NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

[The Corparation]

Smallest size nukes were stuff like the W48 shown here

I think its perfect feasible for a FT power armor infantry men to carry one or two similar sized warheads. I do not however think it should be something handed to every grunt and shot off at every opportunity. Hienlien did a good job on their sue with the MI, only senior noncoms and officers got them and even then then they were rare and not used often due to the risk of friendly fire during large scale battles.

thats a shell. once you add propellant, it'll be bigger.

That's not my point. MY point is that you can have lolsmall warheads. And even adding a good size rocket motor to one wouldn't increase the mass to the point where a power armor soldier couldn't use one.

[Senestrum]

The interesting thing is that small, ultra-low-yield nuclear devices actually need more fissile material below a certain size, since you need to go to less efficient designs in order to cram the damned things in such small packages.

[The UK in Exile]

thats a shell. once you add propellant, it'll be bigger.

That's not my point. MY point is that you can have lolsmall warheads. And even adding a good size rocket motor to one wouldn't increase the mass to the point where a power armor soldier couldn't use one.

mabye but then of course since power armour isn't a real thing I wouldn't have any way of answering that.

155mm is small for a nuke but lolhuge for a recoilless rifle.

[Spirit of Hope]

Getting in on the argument quickly, if he is Ft then us a antimatter fullerene matrix. It exists in real life (barely) and could be launched from a rocket launcher, or be placed in a grenade. The explosion could be huge or tiny depending on how much antimatter you put in it. The only problem would be cost.

[Spirit of Hope]

That's not my point. MY point is that you can have lolsmall warheads. And even adding a good size rocket motor to one wouldn't increase the mass to the point where a power armor soldier couldn't use one.

mabye but then of course since power armour isn't a real thing I wouldn't have any way of answering that.

155mm is small for a nuke but lolhuge for a recoilless rifle.

Power armor exists its just ridiculously stupid right now, requires to much power, has little feedback weighs a ton and has a host of mechanical problems.

Double post sorry.

[Yes Im Biop]

No. Bad Starship troopers. Bad Boy

Anything else, you know something useful?

Yeah. DOnt try it. Ya knwo. Ever.

[Yes Im Biop]

He's still correct, it's not wise to issue or use such a weapon.

Well for the idea, It's not like it is meant for standard missions it was meant for long range destruction to take out areas and then force out anything that doesn't have something to prevent the radiation.

Use a Remote drone with a Tac Nuke payload

[Hittanryan]

So, no word on electric reactive armor?

[Yes Im Biop]

What's the general opinion of electric reactive armor? As far as I know, it's still in development, but I figured I'd ask the armchair generals here if they had any thoughts. Is it just an expensive gimmick or would it be a worthwhile investment on a tank?

Depends on what your facing. From what i understand. It wouldn't do much to stop the plasma jet from a shaped charge. But a Silver Dart it sounds like it would melt pretty damn well.

[Sevvania]

I'm operating around WWII-tech. So in looking for a carrier, I can't help but be drawn to the overall aesthetics of some of the Japanese multi-deckers, particularly the Kaga. The layout intrigues me.

But noticing a particular lack of modern multi-deck carriers, I come here wondering if there's some underlying flaw that kept the from becoming widely popular.

[Allanea]

There's not that many modern carriers to start with.

[The UK in Exile]

I'm operating around WWII-tech. So in looking for a carrier, I can't help but be drawn to the overall aesthetics of some of the Japanese multi-deckers, particularly the Kaga. The layout intrigues me.
(Image)
But noticing a particular lack of modern multi-deck carriers, I come here wondering if there's some underlying flaw that kept the from becoming widely popular.

there's no reason for it.

the angled flight deck on modern aircraft carriers acomplishes the same effect in half the space.

[Allanea]

The interesting thing is that small, ultra-low-yield nuclear devices actually need more fissile material below a certain size, since you need to go to less efficient designs in order to cram the damned things in such small packages.

Maybe you can go with FGNW?

[The Akasha Colony]

I'm operating around WWII-tech. So in looking for a carrier, I can't help but be drawn to the overall aesthetics of some of the Japanese multi-deckers, particularly the Kaga. The layout intrigues me.
(Image)
But noticing a particular lack of modern multi-deck carriers, I come here wondering if there's some underlying flaw that kept the from becoming widely popular.

