www.navalism.org

Zeemeeuw, Holland large tender laid down 1920

Displacement:
   26,079 t light; 26,685 t standard; 28,400 t normal; 29,772 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   718.69 ft / 710.00 ft x 100.00 ft x 25.00 ft (normal load)
   219.06 m / 216.41 m x 30.48 m  x 7.62 m

Armament:
     8 - 2.95" / 75.0 mm guns (4x2 guns), 12.87lbs / 5.84kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
     Aft Main mounts separated by engine room
     32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 118 lbs / 54 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 500

Armour:
  - Belts:      Width (max)   Length (avg)      Height (avg)
   Main:   3.00" / 76 mm   468.00 ft / 142.65 m   12.00 ft / 3.66 m
   Ends:   Unarmoured
     Main Belt covers 101 % of normal length

  - Torpedo Bulkhead:
      3.00" / 76 mm   468.00 ft / 142.65 m   22.95 ft / 7.00 m

  - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm
   2nd:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm

  - Armour deck: 3.00" / 76 mm, Conning tower: 3.00" / 76 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion generators,
   Electric motors, 4 shafts, 125,398 shp / 93,547 Kw = 30.00 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 3,088 tons

Complement:
   1,093 - 1,422

Cost:
   £3.638 million / $14.551 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 15 tons, 0.1 %
   Armour: 4,781 tons, 16.8 %
      - Belts: 725 tons, 2.6 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 1,192 tons, 4.2 %
      - Armament: 28 tons, 0.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 2,776 tons, 9.8 %
      - Conning Tower: 60 tons, 0.2 %
   Machinery: 4,385 tons, 15.4 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 10,699 tons, 37.7 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,321 tons, 8.2 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 6,200 tons, 21.8 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     60,625 lbs / 27,499 Kg = 4,709.8 x 3.0 " / 75 mm shells or 8.7 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 6.0 ft / 1.8 m
   Roll period: 17.2 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 92 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.01
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.560
   Length to Beam Ratio: 7.10 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 26.65 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 54 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 46
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 10.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      49.31 ft / 15.03 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   48.65 ft / 14.83 m
      - Mid (50 %):      38.65 ft / 11.78 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   38.65 ft / 11.78 m
      - Stern:      38.65 ft / 11.78 m
      - Average freeboard:   42.20 ft / 12.86 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 93.9 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 357.0 %
   Waterplane Area: 50,017 Square feet or 4,647 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 143 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 122 lbs/sq ft or 598 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.86
      - Longitudinal: 3.90
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

6200 tons misc.
 250 tons fire control
   25 tons radio
   25 tons radar
   25 tons acoustics
1000 tons ammunition
1000 tons oil
3875 spare
720 x 100/1000=80 x 80% = 57.6

60 x 60 = 3600 with 275 tons spare. for aviation.

Notes: diesels exhausts through side mounted hull macks astern below the weather deck. Bridge control is a conning tower starboard amidships.


=================================================
Comments welcome:

Got capital ship diesels? ;)

This looks more like an aircraft carrier than a tender.  If it is a tender, you could do the same effective job on half the displacement if you dumped the armor and crazy speed.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 16, 2010, 05:18:35 PM
This looks more like an aircraft carrier than a tender.  If it is a tender, you could do the same effective job on half the displacement if you dumped the armor and crazy speed.

Its an idea of what I think we have to do to make aircraft carriers real.

As a side note:
Aidern, Hollland fleer tender laid down 1920

Displacement:
   11,338 t light; 11,635 t standard; 12,729 t normal; 13,603 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   604.27 ft / 600.00 ft x 75.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
   184.18 m / 182.88 m x 22.86 m  x 4.57 m

Armament:
      32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 15 lbs / 7 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 5,000

Armour:
   - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm

   - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion generators,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 13,798 shp / 10,293 Kw = 18.50 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,968 tons

