Jump to content


British aircraft carriers


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

Ie_Shima #21 Posted 07 July 2016 - 02:13 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 151
  • Member since:
    05-28-2016

Almost all of the UK's carriers had armored flight decks, which while protecting the carrier from bombs and shell fire it severely limited the number of planes they could carry due to the fact that they only had one hanger.  US and IJN carriers had 2 or sometimes 3 hanger decks, but no armor.  This meant they could carry more, but they were weaker in terms of strength. 

 

We are probably going to see carriers with few planes but with a lot of hit points.  Maybe a front line carrier class?



elmattofdorr #22 Posted 07 July 2016 - 03:14 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 19
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I would like to see that. It would increase the chance of living when you have people trying to set you on fire so your planes cant take off. And also reduce the likely hood that enemy cv would try and sneak bomb you. Pair that with decent range AA and they would more then make up for the lower plane number.

The types of planes would be more towards ijn in the fighter role. Better attack damage with lower health but faster. 



Naval_Churchill #23 Posted 30 January 2017 - 03:04 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 24
  • Member since:
    12-20-2016
Tbh british should have more than just Cruisers, they should have HMS hood as a premium ship atleast and British CV

Carrier_Lexington #24 Posted 30 January 2017 - 03:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 483
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostQJW, on 06 July 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

Ice Carrier Confirmed 

Spoiler

 

 

What, so, does it lose HP as the battle goes on?

View PostWanderingGhost, on 06 July 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

Given they did in fact navalize the spitfire (the Seafire), you'd be guaranteed to see it. If you want REALLY interesting, a couple CV's in this line carried the Sea Hornet, a lightweight twin engine fighter, granted the navalized version was a thing shortly after the war - They could actually put it on higher tier carries so you could get to see a sizeable twin engine plane taking off from them. Imagine watching THAT take off. 

Also the Hurricane (Sea Hurricane), and there were plenty of Fairey Aircraft that could hold their own in a fight.


"GIT OFF MY WALL!"-- Zeppelin vonSchulteiss, Lighter than Heir

 

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Terry Pratchett


HMS_Formidable #25 Posted 30 January 2017 - 08:10 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 851
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

So RN carriers are a bit of a hobby of mine (you could tell... couldn't you?)

 

I've not put any effort into calculating a tree. But here's an off-the-top-of-my-head go:

 

 

t4 HMS Argus

Argus had a long history and all. But she was always experimental, and even before the war was a training carrier. Sure she was pressed into emergency active use from time to time, but only out of desperation Why not Hermes? Yes, she was the first purpose built carrier ... but she was always just an 'escort' carrier, capable of carrying 15 aircraft at 25kts. When lost in 1942 she was an anti-submarine / anti-raider escort carrying up to 15 Swordfish.

 

T5 HMS Eagle. 

This is a conversion of a Chilean battleship hull, finished in 1924. She could carry between 25 and 30 aircraft. Top speed about 24kts.

She does fit comfortably with Zuiho. She could carry up to 50 aircraft at 30kts

 

T6 HMS Illustrious

Why before Ark Royal, the design that preceded her? Well, Illustrious was built to fight in the confines of the North Sea and Mediterranean, where large numbers of motor torpedo boats, destroyers and cruisers were perceived to be a threat - as well as the permanent presence of land-based bombers. She had 3in armour on the decks between the lifts, and 4.5in on the hangar sides. The cost was a base airgroup of 33 (though they operated 57 Corsairs and Avengers off Japan in 45). In WoWs, it's only the aircraft that matter. 

HMS Corageous is also a good fit here, as she fits the of Ryujo, and the air-group scale of the ww2 cruiser conversion Independence. 
Another alternative, as Illustrious is so similar to Implacable, could be HMS Unicorn ... but she was a maintenance carrier with a backup-capability for emergency fleet use.

 

T7 HMS Ark Royal

Probably controversial here. But she was a creation of the early 1930s. She was able to carry 70 or so aircraft, her complicated lift arrangements and crew accommodation meant she could really only actively support about 54. How this would have all been affected by adding deck parks I I don't know (RN never counted those as standard air groups, unlike US and Japan). But it could give her about 65, with a deck park of about 15 being similar to what was achieved on Illustrious. She was generally well designed for her time, with the 40mm pom pom long before other nations realised the need for a mid-weight AA gun. But, then, she had that funnel trunking Achilles heel...

 

T8: HMS Implacable

An upgrade of the Illustrious class with a second 'half' hangar. She had the 3in armour between the lifts, but the hangar side armour was reduced to about 1.5in. Capable of operating more than 80 Seafires, Fireflies and Avengers.

 

T9: HMS Audacious

I'm talking the WW2 build which was paused at the end of the war and then later completed (only slightly modified) in the early 50s as HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle (commemorating the earlier ships). These were design contemporaries to the Essex and could handle air groups of 85 (100 with deck park). She had a 4in armoured deck between the lifts, with 1.5in on the hangar sides.
The way WoWS totally ignored the historical armour distribution of Taiho at this tier doesn't give me any hope any of the RN's armoured carriers will be well represented...

 

T10: HMS Malta

Paper ship with advanced level of drawings and calculations. Easily on a par with Midway, while Hakuryu is a Wargaming re-imagining of what was in reality a minor proposed upgrade to the Taiho hull. Would have looked somewhat similar to Audacious though bigger, and without armour on the deck or hangar sides (she was designed to operate in the Pacific, not the Med/North Sea).


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 30 January 2017 - 08:19 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


aethervox #26 Posted 31 January 2017 - 05:12 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 2,027
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
When the RN CVs arrive, I will be playing one.

Carrier_Lexington #27 Posted 31 January 2017 - 11:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 483
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Postaethervox, on 31 January 2017 - 12:12 PM, said:

When the RN CVs arrive, I will be playing one.

 

As will I, most likely.

Actually, I'm not a supertester, so, when the RN CVs arrive in the Regular tree, I will be playing one.


"GIT OFF MY WALL!"-- Zeppelin vonSchulteiss, Lighter than Heir

 

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." --Terry Pratchett


FangsOut #28 Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:31 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Beta Testers

  • 3
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Why not have something like this

 

T4: Argus

T5: Glorious

T6: Ark Royal

T7: Illustrious (or Indomitable)

T8: Implacable

T9: Audacious/Eagle

T10: Malta (the only paper

 

If you really don't like paper than take out Malta, maybe Add Old HMS Eagle in T5 and bump the rest up a tier.



HMS_Formidable #29 Posted 14 March 2017 - 05:02 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 851
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

my only argument with the above is that Ark Royal had so many more in her baseline airgroup (hangar stowage) than Illustrious.

I don't think WoWS will allow Illustrious to become an destroyer-killer (16x 4.5s - port/starboard could fire over the deck) with even her hangar armoured to the same level as a light cruiser.
Tho I suspect given the way they modeled Taiho's flight deck armour, that won't be a factor either...


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 14 March 2017 - 05:02 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


SeaKnight_1990 #30 Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:32 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 400
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 13 March 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

 

I don't think WoWS will allow Illustrious to become an destroyer-killer (16x 4.5s - port/starboard could fire over the deck) with even her hangar armoured to the same level as a light cruiser.
 

Given how much WG likes carriers (not at all,) I wouldn't be surprised if they f__ked with 'Lusty like that.


 

dark.png





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users