The biggest reason is seaworthiness, although there are several reasons.

The USN experimented with bow shapes in the inter-war years, the three major types being the hurricane bow (fully-enclosed, the way all carriers are now), the open bow (a framework, usually armed with guns), and the launch-deck bow, like the Japanese. Of these three, the hurricane bow was by far the best, as the guns on the open bow were too wet to use, and both the launch-deck bow and the open bow allowed water into the hangar and other deck spaces in heavy weather. The hurricane bow kept the water out, which was the most useful result.

The second flying-off deck was also found to be mostly useless by WWII, as larger and larger aircraft required more vertical and horizontal space for launch. The launching deck also reduced hangar space, which could be more effectively utilized carrying additional planes. The minor gains in launch speed were not worth the reduction in capacity, particularly once the second deck became mostly useless with the big, heavy fighters that were standard by the end of the war.

[Spirit of Hope]

I'm operating around WWII-tech. So in looking for a carrier, I can't help but be drawn to the overall aesthetics of some of the Japanese multi-deckers, particularly the Kaga. The layout intrigues me.
(Image)
But noticing a particular lack of modern multi-deck carriers, I come here wondering if there's some underlying flaw that kept the from becoming widely popular.

Look at the part labeled flight decks in the wiki article. You cant fit two decks directly above and below each other, as then their would be no way for the catapults to be connected to the deck. Thus the further forward flight decks will be shorter and can only be used to launch very light aircraft.

[Liugark]

Hey guys.Here is a newb to modern warfare.This nation needs an army,and if someone of the more experienced armchair generals would give me some advice what type of military my nation would have.MT style.Liugark is relative big,but the region it inhabitates is a not much populated.We are talking maybe twice the amount of Usbekistan population-wise (ignoring what nationstates says.).

Technology wise it would be influenced by Russia and China (maybe Pakistan and the other Central Asian Nations too,as Liugark is a former steppe country) due to its location.

Here is an map for orientation



Thanks in advance.

[The Akasha Colony]

Hey guys.Here is a newb to modern warfare.This nation needs an army,and if someone of the more experienced armchair generals would give me some advice what type of military my nation would have.MT style.Liugark is relative big,but the region it inhabitates is a not much populated.We are talking maybe twice the amount of Usbekistan population-wise (ignoring what nationstates says.).

Technology wise it would be influenced by Russia and China (maybe Pakistan and the other Central Asian Nations too,as Liugark is a former steppe country) due to its location.

Here is an map for orientation

[Image snipped]

Thanks in advance.

First, what's your budget, and second, what do you want your military to do? Is it purely defensive, running a few border patrols and repelling invaders? Or do you expect to be waging foreign wars?

[Sevvania]

*scribbles these newly gathered facts down onto a nearby napkin*

Much obliged, and thank you for your quick, concise responses.

So, if not a double-decked carrier remniscient of the Japanese, what would be another good choice? I perceive my nation as being..... not economically well-off. People have enough to get by, and most of them are far from poor, but there are very few people who could be considered rich. The nation is sort of technologically backwards, the main military weapons being a semi-automatic battle rifle and a submachine gun. Jet aircraft have yet to be developed, and the concept of an assault rifle is still in its prototype stages, if that helps paint a picture in terms of technological achievement and financial status. So with these things in mind, what would be a carrier that fits the overall style of my nation? Something sort of simple, I suppose, not overtly expensive, but reliable. The Kalashnikov of Carriers, if such a thing exists.

[Liugark]

Hey guys.Here is a newb to modern warfare.This nation needs an army,and if someone of the more experienced armchair generals would give me some advice what type of military my nation would have.MT style.Liugark is relative big,but the region it inhabitates is a not much populated.We are talking maybe twice the amount of Usbekistan population-wise (ignoring what nationstates says.).

Technology wise it would be influenced by Russia and China (maybe Pakistan and the other Central Asian Nations too,as Liugark is a former steppe country) due to its location.

