|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 21, 2019 14:33:24 GMT -6
The problem with converting large ships is that AVs may not have more than 3" of armor and no larger than 6" mains. You can replace the guns but you can't strip off belt armor so most CAs or Bs will not convert to an AV. For a conversion your best bet would be an old CL but these are usually built to pretty tight specs and its hard to strip off enough equipment to allow a useful number of seaplanes. It's just as easy to build a new AV.
AVs can carry light cruiser armor and arms. If you want something more heavily equipped you can always build a CA and equip it with as many floatplanes as you want. As you say, that CA might be deployed forward, possibly even facing fast battleships. To me, that seems like a hazardous life for a ship with a primary mission of aerial reconnaissance (though the Japanese would disagree). The life I intend my AVs to lead has nothing to do with being deployed in a forward scouting line of cruisers, so I build them well under AV maximum specs to keep their costs down and their battle deployment reasonable (notwithstanding that abomination of an AV I recently posted, which I am embarrassed to admit I actually paid to have designed, though I came to my senses before paying to have it built).
To address the OP I would say that even when a technology is readily available to other nations and is being openly used, that is no guarantee that your own nation will make use of the technology. Historically, Italy, Germany and Russia never completed an aircraft carrier in the time frame of the game. The British rejected dive bombers for 15 years. There are other factors than what your navy wants or needs that are being simulated by these irritating failures to research. In a game like RTW2 that requires a substantial investment of time it is unfortunate when a technology that is pivotal is skipped and impacts the entire game. But these events and the challenges they pose are one of the reasons why RTW2 is so interesting and so replayable.
|
|
|
|
Post by lukasdietrich on Aug 21, 2019 18:56:33 GMT -6
To be clear: Are you able to order CVLs overseas before you develop the ability to build AVs domestically, or can you build CVLs domestically before you can build AVs domestically?
The first case should, I think, be entirely reasonable for a power that isn't putting much effort into carrier research, especially if it's an economically weaker power, and is probably within reason for a wealthy power putting as much effort as it can into carrier research if it gets a bit unlucky.
As to the second case, it looks like the first unskippable tech in the carrier line is Large Aircraft Carriers (c.1926, allows purpose-built CVs), so skipping over AVs straight to CV(L)s should - at least in theory and to my understanding of the research system - be possible, though as it appears as though the two AV techs each have only a 30% chance of being skipped doing so ought to be moderately unlikely.
Within the game, AVs generally appear to be employed more like the seaplane carriers of the First World War than the seaplane tenders of the Second World War. They operate as a semi-detached reconnaissance element of the fleet during engagements, and the aircraft that the game gives to AVs are single-engine floatplanes of types such as might operate from battleships and cruisers rather than flying boats along the lines of the PBY.
Sorry for the confusion. I am able to research and build (in my own yards) purpose built CVL's (not conversions) usually by 1920-1924 or so. I am able to do this before I am able to build purpose built large AVs in my own yards because my crack science teams never research them (in two games) or research them AFTER purpose built CVLs In one of my games I noticed other nations building AVs. I could not complete them in my own yards so I choose the USA since I had the least amount of tension with them and I was able to design, lay down and build a 10,000 ton AV without any issues. This was the only one I had in my fleet and I finished the game through the 1975 end date and the research for 'large purpose built AV' never fired I just found this odd since CVLs are a further along technology than AVs and it happened in 3 games with multiple nations. I was trying to see if anyone else had the same experience. I hope this clears up any confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Aug 21, 2019 20:55:35 GMT -6
I'm a bit mystified as to what role the AVB is intended to fill that makes having both heavy armor and a floatplane contingent desirable.
(Though I increasingly don't see much point in building AVs of any size or configuration. They're notionally useful fleet scout platforms, but it seems common to go through a campaign without having any occasion where they'd be useful.)
