Started this to keep it out of the Yamato thread (which is still being built). To start off Tug, and all other BS combatants, are we going to follow the WWCC rules for carrier construction? I'm in favor for it for two reasons, it will negate and end all debate on aircraft compliment, and it seams reasonable that for a ship its size only 4 1/4" guns would be able to train on a target at a time. next is the secondary armament, every where that I've looked that have some kind of photo/drawing of the ship show no 4.5" guns, so that I think can be put to rest. as far as armor protection goes it had the same as all the other Yamato hulls (minus the turret armor). So I don't know where these other figures come from? possibly these numbers represent the armor thickness of the hangar deck walls? But there is simply no way they could have reduced the thickness of the armor belt of the already completed hull when it was decided to turn it into a carrier. The hazegray site states this and if you have the anatomy book on the yamato and look at the hull construction one can see how it wouldn't be possible to change the thickness of the armor without destroying the ship. Tug, take a look and give your opinion. Ordering the plans tomorrow from HT in Japan, so in a few weeks I should have them and be able to start construction
just looked over their rules for the carriers, I'm suggesting we only follow the part regarding the main armament (1/4"), because it seams that they restrict arming the secondary guns even if they are 3" or larger (we can't have that, it goes against the the main pillar of BATTLE STATIONS, arm everything that you possibly can and their pump rules are different than BS. Frog, Big gun rules say carriers are allowed 1 1/4" gun for every 10 planes the ship carried. WWCC (which is a big gun) just altered that and change the gun allotment to be based on vessel size.
All the sources I have read says the Shinano's armor was reduced to something like 8 inches. I don't have access to the AoTS book though. I do agree that if the hull was completed to the point of having the belt armor fully installed, it seems they would leave it in place after conversion. (though the conversion was a very long process so there would be time to remove it). I am for arming all guns that are LA or DP. AA guns I don't think should be counted. 10 planes = 1 .25" gun reasonable. I would even be for mathematical rounding. 47 planes = 5 guns.
I don't think that there's an AotS on Shinano. The one on the Yammer doesn't mention the carrier beyond a cursory mention that she was converted, as far as a cursory glance can see. I can see that they might remove armor, but on the other hand, so much of the ship's fundamental structure depends on the armor being in place that I'm not sure she'd be seaworthy without it. The WWCC rules say 4 1/4" guns per side, right? I do agree that BaS' foundation is the arming of everything 3" and up, even if some destroyers can't fit everything
That was my thought and like I said before the hazegray.org site agrees with this. Another thing to consider is the weight issue. If they had somehow reduced the belt thickness in half, got rid of say 2/3 of the superstructure and removed all the mass/weight of the primary and secondary guns and replaced that with a flight deck how did they end up with a heavier ship than they began with using the same hull dimensions? Tug, the WWCC rules use 20,000 tons as the split off point, >20,000=16 1/4", 4". this would put shinano on par with carriers less than half her size. with thicker armor and being slower than most other carriers I would consider her a big moving target.
Mark, don't look at her as a big target, look at it as a great opportunity to practice escort tactics!! See, if I build the Alabama, I can build an escort carrier to keep her company And froggies... Bearn is just above the 20kton break-point
You guys may consider giving a number of secondary guns based on the size of the vessel, just like the main armament. Some ships have lots of heavy AA guns over 3" (Shinano has 16), while others have none (the largest guns on USS Independence are 40mm). The 20,000 ton dividing line is based on a spreadsheet including all the carriers mentioned in Conways that compares the tonnage, length, aircraft complement, armament, speed, and armor. There was a noticeable jump in length when ships got above 20,000 tons, so that was made the dividing line (it also lines up with our other armament restrictions) My initial idea (feel free to use it, change it, or reject it): Carriers under 20,000 tons get 6 .177" secondary cannons, split evenly port and starboard, arraigned perpendicular to the centerline under the flight deck and at least 1/2" separation between barrels center-to-center. Carriers over 20,000 tons get 8 .177" cannons with the same restrictions. That allows the builder to place his heavy 1/4" cannons offensively (1/4 to 1/3 of the way back from the bow) and cover his back half with smaller guns, or to place his heavy guns defensively (near the stern). It is an important decision, especially in 1/96 because I have seen a 1/144 Nelson battle only half of a 1/144 H-39, and can only imagine what would happen if a larger 1/96 carrier had no guns to cover that area. This way also has smaller ships keeping their triple arrangement and bigger ships with the quad. My brother just suggested that it may be better to stay with an "all big gun" concept and forgo secondary cannons in favor of more big guns. The idea is that larger ships in a larger scale need more guns to fit their larger size and the increased armament they will be facing as opposed to their 1/144 sisters. For a small increase in firepower, give ships under 20k tons 4 guns per side and ships over 20k 6 guns, instead of 3 and 4 guns per side. For a larger increase, double the armament so ships under 20k get 6 guns and ships over get 8 guns. The builder then must decide whether to concentrate firepower and leave a weak spot, or to spread out the guns and protect more area.
still, in BS ships are allowed to arm all guns over 3". I'm building knowing full well that there are going to be "weak spots" but that's where tactics come in and having others in the fleet protecting the carriers. adding too many more "big guns" will make carriers more heavily armed than the battleships. perhaps I used the wrong term when I said target, maybe armed convoy vessel would be more appropriate, I wouldn't expect carriers to go out and attack a battleship one on one and survive, but if you doubled up the guns to 32 1/4" on a 30,000 ton 33knot carrier, even if its guns are fixed (which might make it easier to aim), there isn't a battleship out there that would survive
I'm thinking that scenario rules would give incentive for keeping the carriers afloat, too. Hmmm.... time for a new rules thread!
No one ever mentions making what I think would be one of the hardest to sink, due to the massive carrier deck overhang, side casemates running almost the entire length of the hull, and the most maneuverable carriers ever built, they could turn in a circle. What are their names?
Why the IX-64, USS Wolverine, and the IX-81, USS Sable of course. Both over 500 ft in lenght. Equipped with side mounted paddlewheels for propulsion. Visit this site Specifications Name Wolverine Sable Designation IX-64 IX-81 Displacement 7,200 tons 8,000 tons Length 484 ft. 6 in. (WL) 519 ft. (WL) 500 ft. (overall) 535 ft. (overall) Beam 58 ft. 3 in. 58 ft. Draft 15 ft. 6 in. 15 ft. 6 in. Speed 18 knots 18 knots Machinery Wolverine - 3 cylinder VC coal-fired reciprocating engine, 11,000 H.P., 2 side paddle wheels Machinery Sable - 3 cylinder VC coal-fired reciprocating engine, 12,000 H.P., 2 side paddle wheels Hull No. Ship Name Launched bought Commission Status IX-64 Wolverine 1913 12 Mar 1942 12 Aug 1942 IX-81 Sable 1923 07 Aug 1942 08 May 1943 Here is a link to: Video: History of the Great Lakes Carriers Visit this site I think they would make great Allied convoy ships! []
I had looked at those, actually To get a paddlewheeler up to speed, those wheels'd be spinning soooo fast..
Being speed 34, they should not be too fast should they? Maybe make the paddles a bit wider for better traction?
if another boat got too close it would be like a monster truck show with the carrier crawling over the poor victim.