Here is an map for orientation

[Image snipped]

Thanks in advance.

First, what's your budget, and second, what do you want your military to do? Is it purely defensive, running a few border patrols and repelling invaders? Or do you expect to be waging foreign wars?

Budget would be something around 4,718,000,000 in US Dollars.

The purpose would be mainly defensive,but also able to aid in international conflicts,much like most of the NATO states.

[The Akasha Colony]

*scribbles these newly gathered facts down onto a nearby napkin*

Much obliged, and thank you for your quick, concise responses.

So, if not a double-decked carrier remniscient of the Japanese, what would be another good choice? I perceive my nation as being..... not economically well-off. People have enough to get by, and most of them are far from poor, but there are very few people who could be considered rich. The nation is sort of technologically backwards, the main military weapons being a semi-automatic battle rifle and a submachine gun. Jet aircraft have yet to be developed, and the concept of an assault rifle is still in its prototype stages, if that helps paint a picture in terms of technological achievement and financial status. So with these things in mind, what would be a carrier that fits the overall style of my nation? Something sort of simple, I suppose, not overtly expensive, but reliable. The Kalashnikov of Carriers, if such a thing exists.

That's actually a pretty decent state for WWII-era technology. Only the United States was able to roll out a semi-automatic rifle to all line units during the war, all of the rest still had to make due with a large number of bolt actions, and only some were able to supplement these with semi-automatics. And only the Germans developed an assault rifle for field deployment before the war ended.

The big question now is what carrier size you want. The cheapest are escort carriers, the usual converted cruisers and merchantmen with a flat deck slapped on top. But these have a number of drawbacks, a number due to conversion issues inherent to any non-carrier ship converted into a carrier. The most efficient fleet carriers developed during the war was the Essex-class, which had comparable tonnage to the Japanese carriers, but much larger aircraft capacity. They were more expensive, but much more efficient. The pre-war US carriers of the Yorktown- and Wasp-classes were also quite good for their cost. The US carriers kept their armor on the hangar deck, rather than the flight deck, resulting in a smaller armored box profile which reduced cost and weight, while improving hangar workspace and capacity.

Budget would be something around 4,718,000,000 in US Dollars.

The purpose would be mainly defensive,but also able to aid in international conflicts,much like most of the NATO states.

A NATO-style military on that budget will be rather difficult. I would recommend looking at nations like Finland and the other Scandinavian countries, which tend to have similar budgets. Obviously, you'd reduce the naval expenditures, and probably try to put that money toward air-based logistics.

[Sevvania]

*scribbles these newly gathered facts down onto a nearby napkin*

Much obliged, and thank you for your quick, concise responses.

So, if not a double-decked carrier remniscient of the Japanese, what would be another good choice? I perceive my nation as being..... not economically well-off. People have enough to get by, and most of them are far from poor, but there are very few people who could be considered rich. The nation is sort of technologically backwards, the main military weapons being a semi-automatic battle rifle and a submachine gun. Jet aircraft have yet to be developed, and the concept of an assault rifle is still in its prototype stages, if that helps paint a picture in terms of technological achievement and financial status. So with these things in mind, what would be a carrier that fits the overall style of my nation? Something sort of simple, I suppose, not overtly expensive, but reliable. The Kalashnikov of Carriers, if such a thing exists.

That's actually a pretty decent state for WWII-era technology. Only the United States was able to roll out a semi-automatic rifle to all line units during the war, all of the rest still had to make due with a large number of bolt actions, and only some were able to supplement these with semi-automatics. And only the Germans developed an assault rifle for field deployment before the war ended.

The big question now is what carrier size you want. The cheapest are escort carriers, the usual converted cruisers and merchantmen with a flat deck slapped on top. But these have a number of drawbacks, a number due to conversion issues inherent to any non-carrier ship converted into a carrier. The most efficient fleet carriers developed during the war was the Essex-class, which had comparable tonnage to the Japanese carriers, but much larger aircraft capacity. They were more expensive, but much more efficient. The pre-war US carriers of the Yorktown- and Wasp-classes were also quite good for their cost. The US carriers kept their armor on the hangar deck, rather than the flight deck, resulting in a smaller armored box profile which reduced cost and weight, while improving hangar workspace and capacity.

