 31 knot Scharnhorst can cut the corner and start putting broadsides into the Yorktown. The 21 knot escort carrier can turn a tight enough circle that the battleships regardless of their speed will never have anything to shoot at except impenetrable stern. That quick turning will help you survive more then speed ever will.
given a choice between two carriers which would you choose a -10,000 ton escort carrier or a bigger carrier like the 72,000 Shinano of the Imperial Jappanese Navy
Honestly, I'd take the 10k ton escort carrier. I'd be less likely to sink someone by myself, but I guarantee I'll be patching a lot less damage.
There are 3 classes of carriers in the WWCC: 20k and under (12 guns, 2 pumps), 20k-50k (16 guns, 2 pumps), 50k and over (16 guns, 3 pumps). It all comes down to captains preferences. The 50k ship is least likely to be sunk. The 20k-50k ships have more firepower and usually are faster, but are larger targets and will have more patching after a battle. The 20k and under ships tend to be slower, but still have decent firepower, have less target area, and are lighter and easier to handle on land. Is the extra speed and firepower worth the extra target area? Is the smaller size worth the reduced speed and firepower? Any prospective carrier skipper must determine this for himself, based on his own experience and opinions.
I've been thinking a lot about the WWCC's transport rules lately. And I have concluded that NEITHER the small, slow escort carrier NOR the big, fast attack carriers are the most effective. Here's why: Slow escort carriers are short, and it's easy to think that translates directly into maneuverability, but they are also SLOW. The problem with being slow is that it takes a longer time to turn, even if you get a tighter turning radius overall. That's why the Yamato isn't as popular as the Iowa is in Big Gun: The yammer is slower, and doesn't turn as well because of it. And there is a very big difference between 25 knots (minimum ship speed) and 30+ knots of fast battleships. I've seen several CVE-sized transports sailing in my club, and they got shredded. When the CVE-sized transports attempted to turn away, a fast battleship like Iowa, Bismark, etc would simply run around the outside and continue pouring fire into the The other issue that escort carriers face is how the @#$% do you fit TWELVE 1/4" cannons into a hull of that size? It's really ***** hard! erm, not quite. You *can* fit in all the guns. But then you can't fit the CO2 bottle and pumps. Or batteries and running gear. However, don't give up hope! I am slowly developing a new design of ultra-compact, high-efficiency cannons for use as torpedoes and other non-rotating weapons. Should this new design prove reliable, escort carriers will be quite do-able. On the other end of the spectrum are monster carriers like the Akagi and Midway. They are big and fast, and get 16 guns. However, these ships too have weaknesses. They are fast, but they are so darned big that they are unwieldy and hard to maneuver. As crzyhawk pointed out, you can't run forever in one of these monsters. Eventually you will have to turn to avoid running aground, and then battleships can do not-very-friendly things to you. The other issue is that those 16 guns don't all point in the same direction. They are distributed evenly off the bow, stern, and both broadsides. So in effect, you've got 4 guns to point at any one target. A battleship with rotating guns will have fewer barrels overall, but can bring more to bear on any one target. Now I will say this much: All those rotating guns don't mean much if you can't see what direction they're pointing. A big carrier like the Akagi or Midway can hold its own quite well in battles far from shore, where skippers with less-than-stellar eyesight can't tell for certain if their rotating guns are pointing in the right direction. What I personally believe the WWCC's carrier rules help the most are smaller fleet carriers and CVLs like the Independence. You want a ship that's big enough to be fast (and fit in all the guts) but small enough to be maneuverable, and the CVLs meet that to a T. Overall they aren't as heavily armed as the larger carriers, but they are so much better gun platforms that the reduction in firepower is more than compensated for. So look around for carriers at 30+ knots and under 800 feet LOA, and you'll be looking at (what I believe to be) the best carriers you can build.
Has anyone built a Midway? Would love to see a photo. Of course Battlestations has a Shinano being built so anything is possible.
Hmmm, it's an interesting topic I've ended up with plans for Shokaku... The fellows I've been talking with at MBG are saying that the hangar decks don't need to be penetrable, which cuts down on the bearing magnet effect It's largish and 34 knots. My guess is that carriers are not well enough represented that all the variables have been worked out. I heard there once was a midway that was a game ender... And the barrel spacing rules came after. I think that for a budget boat, (old thread topic from long ago) that it may well have the space and battery capacity to run a compressor... I have a compressor for canibalism that comes with a cut off built in to the gauge, campbell hausfield... I am puzzled though that more carriers are not built, as the arizona gun design can be used... Mike
I'm going to use Lite-Ply on the flight on the flight deck of the Ryujo I will be building.Carved balsa blocks for the side funnels.
I'm going to mold the Ibuki's hangar decks from 2 layers of 0.75 oz matt, which will be tough but light. it's important to use as little resin as possible and roll the matt with a small - medium diameter roller to make sure it's saturated and compacted. Excess resin adds useless weight as it's the fiberglass that provides the strength. I'm still undecided about the flight deck material. First I'm going to try a Cintra sub-flight deck with a 1/2" margin to match the 1/2" lip that will be on the top of the fiberglass hangar. Most of the Cintra subdeck will be cut away leaving a lattice of 1/2" wide supports for a 0.040" sheet stryene flight deck. It should weigh less than a pound. Bob
