|
Post by admiralhood on Jan 3, 2019 13:27:33 GMT -6
Hi William, As for a carrier, is the amount of aerial ammunition(number of bombs, torpedoes and rockets) limited or is it regarded to be infinite? That area is an aspect under current consideration for carrier ops, the expectation is you will not be able to field an 'infinite' number of weapons. Great, this is more reasonable and also historically accurate because torpedoes and bombs actually got consumed very fast in a naval battle in WW2.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 3, 2019 18:52:26 GMT -6
Hi William, As for a carrier, is the amount of aerial ammunition(number of bombs, torpedoes and rockets) limited or is it regarded to be infinite? That area is an aspect under current consideration for carrier ops, the expectation is you will not be able to field an 'infinite' number of weapons. Sounds tops (although not surprising, it would be a bit inconsistent to limit gunnery and torpedo ammunition and not carrier stocks - there's a table in Warship International 50/1 with ordnance figures for the Lexington, Essex and Independence classes, as well as Enterprise data for 1943 (although if you've got the source book, am fairly sure it was Friedman's on US carriers, that'll have it covered off as well) - there's one column in the table that's clearly accidentally doubled everything, but it's pretty easy to spot) - if it would help would be happy to scan and post.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 4, 2019 9:27:18 GMT -6
That area is an aspect under current consideration for carrier ops, the expectation is you will not be able to field an 'infinite' number of weapons. Sounds tops (although not surprising, it would be a bit inconsistent to limit gunnery and torpedo ammunition and not carrier stocks - there's a table in Warship International 50/1 with ordnance figures for the Lexington, Essex and Independence classes, as well as Enterprise data for 1943 (although if you've got the source book, am fairly sure it was Friedman's on US carriers, that'll have it covered off as well) - there's one column in the table that's clearly accidentally doubled everything, but it's pretty easy to spot) - if it would help would be happy to scan and post. Thanks axe99 - we have already scoured every source we could find for ordnance loads, one of our intrepid Beta Team members even made a nifty spreadsheet which gives us a good idea of load-outs for various sizes/nationalities of carriers...we also noted the apparent doubling of some values in one source, prob the same one you are reporting.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 4, 2019 20:56:58 GMT -6
Sounds tops (although not surprising, it would be a bit inconsistent to limit gunnery and torpedo ammunition and not carrier stocks - there's a table in Warship International 50/1 with ordnance figures for the Lexington, Essex and Independence classes, as well as Enterprise data for 1943 (although if you've got the source book, am fairly sure it was Friedman's on US carriers, that'll have it covered off as well) - there's one column in the table that's clearly accidentally doubled everything, but it's pretty easy to spot) - if it would help would be happy to scan and post. Thanks axe99 - we have already scoured every source we could find for ordnance loads, one of our intrepid Beta Team members even made a nifty spreadsheet which gives us a good idea of load-outs for various sizes/nationalities of carriers...we also noted the apparent doubling of some values in one source, prob the same one you are reporting.
Thanks!
Great work and great to hear (and give that intrepid beta a pat on the back and an extra tot of rum from me) . I suspected you'd have it covered (you've clearly got a wealth of knowledge supporting the development - I imagine Fredrik views his dreams through a stereoscopic rangefinder and then has them processed by the fire control computer of his choice), but I figured it's always better to mention than not. I _love_ the attention to detail you all put into the game, keep up the great work .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2019 21:14:16 GMT -6
Sounds tops (although not surprising, it would be a bit inconsistent to limit gunnery and torpedo ammunition and not carrier stocks - there's a table in Warship International 50/1 with ordnance figures for the Lexington, Essex and Independence classes, as well as Enterprise data for 1943 (although if you've got the source book, am fairly sure it was Friedman's on US carriers, that'll have it covered off as well) - there's one column in the table that's clearly accidentally doubled everything, but it's pretty easy to spot) - if it would help would be happy to scan and post. Thanks axe99 - we have already scoured every source we could find for ordnance loads, one of our intrepid Beta Team members even made a nifty spreadsheet which gives us a good idea of load-outs for various sizes/nationalities of carriers...we also noted the apparent doubling of some values in one source, prob the same one you are reporting.
Thanks!