Carrier size eludes me. My first concept of Sevvania (before I had even established it on this site, and long before I had learned of tactics, logistics, and all the other things one would pick up while frequenting Military Realism, Main Military Weapon, and similar threads) was that it was a nation built around aerial transportation, with a similarly-minded military, with the Air Force being the largest branch. But from what I've learned, that's probably not the greatest approach, so I'm open to suggestions....

If it's any assisance, here are the current models of aircraft in service by the Sevvanian military, along with a modest, un-informed write-up of each:

Mini-Gyro

The Mini-Gyro is a small, one-man gyrocopter used primarily for reconaissance and observation. Minimal armor and slow speed force these craft to rely on a single .30 caliber machine gun and a nose-mounted .50 cal for self-defense.

Class: Gyrocopter
Max Crew: 1
Maximum Speed: 100 mph

Dust Devil

The Dust Devil was first deployed as a non-combat commercial carrier, designed to be resistant to the dry, sandy air of the Sevvanian desert. Equipped with four .50 caliber machine guns and a wing-mounted centerline 20mm cannon, the Dust Devil remains an effective all-round combatant against ground forces and older model aircraft, although poor maneuverability and wooden construction can be a detriment.

Class: Biplane
Max Crew: 2
Service Ceiling: 21,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 165 mph

Bulldog

Bulldogs are small, quick, zeppelin-bourne parasite fighters. Armor and armaments are traded for speed and maneuverability, and a pair of contra-rotational propellers ensure the craft reach takeoff speeds before plummeting from their zeppelin-based carriers. Each Bulldog sports four .30 caliber guns.

Class: Fighter
Max Crew: 1

Bandito

The Bandito is cheap and maneuverable, armed with a quartet of .50 caliber guns and a 30mm incendiary cannon mounted to the right of the fuselage. While not as fast as the Coyote, and carrying a much smaller payload, it continues to serve as a reliable interceptor.

Class: Interceptor
Max Crew: 1
Service Ceiling: 33,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 410 mph

Coyote

The Coyote is a rugged, maneuverable, adaptable aircraft that serves a variety of roles. Standard armaments include four .50 caliber machine guns, although they are commonly outfitted with bombs or rockets.

Class: Fighter
Max Crew: 1
Service Ceiling: 41,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 430 mph

F611 Brigand

The F611 Brigand is one of the most highly regarded heavy-fighter aircraft available in Sevvania. Equipped with a powerful 16-cylinder engine, the Brigand has a high top speed, surprising agility for its weight, and impressive offensive capability. It has a reputation as being reliable and effective, but also for poor fuel economy, quirky handling and a mediocre acceleration. A pair of 15mm autocannons are mounted on each wing, with two more mounted in the tailgun. Given its relatively small size and heavy armament, the Brigand is most often found in an anti-armor role, usually as part of a small group under escort of more nimble fighters. It is also an effective ground-attack fighter, although its poor acceleration hampers its ability to recover from a strafing run.

Class: Heavy Fighter
Max Crew: 3
Service Ceiling: 18,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 250 mph

Doppelganger

The Doppelganger is commonly referred to as a "tank buster". A single 75mm gun protrudes from the nose of the craft, flanked by a pair of 15mm autocannons. Although heavily armored, the craft is relatively sluggish, and peculiar handling characteristics make it a challenge for inexperienced pilots. In capable hands, however, the craft is fairly maneuverable.

Class: Fighter-Bomber
Max Crew: 1

[Liugark]

*scribbles these newly gathered facts down onto a nearby napkin*

Much obliged, and thank you for your quick, concise responses.

So, if not a double-decked carrier remniscient of the Japanese, what would be another good choice? I perceive my nation as being..... not economically well-off. People have enough to get by, and most of them are far from poor, but there are very few people who could be considered rich. The nation is sort of technologically backwards, the main military weapons being a semi-automatic battle rifle and a submachine gun. Jet aircraft have yet to be developed, and the concept of an assault rifle is still in its prototype stages, if that helps paint a picture in terms of technological achievement and financial status. So with these things in mind, what would be a carrier that fits the overall style of my nation? Something sort of simple, I suppose, not overtly expensive, but reliable. The Kalashnikov of Carriers, if such a thing exists.

