alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Jun 7, 2018 12:51:48 GMT -6
No battleships started by a nation in the war, was finished and participated in the war. (Battlecruisers) Alaska and Guam in WWII. Ise was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1917. Although she didn't take part in any combat in WWI she was capable of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 7, 2018 13:11:38 GMT -6
No battleships started by a nation in the war, was finished and participated in the war. (Battlecruisers) Alaska and Guam in WWII. Ise was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1917. Although she didn't take part in any combat in WWI she was capable of doing so. They were not battleships. You need around 4 years to build battleship with existing design. It is quite a difference to build 3x12" or 3x16" turrets and take into considaration armor plates and displacement.
|
|
alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Jun 7, 2018 13:40:41 GMT -6
Ise was not a battleship?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 7, 2018 14:25:32 GMT -6
(Battlecruisers) Alaska and Guam in WWII. Ise was laid down in 1915 and completed in 1917. Although she didn't take part in any combat in WWI she was capable of doing so. They were not battleships. You need around 4 years to build battleship with existing design. It is quite a difference to build 3x12" or 3x16" turrets and take into considaration armor plates and displacement. I'm pretty certain Ise was a battleship, built with 6 2x14" turrets and a 21 knot speed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 7, 2018 14:34:26 GMT -6
They were not battleships. You need around 4 years to build battleship with existing design. It is quite a difference to build 3x12" or 3x16" turrets and take into considaration armor plates and displacement. I'm pretty certain Ise was a battleship, built with 6 2x14" turrets and a 21 knot speed. it was - combinedfleet.com/ships/ise
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jun 7, 2018 22:34:39 GMT -6
Interesting discussion on the historical geopolitical situation. However, if RTW1 is any measure, I doubt that anything similar will occur in RTW2. I fully intend to build carriers and rule the waves with them when I play Germany. And that's the beauty of RTW.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 7, 2018 23:18:26 GMT -6
I found this article in my collection about Hybrid Aircraft Carriers from a copy of Naval Aviation News that I had, I thought I would share it with you. Unfortunately it was too big, so here is a link to a copy.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 10, 2018 0:20:26 GMT -6
Somewhere on this thread, I think, we discussed the allocation of aircraft for US Navy aircraft carriers. We talked about raising the fighter strength from 18 to 27 and I stated that it had already been authorized before the war. I've finally found the original authorization for that increase. It was 1 October 1941 in a Proposed Assignment of Aircraft and Naval Aeronautic Organization Memorandum dated 2 November 1940. Fiscal Years run from October to September of the next year. Carrier Division one, Saratoga and Lexington were authorized 27 fighters; Carrier Division Two, Yorktown and Enterprise were also. Neither Ranger nor Wasp were authorized according to this document. The USS Hornet was also authorized 27 fighters by this document. When we fought Coral Sea, the required authorization was not implement because there were insufficient aircraft to fill out the squadrons and Pearl Harbor occurred before those authorized carriers could return to Pearl and be upgraded until just before Midway.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 10, 2018 1:55:46 GMT -6
Somewhere on this thread, I think, we discussed the allocation of aircraft for US Navy aircraft carriers. We talked about raising the fighter strength from 18 to 27 and I stated that it had already been authorized before the war. I've finally found the original authorization for that increase. It was 1 October 1941 in a Proposed Assignment of Aircraft and Naval Aeronautic Organization Memorandum dated 2 November 1940. Fiscal Years run from October to September of the next year. Carrier Division one, Saratoga and Lexington were authorized 27 fighters; Carrier Division Two, Yorktown and Enterprise were also. Neither Ranger nor Wasp were authorized according to this document. The USS Hornet was also authorized 27 fighters by this document. When we fought Coral Sea, the required authorization was not implement because there were insufficient aircraft to fill out the squadrons and Pearl Harbor occurred before those authorized carriers could return to Pearl and be upgraded until just before Midway. Interesting information. Do you know what was the reasons for that? I expect it was from studing British actions in Medditerrenean with implamentation of radar in end of 1940.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 10, 2018 8:53:52 GMT -6
Somewhere on this thread, I think, we discussed the allocation of aircraft for US Navy aircraft carriers. We talked about raising the fighter strength from 18 to 27 and I stated that it had already been authorized before the war. I've finally found the original authorization for that increase. It was 1 October 1941 in a Proposed Assignment of Aircraft and Naval Aeronautic Organization Memorandum dated 2 November 1940. Fiscal Years run from October to September of the next year. Carrier Division one, Saratoga and Lexington were authorized 27 fighters; Carrier Division Two, Yorktown and Enterprise were also. Neither Ranger nor Wasp were authorized according to this document. The USS Hornet was also authorized 27 fighters by this document. When we fought Coral Sea, the required authorization was not implement because there were insufficient aircraft to fill out the squadrons and Pearl Harbor occurred before those authorized carriers could return to Pearl and be upgraded until just before Midway. Interesting information. Do you know what was the reasons for that? I expect it was from studing British actions in Medditerrenean with implamentation of radar in end of 1940. My guess, because the Memorandum does not give reasons, is that it was a combination of British actions in the Mediterranean and our own Fleet Problem of 1940 that decided the issue.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 10, 2018 10:57:41 GMT -6
I just wanted to pass along some interesting information about when the US Navy began some interesting projects that some of you are interested in seeing in RTW2.
1. Hydraulic arresting gear underdevelopment on 29 January 1930 2. 15 February 1930 design of retractable landing gear was authorized to build a working model for testing. 3. 5 November 1930 directional effects of radio were experimented with and an aircraft was detected flying overhead. This started a project for detection of enemy vessels and aircraft by radio. In other words, RADAR. 4. 2 March 1931 variable-pitch propellers development awarded to Hamilton Standard. 5. 1 June 1931 XOP-1 Autogiro tested at NAS Anacostia 6. 30 September - BuAer conducting studies for catapulting landplanes on wheels for hanger decks.