Does this match what you gents found: 504 100lb GP 288 500lb GP 288 500lb SAP 378 1000lb GP 378 1000lb SAP 378 1000lb AP 18 1600lb AP 18 2000lb GP 288 325lb DB (ASW) 288 100lb Incendiaries 36 torpedoes Essex class carried the following in 43 504 100lb GP 296 500lb GP 146 1000lb GP 129 1000lb SAP 110 1000lb AP 19 1600lb AP 19 2000lb GP 296 325lb DB (ASW) 296 100lb Incendiaries 36 torpedoes Independence class CVL's carried 162 100lb GP 72 500lb GP 36 1000lb GP 36 1000lb SAP 36 1000lb AP 36 325lb DB (ASW) 180 100lb Incendiaries 24 torpedoes
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 4, 2019 21:49:45 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - IIRC we have seen most of those numbers, prob from the same or related sources. Thanks for posting them!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2019 22:06:47 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - IIRC we have seen most of those numbers, prob from the same or related sources. Thanks for posting them! Great, just thought I would see if you had them. You are aware that the Yorktown's carried about 178,000 gallons of Avgas. Total ordnance tonnage was 433.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 10, 2019 21:47:39 GMT -6
In all the ordnance load lists for the carriers that I've seen, I haven't seen any....I mean none.... information concerning machine gun and cannon ammunition. 100 rounds of .50 cal. machine gun ammunition weighs 35 lbs. Each F4f carried 4 x 400 rounds or 560 lbs. Now, if I have 36 fighters, that's 13,440 lbs. for one launch. So, let's say I have 10 reloads of ammunition per launch then I have 134,000 lbs. of .50 caliber ammunition on board or 67 tons of .50 caliber ammunition. Now, a 140-round belt of 20 mm Oerlikon ammunition weighs about 61.14 kg or 135 lbs. Four belts per bird and 36 birds in a flock would be 19,440 lbs. Now, 10 reloads would be 190,440 lbs. or 95 tons. I bet that they carried far more than 10 reloads, but that is a good start. I will let you guys go further. I just though we should be thorough. BTW, you math genius's should check the old guy's math.
For your carrier ordnance loads, I would add these kinds of figures.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Jan 11, 2019 2:00:53 GMT -6
In all the ordnance load lists for the carriers that I've seen, I haven't seen any....I mean none.... information concerning machine gun and cannon ammunition. 100 rounds of .50 cal. machine gun ammunition weighs 35 lbs. Each F4f carried 4 x 400 rounds or 560 lbs. Now, if I have 36 fighters, that's 13,440 lbs. for one launch. So, let's say I have 10 reloads of ammunition per launch then I have 134,000 lbs. of .50 caliber ammunition on board or 67 tons of .50 caliber ammunition. Now, a 140-round belt of 20 mm Oerlikon ammunition weighs about 61.14 kg or 135 lbs. Four belts per bird and 36 birds in a flock would be 19,440 lbs. Now, 10 reloads would be 190,440 lbs. or 95 tons. I bet that they carried far more than 10 reloads, but that is a good start. I will let you guys go further. I just though we should be thorough. BTW, you math genius's should check the old guy's math. For your carrier ordnance loads, I would add these kinds of figures. I think that's getting into a little too much detail. To limit the aircraft machine gun/cannon supplies on the carriers is a bit much. I do like the idea of being able to configure my typical carrier aircraft weapons stores but not so far as to selecting how much aircraft gun ammo the ship carries.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 11, 2019 9:24:18 GMT -6
We won't be getting into how many machine-gun/cannon rounds are stored on a carrier or base, sorry
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 11, 2019 10:48:45 GMT -6
We won't be getting into how many machine-gun/cannon rounds are stored on a carrier or base, sorry I actually agree. I was just trying show that there was that extra ordnance on board. A limit would be good, not exact numbers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 11, 2019 15:09:06 GMT -6
I've been doing some number crunching about fighters and ammunition. We know that US carriers conducted operations for about five days then pull back for one day to replenish. If we assume three sorties per day for the fighters, then that is 15 sorties by 36 fighters or 540 sorties. Now, to adequately maintain .50 ammunition, we would have to assume that each fighter will expend his 1600 rounds of ammunition(4 guns times 400 round) every sortie. He may not do that, but we have to assume that for logistical purposes. So, now we have 540 sorties times 1600 rounds which is 864,000 rounds. There were 100 rounds in an ammunition box. The ship has to carry then, 8640 boxes of ammunition each box weighing about 35 lbs. Now, 8640 times 35 lbs. is 302,400 lbs. of .50 ammunition or 151.2 tons of .50 ammunition for a five day operation. Now the SBD's carried two .50 cal. machine guns on the cowling. There were two squadrons of those on board so that is about 31 to 56 SBD's. The TBF carried one .50 cal. in the dorsal-mounted area. There were about 18-20 TBF on board. So there is more ammunition to carry for those aircraft. We would have to find out how much ammunition was used on those but that is not hard to do.
Just some numbers which I feel are important. We don't need to be exact, but we should have limits. You can not have unlimited ammunition for the guns on these and other aircraft, it is not realistic. However, that said, the team always does a good job, so I will keep quiet.