That's actually a pretty decent state for WWII-era technology. Only the United States was able to roll out a semi-automatic rifle to all line units during the war, all of the rest still had to make due with a large number of bolt actions, and only some were able to supplement these with semi-automatics. And only the Germans developed an assault rifle for field deployment before the war ended.

The big question now is what carrier size you want. The cheapest are escort carriers, the usual converted cruisers and merchantmen with a flat deck slapped on top. But these have a number of drawbacks, a number due to conversion issues inherent to any non-carrier ship converted into a carrier. The most efficient fleet carriers developed during the war was the Essex-class, which had comparable tonnage to the Japanese carriers, but much larger aircraft capacity. They were more expensive, but much more efficient. The pre-war US carriers of the Yorktown- and Wasp-classes were also quite good for their cost. The US carriers kept their armor on the hangar deck, rather than the flight deck, resulting in a smaller armored box profile which reduced cost and weight, while improving hangar workspace and capacity.

Budget would be something around 4,718,000,000 in US Dollars.

The purpose would be mainly defensive,but also able to aid in international conflicts,much like most of the NATO states.

A NATO-style military on that budget will be rather difficult. I would recommend looking at nations like Finland and the other Scandinavian countries, which tend to have similar budgets. Obviously, you'd reduce the naval expenditures, and probably try to put that money toward air-based logistics.

Haha,actually I looked up the military expenditures of countries in a list in Wikipedia,and used Finland as base.
I just estimated being in the middle of the pack would be enough.

Maybe something more along the lines of Turkey ?´´´´

[Mount Shavano]

*scribbles these newly gathered facts down onto a nearby napkin*

Much obliged, and thank you for your quick, concise responses.

So, if not a double-decked carrier remniscient of the Japanese, what would be another good choice? I perceive my nation as being..... not economically well-off. People have enough to get by, and most of them are far from poor, but there are very few people who could be considered rich. The nation is sort of technologically backwards, the main military weapons being a semi-automatic battle rifle and a submachine gun. Jet aircraft have yet to be developed, and the concept of an assault rifle is still in its prototype stages, if that helps paint a picture in terms of technological achievement and financial status. So with these things in mind, what would be a carrier that fits the overall style of my nation? Something sort of simple, I suppose, not overtly expensive, but reliable. The Kalashnikov of Carriers, if such a thing exists.

Carrier's aren't cheap... in the real world, the only modern nations with active carriers that aren't secondhand junk are the USA, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Thailand (Britain decommissioned the last of hers that was before the next one was ready, IIRC) - and the last two's wouldn't even be designated carriers in US service. Basically, unless you have an economy at least equivalent to a decent sized EU member you are probably looking at something like Principe de Asturias or a refurbished ship some superpower is through with. If you RP in the immediate post-WWII era by date and not just technology, the US Independence class was pretty widely used for a while.

Of course, you may just be better off building a navy without carriers. A carrier is a power projection asset; if your navy is intended as a defensive force only, submarines and destroyers/frigates supported by land based airpower are probably much more efficient.

Incidentally, if you are a fan of the "open deck" aesthetic, an open hangar is going to look pretty much the same and was operationally superior to the alternative until the deployment of the first "supercarriers", which required the flight deck to be the strength deck as thusly couldn't permit large openings in the hull without compromising its integrity. Up until that point, however, having the hangar deck as the strength deck worked out much better all around (inb4 Royal Navy fanboys who don't know what they are talking about contradicting me), and having the flight deck as superstructure permitted the flight deck to be open, greatly improving efficiency of operations and working conditions. In the time frame you are in tech-wise, this still might be the case.

Man that's convoluted. I'm tired, sorry about that. Hope I got my point across.

[The Akasha Colony]

That's actually a pretty decent state for WWII-era technology. Only the United States was able to roll out a semi-automatic rifle to all line units during the war, all of the rest still had to make due with a large number of bolt actions, and only some were able to supplement these with semi-automatics. And only the Germans developed an assault rifle for field deployment before the war ended.