Complement:
   598 - 778

Cost:
   £1.101 million / $4.406 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2 tons, 0.0 %
   Armour: 667 tons, 5.2 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 11 tons, 0.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 644 tons, 5.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 12 tons, 0.1 %
   Machinery: 482 tons, 3.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,187 tons, 40.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,390 tons, 10.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 5,000 tons, 39.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     40,527 lbs / 18,383 Kg = 85,006.7 x 1.0 " / 25 mm shells or 4.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 15.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.660
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 31
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      48.80 ft / 14.87 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   46.42 ft / 14.15 m
      - Mid (50 %):      26.42 ft / 8.05 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   26.42 ft / 8.05 m
      - Stern:      26.42 ft / 8.05 m
      - Average freeboard:   33.61 ft / 10.24 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 56.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 343.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 34,789 Square feet or 3,232 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 191 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 423 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.87
      - Longitudinal: 3.48
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

5000 tons misc.
  250 tons fire control
    25 tons radio
    25 tons radar
    25 tons acoustics
500 tons ammunition
500 tons oil
3675 spare
600 x 75/1000=45 x 80% = 36

60 x 60= 3600 with 75 tons spare. for aviation.

Notes: diesels exhausts through side mounted hull macks astern below the weather deck. Bridge control is a conning tower starboard amidships.

Notes: diesels exhausts through side mounted hull macks astern below the weather deck. Bridge control is a conning tower starboard amidships.

That is a 'Bogue"; built to "Tender" standards.     

(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/563/nverseriksluchmachaircr.jpg)

Vodan, Hollland fleer tender laid down 1920

Displacement:
   11,338 t light; 11,635 t standard; 12,729 t normal; 13,603 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
   604.27 ft / 600.00 ft x 75.00 ft x 15.00 ft (normal load)
   184.18 m / 182.88 m x 22.86 m  x 4.57 m

Armament:
     32 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm guns (8x4 guns), 0.48lbs / 0.22kg shells, 1920 Model
     Anti-aircraft guns in deck mounts with hoists
     on side, evenly spread
   Weight of broadside 15 lbs / 7 kg
   Shells per gun, main battery: 5,000

Armour:
  - Gun armour:   Face (max)   Other gunhouse (avg)   Barbette/hoist (max)
   Main:   1.00" / 25 mm   1.00" / 25 mm      1.00" / 25 mm

  - Armour deck: 1.00" / 25 mm, Conning tower: 1.00" / 25 mm

Machinery:
   Diesel Internal combustion generators,
   Electric motors, 2 shafts, 13,798 shp / 10,293 Kw = 18.50 kts
   Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
   Bunker at max displacement = 1,968 tons

Complement:
   598 - 778

Cost:
   £1.101 million / $4.406 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
   Armament: 2 tons, 0.0 %
   Armour: 667 tons, 5.2 %
      - Belts: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
      - Armament: 11 tons, 0.1 %
      - Armour Deck: 644 tons, 5.1 %
      - Conning Tower: 12 tons, 0.1 %
   Machinery: 482 tons, 3.8 %
   Hull, fittings & equipment: 5,187 tons, 40.8 %
   Fuel, ammunition & stores: 1,390 tons, 10.9 %
   Miscellaneous weights: 5,000 tons, 39.3 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
   Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
     40,527 lbs / 18,383 Kg = 85,006.7 x 1.0 " / 25 mm shells or 4.1 torpedoes
   Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
   Metacentric height 3.9 ft / 1.2 m
   Roll period: 15.9 seconds
   Steadiness   - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 62 %
         - Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.00
   Seaboat quality  (Average = 1.00): 2.00

Hull form characteristics:
   Hull has a flush deck
   Block coefficient: 0.660
   Length to Beam Ratio: 8.00 : 1
   'Natural speed' for length: 24.49 kts
   Power going to wave formation at top speed: 32 %
   Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 31
   Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 5.00 degrees
   Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
   Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
      - Stem:      48.80 ft / 14.87 m
      - Forecastle (20 %):   46.42 ft / 14.15 m
      - Mid (50 %):      26.42 ft / 8.05 m
      - Quarterdeck (15 %):   26.42 ft / 8.05 m
      - Stern:      26.42 ft / 8.05 m
      - Average freeboard:   33.61 ft / 10.24 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
   Space   - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 56.5 %
      - Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 343.9 %
   Waterplane Area: 34,789 Square feet or 3,232 Square metres
   Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 191 %
   Structure weight / hull surface area: 87 lbs/sq ft or 423 Kg/sq metre
   Hull strength (Relative):
      - Cross-sectional: 0.87
      - Longitudinal: 3.48
      - Overall: 1.00
   Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is excellent
   Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
   Excellent seaboat, comfortable, can fire her guns in the heaviest weather

5000 tons misc.
 250 tons fire control
   25 tons radio
   25 tons radar
   25 tons acoustics
500 tons ammunition
500 tons oil
3675 spare
600 x 75/1000=45 x 80% = 36

60 x 60= 3600 with 75 tons spare. for aviation.

