What makes a carrier, a carrier?

Hello All,

Ages ago, there was some talk about the dividing line between
a carrier and a non-carrier.  I believe it compared the MASS of the
fighter bays vs. something else. I need to know so I can update my gaming
groups "House Rules". Anyone remember what the "accepted" carrier
classification is?

Pete

"If I had a sig, I'm sure it would be witty."

> pcaron%nhqvax.dnet@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com wrote:

> Ages ago, there was some talk about the dividing line between

I don't think we reached any kind of consensus: I like bay mass >= 50%
available mass someone suggested bay mass >= 2*weapon mass (there might have
been a few other suggestions)

> Pete wrote:

I think it was suggested to use ships with mass of at least cruiser size for
carrying fighters. Of course smaller surface ships of today, like destroyers
are capable of carrying aircraft as well, but with limited capacity and
facilities.

I like the idea of carrying fighters on ships smaller than capital size.
 It
seems logical since fleets might tend to be small when patroling the vast
expanses of space, and might require some small craft support (e.g. scouting,
etc.). This would be very helpful in campaigns.

> On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Mike Miserendino wrote:

> Pete wrote:

However, you'd be very hard pressed to get more than one fighter bay into
an escort-sized hull, so escort-sized micro-carriers don't need the
classification as 'carrier'. The only thing that classification does it to
allow launch of two fighter squadrons per turn, and if you only have
one...

> Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@nada.kth.se> wrote:

> However, you'd be very hard pressed to get more than one fighter bay

Strictly speaking, being classified as a carrier is what allows non capitol
ships to carry any fighters at all (fighters may only be mounted on capitols
or carriers).

> Mike wrote:

Plus ships of Escort size with Hanger Bays aren't going to be carrying
much else, are they? ;-) Maybe a C-battery or a PDAF system or two...but
not much else! So why not have 'escort carriers'? Good for pirate patrol?

Mk

I agree with you Mike. The Royal Navys carriers were all orginally called
through deck cruisers for political reasons (Aircraft Carrier sounds more
expensive!). A lot of european navies have very small aircraft carriers.

 ----------
From:  FTGZG-L[SMTP:FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk]
Sent:  25 September 1996 10:06
To:  FTGZG-L
Subject:  Re: What makes a carrier, a carrier?

Reply-To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: What makes a carrier, a carrier?

> Pete wrote:

I think it was suggested to use ships with mass of at least cruiser size

for carrying fighters. Of course smaller surface ships of today, like
destroyers are capable of carrying aircraft as well, but with limited capacity
and facilities.

I like the idea of carrying fighters on ships smaller than capital size.

 It
seems logical since fleets might tend to be small when patroling the vast
expanses of space, and might require some small craft support (e.g. scouting,
etc.). This would be very helpful in campaigns.

> In message <199609251549.QAA01266@bungle.ftel.co.uk> you wrote:

> Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@nada.kth.se> wrote:

Actually it's Dreadnaughts and Carriers. I always found that rule rather
silly, since anything which carries fighters could be classed as a carrier. So
it simplifies to: Only ships which carry fighters can carry fighters:)

I do have a small pirate fleet, consisting entirely of escort
ships - some of which carry fighters (I'd say escorts don't
have the resources to refuel the fighters). A use for _Silent Death_
models at last...

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> to allow launch of two fighter squadrons per turn, and if you only have

> one...

I thought Pete's question might be why the rules did not allow using fighters
on ships smaller than capital. You are right about the benefit of calling a
ship a carrier to launch up to two groups per turn. This seems appropriate
with capital size ships since they would likely have more facilities to
perform such functions(e.g. more launch bays, etc.).

> Simon Campbell-Smith wrote:

Yep. Recently, the US received back a carrier from Spain, the USS Cabot. The
Cabot was a US jeep carrier in WWII. It was sold to Spain after the war and
served in the Spanish Navy as their flagship for several years after WWII. I
think it was supposed to be moved to Chicago very soon as a floating museum.

Through deck cruisers? Cool. I remember some ST ship types of the same and
wondered if any wet navies actually used this designation.

Mike:

For what it's worth, the Cabot was built on a light cruiser hull, originally
designated the Charleston. It was sold to Spain after WWII and renamed the
Dedalo. A couple of years ago, a group of Navy vets in the New Orleans area
obtained the ship from Spain with the intention of using it as a floating
museum in the Algiers area of New Orleans. As is so often the case, their good
intentions faltered in the face of their lack of cash and the Cabot has been
tied up at a wharf on the edge of the French Quarter ever since; it is
currently in the process of being condemned by the Coast Guard as a hazard to
navigation and will probably be scrapped.

I remember the day the Cabot arrived here. I went down to take a look and was
struck by how incredibly filthy the ship and its crew were. The rust spots on
the hull had been painted over so many times there were blisters three and
four feet long along the sides. The rating on duty at the gangplank was
wearing a dirty uniform and frayed webgear and his rifle was so rusty I doubt
it could ever have been cleaned. Bear in mind that at that point in time, this
ship was the *flagship* of the Spanish navy. Makes the Armada a bit easier to
understand.

******************************************************
* * * * * The Internet will only come *
*  Larry Tuohy sez:   * into its own when someone    *
*		      * invents an automatic and     *
*		      * universal SPELL CHECKER!     *
* * *
******************************************************