The big question now is what carrier size you want. The cheapest are escort carriers, the usual converted cruisers and merchantmen with a flat deck slapped on top. But these have a number of drawbacks, a number due to conversion issues inherent to any non-carrier ship converted into a carrier. The most efficient fleet carriers developed during the war was the Essex-class, which had comparable tonnage to the Japanese carriers, but much larger aircraft capacity. They were more expensive, but much more efficient. The pre-war US carriers of the Yorktown- and Wasp-classes were also quite good for their cost. The US carriers kept their armor on the hangar deck, rather than the flight deck, resulting in a smaller armored box profile which reduced cost and weight, while improving hangar workspace and capacity.

Carrier size eludes me. My first concept of Sevvania (before I had even established it on this site, and long before I had learned of tactics, logistics, and all the other things one would pick up while frequenting Military Realism, Main Military Weapon, and similar threads) was that it was a nation built around aerial transportation, with a similarly-minded military, with the Air Force being the largest branch. But from what I've learned, that's probably not the greatest approach, so I'm open to suggestions....

If it's any assisance, here are the current models of aircraft in service by the Sevvanian military, along with a modest, un-informed write-up of each:

Mini-Gyro

The Mini-Gyro is a small, one-man gyrocopter used primarily for reconaissance and observation. Minimal armor and slow speed force these craft to rely on a single .30 caliber machine gun and a nose-mounted .50 cal for self-defense.

Class: Gyrocopter
Max Crew: 1
Maximum Speed: 100 mph

Dust Devil

The Dust Devil was first deployed as a non-combat commercial carrier, designed to be resistant to the dry, sandy air of the Sevvanian desert. Equipped with four .50 caliber machine guns and a wing-mounted centerline 20mm cannon, the Dust Devil remains an effective all-round combatant against ground forces and older model aircraft, although poor maneuverability and wooden construction can be a detriment.

Class: Biplane
Max Crew: 2
Service Ceiling: 21,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 165 mph

Bulldog

Bulldogs are small, quick, zeppelin-bourne parasite fighters. Armor and armaments are traded for speed and maneuverability, and a pair of contra-rotational propellers ensure the craft reach takeoff speeds before plummeting from their zeppelin-based carriers. Each Bulldog sports four .30 caliber guns.

Class: Fighter
Max Crew: 1

Bandito

The Bandito is cheap and maneuverable, armed with a quartet of .50 caliber guns and a 30mm incendiary cannon mounted to the right of the fuselage. While not as fast as the Coyote, and carrying a much smaller payload, it continues to serve as a reliable interceptor.

Class: Interceptor
Max Crew: 1
Service Ceiling: 33,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 410 mph

Coyote

The Coyote is a rugged, maneuverable, adaptable aircraft that serves a variety of roles. Standard armaments include four .50 caliber machine guns, although they are commonly outfitted with bombs or rockets.

Class: Fighter
Max Crew: 1
Service Ceiling: 41,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 430 mph

F611 Brigand

The F611 Brigand is one of the most highly regarded heavy-fighter aircraft available in Sevvania. Equipped with a powerful 16-cylinder engine, the Brigand has a high top speed, surprising agility for its weight, and impressive offensive capability. It has a reputation as being reliable and effective, but also for poor fuel economy, quirky handling and a mediocre acceleration. A pair of 15mm autocannons are mounted on each wing, with two more mounted in the tailgun. Given its relatively small size and heavy armament, the Brigand is most often found in an anti-armor role, usually as part of a small group under escort of more nimble fighters. It is also an effective ground-attack fighter, although its poor acceleration hampers its ability to recover from a strafing run.

Class: Heavy Fighter
Max Crew: 3
Service Ceiling: 18,000 feet
Maximum Speed: 250 mph

Doppelganger

The Doppelganger is commonly referred to as a "tank buster". A single 75mm gun protrudes from the nose of the craft, flanked by a pair of 15mm autocannons. Although heavily armored, the craft is relatively sluggish, and peculiar handling characteristics make it a challenge for inexperienced pilots. In capable hands, however, the craft is fairly maneuverable.

