HMS Attacker

Discussion in 'North Atlantic Treaty Combat Fleet' started by sinkin321, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. HMCS

    HMCS Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    IJN Junyo is good looking, but kind of a big target at only 25 knots. If your into jap carriers:
    Soryu: 34 knots, 5 units.
    Hiryu: 34 knots, 5 units
    Unryu class: 34 knots, 5 units

    The German Graf Zepplin, though never finished in legal in Treaty and could be a nice ship at 35 knots and 6 units, bit big though.
     
  2. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Scott,
    There was a Graf Zeppelin at 2003 NATS in Rhode Island. Several Allied battleships (including my Warspite) pounded away at it during Campaign Lite convoy runs. Though it had no pump the hull volume was so huge it survived every run.

    Maybe the Pretoria Castle deserves more than 3 units. It had over twice the displacement of a typical WWII CVE and a greater aircraft capacity.

    I'm not into Japanese CVs but am tempted to build a small Allied one.

    HMS Hermes was based on a modified Hawkins Class heavy cruiser hull so I could make the hull plug. However, the unusually large bridge would be a big problem once the hull started to lose stability, and the quarterdeck was very low.

    I'd like to build HMS Argus, which was a light carrier but smaller than the Pretoria Castle. No bridge, built on an incomplete liner hull. I could do a WWI version but have no idea what the bulges added in the 1920s looked like. Suppose I could wing it and add bulges like those on HMAS Albatross of approx. the same vintage. Argus was called the 'Shoe Box' for obvious reasons.

    The French Bearn is another option for a small CV with 2 rudders and stern casemates. I think Mikey D.'s built 2 of them.

    Bob
     
  3. HMCS

    HMCS Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    With counting damage big carriers will never really be effective as a warship, because they are just huge point magnets. But with only counting sinks or points based on scenarios they would work. Like you said one with no pump survived BB's pounding on it, So I can imagine how much damage it would take to sink one with 1-2 pumps.

    Re: Pretoria Castle, Thats why I suggested basing units on aircraft carried rather then
    displacement and/or type. But as Mike pointed out, ships like the Shinano,Graf Zepplin and some of the British CV's with low aircraft numbers would suffer in units compared to the US/Jap ones. I guess another idea would be to assign Defensive/Offensive units. Defensive units being based on Displacement/Type which would be used for pump(s),and perhaps sidemounted guns as long as their in scale locations of the carriers 'main' guns. Offensive units could just represent aircraft and have to be under the flight deck and only in the bow/stern quadrant.

    It would just be a balancing act to even everything out, I love carriers but wouldn't want to see one with a bunch of sidemounts slugging it out with a BB, however since carriers did carry defensive guns I wouldn't mind a carrier having 1-2 sidemounted cannons.
     
  4. HMCS

    HMCS Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    Just the term CVE is confusing as well, there is a big difference in Size/Power between the early CVE's which were basically merchant ships converted as fast as possible to get more runways on the water,and purpose built CVE's such as some of the later US ones.
     
  5. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,296
    The purpose built CVEs (Commencement Bay class) were built on T2 tanker hulls(like the earlier Sangamons), so they were basically merchie conversions as well. The two USN CVL classes (Independence and Saipan) were built on cruiser hulls (Cleveland and Baltimore class respectively). The Saipans get 33 knots while the Indys only get 31. Both are 3.0 units.

    The tricky Japanese built several CVLs based on tenders, but were designed to be converted to carriers at their earliest convienence. They called it the Shadow Program, and that's what yielded the Hiyo class, Zuiho class, and Chitose class ships. The Ryuho may have been a shadow programmer too. Since these ships were specifically designed to end up as carriers, they count as purpose built carriers and get 4.0 units depending on displacement.

    If you're looking into an easily obtainable Japanese carrier, you might want to look into the Ibuki. She was built on a modified Mogami class hull (the Ibuki class cruiser's displacement gives it 3.5 units too for those interested) sporting the same lines and bulges as the Suzuya. The drawback to her is, in carrier form she only has two shafts for 29 knots, and would have 3.0 units. There was a second cruiser laid down (hull 401 off the top of my head) but it wasn't given an official name. IIRC the speculative name was Ikoma (I'll try to rememeber to look it up when I get home if someone is interested).

    In both cruiser and carrier form, she only has one rudder ala Tone.

    She wouldn't be a world beater, but with the hull already available, she might be an option to get a quick IJN birdfarm on the water.

    With the CVE dimensions you mentioned for the Attacker, (600 X 80) she's VERY close to having Independence-class dimensions. It might be worth looking to see if she could be converted to an Independence class CVL to eek out the 31 knots.
     
