The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:09 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 1227
Location: turning into a power-hungry Yamato-models-munching monster... buahahahaha...
Don't get me wrong, but AIIa was by far the worst of the proposals, as the bridge was located centrally at the end of the flight deck. This arrangement would have made useful flight operations highly difficult at best and next to impossible most of the time. Also, for a ship of 40k tons you get remarkably little actual fighting power - 23 aircraft and 6 280mm guns. If you build two 20k ships you'll probably get more aircraft into the one and more guns into the other.

Incidentally, the other designs were even more absurd in that respect - imagine a 70k ship of 280m length having only 4 280mm guns and 32 aircraft.

If you want to get aircraft into raiding groups, build aircraft carriers. If you want to get aircraft involved into escort work, build aircraft carriers.

Jorit

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
I'm not so sure I agree on that aspect - if the flight deck were set at an angle to either side, or in a Y-style formation to trap and catapult on alternate sides of the tower (trapping along port side, launching to starboard for clarification) the bridge layout would be fine, as it centralizes the command aspects. Put the elevator center just aft of the bridge, you have it all laid out in a rather decent perspective, and approximately double the deck area of the Ise Hybrids which seemed to have less problems. If the aircraft are set up to launch on a modified version of a seaplane catapult, which the Germans had in a slightly raised deck-mount around that timeframe, you could get it relatively easily in some respects.

Just my two pennies though.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 1227
Location: turning into a power-hungry Yamato-models-munching monster... buahahahaha...
Sauragnmon wrote:
I'm not so sure I agree on that aspect - if the flight deck were set at an angle to either side, or in a Y-style formation to trap and catapult on alternate sides of the tower (trapping along port side, launching to starboard for clarification) the bridge layout would be fine, as it centralizes the command aspects.


The only published plans of this thing don't show any angles; it's essentially a Furious-type arrangement.

Quote:
Put the elevator center just aft of the bridge, you have it all laid out in a rather decent perspective, and approximately double the deck area of the Ise Hybrids which seemed to have less problems.


The Ises are totally different in that they don't have a flight deck - just a platform atop a hangar for seaplanes. So the main problem - landing aircraft on deck - was one that never had any relevance to the Ises.

For a true carrier deck, turbulences are the key in determining its outline. With a central "island" this deck would have been a death trap to land on, already with late WW1 airplanes. Imagine a fuelled-up Stuka trying to land, failing to catch the wires and overshooting - he'll land squarely in the bridge

Quote:
If the aircraft are set up to launch on a modified version of a seaplane catapult, which the Germans had in a slightly raised deck-mount around that timeframe, you could get it relatively easily in some respects.


Assuming these whips were only used for seaplanes, then admittedly I could see it work. However, then you have a gross squandering of ressources - who needs a seaplane carrier armed with 280mm guns?

Incidentally, I don't have the paper at hand right now, but it has been argued (rather convincingly I think) that these studies as well as the super battleship ones fulfilled just one purpose - to keep the designing teams together and from being drafted into harms way. If you look at German aircraft carrier thinking you'll find that it's pretty much in line with what other European navies did, only lagging behind a couple of years; the Flugzeugkreuzer totally fail to fit into that picture.

Now, turning to a purely hypothetical scenario, what would be possible is something like an Oyodo-type arrangement on a Hipper hull (something I built a century or so ago... :wink:), with turrets A and B remaining in place and X and Y replaced by a hangar for, say, six seaplanes.

Jorit

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:37 pm
Posts: 1111
Location: Smith's Falls, Canada
Were there any images of the concept from above? I've only seen side profiles, which hint nothing at the actual deck arrangement. Of course, the biggest problem is that Naval Aviation in the Kriegsmarine never really got a big boost, or much support in the hierarchy, but if you're using an angled deck, the central bridge might not be such a problem.

As to the mention of Seaplane catapults - I was using it in reference to fact that German seaplane Catapults, Especially later versions as seen on Bismarck and Tirpitz, were deck-mounted, and rather recessed into the deck, with a rise around the catapult in the deck, and thus would be relatively low obstruction on the trap path. A Through-deck flight line on a capital hybrid would have suffered similar airflow disturbances, perhaps even more so, around the main battery and such.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 1227
Location: turning into a power-hungry Yamato-models-munching monster... buahahahaha...
Sauragnmon wrote:
Were there any images of the concept from above? I've only seen side profiles, which hint nothing at the actual deck arrangement. Of course, the biggest problem is that Naval Aviation in the Kriegsmarine never really got a big boost, or much support in the hierarchy, but if you're using an angled deck, the central bridge might not be such a problem.


Breyer's latest Battleship book is nowadays probably the main source of published evidence for these designs, and he has a side and deck views.

Quote:
A Through-deck flight line on a capital hybrid would have suffered similar airflow disturbances, perhaps even more so, around the main battery and such.


Of course. Which is why a large-scale hybrid is a bad idea in the first place... :wink:

Jorit

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2785
Location: The city that rests on top of 100 earthquake faults
JWintjes wrote:

Now, turning to a purely hypothetical scenario, what would be possible is something like an Oyodo-type arrangement on a Hipper hull (something I built a century or so ago... :wink:), with turrets A and B remaining in place and X and Y replaced by a hangar for, say, six seaplanes.

Jorit


Why??? In no role I can think of would 4 more low performance sea planes be worth 2 8" turrets. The designers of Oyodo were insane. As it happens Oyodo's flight deck and hangers were never used in their intended role and were converted into combat information center and staff space so the ship can be used as fleet command ship, so the ship was effectively never used as either carrier or cruiser, which suggests something about its suitability for each role. The only moderately successful "hybrid" cruiser had been the Tone, which avoid being complete failure mainly because she didn't have to give up any 8" turrets for her sea planes.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 1227
Location: turning into a power-hungry Yamato-models-munching monster... buahahahaha...
chuck wrote:
Why??? In no role I can think of would 4 more low performance sea planes be worth 2 8" turrets.


Chuck,

I didn't say it would have made sense. I only said it would technically - and ressource-wise - have been possible. You're absolutely right in stating that no number of seaplanes would justify the added vulnerability as well as the loss of the 8in turrets.

Jorit

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2031
I doubt Oyodo could effectively ward off an attack by a determined destroyer or two. And seriously, we know Hipper couldn't, even with eight guns... I find these hybrids fascinating (Tone fan), but they are as clumsy as the early propeller-driven battleships with sails. I'd rather have my planes on carriers that do not have to stop to recover their aircraft and cruisers that do not have to throw burning aircraft hulks over their sides during a battle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:41 am
Posts: 1227
Location: turning into a power-hungry Yamato-models-munching monster... buahahahaha...
Very good point about the destroyer threat - though I doubt it would be easy for any cruiser to ward off two determined destroyers.

I wonder whether Tone really is a Hybrid. I'd rather say she is simply a cruiser with a fairly large number of seaplanes (on reflection, six is not that large a number).

In a pre-carrier, pre-radar environment, the best thing would no doubt be a fast seaplane carrier, like a fast Commandant Teste for example.

Jorit

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:43 pm
Posts: 9
I cannot get past the vulnerability of the hybrids. They would have had too small of an airwing to defend themselves, too few main gun turrents to deter attack, and what about the weakness of the carrier deck in a all gun engagement. Even with an amour deck below the flightdeck, the flight deck would easily be rendered inoperable, thus leaveing the hybid as a surverly undergunned target.
If nothing else, the aircraft and fuel stored on board in a ship to ship engagement would almost render the ships as liability in combat, just like the Royal Navy's battlecruisers at Jutland.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 2785
Location: The city that rests on top of 100 earthquake faults
JWintjes wrote:
Very good point about the destroyer threat - though I doubt it would be easy for any cruiser to ward off two determined destroyers.
Jorit


Unless exceptional circumstances allowed the destroyers to approach the cruiser closely without being challenged, I think evidence shows that a complete squadron of destroyers would still encounter very serious difficulties against a a single well handled 8-10 gun 8" cruiser or a 12-15 gun 6" cruiser. The sinking of Hagaro by 26th destroyer squadron in May 1945 was considered an exceptional achievement, not an expected outcome from this type of encounters, the disparity in radar quality not withstanding. HMS Edinburgh, her engines inoperative, her keel broken, and only 1 of her 4 triple 6" turrets still functioning, nevertheless sank a German destroyer that challenged her.

While I agree Oyoda was otherwise largely worthless as a cruiser, I think her 2 triple 6" turrets would still pose a serious obstacle to any pair of ambitious destroyers in most circumstances.

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group