Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

First UK Co-operative AAR!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
OOC: The problem is the conversions between metric and imperial units. I did it in metric, then thought that really didn't seem right. No way an old timer like Sir R was going to use that 'metre rubbish' as he would call it so I had to convert. I rounded too much clearly.

If you run through it in one set of units without rounding it comes out around 3900.

OK here's how I understand it. Current H&W design

*****
* ! ! *
*:::::*

* is the armour, ! the support, : the hangar floor, ] [ normal deck

I think your suggesting:

****
[ ! ! ]
[ ! ! ]
*:::*

Lose the hangar armour on the sides but keep the flight deck armour (so you have to keep the supports). Not a big saving, but it will be lighter and will save some space while keeping protection.

The historical specification was to produce hangars that were armoued boxes so that was what I started with. The hangars had to withstand 500lb bombs and 6" naval gun fire, hence the side armour.

As it happens I think your correct, the armour on the side of the hangar is relatively useless unless you want the carrier's getting into gunnery range of light cruisers. Sir R however is a bit too annoyed at the moment to really think clearly! :D
 
All OOC: Ok so we'll leave the figures... i took the 2,900 figure from a naval design programe, but it deals with 'normal' ships (tappered at both ends) rarther than carriers (squareish decks).

Anyway your dead right on the design I was thinking of something a little smaller than the RL US Essex carriers;

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/us_fleet.htm

As to the getting into gunnery range, I think they'd be escorted by CA or BC or maybe even BB's so that will not be a problem. The worst thing you can do IN GAME is leave a CV without a 'gun' capital to defend it.

Well nice to know that it is not just the Navy that Wolfe gets up the nose of. :D
 
El Pip said:
OOC: The problem is the conversions between metric and imperial units. I did it in metric, then thought that really didn't seem right. No way an old timer like Sir R was going to use that 'metre rubbish' as he would call it so I had to convert. I rounded too much clearly.

If you run through it in one set of units without rounding it comes out around 3900.

OK here's how I understand it. Current H&W design

*****
* ! ! *
*:::::*

* is the armour, ! the support, : the hangar floor, ] [ normal deck

I think your suggesting:

****
[ ! ! ]
[ ! ! ]
*:::*

Lose the hangar armour on the sides but keep the flight deck armour (so you have to keep the supports). Not a big saving, but it will be lighter and will save some space while keeping protection.

The historical specification was to produce hangars that were armoued boxes so that was what I started with. The hangars had to withstand 500lb bombs and 6" naval gun fire, hence the side armour.

As it happens I think your correct, the armour on the side of the hangar is relatively useless unless you want the carrier's getting into gunnery range of light cruisers. Sir R however is a bit too annoyed at the moment to really think clearly! :D
Click to expand...

OOC: You are not correct in your drawings I think. I'll try my best below using your characters.

Current H&W design:

[***] - armored flight deck 3" over the hangar between the lifts (1 1/2" at ends and under the island. Lifts were unarmored
[*!!*] - hangar sides 4 1/2"
*::::* - hangar floor 1" (outside of the hangar, 3"-2 1/2" between the hangar wall and belt, 3" over the machinery aft)
*.....* - belt armor 4 1/2" (the dots are machinery and whatnot)

A side view with horizontal armoring thickness:

*********<1.5"-lift-3">*******************<3"-lift-1.5">**********
* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *
***********<3"1">******************************************
-\....................................**************<(belt placement)................/
--\_____ ________ _______ _____ _______ ______ ______ _______ _____/

Love these 'drawings'?

Anyways, as hopefully you can see, the hangar sides are actually a huge portion of the armor weight being the length of the hangar and made of 180lb steel. The flight deck had a good amount of weight (1,500 tons) but the deck was only 3" (120lb steel) armored over the hangar and between the lifts as I understand it (until I find some schematics of her) and 1 1/2" (60lb steel)fore and aft of the lifts and I believe the deck between the side edge and hangar was unarmored.

I did some doodling, maybe this is better?

Illustrious.jpg


A guess on my part but it seems right.
 
Last edited:
Vice Admiral Lyons kept his smile off his face as Sir Thomas asked for the American admiral. It was not really a suprise among any of the Admiralty officers that the First Sea Lord would do that for a couple of reasons. One was that Sir Thomas had been to the United States and was aware of their carrier designs, and the other reason was that it was time to move beyond carriers carrying two to three squadrons per carrier.

"I think that for now we should discuss aircraft," Lyons said, drastically changing the subject, "have there been any estimations about what sort of aircraft will be available for these designs, even including navalising a couple of the RAF designs? Also what would it take to fit, say 50 or 60 aircraft into this design?" If it was possible, Admiral Lyons wanted to be able to launch decent strikes and still have enough fighters to defend himself.
 
Finally someone had hit the real point of the need for improvement, Wolfe had shyed away from a direct conversation but here he saw an opening.


The Sea Gladiator​

"Well at the moment it would the the Gloicester Sea Gladiator for air denfese and Fairey Swordfish as a torpedo bomber. From what my pilots tell me the Swordfish is an exclent recon plane but not much of a torpedo bomber, it no longer has the speed, compared with monoplane designs. The Sea Gladiator is also far too slow when compared to the designs of the RAF and, therefore, the German, US and Italian and Japanese designs."


The 'stringbag' Swordfish​

"We should keep a coupple of Swordfish abord, for recon work and because as a last resort they can be used to bomb anything. The RAF's Spitfire or Hurricane could be modified for naval use, but they are not perfect carrier based planes. We really need a naval specific design, something like a heavily modified Spirfire or Hurricane. My good friend Sidney Camm of Hawker, is looking at a new design that will be far superior to the Hurricane, using a new engine Bristol are designing. It would be by far the fastest 'fighting' areoplane by what he tells me, but the RAF aren't really interested. Perhaps if we could get together with him he could draw us up something special?"


The sea Fury​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC: Sidney Camm, was working on the Typhoon in early 1937. The naval version finaly commisioned was the Sea Fury (a development of the Typhoon) If the Admiralty had gone to Hawker in '37 they may have acheived something like the Sea Fury in a coupple of years.

Until then we should look at the Hurricane/Spitfire. But we still have the real problem that there is no naval bomber of any worth around for us Brits.

Hope you dont mind me jumping in Addy. :)
 
OOC: I was just going for a simplification without getting very complex. That was enlightening and means my numbers for deck armour weight are wrong. In fact Wolfey was probably closer. :eek: :)

In any case away!

-----

Sir Rebbeck wondered to himself about Lyons. First he changed the subject to aircraft then he veared back to ship design, heading right back into the morass of specifications. Still it was at least a number to work to and clearly protection could be sacrificed. He'd need some time to work that one out, meanwhile the aircraft question could be answered. He nodded at the Short Brothers representative, this was his area of expertise.

-----
OOC: If anybody wants to step in and do that feel free, I'll be doing it myself tomorrow sometime if no-one does.
 
El Pip said:
OOC: I was just going for a simplification without getting very complex. That was enlightening and means my numbers for deck armour weight are wrong. In fact Wolfey was probably closer. :eek: :)
Click to expand...

Sir, It is as much a shok to me as you... WOOT! WOOT! Wolfey was RIGHT!! :rolleyes:

El Pip said:
OOC: If anybody wants to step in and do that feel free, I'll be doing it myself tomorrow sometime if no-one does.
Click to expand...

I would, but I think I've already go the point across, a different perspective would be good.
 
El Pip said:
Sir Rebbeck wondered to himself about Lyons. First he changed the subject to aircraft then he veared back to ship design, heading right back into the morass of specifications. Still it was at least a number to work to and clearly protection could be sacrificed. He'd need some time to work that one out, meanwhile the aircraft question could be answered. He nodded at the Short Brothers representative, this was his area of expertise.
Click to expand...



OOC: Perhaps he was being a little too subtle. Basically he was trying to put up a requirement of folding-wing monoplanes and wondering if that would give Rebbeck a chance to fit more planes in there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lyons nodded at Admiral Wolfe, "Sir I agree with you that the Swordfish, and as a matter of fact, the Gladiator, is too slow for real use, we need something that can be competitive against land based air forces. Most of our potential enemies, except Japan, does not have a substantial Navy, much less an Aircraft Carrier."

Lyons looked at Sir Thomas," I think that we might need to visit Sidney Camm to see what he can provide us, and see what it would take to navalize the Hurricane II in the process."