Interesting subject, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 11, 2019 18:18:00 GMT -6
Just an aside. Norman Friedman has tables containing the ordnance loads of various carriers but he even recognizes that the machine gun and cannon loads are missing. I don't know if it was missing from the documents he used or what.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 12, 2019 0:45:24 GMT -6
If we assume three sorties per day for the fighters, then that is 15 sorties by 36 fighters or 540 sorties. Now, to adequately maintain .50 ammunition, we would have to assume that each fighter will expend his 1600 rounds of ammunition(4 guns times 400 round) every sortie. He may not do that, but we have to assume that for logistical purposes. To play devil's advocate, your assumption might be unreasonable. Some of those fighters will be on CAP duty and wouldn't fire a single shot if no Japanese raids come in. Those escorting strikes might likewise never fire a shot if no Japanese fighters intercept the dive and torpedo bombers. It seems an over estimation to believe every bullet of every fighter would be expended on every sortie. (Also, if we're talking about Hellcat or Corsair fighters, the ammunition load is 2,400 rounds.) The same objection can be raised regarding the attack bombers: it is reasonable to assume that every one would expend every bullet carried on every sortie? (Also, the TBF carried two .50 cal, one in each wing, in addition to the .50 cal mounted in the dorsal turret. Yet more rounds to account for! )
Perhaps the machine gun/cannon loads can be reverse engineered? If there is data showing the amount of bullets/cannon shells expended by the carrier's aircraft during a given operation, and if data exists for a good number of carriers and operations, then an average of expended ordnance could be calculated. Add in a reasonable contingency percentage, use the result as the load carried, and you have the weight.
ETA: What about the loads for the ship's anti-aircraft guns? Is there data listing the number of 5", 40mm, and 20mm shells stored about a carrier for its AA battery?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 12, 2019 0:58:30 GMT -6
If we assume three sorties per day for the fighters, then that is 15 sorties by 36 fighters or 540 sorties. Now, to adequately maintain .50 ammunition, we would have to assume that each fighter will expend his 1600 rounds of ammunition(4 guns times 400 round) every sortie. He may not do that, but we have to assume that for logistical purposes. To play devil's advocate, your assumption might be unreasonable. Some of those fighters will be on CAP duty and wouldn't fire a single shot if no Japanese raids come in. Those escorting strikes might likewise never fire a shot if no Japanese fighters intercept the dive and torpedo bombers. It seems an over estimation to believe every bullet of every fighter would be expended on every sortie. (Also, if we're talking about Hellcat or Corsair fighters, the ammunition load is 2,400 rounds.) The same objection can be raised regarding the attack bombers: it is reasonable to assume that every one would expend every bullet carried on every sortie? (Also, the TBF carried two .50 cal, one in each wing, in addition to the .50 cal mounted in the dorsal turret. Yet more rounds to account for! )
Perhaps the machine gun/cannon loads can be reverse engineered? If there is data showing the amount of bullets/cannon shells expended by the carrier's aircraft during a given operation, and if data exists for a good number of carriers and operations, then an average of expended ordnance could be calculated. Add in a reasonable contingency percentage, use the result as the load carried, and you have the weight.
ETA: What about the loads for the ship's anti-aircraft guns? Is there data listing the number of 5", 40mm, and 20mm shells stored about a carrier for its AA battery?
You can logistically plan exactly that way. If I have 36 fighter on a carrier, how many are on CAP? Well probably at least four in the initial launch, four ready for the second launch and a standby of four. So, twelve fighters on CAP. Now, how many are on inner patrol looking for submarines? Most likely not more than four, with four replacements. However, logistical planning needs current information. So, the supply officer would have to have complete count of available ammunition boxes when replenishment begins. Trust me, the supply officer will lie, cheat and steal to get more ammunition. Does this seem simple, well it ain't, trust me. Now, can we reverse engineer? If you like, sure. There is no real accurate data on how many rounds were expended per sortie, anywhere. It would be a guess. The logistics of this is not simple, especially for a game. You have to assume all ammunition is expended and work from there. You could, after a sortie develop a mathematical guess on how many enemy aircraft were engaged, rounds expended by each aircraft. Good luck, sir. Each combat operation, combat sortie will be different which means the expenditure of ammunition will be different. You have to make an assumption. We could use the 60% expenditure number. We can assume that 60% of all ammunition will be expended. Is it correct, I don't know, we would have to examine combat records. Have at it. Just to help out, here is actual rounds expended by the Enterprise. The source is the CV-6 AAR dated 1 February 1942. The Marshall Island Raid. For Midway, the AAR reads 48,000 .50 caliber rounds expended over two days of combat. The ship had 27 fighters. At the Battle of Santa Cruz, the expenditure was 52,970 rounds. Keep In mind, that the number fighters was increased to 27 after Coral Sea. After Midway it went to 36 until the number increase probably about 1944. the number of torpedo bombers never increased and neither did the number of dive bombers.
|
|