Notes: diesels exhausts through side mounted hull macks astern below the weather deck. Bridge control is a conning tower starboard bow.

That is a 'Bogue"; built to "experimental" standards.    

...No, that's a purpose-built aircraft carrier.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 17, 2010, 01:06:33 PM
...No, that's a purpose-built aircraft carrier.

I figured the costs at about ~ 12$ and 12 BP. I call it a tender because that is how I classify it and treat its SS misc. weight by function.  

I thought we were talking past each other yesterday, but I wasn't sure. Now I am sure that I was unclear as to what I meant when I described how I SS a carrier.  I just don't see you not misc. weight the aviation stores to get the correct aircraft capacity tonnage. Otherwise, you wind up with 45 plane capacity carriers on 10,000 tons and that is ridiculous.  

D.    

Okay, I guess we were talking past each other; the cost is correct for a carrier, or what the Dutch are calling an aircraft tender.

The rules set assumes that the miscellaneous weight per aircraft includes ordnance and avgas.  As for 45 aircraft on 10,000 t - that's when we have to start applying common sense over literal wording of the rules.  Wesworld struggled with small carriers as well, I recall.

I just noticed this- 'acoustics' as in 'listening devices' or as in 'SONAR'?
'Cause only the Sovs ever thought it was a good idea to mount sonar on a carrier... and only then because they used their carriers (built in the 70's) vastly different than any other navy in the world.

Also, WHY would the Dutch be building a carrier?
Have they ever even experimented with naval aviation, or used aircraft in any major function?
A purpose-built carrier with no previous attempts to put aircraft on ships is kinda fishy, don't ya think?

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 17, 2010, 05:02:20 PM
'Cause only the Sovs ever thought it was a good idea to mount sonar on a carrier...

just as an info tidbit, the USS America CV-66 was fitted with Sonar AN/SQS-23 as well. I had thought it was the JFK, but when I went to check found they never fitted it on her. The quick search also turned up that the INS Viraat is fitted with Sonar.

But as a rule, nope they didn't bother with it.

Like I said... only the Sov's thought it was a GOOD IDEA (meaning 'something worth doing more than once') and only then due to their massively different operational doctrine for carriers.

Didn't know that about the Viraat, but as India makes use of a lot of Russian/Soviet tactics and equipment, I'm not surprised that they didn't try it once as well. It'll be interesting to see if an indigenous carrier will continue the trend.

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 17, 2010, 05:02:20 PM
I just noticed this- 'acoustics' as in 'listening devices' or as in 'SONAR'?
'Cause only the Sovs ever thought it was a good idea to mount sonar on a carrier... and only then because they used their carriers (built in the 70's) vastly different than any other navy in the world.[/qoote]

The Japanese in WW II mounted acoustic gear in their carriers. 

(http://also,%20why%20would%20the%20dutch%20be%20building%20a%20carrier?)

Admiraal Schoepen's report on the Masirah operation is why.

QuoteHave they ever even experimented with naval aviation, or used aircraft in any major function?

The Dutch are experimenting with land-based air recon.

Quotepurpose-built carrier with no previous attempts to put aircraft on ships is kinda fishy, don't ya think?

If you can, then read the report.

D.

Still, building a flattop wit no other aviation ships is something that NO ONE did.
Even the United States had floatplanes, some tenders, and did experiments with temporary flying-off and landing decks on cruisers before embarking on a very modest conversion to an aircraft carrier.

You, OTOH, are building the U.S.S. Bouge from a standing start with virtually no aviation experience.
'Experimenting with land-based aerial recon' is a LONG way from building a functioning carrier from the keel up, no matter how you try and justify it. I mean, you DO realize that the US had been experimenting with aerial recon for over 10 years before building a carrier?

Building a carrier isn't something that a navy does without a lot of research.
It's pretty early for ANY of us to start strapping a flight deck onto a ship- simply because only about 4 nations have even DABBLED in naval aviation.

The lessons of Masirah and Aden I just learned are now very plain enough.

As of 1918 the Dutch have used land-based seaplanes for training and experiments with their fleet.

They are researching the tech trees as well.

D.

What level of CV tech is the Netherlands currently at, anyway?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on July 17, 2010, 07:47:16 PM
What level of CV tech is the Netherlands currently at, anyway?

4 x TT 2000t TBJ.....1.00.......0.00......1/6.............................................research
1918 catapult/trap..1.00.......0.00......3/6..............................................research
1914 Torpedoes(elc).0.25.......0.00......2/2..............................................integrate (Japan via MK)        
1915 floatplane........0.25........0.00......2/2..............................................integrate (Japan via MK)
AAA 40-80mm..............0.25.......0.00......2/2.............................................integrate from MK
All related to the 1920 experiments scheduled.

1918: gunpowder catapults for floatplanes; separate landing and taking-off decks for wheeled aircraft

Okay, so a proper flat-top is a few years off, then.

"lessons of Masirah and Aden"

Can you link the post(s) concerning these 'lessons'?

How did the Dutch find them out?
How good is any intelligence that the Dutch have about the incidents?
Were the Dutch actually there or was the info second or third hand?
Has enough time actually elapsed for those 'lessons' to be found out, sent home, lost, found, lost again, discovered in a foot-high stack of papers on a 3rd-class clerk's desk,passed up through normal bureaucratic channels, analyzed by 'The Powers That Be,' argued over, fought over, thrown out, brought back and finally acted upon?

Not even the parties involved have had that kind of time!!!

The CSA started thinking about aircraft on ships in about 1912, tried the idea, and threw it out so fast that a ship built to full military standard to test the idea never even entered service and is currently rusting away at Nachetz without even finding an aircraft durable enough to be launched form a catapult! We are only now digging the idea back out of the 'now why the hell would we want to do that' file and trying it with some of our newer aircraft (story forthcoming),


The Netherlands has done NOTHING with the idea but think. You don't get the U.S.S. Bouge or even the U.S.S. Langley from just thinking about it; maybe the Notoro, but not something much more advanced.


EDIT: If this is a ship meant for the late 20's, that's not too far fetched. But giving it a laydown of 1920 makes it look like it's ready to be laid down tomorrow. Hosho is still a real flattop.

Think more along the lines of the first refit of HMS Furious.

At least until 1922. since the KMS Vodan  is the experiment laid down in 1920 to work out wheeled aircraft landings and takeoffs. It is part of the Dutch research program. It is my Hosho, it is my test ship.

I can't build anything like a Ryujo until its finished and I have an idea of what a Dutch plane tender is like.

But I can build a Hosho to test concepts, can't I?

D

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 17, 2010, 08:30:16 PM
"lessons of Masirah and Aden"

Can you link the post(s) concerning these 'lessons'?

How did the Dutch find them out?
How good is any intelligence that the Dutch have about the incidents?
Were the Dutch actually there or was the info second or third hand?
Has enough time actually elapsed for those 'lessons' to be found out, sent home, lost, found, lost again, discovered in a foot-high stack of papers on a 3rd-class clerk's desk,passed up through normal bureaucratic channels, analyzed by 'The Powers That Be,' argued over, fought over, thrown out, brought back and finally acted upon?

Not even the parties involved have had that kind of time!!!

The CSA started thinking about aircraft on ships in about 1912, tried the idea, and threw it out so fast that a ship built to full military standard to test the idea never even entered service and is currently rusting away at Nachetz without even finding an aircraft durable enough to be launched form a catapult! We are only now digging the idea back out of the 'now why the hell would we want to do that' file and trying it with some of our newer aircraft (story forthcoming),

The Netherlands has done NOTHING with the idea but think.
You don't get the U.S.S. Bouge or even the U.S.S. Langley from just thinking about it.
Maybe the Notoro, but not something much more advanced.

Admiraal Schoepen fought as commander of the Dutch forces that were at Masirah and Aden.

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=4967.msg62680#msg62680

He learned what I wanted and needed from those actions. If you can decipher his coded urgent report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

D.

QuoteIf you can decipher his coded report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

Yes because coded messages are such fun to read :( We have code technology in the tech tree for a reason.

Quote from: Logi on July 17, 2010, 08:40:22 PM

QuoteIf you can decipher his coded report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

Yes because coded messages are such fun to read :( We have code technology in the tech tree for a reason.

Its a part of war, Logi.

Quote from: damocles on July 17, 2010, 08:36:10 PM
He learned what I wanted and needed from those actions. If you can decipher his coded urgent report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

The CSA doesn't have anything impressive in the way of code-breaking tech.
As an IC matter, I thus do not decode messages... even as an OoC thing (of course, my job, wife, personal life, etc also have a bearing on why I don't bother).

As far as 'we learned the lesson from one or two encounters a couple of days ago from one man's opinion'... well, that's about as far-fetched as efficiency in government. As a military man myself, I'd have to say that you don't really understand how military tactics develop... meaning incrementally 99.44% of the time- and generally painfully slow after several repeats of the same mistake.

Unless your admiral is an absolute totalitarian military dictator with complete control over the entirety of R&D, production and design for the entire military, you're looking at a 'lesson' that might take several more battles and almost a decade to process.

Remember, it only took the Japanese EIGHT YEARS to go from their first successful naval aviation strike missions to the construction of the Hosho.

I'm still wondering how Aden had anything that could translate into naval aviation.

The Swiss have fought like 20 battles where aviation would have been extremely useful, and even I still don't have a true carrier. That said I do have the most experience of anyone around of what airpower can do. And a Hosho is in my immediate plans.

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 17, 2010, 08:58:57 PM

Quote from: damocles on July 17, 2010, 08:36:10 PM
He learned what I wanted and needed from those actions. If you can decipher his coded urgent report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

The CSA doesn't have anything impressive in the way of code-breaking tech.
As an IC matter, I thus do not decode messages... even as an OoC thing (of course, my job, wife, personal life, etc also have a bearing on why I don't bother).

As far as 'we learned the lesson from one or two encounters a couple of days ago from one man's opinion'... well, that's about as far-fetched as efficiency in government. As a military man myself, I'd have to say that you don't really understand how military tactics develop... meaning incrementally 99.44% of the time- and generally painfully slow after several repeats of the same mistake.

Unless your admiral is an absolute totalitarian military dictator with complete control over the entirety of R&D, production and design for the entire military, you're looking at a 'lesson' that might take several more battles and almost a decade to process.

Remember, it only took the Japanese EIGHT YEARS to go from their first successful naval aviation strike missions to the construction of the Hosho.

1. You don't have the actual critical information I now have about Masirah, Cart.
2. The expedition was a near disaster that really shook up the Dutch military and political establishment as to how close run it was. It will change a nation's assumptions the way other military disasters have in history.
3. Admiraal Schoepen is not your military dictator, but is a proven battle leader and a validated military strategist who carried out a suicide mission with incredible success, his word carries a lot of weight in den Hague now-especially with NvR.  
4.

Quote
EDIT: If this is a ship meant for the late 20's, that's not too far fetched. But giving it a laydown of 1920 makes it look like it's ready to be laid down tomorrow. Hosho is still a real flattop.

Think more along the lines of the first refit of HMS Furious.

I'm Dutch, not Norman. I think cheap and simple.  
=================================================

QuoteI'm still wondering how Aden had anything that could translate into naval aviation.

I'm not going to tell you. You'll have to learn the way I did.

Foxy, your admirals weren't paying attention to their situations during your battles. Mine did.

Oh you are wrong, VERY wrong. Considering that the worst military disasters in Swiss history have come due to the LACK of proper recon.

Also remember the mass of cruisers I had? Plus those scouting Lavis. Recon is #1 in the mind of every Swiss commander.

Nice try, but I'm still not going to tell you.  ;D

QuoteIts a part of war, Logi.

It's also not very interesting to read sim-wise. When I sit back, relax, and crack open a news thread, I expect to fine news worth reading not a jumble of numbers, symbols, or letters.

News is fun to read, code is not.

Then there is the add-on of decryption tech. My nation may be able to decode, but Logi the player cannot. Does that mean the nation does not get to read? No... However, Logi the player will still ask the proper people for permission to decrypt the message and also t confirm that it is, in fact, within the tech limits of decryption for the nation.

We can distinguish between OCC and IC here, we are all at least that well of an RPer. Hence we do write SIC posts, not code it in a mess of jumble-mumble. I am perfectly capable of coding my messages to symbol codes with such random keys as to make the average person completely unable to decipher. I have 40 distinct codes for encryption. But is that fun to read? Is that in line with my encryption tech? To both the answer is no.

nysetoawthteshveijvkvhmiansh

I typed a sentence there. Was that fun to read? No.

Code is about as entertaining to read as reading nothing.

/rant

1. My style of play is not yours.
2. My method of play is to make you work for the information.
3. I already gave you everything you need to figure out Aden and Masirah in the Dutch News thread. 
4. Even here you have what you need.

D.

And the point of that for people not RPing at all is, what exactly?

I have no idea what or where this battle even happened, much less what lessons it might have given.  Nor who was involved.

Sure people and nations can have their secrets, but generally not at the cost of the game being fun, nor to the point of agrivating people who are attempting to understand how one nation is building something that it should not be building on a logical progressive level of technological and tactical knowledge.

Part of the problem might be the use of a "future" design as the basis for the comcept rather than something that looks more in period with the flaws usually associated with early naval aviation.

WesWorld's Chile started having carriers built for them in the late 1920s and early 1930s after building a small seaplane cruiser, buying a few floatplane carriers, and later setting up a land based training base with a runway the shape of the proposed carrier's deck with proper landing arrangements to train the pilots how the land usng hooks and a short landing area.  They however were relying on the experiance of a foreign power for the design and construction fo the carrier...so they were not starting from scratch.

The other question is more of purpose...same question I asked about the Chinese Carrier.  What is the carrier's role in the Dutch Fleet?  How do they see themselves using it with the relatively short ranged and flimsy aircraft of the early 1920s?  It's historical roll was simply a scout unit for the Battle Line.  Something that could extend the range and area the fleet could scout for enemy units and to assist in spotting for over the horizon shooting for the battleships if they didn't have a floatplane handy.  The Offensice operations for a carrier was something that came up later as the planes got better (aside from the Royal Navies wild idea to sink the at port High Sea's Fleet in 1919 using a combined sea and land-based air strike using the new carriers as part of the force...but this attack never happened).

Quote from: damocles on July 17, 2010, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: Carthaginian on July 17, 2010, 08:58:57 PM

Quote from: damocles on July 17, 2010, 08:36:10 PM
He learned what I wanted and needed from those actions. If you can decipher his coded urgent report, you are more than welcome to the actual lessons learned.

The CSA doesn't have anything impressive in the way of code-breaking tech.
As an IC matter, I thus do not decode messages... even as an OoC thing (of course, my job, wife, personal life, etc also have a bearing on why I don't bother).

As far as 'we learned the lesson from one or two encounters a couple of days ago from one man's opinion'... well, that's about as far-fetched as efficiency in government. As a military man myself, I'd have to say that you don't really understand how military tactics develop... meaning incrementally 99.44% of the time- and generally painfully slow after several repeats of the same mistake.

Unless your admiral is an absolute totalitarian military dictator with complete control over the entirety of R&D, production and design for the entire military, you're looking at a 'lesson' that might take several more battles and almost a decade to process.

Remember, it only took the Japanese EIGHT YEARS to go from their first successful naval aviation strike missions to the construction of the Hosho.

1. You don't have the actual critical information I now have about Masirah, Cart.
2. The expedition was a near disaster that really shook up the Dutch military and political establishment as to how close run it was. It will change a nation's assumptions the way other military disasters have in history.
3. Admiraal Schoepen is not your military dictator, but is a proven battle leader and a validated military strategist who carried out a suicide mission with incredible success, his word carries a lot of weight in den Hague now-especially with NvR. 
4.

Quote
EDIT: If this is a ship meant for the late 20's, that's not too far fetched. But giving it a laydown of 1920 makes it look like it's ready to be laid down tomorrow. Hosho is still a real flattop.

Think more along the lines of the first refit of HMS Furious.

I'm Dutch, not Norman. I think cheap and simple. 
=================================================

QuoteI'm still wondering how Aden had anything that could translate into naval aviation.

I'm not going to tell you. You'll have to learn the way I did.

Foxy, your admirals weren't paying attention to their situations during your battles. Mine did.

Cheap and simple would mean that you take the cheapest route for a testbed- either a seaplane tender or a conversion... not a purpose-built carrier.

You're trying to build a ship you have no real reason to have without having a reason.

Again, one battle does not change the entirety of military thought.
The only reason that I can think of something like that happening was Pearl Harbor- we shifted from a battleship-based fleet to a carrier/sub based fleet because there were no battleships left!!! However, if you'll notice, naval rifles were still the weapon of choice in the Atlantic for the first few years of the war; aircraft were just a side-line till after the Bismark was sank, and then only because battleships are ineffective against submarines.

Quote from: Ithekro on July 18, 2010, 02:48:18 AM
And the point of that for people not RPing at all is, what exactly?

I am RPing. The Dutch have a security mania.

QuoteI have no idea what or where this battle even happened, much less what lessons it might have given.  Nor who was involved.

Please note what you just said when you read my replies?

(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9572/nversefleetproblemiv.jpg)

QuoteSure people and nations can have their secrets, but generally not at the cost of the game being fun, nor to the point of aggravating people who are attempting to understand how one nation is building something that it should not be building on a logical progressive level of technological and tactical knowledge.

The problem is that the participants have commented elsewhere on lessons leaned and that those comments should have been noted-especially in the Brandenberg lessons learned.  

QuotePart of the problem might be the use of a "future" design as the basis for the comcept rather than something that looks more in period with the flaws usually associated with early naval aviation.

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/hosho-1922.gif)

Laid down 1920. What was futuristic here?  Holland has two things now going for her, some recent combat experience (Siam disaster, and now the Aden and Masirah naval operations), and an active program of research where she has to lay down something to test certain ideas she has, now born from that combat experience. She had already begun aviation research from zero starting in 1916 after the Siam war, acquiring one Zeppelin, some fighters, and the Luchtmacht because of lessons learned. Seaplane and ship takeoff and landing research of wheeled aircraft from test ships began urgently in 1918 as a result of naval war lessons developed, and is now 3/6 developed. Japan's 1915 seaplanes tech was bought in 1919 as soon as a vendor could be secured. Holland had an interest in the aviation problems she faced before the Aden debacle, the interests are quite intense now.    

QuoteWesWorld's Chile started having carriers built for them in the late 1920s and early 1930s after building a small seaplane cruiser, buying a few floatplane carriers, and later setting up a land based training base with a runway the shape of the proposed carrier's deck with proper landing arrangements to train the pilots how the land using hooks and a short landing area.  They however were relying on the experience of a foreign power for the design and construction for the carrier...so they were not starting from scratch.

See above for where the Dutch line of development began and why.

Quote]The other question is more of purpose...same question I asked about the Chinese Carrier.  What is the carrier's role in the Dutch Fleet?  How do they see themselves using it with the relatively short ranged and flimsy aircraft of the early 1920s?  It's historical roll was simply a scout unit for the Battle Line.  Something that could extend the range and area the fleet could scout for enemy units and to assist in spotting for over the horizon shooting for the battleships if they didn't have a float-plane handy.

The question answers itself. As I repeated again and again, things happened during Fleet Problem IV that as a player that I now know that are uniquely Dutch experience, that I am not going to tell you. If you want to know what happened and why the Dutch are exercised about naval aviation, you are going to have to figure it out from a disaster, much as I did, after I was clobbered.     

QuoteThe Offensive operations for a carrier was something that came up later as the planes got better (aside from the Royal Navies wild idea to sink the at port High Sea's Fleet in 1919 using a combined sea and land-based air strike using the new carriers as part of the force...but this attack never happened).

Look at the artwork and the available Dutch aircraft and ask if KMS Vodan is advanced?

D.

Aside from bad luck (getting rammed in low visability) your force did nothing wrong that couldn't be fixed by either floatplanes on your armored frigates (also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland) or a seaplane carrier to launch some eyes in the sky to your force would possibly have know they were being shadowed or that the enemy base was abandoned before your force got to the mine field on a later date...but if the goal was to put troops ashore, the minefield would still be an issue anyway.

Unless there is something glaringly missing from the battle report that was purely a Dutch experiance.

Quotealso might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland

Would you not need the 1918 RF tech for that? As I see it, you can dump planes on your ships before that, but you need that tech to be able to use the planes for spotting.

Hosho had ALL sorts of design problems and to be blunt was in many ways a failure.

Look at this.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/JapaneseAircraftCarrierAkagi3Deck.jpg)



No full length flight deck, multiple flying off decks.

If people build a carrier or any type of aviation ship right now the total air group should be 10 or under most likely float planes before flying off decks but most of what I am seeing right now is huge amounts of hindsight designs.  I am not saying people are cheating I am saying that people lack the knowledge of how things went.

THIS is what people should be building

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_%281914%29

Ignore the game date compared to real world date our tech compared to historic is less and this was the first war were aircraft actually mattered.  I agree for a large amount of interest and designs but they should be of the correct type.  More tender than strike carrier, slow speeds, limited facilities and very small air groups.

Michael

EDIT: SORRY I didn't look at the source picture size

I agree, same with AA armaments.

But what about the case of the Swiss?

I've had ships sunk by aircraft in two wars, I had a fleet savaged by an aerial attack, I've had an experimental carrier for 10 years now, one that proved to be worth its weight in gold (despite how crappy it really was), I've stuck floatplanes and blimps into destroyers, and plan to stick single use aircraft on auxiliaries. If anything I can build a considerable case for NS.

I'll agree that Hosho was not a good carrier and had its considerable problems. I wouldn't expect my 6k ton design to be any better.

... and it is so easy to use the smaller pics of wikipedia. :)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/JapaneseAircraftCarrierAkagi3Deck.jpg/800px-JapaneseAircraftCarrierAkagi3Deck.jpg)

Quote from: Desertfox on July 18, 2010, 01:25:10 PM

I'll agree that Hosho was not a good carrier and had its considerable problems. I wouldn't expect my 6k ton design to be any better.

If you don't have double hanger decks you could avoid much of her problems but still we should be having more misses right now than hits with aircraft designs.

Michael

QuoteEDIT: SORRY I didn't look at the source picture size

No doubt caused by the fact that the system resizes the pic so it fits into your window which is a bit annoying. I always check the pic sizes given on wiki to determine whether I should use the original version or the small version.

Quote from: Ithekro on July 18, 2010, 01:01:42 PM
Aside from bad luck (getting rammed in low visability) your force did nothing wrong that couldn't be fixed by either floatplanes on your armored frigates (also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland) or a seaplane carrier to launch some eyes in the sky to your force would possibly have know they were being shadowed or that the enemy base was abandoned before your force got to the mine field on a later date...but if the goal was to put troops ashore, the minefield would still be an issue anyway.

Unless there is something glaringly missing from the battle report that was purely a Dutch experiance.

Yes, there was.

D.

Quote from: Ithekro on July 18, 2010, 01:01:42 PM
Aside from bad luck (getting rammed in low visability) your force did nothing wrong that couldn't be fixed by either floatplanes on your armored frigates (also might help with spotting if the guns have the range for shelling targets deep inland) or a seaplane carrier to launch some eyes in the sky to your force would possibly have know they were being shadowed or that the enemy base was abandoned before your force got to the mine field on a later date...but if the goal was to put troops ashore, the minefield would still be an issue anyway.

Unless there is something glaringly missing from the battle report that was purely a Dutch experiance.

Yes, there was.
================================
As for the carrier issue, I think I have thrashed that one out. There will not be miltiple decks on the first true Dutch aircraft tender, because those bugs will be worked out this way on this piece of junk:

http://www.navalism.org/index.php?topic=4967.msg62749#msg62749 

D.

Now THAT is a 1920 experimental carrier!