Adding to that Russian CV-BB. 72,000 plus tons, I stand corrected. Air capacity was 30 not 60 planes. About 31knts in this version, There was a few other versions. 1 was 10-16 inch guns and another 9-18 inch guns. The 18 inch version had a designed speed of 34 knots.
I know its not a combo, like you were asking, but the French Alasce class(sorry if i butchered the spelling) would have been the most formidable.
I do not know about links but it came out of a book called The Complete Encyclopedia of BATTLESHIPS. Author Tony Gibbons. ISBN-517-378108 by Crescent Books out of New York.Picked it up at 1/2 price books for $13.00. If you find it get it. It is worth every penny. The Russian Cv CV-BB was designed by Gibbs & Cox for the Russians. I hope that is some help and hope all of you find this book if it is not already in your collection.
well the greeks an the other little nations that partnered with them were to build a 8-15" gunned BB. It was to be less power full than the american BB's they bought but faster and none bigger. I believe it was drawn up before the Hood was. It was a ww1 design with super fireing turrets spread out like Kongo class bc's aft main turrets were only the bow AND stern pairs were set up this way. It had a clipper bow! thats back when most were just beginning to fidget around with those ideas. To bad the money fell out (stupid in fighting bickering) it would have been a really good looker of a BB. Not better than montana (because of FC) but for its time it would have been absolutely great. Would have been a 24 sec. class 6 BB in mwc and would have looked absolutly lovely.
My opinion only. That Russian Carrier-Battleship would have been the most powerful ship. It had the armament of a Montana. 30 airplanes on it to defend it's self with. Probably on the lines of an Escort carrier.It was being designed by a U.S. firm so it would possibly have radar. It would also have U.S. planes on it. Wildcats and TBF Avengers. The only problem it would of been manned by Russians. Maybe if we were also building it for them we might of pulled a British (WW1} thing as they did with the Agincourt & Erin & Canada. Take their money (ship) and run.
If you're factoring aircraft into the mix, then the BBCV would get whacked by any of the built CVs that the US used in the war. If you're just going with guns, the Monty has a better gun layout and better radar, which rest assured would NOT be shared with the Russians even if we designed the ship. For the price, you could probably build a couple of Iowas and pound it into submission. Or even a couple of SoDaks.
Maybe. That is why I wargame. I can run scenerios like this and see what happens. Russia was an ally of the U.S. So unless this is hypothetical then compare the Axis vessels when fighting it. I would even go so far and say the British would have a hell of a time putting her under.Look at what it took to sink the Bismark. She carriers her own CAP and would knock those Swordfish or Albacores out of the sky.The U.S. would be the only ones. This ship was designed in the early 1930s maybe by 41 or 42 it would be at sea. Where would she have been based and how many sisters would have been built who can tell? It was someones dream.Just like Hitler's Z-plan.
BBCVs are not very good at being either one, historically speaking. There are compromises that are required by each design that hinder the other function. Give me a real CV and a real BB any day against a BBCV or even 2 BBCVs. It's more than raw numbers, it's a mentality thing, too. Historically, the Russians were hidebound and unimaginative at sea. Stalin's purges removed even a semblance of experience from senior commanders. So our poorly-led, poorly-trained, didn't-sortie-ONCE-during-the-war Russian navy is going to operate a ship that complex? And learn to fly from a carrier deck? (which they only barely acheived 30 or 40 years later) I'll take half its tonnage in well-trained american ships and let it decorate the seafloor. And I've been wargaming for a looong time, too I think my first con was 1983, and I was gaming before that. Not sea gaming, mind you, but it was gaming (civil war minis) Until Seekrieg V can run a 10-way melee between a dragon, a company of civil war soldiers, a pack of Huns, etc... I won't concede the 'hypothetical' hat
That's why I mentioned the Russian sailors. Just like the BCS Poll for college football no one will be satisfied. I would take 4 of these vessels against say 4 Iowas and escorts in a straight action in wargaming. I mean I am running the vessels and not the Russians. Consider there would be 120 planes on these vessels combined. These vessels have a one knt better speed than the Iowa's. As for the planes ;the Iowas would be subjected to a few air attacks. As for the planes,it would be like our escort carriers Say 10 torpedo bombers and 20 fighters. This complement could be subject to change. I have been a gamer since 1970. Fletcher Pratts Naval game was my first . Played mostly during period
the Russkie aircraft won't get through the AA fire on the Iowa class ships...especially if they are torpedo bombers. You're not going to sink the BBs with bombs alone. That turns it into a gun duel, which the Iowas win every time.
But you have to draw the line somewhere on upgrading the Russian sailors... okay, they're magically competent (I don't say 'magically' to deride your upgrade; I've used 'magically' upgraded troops in several types of games... musket-wielding african tribesmen that got 'magically' upgraded morale so they didn't flee the table. Magical upgrades are part of hypothetical gaming, which I know you know Just wanted to make clear that I wasn't insinuating anything rude by using the word) Anyhow, do we magically give them USN-level damage control parties, IJN-level torpedo bombers, or as a handicap, British BC luck? With good escorts (say 1945 escorts), the Iowas would be okay, although as a Russian admiral I'd concentrate my TBs on two of the Iowas with fighters mixed in to take hits from the AA guns while the TBs get in their launches. If I can cripple half the Iowas, it's a better equation for me. Maybe even sink one if I get lucky. Of course as US admiral, I'd probably have a DD close enough to take a hit for the team reducing the torpedo barrages, since they're essentially useless once the planes are shot down (assuming that our US torpedomen are no better than the IJN guys were with a historical hit percentage of 6% ). May as well play shield
HMS Habbakuk how big would this ship be and weigh in 1/144 http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/habbak_f.htm
You know yourself wargaming only goes so far. Russo-Japanese Tushihima rules take morale and is considered, but it is lost after this time period. These vessels would have been better in the Atlantic because the U.S. did not have many carriers in this area.I am going to have to make a few (4) vessels in1/6000th scale and battle a naval game like this. Probably use Montanas to do this.
It'll be an interesting chop-job kitbashing the models. Shame you don't live closer so I could watch the carnage of the battle! Joker, Habbakuk would have been HUGE.
I would have loved to seen what the 2 Million Ton Pykrete Aircraft Carrier would have developed into. Like maybe a 6 Million Ton Pykrete Aircraft/Battleship/floating fortress.
I wonder how a 2.2 million ton CV would react to an airburst 100kt nuke 10,000' ASL... a contact or subsurface would obviously be lethal, but an airburst?