We have to look back at the gradual growth of airpower and ships. Initially, the battlefleet was the king of the seas and the aircraft was developed to provide scouting and spotting. Now, a ship like a converted merchant or tanker or even a destroyer is not well protected to sail with the fleet. Now, if I can take an old armored cruiser or pre-dreadnought and remove the aft turrets then construct catapults plus possibly a small hangar, I can use this ship with the battlefleet because it is better protected. Now as we know, the growth of the aircraft carrier and better aircraft essentially eliminated that need. The carriers were built to operate with better speed, large air wings which could provide their own scouting and fleet protection but the battleships would carry their own floatplanes for spotting. For long range scouting, the seaplane with its multiple engines, stronger hulls and better range could operate from land bases or out at sea but would not need to be that close to the battlefleet. Eventually, the battlefleet lost is prowess as the king of the seas to the carrier task force. Its an evolutionary step from conversion of armored cruisers and battleships carrying seaplanes to the carriers and seaplane tenders. None of which meander into handwavy history explains why you want to operate an expensive, massively armored hull to haul around maybe a couple dozen floatplanes. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 21, 2019 21:13:23 GMT -6
We have to look back at the gradual growth of airpower and ships. Initially, the battlefleet was the king of the seas and the aircraft was developed to provide scouting and spotting. Now, a ship like a converted merchant or tanker or even a destroyer is not well protected to sail with the fleet. Now, if I can take an old armored cruiser or pre-dreadnought and remove the aft turrets then construct catapults plus possibly a small hangar, I can use this ship with the battlefleet because it is better protected. Now as we know, the growth of the aircraft carrier and better aircraft essentially eliminated that need. The carriers were built to operate with better speed, large air wings which could provide their own scouting and fleet protection but the battleships would carry their own floatplanes for spotting. For long range scouting, the seaplane with its multiple engines, stronger hulls and better range could operate from land bases or out at sea but would not need to be that close to the battlefleet. Eventually, the battlefleet lost is prowess as the king of the seas to the carrier task force. Its an evolutionary step from conversion of armored cruisers and battleships carrying seaplanes to the carriers and seaplane tenders. None of which meander into handwavy history explains why you want to operate an expensive, massively armored hull to haul around maybe a couple dozen floatplanes. I would not disagree with your point, I am just relating how events played out. Most navies by the early 1920's realized the limitations of biplane, cloth covered aircraft. With the development of Duraluminum, in-line and radial engines, increased interest in wind tunnels and aerodynamics plus hydraulics and other developments, a better solution came to the forefront. For the US Navy, its Fleet problems showed the problems with the seaplane tenders and their fragile aircraft. All this led to carrier aircraft development and carriers. However, it took time to make the developments come together. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 22, 2019 11:07:34 GMT -6
I've done some research on use of pre-dreadnought-seaplane tenders and armored cruiser-seaplane tenders of the Mississippi class and Tennessee class and others. Their main purpose for conversion was to act as seaplane tenders at Pensacola Florida and to establish a permanent seaplane base at that location.
The Mississippi supported the seaplanes during the Vera Cruz operation. The Mississippi was sold to Greece as a coastal defense ship in 1914. She was only serviceable for one or two years. My guess is that it took that long to build permanent land base for the seaplanes.
The Tennessee was used as an aviation station ship at Pensacola also. She could operate at sea but most of the time she was a station ship. The catapult and facilities were removed in 1917.
There was the former Washington armored cruiser which was the Seattle and she was fitted out as a seaplane tender. Her equipment was removed in 1917. She had other uses over the years after.
There was the North Carolina fitted out in 1915 and all seaplane equipment was removed in 1917
There were others like the Pennsylvania class armored cruisers, West Virginia armored cruisers. All were eventually removed from service as seaplane tenders.
The use of seaplane tenders continued with ships that had better storage facilities than a warship like the armored cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts. The later version however, were used in port in the SW Pacific to support seaplanes like the PBY and PBM's.
The bottom line is that in the game their primary use would be to provide support at locations where there are no seaplane bases. I don't know if the game will allow for those to be built or whether they are included in base construction. It might be something to examine. Italy could use them on the North African coast, Sicily and Sardinia. Japan could use them in the Southwest Asian area or on the Korean coast. Germany could use them in the Baltic or on the North Sea coast. The list goes on.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 22, 2019 13:33:54 GMT -6
Adding seaplane capacity and catapult to them is definately doable, but I believe most of these ships are likely too large/well armored for the game to reclassify them as AV. Ok, then that needs to be changed. Its a good use for those older battleships and cruisers which are especially equipped with good armor to protect them and keep them in combat operations. The only thing you lose in terms of seaplane carrying capability by leaving a heavy unit with its original designation rather converting to an AV (if the latter were possible) is the ability to have more than two catapults. For a good chunk of the game, a heavy unit can actually carry more seaplanes than an AV. I actually had a BB class that I repurposed for seaplane operations that I *did* reclassify, but not to AV. I first reclassified it as a BC so that it could occupy scouting roles, and, when its caliber and armor thickness fell well behind contemporary capital ships, I returreted it to (IIRC) 8" guns and reclassified it as a CA. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 22, 2019 13:43:58 GMT -6
Ok, then that needs to be changed. Its a good use for those older battleships and cruisers which are especially equipped with good armor to protect them and keep them in combat operations. The only thing you lose in terms of seaplane carrying capability by leaving a heavy unit with its original designation rather converting to an AV (if the latter were possible) is the ability to have more than two catapults. For a good chunk of the game, a heavy unit can actually carry more seaplanes than an AV. I actually had a BB class that I repurposed for seaplane operations that I *did* reclassify, but not to AV. I first reclassified it as a BC so that it could occupy scouting roles, and, when its caliber and armor thickness fell well behind contemporary capital ships, I returreted it to (IIRC) 8" guns and reclassified it as a CA. There are trade-offs with any reconfiguration of older, and retired ships. You have to just ensure that the requirements are satisfied and the negatives are tolerable. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 22, 2019 15:12:49 GMT -6
The life I intend my AVs to lead has nothing to do with being deployed in a forward scouting line of cruisers, so I build them well under AV maximum specs to keep their costs down and their battle deployment reasonable (notwithstanding that abomination of an AV I recently posted, which I am embarrassed to admit I actually paid to have designed, though I came to my senses before paying to have it built). The two cases I have for building or converting a major combatant to carry a large seaplane load are: 1) A BB or BC that is ~20 years old and doesn't work well with a full carrier conversion (which is what I do with almost all of my old capital ships). In this case I'll strip a turret, add seaplanes and catapults in its place, and continue to use the ship as a capital ship with a large floatplane complement for a while. Eventually I'm likely to downgrade it to a CA. 2) I want a seaplane carrier of larger capacity than I have the tech to build an AV with, or am playing a budget-impaired nation and want to consolidate roles to save money. In this case I will build a purpose-built CA with an outsize floatplane complement. |
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Aug 23, 2019 0:28:26 GMT -6
I don't understand the tactical or strategical role of floatplanes in this game, for small engagements everything starts in a range where floatplanes are wasted, all big engagements contain cv or cvl, all defensive operations got land based air cover that can also kill and airship recon has better range, every offensive coastal raid will see the floatplanes shot down without spotting much...