  6. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Mike,
    What were the Ibuki hull mods? Mogami hulls are made locally by Ralph so it's easy to get one. I can borrow the mold and lay it up myself.

    Bob
     
  7. HMCS

    HMCS Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    From what I can find Ibuki would be 1' longer then the 39/40 Rebuilt Mogami at the waterline and 3'2" wider on the beam( bigger bulges I would think). Nice looking carrier though.
     
  8. HMCS

    HMCS Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    339
    I understand the CVE's we're built on merchant hulls, but for game purposes a CVE and a CVL/Standard CV would all get .75 gallon pumps. So by saying they couldn't take as much punishment as a purpose built warship so they only get 1.5 units,is taking away their offensive power,of which most had as much(Sangamons carried almost as many as a 3 unit CVL)or little difference 6-12). Perhaps something to look at would be if the .5 gallon pump gets put into the rules then you could:
    1.25 CV's from BB hull
    1.00 CV's from BC hull
    0.75 CV'S/CVL'S
    0.50 CVE's
    That would be more accurate in reflecting that they were built on merchant type hulls. Although I don't think you could assign units for them based on displacement as the bigger ones would be 5 units.Maybe bumping them up to 2/2.5 units with the .50 pump, which would reflect that they packed a punch but we're built lightly
     
  9. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,296
    OK going to put down the pertinent info from "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" by LaCroix and Wells. If someone has a copy of this up in your area Bob, there are hull lines for the Ibuki as a cruiser AND carrier (pp 542, drawing 10.14)

    The notes say as a cruiser, the hull lines were identical to the Suzuya (after the second efficiency improvement works in 1937 according to my mk1 eyeball).

    As a carrier, the area between the bulge and the side of the hull is filled in with an additional bulge that looks as if the ship had a large armored belt there. For the sake of clarity, I'll call this the "belt" and refer to what the cruiser has as the "bulge".

    Assuming your hull is a Mogami instead of a Suzuya (they had different bulges), the additional carrier "belt" would hide the major differences between the two hulls. The top of this central "belt" is located about halfway between the deck edge and the top of the cruiser bulge. The bottom of this "belt" extends out slightly and down until it reaches about 2/3 of the distance from where the bulge begins to flare out, and the widest point of the bulge. At this widest point of the belt, the "belt" cuts back in at an angle and rests at the widest point of the cruiser bulge. It looks like it would be fairly easy to add this "belt" in using stringers (I think treaty allows two stringers).

    The book says that while the lines of the hull lines around and below the waterline were identical to the Suzuya and Kumano, the upper deck camber was slightly greater.

    Speed of the cruiser is not given, but shaft horsepower on 4 shafts was to be the same as Tone, so she should be good for 35 knots.

    As a carrier, the outer two shafts were to be removed and their engine rooms converted to avgas storage, so top speed would be 29 knots. These ships have the single rudder of the Tone class instead of the twin rudders of the Mogami class.

    Numbers as a cruiser (carrier not given)

    Length OA: 200.60 m
    Length (pp) : 187.8 m
    Beam: Max below WL: 20.2 m
    Beam :HA gun deck: 19.2 m
    Standard displacement 12,200 tons

    Here is a crude drawing of the ship; it appears the "belt" would actually be quite small, and look like something of an oval.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ibuki-cvl-schem.htm

    And a photo of the starboard bow, if you look closely you can see part of the "belt".

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Ibuki.jpg

    Ibuki's sister (warship 301)'s name was postulated to be Ikoma.
     
  10. Bob Pottle

    Bob Pottle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,948
    Location:
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Thanks Mike,
    If the Mogami and Suzuya had about the same beam despite the different bulges Ralph's Mogami hull may do for the Ibuki. I wouldn't bother with the additional belt on top of the bulge. If the Mogami's hull is narrower that shouldn't be a problem as the model's max. beam would be at flight deck level.

    Thanks for the lines reference - I think Rob Clarke has a copy of the book from when he built the IJN Takao. Ibuki as a carrier model would have approx. the same firepower as a heavy cruiser. Being 6 secs. slower isn't great compared to the cruiser version but for me the carrier would be a more interesting model than the cruiser.

    If I sell the Graf Spee hull (there are too many of them locally [:)]) the Ibuki would be a good alternative for an Axis model. Will check out the plans and make a decision.

    Bob
     
  11. crzyhawk

    crzyhawk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Posts:
    2,296
    Being a more interesting model is what I had in mind when I decided to build the Belleau Wood as a simple carrier instead of a cruiser/carrier conversion job. What I found is, that being able to stick the guns where ever I wanted really freed space inside and allowed me to have my guns in positions I feel is slightly superior to an average cruiser.

    As an Axis ship at 29 knots you're still faster then nearly all the Allied capital ships, so the speed isn't a major factor at all.