The Ship Model Forum

I regret to say that I never went through with the idea. But, I did come up with something for the Yorktowns:
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=50730&start=20 (It's the very last post)
And I also had a paratrooping concept done for the Midway class, launching carrier-capable C-47s (But they could be modernized into modern helo-carriers too)

This is a very interesting idea you have come up with here. I was thinking of doing something of the same. Maybe a modern escort carrier of some sort. I think it would work if I took an Essex kit and added the well deck to it we then would have a use for the ships(In my timeline the Essex carriers were never scrapped, but placed in reserve. All events take place between 2016 and 2035).

I can't wait to see a drawing of what this ship of yours will look like. :woo_hoo:

As it happens, my story includes a section of the USS Hornet, after duty in her original configuration, found useless in the early 1930's, and used as an aircraft transport. During late 1942, she was taken in for conversion to an amphibious assault ship, featuring a 500 foot well deck, with barracks for 1,000 troops in an overhanging position over the well deck. The Enterprise and Yorktown undergo similar lives, but are instead converted into more conventional types, carrying about 50 landing craft each off the sides, with a small LVT ramp in the hull, and accommodations for 2,000-3,000 troops.


PS: if you have questions about the entire story, here is a link containing the environment of the ships: (drops off however, due to complications concerning civilian populations, and other things. I've since covered over 8 years of the story, and that is where this modern landing ship comes in).

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=54238

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]But, also, the mount was not popular, due to the greater effort needed by it's crews. The 5"/38s proved to be perfectly fine, even well into the 1990's on the Iowa class. Even with the faster rate of fire, a ship that would be considered a prime target for any country would need to have gun mounts with adequate rates of fire, but could also last longer.

Here is a link about the weapon: http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk16.htm[/quote]

Cool, hadn't heard this. Thanks!

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]
Again, thanks for the help guys. I've long since shelved this project after all of the attacks it received, and I will begin working out new specifications.[/quote]


How about a mod of the Essex class LPHs.

Boxer was converted/redesigned as LPH-4. Had very few mods from her original WW2 outfitting.

How about her with a stern mod for a wet welldeck?

But, also, the mount was not popular, due to the greater effort needed by it's crews. The 5"/38s proved to be perfectly fine, even well into the 1990's on the Iowa class. Even with the faster rate of fire, a ship that would be considered a prime target for any country would need to have gun mounts with adequate rates of fire, but could also last longer.

Here is a link about the weapon: http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk16.htm

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]Troops/tank accommodations would be reduced to 1,500 men and 50 tanks (including spares). Aircraft would be reduced to 24. Well deck is 400 feet long. Ship length is 900 ft. Also, due to the fact that this is the 50s, just before missile armaments came around, the 3"/50 and 5"/38 would provide the main AA armament, with 12 quad 20mm Thunderbolts and 8 quad 40mm Bofors (new automated mount) as secondaries.

Again, thanks for the help guys. I've long since shelved this project after all of the attacks it received, and I will begin working out new specifications.[/quote]

I agree, interesting concept. For the 5" guns, though, wouldn't they be the 5"/54 that was already ready by 1945? Longer range and faster rate of fire were, I believe, its advantages over the 5"/38.

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]...I've long since shelved this project after all of the attacks it received, and I will begin working out new specifications.[/quote]Oh, come on, Gopher. Don't give up because someone criticizes you. Look at all the attacks I have received for being a proponent of battleships. Don't stop working on an idea because people attack it, change the specifications of your idea, because you learn what is feasible. :thumbs_up_1:

It sounds like you are moving in that direction! Now that you've developed the ship a little, I think we would all like to see a drawing of what you have in mind!

Thanks you, Russ and Gun Grape for actually staying on topic... :heh: ... Anyway, thanks for the help. Though, the time frame for this would be about 1952. No necessarily the "stone age" of helicopter types, but more like the dark ages of it. Basically, what I've been trying to describe is a helicopter for use as an assault aircraft, rather than a transport or rescue role. Let's say that, with a 1940's wartime economy, aircraft of the 50's (the Huey) start showing up, with different variations meant for the transport, attack, and other combat roles. Since the Huey was created originally in 1956, with about 8 years of peacetime with huge budget cuts, I'd say it would be developed at around 1951-52 during a wartime economy, while entering service in 1952-53. Other variations would come within the next 2 years (Most prominent being the AH-1 Cobra).

