elmattofdorr

British aircraft carriers

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

31 posts in this topic

So, the British. I know they are a long ish ways off. 

But looking up all that they had during ww2 it was a lot of

different ships. Each with different amounts of planes. 

However looking at the years, some older ones held more then

some newer. Just wondering how someone might tier these ships 

to make a tech tree with them. The other issue i see is that a lot 

of them use bi planes.  


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why even speculate?  They probably have no plans to ever put the RN in this game....Rowboats armed with slingshots will be introduced first.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why even speculate?  They probably have no plans to ever put the RN in this game....Rowboats armed with slingshots will be introduced first.

 

damn, totally salty and misinformed. Well done.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 

 

basically this!^^^:bajan:

 

will admit, it'll be interesting to sea a spitfire take of from a CV if they implement it!:look:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

 

OK i know nicholous is 1 of them but whats the other one?:unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

There's at least 3:

Montana 

Phoenix

Nicholas


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

its pykrete , get it right!!!!!!!:izmena:

 

Ice Carrier, Pykrete, there's probably a big difference, but what's the difference?

1lJ7wQU.png


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Problably true but thats negative. Theres only 2 paper ships in the whole US Tech Tree.

There's at least 3:

Montana 

Phoenix

Nicholas

 

 

The Montana is NOT a paper ship.  At least not in my book.  To me, ships that were ordered, even if cancelled before or after their keels were laid, are real enough to me.  A real "paper" ship is a design study, something that was never ordered, possibly never even intended to be ordered.    Something like the Tillman BB designs, for example.

 

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Montana is NOT a paper ship.  At least not in my book.  To me, ships that were ordered, even if cancelled before or after their keels were laid, are real enough to me.  A real "paper" ship is a design study, something that was never ordered, possibly never even intended to be ordered.    Something like the Tillman BB designs, for example.

 

 

 

It isnt in mine too. Once ships are ordered, they aren't paper ships.  Edited by King_Zacarias

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why even speculate?  They probably have no plans to ever put the RN in this game....Rowboats armed with slingshots will be introduced first.

 

Warspite turned up in the alpha test , so you are very wrong that rowboats will turn up before the Royal Navy. I do however emphasise with your cynicism to an extent, since expecting a RN main tech tree line is a joke at this point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Project Habbakuk? While it is an interesting concept; how the heck would they build it if they actually started on it?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It isnt in mine too. Once ships are ordered, they aren't paper ships. 

 

I think it's a case of horses for courses, and you and Crucis have good points.

 

I count Montana, Stalingrad, Amagi and all the laid-downs but not completeds as designs. The differences between a strip of steel on a slip and a design are far less than the differences between a design and a constructed ship. 

 

Partially built ships don't:

  • Have builders/speed trials to determine top speed, handling etc.
  • Have gunnery trials to determine real-world ROF, dispersion and other constraints
  • End up overweight
  • Add top weight and need to lose guns to compensate (USN DD C-hulls)
  • End up rebuilt with different than intended guns, armor or engines
  • Demonstrate real-world armor system weaknesses or design flaws
  • Have any history or combat record

Just like design-only ships.

 

Design-only seems to be an advantage in WoWs where the relatively few design ships come top in more class/tiers than the numbers would proportionally suggest.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WG will make a paper line and use inaccurate planes

 

 

I will raise holy hell if they do. The UK has more than enough built carriers, as well as a ordered carrier that got no where because of design changes based on US expiereance in the Pacific, to make an entire line. If I can come up with a German line that has 1 and a half fake ships, at the most (depending how you count it because while not designed there were plans already to a class after Graf Zeppelin), Wargaming can make a full UK line, without the pykrete carrier, with no real fake/paper ships save maybe the tier x being the Malta class.

 

Airplanes, slightly different story. They may need to yes, upgrade the planes that some of these CV's carried. Many have catapults so not a stretch as some started carrying mono-wing planes as we got into the early 40's. But if your giving an aircraft carrier BETTER airplanes for the sake of balance, I can live with that. Unlike when USN and IJN had airplanes that barely even made production and were phased out nearly a decade before the ship was even launched and were grossly inferior to what was needed at the tier as well as certain well known historical aircraft missing. Gimme a couple weeks I can probably go back through my list of UK planes I made a few months back while working on German CV's and fighters overall, update it to new aircraft set up vs USN and IJN, and figure out how to tier their CV's. 

 

 

basically this!^^^:bajan:

 

will admit, it'll be interesting to sea a spitfire take of from a CV if they implement it!:look:

 

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. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's a case of horses for courses, and you and Crucis have good points.

 

I count Montana, Stalingrad, Amagi and all the laid-downs but not completeds as designs. The differences between a strip of steel on a slip and a design are far less than the differences between a design and a constructed ship. 

 

Partially built ships don't:

  • Have builders/speed trials to determine top speed, handling etc.
  • Have gunnery trials to determine real-world ROF, dispersion and other constraints
  • End up overweight
  • Add top weight and need to lose guns to compensate (USN DD C-hulls)
  • End up rebuilt with different than intended guns, armor or engines
  • Demonstrate real-world armor system weaknesses or design flaws
  • Have any history or combat record

Just like design-only ships.

 

Design-only seems to be an advantage in WoWs where the relatively few design ships come top in more class/tiers than the numbers would proportionally suggest.

 

I don't think any of the Montana class were ever laid down, or resources ever allocated to their construction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK i know nicholous is 1 of them but whats the other one?:unsure:

There's actually three: NicholasPhoenix, and Montana.  Montana had drawings and blueprints made but no keels were laid, so she's technically paper as well.  Both of the former two were never even finalized and are more like traditional paper ships.

I will raise holy hell if they do. The UK has more than enough built carriers, as well as a ordered carrier that got no where because of design changes based on US expiereance in the Pacific, to make an entire line. If I can come up with a German line that has 1 and a half fake ships, at the most (depending how you count it because while not designed there were plans already to a class after Graf Zeppelin), Wargaming can make a full UK line, without the pykrete carrier, with no real fake/paper ships save maybe the tier x being the Malta class.

 

Airplanes, slightly different story. They may need to yes, upgrade the planes that some of these CV's carried. Many have catapults so not a stretch as some started carrying mono-wing planes as we got into the early 40's. But if your giving an aircraft carrier BETTER airplanes for the sake of balance, I can live with that. Unlike when USN and IJN had airplanes that barely even made production and were phased out nearly a decade before the ship was even launched and were grossly inferior to what was needed at the tier as well as certain well known historical aircraft missing. Gimme a couple weeks I can probably go back through my list of UK planes I made a few months back while working on German CV's and fighters overall, update it to new aircraft set up vs USN and IJN, and figure out how to tier their CV's. 

The problem is that the Royal Navy's carriers really didn't change much in the way of plane capacity.  Most of them were in the 40-50 plane range, with only early carriers like Argus and late carriers like Audacious/Eagle deviating significantly from that.

 

With the UK's top-tier carrier having less than half of the reserve of the Midway and just over half of the Hakuryu's, I have a nasty suspicion that the Royal Navy will see the Saipan's gimmick applied as their national flavor: tough, fast individual planes but very few of them both in the way of squadron size and reserve depth.

Edited by TenguBlade

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the Royal Navy's carriers really didn't change much in the way of plane capacity.  Most of them were in the 40-50 plane range, with only early carriers like Argus and late carriers like Audacious/Eagle deviating significantly from that.

 

With the UK's top-tier carrier having less than half of the reserve of the Midway and just over half of the Hakuryu's, I have a nasty suspicion that the Royal Navy will see the Saipan's gimmick applied as their national flavor: tough, fast individual planes but very few of them both in the way of squadron size and reserve depth.

 

Actually, not true. Working on a potential line I'd put the ordered but never laid down Malta class at the top. They were looking at a possible 108 aircraft on the ship, which would be 8 more than the IJN tier X gets (USN gets a 36 plane advantage at that tier, seems fair), the tier 9 has 81, comparable to the other two, tier 8 designed for maximum 72, same as USN, on down the line with the exception of the one I have at tier 4 and 7 currently needing increased numbers of aircraft vs history, however it would be far from the first time of Wargaming altering number of aircraft carried by ships, and they've made alterations to ships in the past to make them fit a tier. Number of airplanes is one of those numbers I'm fine with them messing with if it helps keep things balanced even if they weren't close in numbers. Especially because No CV should have aircraft two tiers higher than it is, it only causes problems.

 

The only major change off history would likely be giving them better aircraft than they had, unless they use some different ships than what I'm looking at. But rather see them with better aircraft than worse ones. Maybe, depending on tiering and all, some armament tweaks but plenty of ships have had that.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ujny6jn.jpg

Ice Carrier Confirmed 

 :popcorn:

 

 

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

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.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.