I have a whole book on United States Naval Aviation 1910-2010 and there are many more entries that are very interesting such as the development and use of the radio-controlled target drone which was used to simulate dive-bombing attacks against the USS Utah. Also the first use of a target drone to simulate horizontal bombing for AA training and testing. 14 October 1939 Naval Aircraft Factory authorized to develop RC equipment for use in remote-controlled flight testing. Lastly, 22 March 1940, Navy initiated guided missile development at the Naval Aircraft Factory in Philly for adapting radio controls to torpedo-carrying TG-2 aircraft.
Hope this provides some interesting thoughts and ideas. I only wish I could find this type of information for GB, Germany and Japan but alas no.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 10, 2018 14:05:38 GMT -6
I've been doing more research on the change in air wing composition in 1942. It appears from my documents, all official, that the change to 27 fighters in an air wing after Coral Sea was temporary. Another document, dated 30 June 1942 indicates that Saratoga, Enterprise, and Wasp all had 36 fighters on board. Hornet was in Pearl Harbor at the time. Wasp shows 30 fighters but she was smaller. So, after Midway, the fighters squadrons were increased to 36 which would be two 18-plane squadrons. The move to 27 was temporary. I can only assume it was due to the time critical nature of Midway after Coral Sea. There probably was no time to fully equip the squadrons with their full complement and maybe not enough fighters had been transported and assembled in Oahu.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 10, 2018 14:22:05 GMT -6
I just wanted to pass along some interesting information about when the US Navy began some interesting projects that some of you are interested in seeing in RTW2. 1. Hydraulic arresting gear underdevelopment on 29 January 1930 2. 15 February 1930 design of retractable landing gear was authorized to build a working model for testing. 3. 5 November 1930 directional effects of radio were experimented with and an aircraft was detected flying overhead. This started a project for detection of enemy vessels and aircraft by radio. In other words, RADAR. 4. 2 March 1931 variable-pitch propellers development awarded to Hamilton Standard. 5. 1 June 1931 XOP-1 Autogiro tested at NAS Anacostia 6. 30 September - BuAer conducting studies for catapulting landplanes on wheels for hanger decks. I have a whole book on United States Naval Aviation 1910-2010 and there are many more entries that are very interesting such as the development and use of the radio-controlled target drone which was used to simulate dive-bombing attacks against the USS Utah. Also the first use of a target drone to simulate horizontal bombing for AA training and testing. 14 October 1939 Naval Aircraft Factory authorized to develop RC equipment for use in remote-controlled flight testing. Lastly, 22 March 1940, Navy initiated guided missile development at the Naval Aircraft Factory in Philly for adapting radio controls to torpedo-carrying TG-2 aircraft. Hope this provides some interesting thoughts and ideas. I only wish I could find this type of information for GB, Germany and Japan but alas no. Quite interesting info. This can tell us how long it takes to implement such technology. It would be interesting to see comparison of technology advancement in different countries. Does exist any such study?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 10, 2018 14:35:15 GMT -6
I just wanted to pass along some interesting information about when the US Navy began some interesting projects that some of you are interested in seeing in RTW2. 1. Hydraulic arresting gear underdevelopment on 29 January 1930 2. 15 February 1930 design of retractable landing gear was authorized to build a working model for testing. 3. 5 November 1930 directional effects of radio were experimented with and an aircraft was detected flying overhead. This started a project for detection of enemy vessels and aircraft by radio. In other words, RADAR. 4. 2 March 1931 variable-pitch propellers development awarded to Hamilton Standard. 5. 1 June 1931 XOP-1 Autogiro tested at NAS Anacostia 6. 30 September - BuAer conducting studies for catapulting landplanes on wheels for hanger decks. I have a whole book on United States Naval Aviation 1910-2010 and there are many more entries that are very interesting such as the development and use of the radio-controlled target drone which was used to simulate dive-bombing attacks against the USS Utah. Also the first use of a target drone to simulate horizontal bombing for AA training and testing. 14 October 1939 Naval Aircraft Factory authorized to develop RC equipment for use in remote-controlled flight testing. Lastly, 22 March 1940, Navy initiated guided missile development at the Naval Aircraft Factory in Philly for adapting radio controls to torpedo-carrying TG-2 aircraft. Hope this provides some interesting thoughts and ideas. I only wish I could find this type of information for GB, Germany and Japan but alas no. Quite interesting info. This can tell us how long it takes to implement such technology. It would be interesting to see comparison of technology advancement in different countries. Does exist any such study? I just don't know, I was hoping some of the members in different countries could take the bull by the horns and do the research to contribute. I don't know where to look for Great Britain, possibly some archives. Here is the link to Volume 1 & 2 of the book, each chapter is downloadable. I bought the book from Amazon but you can download and walk through year after year, time permitting. www.history.navy.mil/research/publications/publications-by-subject/naval-aviation-1910-2010.html
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2018 18:31:58 GMT -6
Quite interesting info. This can tell us how long it takes to implement such technology. It would be interesting to see comparison of technology advancement in different countries. Does exist any such study? I just don't know, I was hoping some of the members in different countries could take the bull by the horns and do the research to contribute. I don't know where to look for Great Britain, possibly some archives. Here is the link to Volume 1 & 2 of the book, each chapter is downloadable. I bought the book from Amazon but you can download and walk through year after year, time permitting. www.history.navy.mil/research/publications/publications-by-subject/naval-aviation-1910-2010.htmlThanks a lot. It will take me some time to study.
|
|