And even if they spot, I'm either dragging around a full ship without any reasonable combat contribution or used tonnage on a bc or bb that could've been spend on better things
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 23, 2019 3:28:43 GMT -6
I don't understand the tactical or strategical role of floatplanes in this game, for small engagements everything starts in a range where floatplanes are wasted, all big engagements contain cv or cvl, all defensive operations got land based air cover that can also kill and airship recon has better range, every offensive coastal raid will see the floatplanes shot down without spotting much... And even if they spot, I'm either dragging around a full ship without any reasonable combat contribution or used tonnage on a bc or bb that could've been spend on better things agree - the first aircraft i design once i get aircraft is a floatplane in case i need to build AMCs in the future, then i ignore them for the rest of the game
i'v never put floatplanes on any ships other than AMCs since i'v never needed scouting in battles - although i may start placing one on my colonial CLs on FS since i notice they sometimes intercept raiders and i think floatplanes increase the chance of that happening
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 23, 2019 6:26:41 GMT -6
I don't understand the tactical or strategical role of floatplanes in this game <snip> all big engagements contain cv or cvl I use floatplanes so that my entire carrier air group is available for strikes on enemy warships once they're found. |
|
|
|
Post by ulzgoroth on Aug 23, 2019 18:37:19 GMT -6
I can think of a lot of battles where I'd like to have air scouting and don't necessarily get it. In coastal raids knowing where the transports are is a huge help. In convoy attacks and cruiser battles there's a small but real chance of failing to encounter the enemy by accident. And of course with the benefit of air recon you may know when you really want to arrange a no-contact draw in such engagements.
Of course, having that need coincide with times when you have planes available and have daylight and weather that allows them to fly, well, that's harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 24, 2019 22:07:14 GMT -6
Let me preface my statement here by saying I haven't had the chance to get to the development of aircraft yet in the game. I have been in an intensive study of the Napoleonic Wars and the Crusades. However, here is my simple statement.
Floatplanes are the worst scouts that you could ever use. I understand the time frame issue. But still, they have high drag and are very unmaneuverable. This makes them very vulnerable. They have shorter ranges and this means that they cannot really do the job that seaplanes and dive bombers can do.
For scouting, you do a 150 mile to 200 mile leg outward, then a 10 degree width which or about 50 to 100 miles, then a 150 mile or 200 mile return. As the math tells us, thats about 600 miles. Generally you do a six plane search on those specifications. The concept is to do about 180 degrees depending on where you think the enemy is and their direction. The best search is a two plane search, one leaving at 0400, and the other about 0600. This will require about 12 to 15 aircraft to accomplish the search. Now obviously it depends on geography because this is not the style used in the North Sea or the Mediterranean.
If you study this carefully, a floatplane cannot accomplish this. The Japanese lost or at least a contributing factor, was the use of floatplanes for search. Catapults for them are prone to problems, I don't know if the game is inserting this kind of failure but it should.
Seaplanes based on land, dive bombers and many times torpedo bombers are the best, most efficient scouts. A scout really should report the siting of the enemy force and monitor it until the strike is launched.
What I have described is how it is done. Now will it be possible in the early years, maybe not, but after 1920 it should be.
For heaven's sake, quit using floatplanes. If they are the best, then the game is faulty.
The whole concept is very simple. The side that finds the enemy first, launches first, will win the battle and there are statistics to prove this. Scouting is absolutely crucial in naval battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 25, 2019 0:03:56 GMT -6
There is issue with that making floatplanes viable option but still difficult. But the reasons are different than reality.
Starting location of both fleets is very close making range important only very early in 20s. After that distance to enemy fleet is usually short range related to bomb load.
You do not have direct control over search. You can have it but it is micromanagement heavy and difficult to plan as you cannot use any tools making just paper and pen more effective. There is need prepare every plane seperately and give him target location. ButI am not sure if in this case plane use search pattern (flight to location turn 90 degrees....).
This makes only carrier planes really practicle but not because of floatplanes issue but lack of control and feedback.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Aug 25, 2019 7:40:39 GMT -6
I had the impression that Japan put floatplanes on its cruisers because they could be retrofitted. Flattops were at a premium but by putting their scouts on the cruisers they could free up flattop space. And the conversion was fast enough to be done after they saw the problem and still make a difference.
|
|