Sir Thomas smiled, finally they were getting somewhere, "Well perhaps a competition between Supermarine and Hawker for immediate fighter craft, and see what either can come up for our next generation fighter. On the subject, representatives from Blackburn have advanced their 'Skua' design as a divebomber. No one at this point has come forward for a replacement for the Swordfish as of yet. Any ideas? Does Short have something for us?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC: Wink wink nudge nudge ;) . By the way we're taking this, we might need to mod some stuff.
 
OOC: Might as well get Sticks there in proper.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...Short have something for us?" That was Sir Wallace's voice so he knew he was at the right place.

He let the aide go forward and Sticks waited outside. 'Remember, Andy, this isn't the Bureau, the Brits have they own way of doing things.' he reminded himself.

"Admiral, they are ready for you now." and the man held the door for him which was a good thing as he had a briefcase and several tubes with plans within. Sticks thought he must look a bit comical with tubes jutting out at all angles and he nearly laughed until a jab of pain came from his arm. 'Mind the doctor's advice,' he scolded himself.

A quick survey of the room told him much and as he expected their was a mixture of dislike, apathy and even a bit of appreciation. 'Tough crowd,' he thought and knew introductions would follow soon.

He didn't salute as it wasn't US naval custom to do so indoors so instead he offered his hand and a nod. "It is good to see you again, sir. I came as quickly as I could but traffic was a pain." This brought a few chuckles and Sticks took it as a good sign.

An aviator over there and he saw the tag. "Admiral Lyons! It's good to put a face to the name. Sorry I missed those exercises but those Spanish had to ruin everything...and Sir Wolfe. You and I should have another go at the cider and maybe I'll bring you some of my brothers's best moonshine or is it turpentine, it has about the same properties."

And so it went as he took in everyone's name and took a measure of them and their attitude about him. Some would be trouble, the civilians mostly, and the most but not all of the RN officers treated him well. At least some people in their service appreciated help freely given with no attachments.
 
Wolfe almost laughed and spat his warter out accross the table when he was called Sir Wolfe by Sticks. Poor man, knows alot about ships, but precious little about names. Still he was an American and one of the good ones, so he could forgive him. It would be interesting to see what was in those tubes that made the man look like a hedgehog.

"Indded old man, nice to see you again I'll have to take you up on that 'moonshine'." Wolfe smilied and turned to Sir Thomas

"Well like the Hurricane or Spitfire, I think that Blackburn's 'Skua' would be a step in the right direction for now. Like the fighter, however, we really need a specialised design with a better speed, rate of climb, ceiling etc. Ofcourse I suppose we'd want them to have some sort of collapasable or foladable wing also?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC: It's a small thing but Sir [as in Knight of the realm] is only followed by a forename and not surname, I dont know if it was intentional Bradey, but Wolfe found it funny anyway :D
 
OOC: You never can tell! :eek: I like Sir Wolfe though, just sounds much better than Sir Clive so it will always be that, a running joke that most just won't get. ;)
 
Braedonnal said:
OOC: You never can tell! :eek: I like Sir Wolfe though, just sounds much better than Sir Clive so it will always be that, a running joke that most just won't get. ;)
Click to expand...

OOC: We've declared war over less you know ;) :D

I suppose it does sound 'cooler' :cool: but it just dosen't sound right to an Englishman... but as it's good old Stick's I can let him off ;)
 
OOC: As your already talking about the Skua and modifying the files I did a bit of searching to come up with something new. It was something I remember seeing in a documentary ages ago and I think you'll like it. ;)

-----

Charles Naysmith had only recently been promoted to head of Short & Harland and was still finding his feet in the job. Worst of all neither H&W or Short Brothers had built many light aircraft, it wasn't their strength. Flying boats, bombers and long range aircraft, now those he knew. If you wanted to fly long distance anywhere in the Empire you probably flew in a Short's aircraft. Sadly the contract was for an improved carrier aircraft.

This wouldn't be as bad but most of the people in this room clearly weren't engineers. Not even a little bit. Navalising a Hurricane? What did they think they were talking about? Attaching an arrestor hook to a tensile winged aircraft was possible of course, as long as you didn't mind stopping the body while the wings carried on going. Now if it had all metal stressed wings then it could be possible with heavy modifications to most of the rest of the aircraft, but certainly not with the current marks.

At least Admiral Wolfe recognised that it would be easier just to design a new aircraft. Which brought him back round to his big worry. He was just presenting other people's designs, he knew the limitations of his staff and hadn't wasted their time forcing them to produce a design he knew would be a shambles. Their time was much better used on the Sunderland and other such work.

As Admiral Wolfe finished speaking he judged it the best time to begin.

"Gentlemen we at Short Harland reached a decision very early on in this contract; to design from scratch a new aircraft on this budget and this timescale was not practical. As such we have been consulting with our industry associates and would like to present the Gloster Gannet as the next generation of carrier fighter. The Gannet started life as Gloster's entry for the Air Ministry's F.5/34 Requirement but lost out to the Hurricane and Spitfire designs."

There were some disapproving glances in the room, no-one wanted a cast off airframe the RAF had rejected. Charles however was coming to the good points which he hoped would win them over.

"Let me first state the reason for it's loss are the same reasons why it will make an excellent carrier aircraft. It has longer cantilever wings which are marginally worse for performance but provide far more lift and are vastly easier to turn into folding wings. It was designed around a Bristol Mercury engine not a Rolls Royce Merlin and while the Mercury is slightly less powerfull it is several hundred pounds lighter. It also used monocoque construction and stessed metal wings to save weight making it the lightest design submitted and, as well all know, weight is a vital factor for carrier aircraft."

"The Gannet we propose would be capable of a top speed of 320mph with a service ceiling of 33,000ft and an inital rate of climb of 4500 ft/min. The armament would be eight 0.303 Browning machine guns mounted in the wing mainplanes."

"The final strength of the Gannet is that Gloster have built carrier aircraft before, know the practical requirements and have experience in this field. Hawker and Supermarine, with the greatest respect to the gentlemen at those fine firms, do not."

----
Right I remember seeing a documentary about the Zero which mentioned "The British Zero" the Gloster F.5/34. Very, very similar in shape, engine, design, etc to the Zero but several years earlier. It was never named as Gloster were too busy with the Gladiator to put much effort in. The specs are accurate and it was cancelled, however Charlie saw the opportunity and has reinvigorated it. I called it Gannet as everything else (almost) Gloster made at the time was G****.

So who fancies having British Zero's flying of HMS Victorious? :eek: :D
 
El Pip said:
Right I remember seeing a documentary about the Zero which mentioned "The British Zero" the Gloster F.5/34. Very, very similar in shape, engine, design, etc to the Zero but several years earlier. It was never named as Gloster were too busy with the Gladiator to put much effort in. The specs are accurate and it was cancelled, however Charlie saw the opportunity and has reinvigorated it. I called it Gannet as everything else (almost) Gloster made at the time was G****.

So who fancies having British Zero's flying of HMS Victorious? :eek: :D
Click to expand...

OOC: Looks good Pippy? (is that what your to be called?) but you the name of the F.5/34, the Gloucester Gannet, Is a bit suspect. There was already a Gloucester Gannet, I dont mind if you want to use the same name but it should really be different;

The (orignial) gannet: http://britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=607

​

The F.5/34:
But I do like the idea, for those who have not seen it; http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=132
​
 
Wolfe was impressed by the man from Short, he was actually trying to propose a good design rarther than just sell what he had. He knew he was no engineer, but did have an appriciation for good aircraft and the F.5/34 sounded like the ideal thing.

"It looks like a very good plane, although I'm no pilot. What design stage is it in at the moment, and how long would it take to get this plane into circulation? If it is quick it would be ideal. The other matter is toughness is it a fragile plane or can it take a little punishment?" Wolfe looked around the room, eyeing Sticks especialt to see what his reaction would be. He was interested to see how the plane would stack up against the US designs.

"For the moment it sounds very good, but plane design is evolving all the time. For the next generation to be ready in 3-5 years I'd like to have a 'competition' between all the manufacturers. The other problem is a bomber, as I have mentioned, do you have any ideas for that for the long term, or maybe something better than the 'Skua' for the interim?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC: I'm looking for a good British torp bomber, but cant find one :mad:
 
OOC: There's an idea, but a Seafire would work, and Hawker's Sea Fury

I'm looking for good Torp bombers...Firebrand's an idea

http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=300

Barracuda...much worse, but more realistic in terms of time

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Barracuda.htm

And the FAA used Hurri IIcs for carrier service, but would probably be inferior to the three fighter designs.

The other option is importing designs from the US, that might light a fire under some developers. The biggest problem is that we're really thinking far ahead of what Britain really used.
 
Adaml83 said:
OOC: There's an idea, but a Seafire would work, and Hawker's Sea Fury

I'm looking for good Torp bombers...Firebrand's an idea

http://www.britishaircraft.co.uk/aircraftpage.php?ID=300

Barracuda...much worse, but more realistic in terms of time

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Barracuda.htm

And the FAA used Hurri IIcs for carrier service, but would probably be inferior to the three fighter designs.

The other option is importing designs from the US, that might light a fire under some developers. The biggest problem is that we're really thinking far ahead of what Britain really used.
Click to expand...

All OOC:

Were not reallt that far ahead the Gloucester F.5/34 prototypes were built in early '37, and so should be able to come into service realitivley quickly. The sea Fury would be the next generation for '41/'42, it is a realistic timeframe if the Admiralty had put in the effort sooner. The design origniated in '37 with Hawker and the Bristol Centuris engine started to be developed in '38 so '42 as the 'next gen' plane could verry easily work.

You are correct in that the Seafire would work, but it was always a fudge, it was very bad to land, fragile (by carrier standards) and difficult to introduce folding wings. The Gloucester would be easier by the design standards, especialy with their experiances in carrier designed aircraft.

Again were not that ahead, we just give a fig about aircraft, something that the admiralty did not at the time. The real problem here, as IRL will be getting it past Nevile.
 
Adaml83 said:
The other option is importing designs from the US, that might light a fire under some developers. The biggest problem is that we're really thinking far ahead of what Britain really used.
Click to expand...

Not a chance would a US design be imported at this stage, there's no war on (or likely to be in the next couple of years. No use of hindsight here gentlemen) so it's not an urgent buy it now purchase. As such you can wait a few years for a home grown one. That's quite aside from the issue of national pride. Unless it's a necessity the Navy will buy British.
As for thinking ahead, not really. What we're doing is spending ahead, people knew the planes weren't much good, but it wasn't a priority and manufacturers weren't going to develop it on the offchance that the FAA will suddenly get funding.

There is no reason a British firm couldn't have developed a torpedo bomber if someone wanted one and could pay for it. The FAA couldn't so they didn't, hence the use of US aircraft on carriers later in the war. In the same way the Americans could have built a decent fighter engine but didn't as it wasn't a priority, that's why the Mustang had to have Merlins fitted as the original US engines were rubbish.

If the Admiralty changes the priorities (and funding) there's no reason 40s designs can't be brought forward several years.
 
El Pip said:
Not a chance would a US design be imported at this stage, there's no war on (or likely to be in the next couple of years. No use of hindsight here gentlemen) so it's not an urgent buy it now purchase. As such you can wait a few years for a home grown one. That's quite aside from the issue of national pride. Unless it's a necessity the Navy will buy British.
As for thinking ahead, not really. What we're doing is spending ahead, people knew the planes weren't much good, but it wasn't a priority and manufacturers weren't going to develop it on the offchance that the FAA will suddenly get funding.
Click to expand...

Yes, but theres no harm in us looking at what the Yanks have to offer, if there better it will spur on our cevelopment, if there worse we can laugh! :D

El Pip said:
There is no reason a British firm couldn't have developed a torpedo bomber if someone wanted one and could pay for it. The FAA couldn't so they didn't, hence the use of US aircraft on carriers later in the war. In the same way the Americans could have built a decent fighter engine but didn't as it wasn't a priority, that's why the Mustang had to have Merlins fitted as the original US engines were rubbish.
Click to expand...

Your correct, but I just like to keep things a little historical, I'd like to find a 37-38 design for a realy neat torp bomber, designed by us Brits.

El Pip said:
If the Admiralty changes the priorities (and funding) there's no reason 40s designs can't be brought forward several years.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but it doesn't even need that if we went Skua and F5.3/4, it is easily concivable that they would come into service before the war. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back