• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Liked the picture. :) Also liked your description of how designs can be influenced as much by bureaucratic infighting and inertia as much as by what the designers are actually trying to achieve.

So the FAA are going with deck parks and not armoured hangars. Probaly a good idea, especially for the Far East. Of course it will be seen as a terrible idea if the CAPs aren't up to scratch.
Sir Goodall summed up the RCNC view of the Japanese design by stating "They must be building their ships out of cardboard or lying". The reality was the IJN were doing both; the Mogamis were both over weight and incredibly lightly built, making extensive use of thin aluminium and light duty welding (leading to serious hull cracking during trials) and seriously skimping on protection.
Didn't the Mogamis have to be rebuilt with 10x8" because they couldn't take the weight of the original armament?
The IJN had some great designers, but they tended to push the limits of the possible a little hard. There's sometimes a virtue in being somewhat conventional.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So the FAA are going with deck parks and not armoured hangars. Probaly a good idea, especially for the Far East. Of course it will be seen as a terrible idea if the CAPs aren't up to scratch.
Didn't the Mogamis have to be rebuilt with 10x8" because they couldn't take the weight of the original armament?
The IJN had some great designers, but they tended to push the limits of the possible a little hard. There's sometimes a virtue in being somewhat conventional.

Bah, you have to go BEYOND THE IMPOSSIBLE!
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Great post Pip. I don't know very much about Navy statistics and such but your posts are always enlightening and interesting. Especially the comments on Military vs. Bureaucracy, an all too common theme in the world, even today I’m afraid.

*yawn*.

Sorry, but boat-porn doesen't really interest me that much :p I guess I'll wait for the next political update :p

:D While this made me laugh, I must admit, that except for the US politics and the high level political stuff on the continent, the in-depth posts on who took what cabinet position made me want to take a nap... :p

Still, by far one of the most engaging AAR's I've ever read, and it's STILL 1936!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Arilou - Thank you for you kind words. They're exactly the kind of constructive and supportive comment I have come to expect and cherish from you.

Carlstadt Boy - I did, perhaps, get a tad carried away with the detail. But at least it was appreciated. :)

DonnieBaseball - I tried to avoid making every ship too good, if only because I want to do the write up for the next generation, but as you say I think they're a fairly strong looking line up.

The dockyards was a last minute addition, but I figured it made sense; if the government is going to throw money at infrastructure then I'm sure the Navy would use it's influence to point meaningfully at the dockyards.

Derek Pullem - Hopefully they can learn that lesson in a slightly less expensive manner, but we shall have to wait and see. :)

trekaddict - I can guarantee a great deal of photoshopped carrier action certainly. :D

DonnieBaseball (Again) - I don't think that will actually be a major handicap, if only because the AA guns was fairly poor historically (certainly on the Tribals, to a lesser extent on the Towns) so the actual effective difference will probably minor.

I agree though that's bugger all good when a dive bomber is screaming down on you. However there's always the hope the RN can learn this in time for the next round of ship building.

Jape - It's a risk I run, too many interesting facts to get down that I've spent time acquiring and can't bear to leave out. It seems to be popular though. ;)

Vann the Red - I do think it's important not to damn people with hindsight; in general the people who made such technological mistakes (on all sides) weren't idiots or wilfully blind but trying to do their best with imperfect information while playing for very high stakes. No-one gets it right all the time and I try and reflect that, if nothing else it would be quite a dull AAR. :D

Lord Strange - Someone will lose battleships to air power certainly, though which navy it is depends on who gets to fight Japan first....

merrick - My photo editing was not in vain, excellent. :)

The RN armoured carriers came about for a variety of reasons, none of which apply to this timeline. This time around the reasons all point towards big air groups (bigger FAA, no Regia Marina and no expectation of future fighting in the enclosed Med, actual air op experience, etc). If anything it could be the USN that goes for armoured boxes (if it gets any CVs at all in the near future) as the Admirals there get over-protective of any new tonnage they're allocated. Probably not but it would be an amusing twist.

However as you say the RN CAP will have to be very impressive to avoid the charge of 'I told you so', that means the FAA can't rely of Fairey Fulmars and will have to pull something special out of the bag.

From my understanding the Mogamis were always designed to be 8" cruisers; the conversion was suspiciously easy and their triple 6" turret was conveniently very similar sized to the standard double 8". Which was handy for them.