Class: Fighter-Bomber
Max Crew: 1

Fleet carriers, like the Essex-class and most Japanese carriers of WWII displace around 30,000-40,000+ tonnes, and carry between 50-100 aircraft. They tend to be the striking power of a navy, carrying a decent number of fighters, but also lots of bombers (both torpedo and dive bombers). Their role usually isn't fleet defense, but offensive operations, although they can of course contribute to fleet defense if needed.

Below this are light carriers, such as the US Independence-class, which was converted from a series of light cruiser hulls. These tend to displace between 10,000-20,000 tonnes and carry a few dozen aircraft. These also tend to be focused mostly on fighters, with only a few bombers, and are usually dedicated toward fleet defense. Of course, a nation without fleet carriers may decide to increase the number of bombers in their light carriers to provide at least some striking power.

Escort carriers are the smallest, often being converted from merchant hulls. These are usually tasked only with protecting convoys, carrying around a dozen aircraft, mostly fighters and anti-submarine aircraft. Due to their origin, they're cheap, but also too slow to be used with a decent battle fleet.

Air-based transportation wouldn't be terribly useful in that era, unless you're going with an all-infantry army. Even today, air transport is impractical for major operations involving vehicles. 90% of the equipment used in Desert Storm was delivered by ship.

Haha,actually I looked up the military expenditures of countries in a list in Wikipedia,and used Finland as base.
I just estimated being in the middle of the pack would be enough.

Maybe something more along the lines of Turkey ?´´´´

Turkey would be interesting, although what's your technology base? Turkey's, while not backward, isn't quite amazing domestically.

[Sevvania]

*scribbles these newly gathered facts down onto a nearby napkin*

Much obliged, and thank you for your quick, concise responses.

So, if not a double-decked carrier remniscient of the Japanese, what would be another good choice? I perceive my nation as being..... not economically well-off. People have enough to get by, and most of them are far from poor, but there are very few people who could be considered rich. The nation is sort of technologically backwards, the main military weapons being a semi-automatic battle rifle and a submachine gun. Jet aircraft have yet to be developed, and the concept of an assault rifle is still in its prototype stages, if that helps paint a picture in terms of technological achievement and financial status. So with these things in mind, what would be a carrier that fits the overall style of my nation? Something sort of simple, I suppose, not overtly expensive, but reliable. The Kalashnikov of Carriers, if such a thing exists.

Carrier's aren't cheap... in the real world, the only modern nations with active carriers that aren't secondhand junk are the USA, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Thailand (Britain decommissioned the last of hers that was before the next one was ready, IIRC) - and the last two's wouldn't even be designated carriers in US service. Basically, unless you have an economy at least equivalent to a decent sized EU member you are probably looking at something like Principe de Asturias or a refurbished ship some superpower is through with. If you RP in the immediate post-WWII era by date and not just technology, the US Independence class was pretty widely used for a while.

Of course, you may just be better off building a navy without carriers. A carrier is a power projection asset; if your navy is intended as a defensive force only, submarines and destroyers/frigates supported by land based airpower are probably much more efficient.

Incidentally, if you are a fan of the "open deck" aesthetic, an open hangar is going to look pretty much the same and was operationally superior to the alternative until the deployment of the first "supercarriers", which required the flight deck to be the strength deck as thusly couldn't permit large openings in the hull without compromising its integrity. Up until that point, however, having the hangar deck as the strength deck worked out much better all around (inb4 Royal Navy fanboys who don't know what they are talking about contradicting me), and having the flight deck as superstructure permitted the flight deck to be open, greatly improving efficiency of operations and working conditions. In the time frame you are in tech-wise, this still might be the case.

Man that's convoluted. I'm tired, sorry about that. Hope I got my point across.

I think I understand that. This may be a topic I come back to at a later date, because I'll be gone for the weekend.

@The Akasha Colony: Air transport is one of those things I think I've had to handwave a bit. I took a lot of inspiration from "Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge" during my initial concept of Sevvania. It's a largely desert nation, with open skies and rough terrain (my attempt at justifying zeppelins) and.... yeah, that's about all I've got. Cookies to whoever can come up with a decent explanation as to why my nation would focus on air travel?