Troops/tank accommodations would be reduced to 1,500 men and 50 tanks (including spares). Aircraft would be reduced to 24. Well deck is 400 feet long. Ship length is 900 ft. Also, due to the fact that this is the 50s, just before missile armaments came around, the 3"/50 and 5"/38 would provide the main AA armament, with 12 quad 20mm Thunderbolts and 8 quad 40mm Bofors (new automated mount) as secondaries.

Again, thanks for the help guys. I've long since shelved this project after all of the attacks it received, and I will begin working out new specifications.

[quote="Russ2146"]What is a P-19???[/quote]

Fat fingers. Not Proofreading :smallsmile:

Was actually thinking of the H-19. First flown in 1949.

Or you could go with a HRP-1

If there had been a early WW2 "Hogaboom board". R&D on rotary wing craft would have taken off.

Modern amphibious assault was in its infancy. Lets say that Roebling never met with the Marine Corps or never invented the Alligator to begin with.

Due to restricted beach access, the Corps realizes that frontal beach assaults, in conjunction with an active mining campaign by the Japanese, shuts down landing craft assaults. Tarawa is 10x worse that what happened in real life. Something has to be done.

That was sort of the push behind the higaboom board and amphibious assaults in the nuclear age. It didn't take long for industry to step up to the plate. If the need was there, they could have done it many years earlier. 43-44.

6 years after the end of WW2. With all the budget cuts and the draw down of the US military the USMC conducted the first Battalion size vertical envelopment. Imagine what the focus could have been if there had been real research money and a war mentality.

What is a P-19???

[attachment=3]Sikorsky vs300.jpg[/attachment]
By the middle of 1940, the VS-300 was able to stay in the air for 15 minutes.


[attachment=5]r4.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=4]Sikorsky R-4.jpg[/attachment]

Developed from the VS-300, the R-4 was the USAF's (at that time US Army Air Service Corp) first service helicopter. The Navy designation was HNS

R-4B :
Rotor diameter: 11.58 m
Length: 10.35 m
Height: 3.6 m
Weight: 960 kg
Engine: Warner R-550 of 200 hp.
Speed: Max: 120 Km/h Cruise : 104
Range: 240 km
Service Ceiling: 2430 m

[attachment=2]r6_2.jpg[/attachment]
Aug 18, 1943 : Vought-Sikorsky VS 327 ( R-5 / XR-6 )
An all metal and bigger than the R-4 was built as XR-5 (prototypes) and YR-5A (pre production) for evaluation by the USAAF

[attachment=1]r6.jpg[/attachment]

Oct 15, 1943 : Vought-Sikorsky VS 316A Hoverfly II (R-6) The production model of the R-5.

This two-seat helicopter was a refined version of the R-4, more advanced in performance and appearance. The Navy designation was HO5S R-6A :
Rotor diameter: 11.58 m
Length: 11.60 m
Height: 3.4 m
Weight: Max: 1082 kg
Engine: One Franklin O-405-9 of 235 hp.
Speed: 110 km/h Max.154
Range: 565 km
Service Ceiling: 4000 m

[attachment=0]HRP-1_Piasecki_NAN4_47.jpg[/attachment]

The Piasecki HRP Rescuer (aka Harp) was an United States tandem-rotor transport or rescue helicopter designed by Frank Piasecki and built by Piasecki Helicopter. The Piasecki PV-3 was adopted as the HRP-1 Rescuer by the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and United States Coast Guard. An improved PV-17 variant was later produced as the HRP-2. As one of the first transport helicopters in military service, the HRP-1 was capable of carrying two crewmen and 8-10 passengers or 2000 lb. (907kg) of cargo.
Manufacturer Piasecki Helicopter
Designed by Frank Piasecki
First flight 1945
Introduced 1947
Primary users United States Navy
United States Coast Guard
United States Marine Corps
Number built 28

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]A WWII era 1,100 foot version of the Wasp class. Depth, demensions, cost, facilities not an issue. Just what would it be for a ship to hold say, 35 helicopters (The advanced Huey, Cobra, Stallion, and Skycrane were invented faster due to the extremely healthy war economy), 100 tanks in a tanks deck, 3,000 troops, a small hanger (accomodates up to 10 helicopters for maintenance) and a well deck about 800 feet long. Also, what would be a good, balanced airwing for the ship?