Quite separately they had serious stability problems and, worse, the IJN made the typical Axis ship building mistake of welding too much; welding saves tonnage but a welded joint doesn't behave like a riveted joint, hence you could only use it for certain areas of the ship. Problem was the IJN designers used it everywhere, hence the serious hull cracking problems. In the end the only solution was hull bulging, solved much of the stability problems and covered over the dodgy welding, however it knocked a good few knots of the top speed. As you say a bit of conventional thinking is sometimes required, particularly with new ideas you don't fully understand.

Jerzul - I have had to learn that not everyone is going to find every update completely to their tastes, especially when I go off on a boat-porn fest.

However if someone not into navy stats could find that update enjoyable then I think I must be doing something right. And thanks for the extravagant praise. :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Like this:

HMSIllustriousNR-01.png



HMS Illustrious (NR-01), Britains first Nuclear Carrier, launched in 1962

I know, a crappy Photoshop of a pic of the Enterprise.... I made it myself you know.

On the subject of fantasies, if that had a navalised TSR 2 on deck, I would be able to die a happy man...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On the subject of fantasies, if that had a navalised TSR 2 on deck, I would be able to die a happy man...

Not on deck, but in the hangar. The TSR 2 serves in a role similar to the F-111 in OTL with both the RAF and the Royal Navy.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Fantastic update. Nothing like naval architecture to "stimulate" the mind.
frolicemotehlgy4.gif
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Lovely work Pippy!

The production queue was greatly appreciated, you truly are a man of your word. :)

Now, on with the Air show and dear old Winnie! :D

Duritz.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Like this:

HMSIllustriousNR-01.png



HMS Illustrious (NR-01), Britains first Nuclear Carrier, launched in 1962

I know, a crappy Photoshop of a pic of the Enterprise.... I made it myself you know.

Sorry but being but a poxy land-lubber layman, what have you done to the Enterprise to turn it into your HMS Illustrious?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Sorry but being but a poxy land-lubber layman, what have you done to the Enterprise to turn it into your HMS Illustrious?

I changed the number. It's a somewhat old, and by now I could probably do it better if I were to try. :eek:o


The registration of the USS Enterprise is CVN-65, hence it should say 65 instead of 01.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
so, the Navy are slightly ahead of OTL, be interseting to see what the RAF are going to take from the war.

great stuff pippy, keep it up mate.

later, caff
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Tigey - Ahh yes TSR2, one of the many proofs that Labour should never be trusted with defence spending or any form of strategic decision making. :(

Sir Humphrey - Watch out you don't 'stimulate' too much or you will go blind...

Duritz - The production queue helped get a few things across far better than lengthy descriptions so was most handy. And yes onto an Air Ministry now 'lucky' enough to have Churchill to guide it. :D

trekaddict - To be fair big carriers do look fairly similar, it's hard to think what feature any RN carrier would have that would look different (visually anyway).

caffran - The RAF had a very... different war experience than the RN is all I'm saying at this stage.

And thanks for the kind words, just the kind of things an author loves to hear. :D


On which note it appears I've won an AARland Choice AwAARds for best HOI history book Q4. Or at the very least shared it with the inestimable Crossfires which is almost as good. I am genuinely surprised to win this as I was fairly sure I didn't update frequently enough to have a hope of winning anything, so it's a most pleasant surprise. Thanks to all who voted for this meandering tale of extended elections and boat-porn. :D
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Your victory only proves that porn sells, regardless of the subject! :D

Well done Pippy, now get to work on updating enough in Q1 2009 to win again!

Dury.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Congrats, El Pip. :D Your updates are certainly worth it when they come.

Fantastic update. Nothing like naval architecture to "stimulate" the mind.
frolicemotehlgy4.gif

In my case, it "stimulated" me to spend twenty minutes trying to figure out what El Pip was talking about when he mentioned "machines" a couple times in his carrier coverage.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Congratulations on your award! Also, have I awarded you any of my cookies for this AAR? I cannot see any in your sig.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What is the final number of planes on Ark Royal? Is it 72, or more with on deck aircraft (or is 72 with on deck planes?)? Also, can you tell us what is the final tonnage of the class?

And how come you chose the name Victoria for second KGV? Maybe superstition? :eek:

Althought, it could be smart... In my current game of 4 capital ships lost in war with Japan, the first three were Ark Royal, Prince of Wales, and Hood. :wacko: And in game before that I also lost PoW to the japanese carriers...
So renaming the ship might become the ultimate AA weapon after all...:rofl:
 
  • 1
Reactions: