Any weird warship or half-and-half ship ideas?

[hawkeyem4]

I have no ideas for this but I want y'all to tell me your ideas that would fit this.(pics would be good)

[Jinxed_Katajainen]

You mean like the Ise class battleships which were half battleship, half carrier?

 

http://en.wikipedia....lass_battleship

 

[hawkeyem4]

Exactly like that.

[Ariecho]

Nice (+1)

[Enaris]

I think the British "Ice Aircraft Carrier" would certainly qualify for "wierd warship"

 

I'll just link you to the cool details

[JeeWeeJ]

I know that the RN considered to convert the planned Lion class BB's to hybrid carriers, just like the Ise. A bit like this:

http://www.combinedf...ta/lion_df7.jpg

 

*Please note that this picture came from an alternate history site, so may not be accurate.

[hawkeyem4]

Enaris, on 28 August 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I think the British "Ice Aircraft Carrier" would certainly qualify for "wierd warship"

I'll just link you to the cool details

The pykrete carrier.Haha!I saw that on Mythbusters.

[Mermaid_Witch]

 

HMS Gotland.  A Swedish seaplane cruiser built in the early 1930s.  It had the capacity to carry 8 aircraft, but they were never able to find enough to fully outfit the design.  Due to the lack of modern seaplane designs, in 1944 the carrier capacity was removed in favor of a massive upgrade to the anti-air battery.  She was scrapped in 1963.  The Gotland's chief claim to fame is her role in the sinking of the Bismarck.  The Gotland spotted the Bismarck when he was passing by Swedish waters.  The Gotland's commander radioed Sweden's Navy headquarters to tell them of the Bismarck's presence.  The transmission was intercepted by the British Embassy, which alerted them to presence of the Bismarck at sea.  And they rest, as they say, is history.

 

 

HIJMS Mogami.  The lead ship of the Mogami class of treaty light cruisers.  Part of the Japanese fleet's "Quality over quantity" initiative to overwhelm the US Navy with firepower instead of numbers.  Initially mounting fifteen 6" guns on a mere 9500 tons displacement, the Mogami class was built extremely light in order to come in at treaty limits (8500 tons).*   However, it was built TOO lightly, as during sea trials the hull cracked from the stress of traveling at 30 knots.  The ships had to be rebuilt and reinforced to make them seaworthy, which kicked their displacement up to over 13,000 tons.  During the rebuild the triple 6" turrets were removed and replaced with dual 8" turrets, making them into heavy cruisers.  In addition to the guns, the ship mounted a battery of 12 long lance torpedo launchers and a powerful dual-purpose gun suite, making them extremely well armed ships.

 

During the battle of Midway, the Mogami and her sister ship the Mikuma were steaming in formation when they came under air attack.  the Mogami zigged while the Mikuma zagged, and the two collided.  The Mogami was able to limp back to port, but the Mikuma was so badly damaged that she wasn't able to escape the aircraft from the Enterprise and the Hornet.  While repairing the damage to the Mogami, the decision was made to covert her into an aircraft carrier in order to help cover the devastating losses of Midway.  The result is what you see above.  The rear turrets were removed and a flight deck was slapped on, making her capable of carrying 20 seaplanes.  Mogami met her end during the Battle of Surigao Strait, when she collided with the heavy cruiser Nachi.  The collision started fires that eventually ignited 5 of her long lance torpedoes, causing them to explode.  The explosion disable her starboard engine, leaving the ship crippled.  Then, she came under fire from 3 US cruisers, the Portland, the Louisville, and the Denver, which hit her approximately 20 times.  After this, she was retiring from the battle when her port engine died, leaving her adrift.  She was still adrift when she was spotted by a flight of Avenger bombers, which put two 500 lb bombs into her.  After this, the crew decided to finally abandon ship.  3 hours later, she was scuttled by a Japanese destroyer who put a single torpedo into her.

 

 

*They lied about the displacement to squeak by, not the first or the last time the Japanese cheated the treaty

[hawkeyem4]

Ouch.That wasn't good.

[Jinxed_Katajainen]

Mini_Bolo, on 28 August 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

*They lied about the displacement to squeak by, not the first or the last time the Japanese cheated the treaty

I don't blame them for trying... they're a naval power that got shafted by the treaty in the 5:5:3 (US/UK/Japan) ratio.

[Enaris]

Well, everyone gamed the weights in the treaty to a greater or lesser extent.  The Japanese did more than others, but in part, that's because their engineers tended to underestimate the weight of a ship at the blueprint stage.

 

As for the "shafted" 5:5:3 ratio... eh.  That can be argued either way.  The official reason that they were given a smaller fleet is that they didn't have near as much water to patrol as a primary defensive zone.  The US needed an Atlantic and Pacific Fleet, the British had imperial commitments world wide.  To make it a full 5:5:5 would have created a whole new set of problems.

[Mermaid_Witch]

Enaris, on 28 August 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Well, everyone gamed the weights in the treaty to a greater or lesser extent.  The Japanese did more than others, but in part, that's because their engineers tended to underestimate the weight of a ship at the blueprint stage.

As for the "shafted" 5:5:3 ratio... eh.  That can be argued either way.  The official reason that they were given a smaller fleet is that they didn't have near as much water to patrol as a primary defensive zone.  The US needed an Atlantic and Pacific Fleet, the British had imperial commitments world wide.  To make it a full 5:5:5 would have created a whole new set of problems.

The US Navy didn't game the weights.  Since the US had been the one to introduce the treaty, they had to be sure to keep to the letter of the law in order for the treaty not to fall apart.  After all, if the country that introduced the weight limits were to be caught cheating, imagine how the other signatories would respond.  "Oh, so the Americans don't think highly enough of their own treaty to bother following it.  Well, if they don't care, neither do we."  Arms race ensues.

The Pensacolas came in 900 tons under the limit, and the US was so careful about the tonnage that even after adding extra weight in armor, the subsequent Northamptons came in underweight as well.  It wasn't until the Portlands and the New Orleans cruisers that the US Navy had a true 10,000 ton cruiser.

[Crag_r]

There were not too many of the hybrid designs in the war because the two roles were normally incompatible with each other, An Aircraft carrier's are not too much use when taking direct fire because of the venerability of the Aircraft and all the smoke from the flack can make landing/take off hard / impossible for the pilots, not to mention the shock wave from a big battleships gun is easily enough to flip a parked Aircraft on deck or literally push it out of the air. The extra weight of the Guns and ammunition as well takes away valuable hangar space for Aircraft and fuel as well. Also the hangar deck is very vulnerable to plunging fire(rounds coming in vertical) from other surface ships. So these ships are only slightly effective at either role not even close to as much as a ship devoted to one or the other roles.

[Goldeneye54]

Even though they don't do well in either role they are still cool to see though.

[ForcestormX]

The Ise and the Lion both look like fun.

 

Plus, wouldn't a flight deck count as bonus armor vs plunging fire? :biggrin:

[Crag_r]

ForcestormX, on 28 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

The Ise and the Lion both look like fun.

Plus, wouldn't a flight deck count as bonus armor vs plunging fire? :biggrin:

Flight decks were normally not armored because of the huge weight high up on the ship, CVs only became armored after World War 2 had finished

[Enaris]

Crag_r, on 28 August 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Flight decks were normally not armored because of the huge weight high up on the ship, CVs only became armored after World War 2 had finished

Actually, the British did armor their flight decks.  The weight (and ship stability issues) led to having less hanger space.

that's why the Illustrious, despite weighing 28918t loaded had an airgroup of 60-70ish, while the Yorktown, at 25500t loaded could carry nearly 90 aircraft.


EDIT: To fix my example. On double checking the Illustrious had the armored deck, but not my initial example of the Ark Royal.

[Crag_r]

Enaris, on 28 August 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Actually, the British did armor their flight decks.  The weight (and ship stability issues) led to having less hanger space.

that's why the Ark Royal, despite weighing 27720t loaded had an airgroup of 50ish, while the Yorktown, at 25500t loaded could carry nearly 90 aircraft.

Thats why i said after World War, and i was going to mention stability issues caused by it because of the high weigh of the armored flight deck.

[Enaris]

Ah, what threw me is that the Illustrious was launched in 1940, so I don't look at it as "post-war" at all.

[Gigaton]

So cruiser/carrier and battleship/carrier are covered? Cruiser/submarine next then. Surcouf was quite a good looking vessel too:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia...._Surcouf_(N_N_3)

 

British also experimented with heavily gunned subs:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_M1

[Mermaid_Witch]

Gigaton, on 29 August 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

So cruiser/carrier and battleship/carrier are covered? Cruiser/submarine next then. Surcouf was quite a good looking vessel too:

That's not the Surcouf.  That's the I-507, a fictional submarine from the Japanese movie Lorelei: The Witch of the Pacific Ocean.  The Surcouf was nowhere near as streamlined.

[Gigaton]

Mini_Bolo, on 29 August 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

That's not the Surcouf.  That's the I-507, a fictional submarine from the Japanese movie Lorelei: The Witch of the Pacific Ocean.  The Surcouf was nowhere near as streamlined.

Hah. Serves me right of doing an image search and snapping the first (or was it second) picture. Thanks for the correction.

[ForcestormX]

Mini_Bolo, on 29 August 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

That's not the Surcouf.  That's the I-507, a fictional submarine from the Japanese movie Lorelei: The Witch of the Pacific Ocean.  The Surcouf was nowhere near as streamlined.

Plus the guns are smaller too.

[Mermaid_Witch]

Gigaton, on 29 August 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Hah. Serves me right of doing an image search and snapping the first (or was it second) picture. Thanks for the correction.

No problem, it's an easy mistake to make.

The movie wasn't too bad, either.  Definitely Japanese in the story-telling and cliches, but not bad.

[Crag_r]

Enaris, on 28 August 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Ah, what threw me is that the Illustrious was launched in 1940, so I don't look at it as "post-war" at all.

Ah ok my bad forget about that one, but anyway my point was you simply could not have an efficient Battleship Carrier