[/quote]


Have read the thread.

Its not as implausible as some want to make it out to be. Just change the helos for something more era specific.

Sikorsky P-19s in the CH-53 role and H-5s in the logistics and rudimentary gunship.

Helicopter history is one of those things that gets overlooked in WW2. The USAAF was operating helos in the Burma theater. The first TRAP mission was flown in April of 1944.

The US Army had Aviation repair ships deployed with 2 R-4s or R-6s each in the south pacific theater.

The Germans conducted the first rudimentary combat lift using FA-223 in 1944. They also conducted a TRAP mission about about 2 months after the USAAF.

What got the ball rolling was the Hogaboom board. Troop transport choppers were rolling off the lines in 1949 because of the results of that study. HMX-1 practiced vertical assault training in 1949 from an Aircraft carrier.

1951 saw the first use of a vertical envelopment . A Battalion RIP by 3/7 in Korea.

I do think your 3 thousand troops requirement as a bit much. The Wasp class holds about 1800 Marines. Same with the 100 tank requirement. A WW2 USMC Div only had 45-46 Shermans in its Tank battalion.

Like is done in a modern ARG use different ships for the various assault methods. A Wasp class will not normally have the tanks or AAVs. They will have LAR/CAAP in the preboats (Screening/recon). The Arty Det and then mostly log stuff.

[quote="Timmy C"]Nope! Or rather, he hasn't replied yet.[/quote] :thumbs_up_1:

Nope! Or rather, he hasn't replied yet.

[quote="Timmy C"]PMs, Chuck![/quote]Busted by Chuck. :heh:

PMs, Chuck!

I guess I forgot to mention the helos too. They are all designed very primitively by today's standards. The R-4 and OH-23 Raven was designed in the mid 40s, and after scientists first tried to use a vertical piston in 1945, they proved very useless for anything besides use as very uncomfortable executive transports. They began developing a new engine for the next 2 years. In that time, a new requirement arose: a troop transport. The Piasecki H-25 was an answer, but at only 4 troops, they proved to be only useful in second line duties. Also, the Mojave was developed, but the engine placement proved to be terrible, and a large number were shot down when attempting to land. Like in conventional landing craft, when the clamshell doors opened, the troops could be slaughtered by a machine gun nest. When the scientists finished development, the Bell corporation jumped in, and after a year of more development, they came up with the Huey, but the primitive one with analog controls. A number were experimentally armed with fixed forward firing weapons, and they were very useful in the front lines. However, the crew was completely exposed to return fire, being behind a massive bubble canopy. Bell once again went in, and came up with a slim, purpose built attack variant, the Cobra. Also, to replace the Mojave in the heavy lift role, Sikorsky came up with the Skycrane, using the same principles as the Mojave, but with a smaller cockpit, slimmer engine mounts, and eliminating the cabin. They also gave it a skeletal body, larger rotor blades, and two turboshaft engines, giving the heli a lifting capacity of about 20,000 lb. These were deployed by the Army and Marines principally, but the Navy adopted the Huey and small numbers of Cobras (for use against suicide boats). The Navy began to develop ships that couds accommodate as many of these as possible, and that is where this ships come in.

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]Dave, I am merely just talking about ships the size of these...They are just the same size, operating WWII aircraft that don't have radar. I guess I forgot to mention that. All of my ships have the "basic" systems they had back then.[/quote]No you weren't. I refer to your opening post.

[quote="Sr. Gopher"]A WWII era 1,100 foot version of the Wasp class...what would it be for a ship to hold say, [b]35 helicopters [/b](The [b]advanced Huey, Cobra, Stallion[/b], and [b]Skycrane [/b]were[i][b] invented faster [/b][/i]due to the extremely healthy war economy)...[/quote]Do you want to all of a sudden change your position?

I think it breaks down to
What if......................................Possible
What if......................................Probable
What if......................................Plausible
What if......................................Improbable
What if......................................Fantasy

starting from any given point in reality.

Whiffers fall somewhere in that spectrum.

To each his own.

Okay, really guy? can we please stay on task? (not kidding) And that last comment was pretty harsh without a smile at the end :big_grin: