CS Aircraft Carriers

For anything not in the above. Ground combat/personal combat. Anything to do with CS, but not already covered.
User avatar
Cyagen
PostsCOLON 341
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:53 pm
LocationCOLON République of Québec

CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Cyagen » Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:11 pm

Hi all,

Here is a list of Aircraft Carriers that coud be active in the CSverse. Did I missed something? For the USA ones, I assigned them pretty arbitrarily but I need your opinion on that.

Germany
Graf Zeppelin
Peter Strasser
Both planned for 1936, capacity of around 50 aircrafts.

UK
Argus (1918) - 20 planes
Hermes (1918) - 20 planes
Eagle (1923) - 20 planes
Furious (1925) - 33 planes
Courageous (1930) - 45 planes
Glorious (1930) - 45 planes
Ark Royal (1937) - 65 planes

Japan
Hosyo (1922) 11 planes
Shokaku (1922 cancelled) 11 planes
Ryuzyo (1933) - 36 planes
Kaga (1935) - 60 planes
Soryo (1936) - 71 planes

USA
Langley (1920) - 34 planes (Hollywood)
Lexington (1927) - 75 planes (Hollywood)
Saratoga (1928) - 75 planes (Empire States)
Ranger (1934) - 86 planes (Atlantic Coalition)
Enterprise (1936) - 89 planes (Colombia)
Yorktown (1936) -89 planes (Dixie)
Malphas, over and out

User avatar
Thom
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Thom » Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:41 pm

Thank you for the list! I love the idea that naval vessels should have a larger roll in Crimson Skies. . .

The Washington Naval Treaty would have been worthless toilet paper by the times of CS. So Hollywood, for example, with it's Mare Island Navy Yard would have been able to build ships without any real restriction. Of interest, in our world, the Langley was converted to a Naval Reserve Seaplane Tender in 1936 when it was replaced in carrier service by the Wasp (Though the Wasp did not launch until 1939)and then in 1937 it was converted again and recommissioned as an Aircraft Transporter. The Langley alone can provide tons of story fluff!

With SIXTY NINE U.S. and SEVENTEEN Canadian Naval Shipyards and countless Commercial Shipyards in the 1930s (Admittedly not all were active full time, but still easily re-opened.) there is not a single coastal North American nation without some very real Naval potential. I can easily envision a LARGER Crimson Skies navy in North America than we had in our world under "The Washington Naval Treaty" which limited the navy sizes of the worlds big five powers, US, Britain, Italy, Japan and France in the years following WWI. . .
Flying the Crimson Skies

User avatar
Grant
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 913
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:42 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Grant » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:48 am

Yes, agreed!

Plus, the "Treaties" were almost worthless in their own way anyway.....it isn't like restricting naval sizes really would have prevented much conflict had it come anyway...and almost all the nations were hedging on the sizes some....

User avatar
Cyagen
PostsCOLON 341
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:53 pm
LocationCOLON République of Québec

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Cyagen » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:10 am

I only listed the US carriers that I assumed would be completed or started at the time the US splitted.

The CSverse is Zep based, but Carriers are more durable, less affected by weather, lower maintance, have a longer autonomy and can carry more planes (especially the big ones).

Zeps are quicker to build, cheaper to build, dual purpose and a lot cooler :)

As for the Washington treaty, it was probably scrapped since one of the signatary (US) does not exists anymore.
Malphas, over and out

User avatar
Sir Robin
PostsCOLON 163
JoinedCOLON Wed May 20, 2009 4:02 pm
LocationCOLON Counciltucky

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Sir Robin » Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:00 pm

I'm not positive on the pros and cons of Zeppelin vs Carrier.

While Carriers are stuck to oceans, Zeps can fly over land as well. I could definitely see the Zeppelin having a weight limit on aircraft though I don't think any designs at the time would have really challenged it.
Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot,
who nearly faced the fierce dragon of Angnor,
who almost stood up to the vicious chicken of Bristol,
and who personally wet himself at the Battle for Badon Hill.

User avatar
Thom
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Thom » Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:19 am

There will never be a zep that can carry as many planes or as much fuel and munitions for a sustained fight as a surface carrier can. Zep's do have a very real speed and terrain advantage, but really, those are their only clear benefits. As for manufacturing and operating costs? Well I am not convinced. . . Perhaps in initial cost the zep might be cheaper to build, but when looking at the cost over the operational life of the vehicle in terms of the cost per ton per mile? I don't think the zep can ever come close to the surface carrier!
Flying the Crimson Skies

User avatar
Cyagen
PostsCOLON 341
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:53 pm
LocationCOLON République of Québec

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Cyagen » Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:07 pm

I agree with your analysis Thom.

I guess that the max a Zep can carry is around 48 planes (huge ones like the Texas Lady Bluebonnet and the Yellow Rose), with the average being 24 (2 squadrons).
Malphas, over and out

Jester
PostsCOLON 57
JoinedCOLON Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:50 am
Are you a Human?COLON Yes
LocationCOLON Western Australia

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Jester » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:43 am

Cyagen wroteColonI guess that the max a Zep can carry is around 48 planes (huge ones like the Texas Lady Bluebonnet and the Yellow Rose), with the average being 24 (2 squadrons).


The Pride of the Republic mentions somewhere the number of planes the Legacy class zeps can carry, which I think was three or four Air Ranger Squadrons (18 planes each) and those are the largest Zeppelins in the world according to the Pride of the Republic. At 2000 ft long I don't think you could actually build anything bigger. It's not an easy book to just find statistics from though so I could be wrong.

I was working on some rough calculations a while back (for some zep constrcution rules) and I think you need to triple or quadruple the weight of the plane you want to carry to count for the weight of the plane, and the structure to carry it inside the Zeppelin, and the launch mechanism. I think 24 planes could be right for military zeps, while cargo and passenger zeps might have as few as six escorts or none at all. It really depends on just how big the average CS Zep is though.
4L3C - 4R3E

User avatar
Cyagen
PostsCOLON 341
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:53 pm
LocationCOLON République of Québec

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Cyagen » Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:26 pm

54 planes (3x18 planes) seems to me like the upper realistic limit, let stretch it to 60 for pulp purposes.

72 planes is pushing it very hard, even for a 2 000 ft long Zep (600 meters).

Another thing to consider is that an aircraft carrier will take a lot punishment before being put out of action then a zep and can carry more armament.

One is not better than another, they just have a different role to play.
Malphas, over and out

User avatar
Thom
PostsCOLON 1007
JoinedCOLON Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: CS Aircraft Carriers

Postby Thom » Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:44 pm

Cyagen wroteColon54 planes (3x18 planes) seems to me like the upper realistic limit, let stretch it to 60 for pulp purposes.

72 planes is pushing it very hard, even for a 2 000 ft long Zep (600 meters).

Another thing to consider is that an aircraft carrier will take a lot punishment before being put out of action then a zep and can carry more armament.

One is not better than another, they just have a different role to play.



That is a very valid point which, while I knew it to be so, for some reason I failed to mention. Zeps are very vulnerable and they don't usually have lifeboats!
Flying the Crimson Skies


Return to

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1 and 0 guests

cron