Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Glorious Arstotzka

17 (16%)

Glorious Moskurg

13 (12.3%)

Ingloriously Didn't Play

76 (71.7%)

Total Members Voted: 106

[Kot]

What the fuck.
When I suggested angled deck, everyone was like "nooo, don't do that, too advanced, nooo", and people voted for the gun. Then I made the double deck carrier, and people are like "nooo, don't do that, angled deck is better, nooo".

Okay, first of ALL.

If the exhaust isn't angled downward it can't set the deck on fire.

It can if you use a ramp, which will direct exhaust downwards. Also, our jet engines are mounted somewhat low.

Would someone move me to Pattern C, please? 

The Z is sacrificing hanger space for a design no one uses any more so it launch twice as fast.  Pattern C also launches twice as fast, but doesn't sacrifice hanger space.

It sacrifices maybe a 1/10th of total hangar space, and even that, not really, as planes can be still stored to the sides of catapult, so you're sacrificing... one, two planes for the launching capability in worst case.
Of course, it would be best if we had both angled deck and second launch deck, but that would probably make it more complex.
Also, it's easier to just prolong the hangar deck and end it in launch space, instead of making an angled deck, which is something we haven't done yet, and won't be done for long time. Two, hell, THREE deck carriers have been.
And if anything, your argument that angled deck is much better because there is one deck for launching and one for retrieval, well, there is one deck for launching, which comes straight from the hangar and doesn't require lifting the planes up to the top deck, and one deck for retrieval. Simple.

Also, angled deck poses a problem - it's angled. It makes the landing plane have to come at angle, which is harder, and is something which was solved in reality by addition of optical landing aid - something we would have to also do, and have no experience in doing.

Also, US Navy at the time operated hangar deck catapults - their problem being is that they were aiming sideways, which made them less useful because they didin't benefit from the carrier sailing into wind. Zheleznogorod does.

[RAM]

Another problem with the angled deck is that landing on a moving ship is much worse. In some ways, landing on a ship that is moving away from you would be easier, but one that is moving at an angle to you is pretty much sreaming for an upside-down plane show...

[3_14159]

In defense of Z carrier: It Has Been Done. Both British and Japanese navies had multi-decked carriers. To those who say it's going to be too complex to build, I assure you it's definitely less so than an larger angled-deck carrier. Kaga and Akagi seemed to do pretty well as actual carriers, albeit without fire protection systems.

Oh, yes, Kaga and Akagi did quite well as carriers. After they had been expensively refitted (Akagi from 1935 to 1938, Kaga from 1934) as full-deck carriers.

Spoiler: snip (click to show/hide)

And you can nicely see the disadvantage of the non-angled design in the right image: If the arrestor wires don't grip, the landing plane will crash into the parked ones. Which means you cannot land planes while spotting on the hangar deck. Interestingly, this is a limitation that the Japanese had at Midway, which greatly delayed their anti-ship launch since they had to recover CAP fighters.

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(10*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, NUKE9.13, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159
(6) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Powder Miner
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?

[Kot]

Oh, yes, Kaga and Akagi did quite well as carriers. After they had been expensively refitted (Akagi from 1935 to 1938, Kaga from 1934) as full-deck carriers.

Because they didin't have catapults, which actually made them require WHOLE hangar deck to launch, and even then it was the lighter planes. I am fully aware of that, and that is why we're using catapults.

And you can nicely see the disadvantage of the non-angled design in the left image: If the arrestor wires don't grip, the landing plane will crash into the parked ones. Which means you cannot land planes while spotting on the hangar deck. Interestingly, this is a limitation that the Japanese had at Midway, which greatly delayed their anti-ship launch since they had to recover CAP fighters.

Interestingly, this is a limitation EVERYONE had at Midway, since US Navy didin't use angled decks back then. They used hangar catapults, but whatever.
If you're worried about the planes crashing into planes parked on the launch deck... this is how planes were stored back then. In the back. So, you launch your whole set and then the planes land on empty deck. Lower hangar deck is simply an foolproof, less engineering extensive alternative to angled deck, something that, by the way, I suggested before but people were against it because it would be way too hard.
I swear, sometimes I think you're doing this all just to fuck with me.

[Devastator]

Oh, yes, Kaga and Akagi did quite well as carriers. After they had been expensively refitted (Akagi from 1935 to 1938, Kaga from 1934) as full-deck carriers.

Because they didin't have catapults, which actually made them require WHOLE hangar deck to launch, and even then it was the lighter planes. I am fully aware of that, and that is why we're using catapults.

They didn't take the whole hangar deck to launch.  IIRC, they could spot about twenty some planes and take them off as a group, or more commonly, two groups, one of fighters and one of bombers/torp bombers, and lift them off in the space of a few minutes.

Yes, they did 'use' the whole hangar deck, but they had plenty of space for spotting and took off about one every ten-fifteen seconds once the go signal was given.

[3_14159]

Interestingly, this is a limitation EVERYONE had at Midway, since US Navy didin't use angled decks back then. They used hangar catapults, but whatever.
If you're worried about the planes crashing into planes parked on the launch deck... this is how planes were stored back then. In the back. So, you launch your whole set and then the planes land on empty deck.

Yes, everybody had that limitation. But the Japanese were arguably struck worse by it, which is why I chose that as an example.
And yes, you launch the whole set of planes, then land. However, that means your deck is unavailable during that time. Let me quote from The Shattered Sword, Chapter 12:

As we have seen, spotting a strike for launch was a complex process that typically took a minimum of around forty-five minutes and often occupied upward of an hour. During this time, the ship’s flight deck was closed to operations, because aircraft were being spotted aft. Landings were completely impossible. And while fighters could theoretically take off from the bow during spotting, in practice we know of no instances where this was done.

I swear, sometimes I think you're doing this all just to fuck with me.

I don't argue to fuck with people, and I ask you to stop implying that.

[Strongpoint]

Wasp nest is our only valuable asset in the fleet. By designing a better carrier you are adding another that not only have a smaller impact we get a design that is countered by the same countermeasures

Both carriers will suffer greatly from a submarine or a new vessel with heavy guns or whatever they'll invent. You give the enemy a way to counter two design actions with one. A nice way to get behind.

I think you became too overconfident from the jet success and want a straightforward road to victory jet>bigger carrier\naval transport>bigger jet.

I do consider that we are very far ahead (not that few 6s can't change that... 5 and 6 are very powerful for very hard\hard projects) but it is possible to throw it away

There are so many avenues to explore, so many niches that we have left uncovered. We can consider escort fighters, heavy bombers, better medium bombers, artillery of various calibres, V-1 like flying bombs, radio ray navigation systems, modern heavy machineguns, submarines, tanks, wire guided torpedoes, helicopters, naval mines and more... No one even tries to discuss stuff like this.

Instead discussion is focused around small details of the future carrier... Maybe there are much more on discord?

[evictedSaint]

The point of the carrier is to make our two existing designs - the Haast and the Thunderbird - usable.  It has proven to be effective at sea and has turned combat in our favor before.  It has an added bonus of being easily revisable into 3 TC to make our current tech even cheaper.

We are considering the carrier because there is a loose agreement that it would be the most effective thing we could do with our turn, with a coastal gun being a close second.  We haven't forgotten about the other "cool tech" stuff we could design; many people simply think it's not a prudent design choice based on how the combat is going right now.

[10ebbor10]

The point of the carrier is to make our two existing designs - the Haast and the Thunderbird - usable.  It has proven to be effective at sea and has turned combat in our favor before.  It has an added bonus of being easily revisable into 3 TC to make our current tech even cheaper.

The Thunderbird does not have the endurance to operate decently at Sea, while the Haast lacks only it's torpedoes.

The carrier improvement will not do that much.

[Parsely]

If the exhaust isn't angled downward it can't set the deck on fire.

It can if you use a ramp, which will direct exhaust downwards. Also, our jet engines are mounted somewhat low.

That's great, because the Pattern C doesn't have a ski jump. Both of the runways on the Z on the other hand have ski jumps.

[RAM]

I really think that we need to sort out the basics of large ship construction first. We are going to be using an underpowered engine, an expensive frame, a weak hull, crude steering and it is going to be murdering archers left-right-and-centre because nobody will know how to avoid collisions with large vessels...

[evictedSaint]

I really think that we need to sort out the basics of large ship construction first. We are going to be using an underpowered engine, an expensive frame, a weak hull, crude steering and it is going to be murdering archers left-right-and-centre because nobody will know how to avoid collisions with large vessels...

Dear god, I had no idea our men are so incompetent!  We should also avoid building any coastal guns, too - we don't want any unfortunate accidents killing our men...

[Chiefwaffles]

Our men haven't any experience with large guns, you know! If we give them one next thing we know they'll be exclusively targeting our own ships with them!
We just have to avoid mistakes like that.

[Powder Miner]

We can distribute this book to them:
https://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/0870334336

[NUKE9.13]

I swear to god, my double vote has been removed like 3 times now, and people keep putting it back.

Well, clearly it's a sign I should've stuck with the Z. Now, the next person to vote, could you please not revert to an earlier votebox.

(7) B3 'Compensator' 300mm Coastal Gun/Naval Cannon: Kashyyk, khan boyzitbig, Taricus, strongpoint, Nav, 10ebbor10, Baffler
(1) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern A: Andrea
(9*) UFS-CV-40 'Tiger Star', Pattern C: GUNINANRUNIN, Kashyyk*, evictedSaint, Stabby, Madman198237, helmacon, McHuman, voidslayer, 3_14159
(6) UFS-CV-40 Zheleznogorod B: Kot, Mulisa, Azzuro, NUKE9.13, Piratejoe, Powder Miner
0 "Killerqueen":
0 Unity Tiger Armor:
1 "Salad Shake" class heavy transport: RAM
*second choice?

Also, I support any of the proposed carriers over a coastal gun.