Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26091970-20150604000724/@comment-26574811-20150927025806

42.60.228.10 wrote: Would help if you could add in specifics regarding the choices, such as pros and cons (eg. CVA is already used for Attack Aircraft Carrier, if CV is chosen there will be a split similar like that for BB). CVA: Carrier, Attack (usually referred to as "Fleet Carrier" as well)

CVB: Carrier, Large (The only designation ever used specificly for an armored carrier, all other armored carriers simply used CV) Some sources (Teitoku no Ketsudan or something) use CVB to refer to Aviation Battleships

CVR: Created by people here, don't exist in reality

ACVR: Likewise.

As for the "Taihou is too small to be called CVB" issue:

Midway: 45000t (didn't find if it's standard or full load)

Taihou: 29770t normal, 37870t full load

Shoukaku: 32105t deep load

Essex (as the largest non-CVB US carrier): 31300t standard, 36960t full

Illustrious (British armored carrier, the RN doesn't have CVB nor Armored Carrier designation): 23000t standard

Implacable (improved Illustrious): 32630t deep load

So here's the deal:

1. Taihou is actually big enough to be called a CVB. As she is at least heavier (but a bit shorter) than Essex, and far bigger than Illustrious. Don't use her capacity to judge, as Taihou never actually used up her capacity and IJN aircrafts lack folding wings anyway. Allowing Taihou to be designated CVB will solve a lot of trouble, like when Illustrious is introduced.

2. Shoukaku K2A is more of a problem, but since K2A is appearently non-historic and certainly a lot heavier than historical Shoukaku, I think we can let that go.

So I think CVB is fine. We already invented too many non-historic and non-logical designations like CAV BBV and SSV, we don't need another if we can avoid to.