|
Post by dizzy on Nov 3, 2019 11:14:39 GMT -6
Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please. IMO, there's nothing good about them. What I did learn is that for added expense (as opposed to a CV which is cheaper by ton and per plane count) I can build a CVL out of spec. So if I want to build one a little bigger with 40 fighters, I can do that. And I probably will. Other than that, they are horribly expensive and if you armor one up and give it guns, then it's another Hindenburg disaster on a float waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 3, 2019 11:17:43 GMT -6
Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please. Same reason that people build extremely large battleships and battlecruisers late in the game despite aircraft carriers and more moderately sized battleships and battlecruisers being more viable alternatives: because they think they're cool.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2019 11:26:23 GMT -6
Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please. IMO, there's nothing good about them. What I did learn is that for added expense (as opposed to a CV which is cheaper by ton and per plane count) I can build a CVL out of spec. So if I want to build one a little bigger with 40 fighters, I can do that. And I probably will. Other than that, they are horribly expensive and if you armor one up and give it guns, then it's another Hindenburg disaster on a float waiting to happen. Oh good, mate. I thought it was just my old age and experience that was holding me back. Thanks and I agree.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2019 11:28:26 GMT -6
Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please. Same reason that people build extremely large battleships and battlecruisers late in the game despite aircraft carriers and more moderately sized battleships and battlecruisers being more viable alternatives: because they think they're cool. Hmm! I guess I am not cool. I am sort of conservative about my naval budget. I want bang for the buck and large dreadnoughts late in the game are just targets. As my old buddy used to say " There are only two ships in the Navy, submarines and targets".
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 3, 2019 11:31:53 GMT -6
Ok, gents. The old man is stupid. Why are we trying to build hybrid battleship/carriers which in a tactical sense are almost useless. Educate me, if you please. Same reason that people build extremely large battleships and battlecruisers late in the game despite aircraft carriers and more moderately sized battleships and battlecruisers being more viable alternatives: because they think they're cool. aeson, the Washington Naval Treaty helped bring about the age of the carrier. Without it, yes, we would see everyone motoring about in super dreads.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2019 12:10:33 GMT -6
Same reason that people build extremely large battleships and battlecruisers late in the game despite aircraft carriers and more moderately sized battleships and battlecruisers being more viable alternatives: because they think they're cool. aeson , the Washington Naval Treaty helped bring about the age of the carrier. Without it, yes, we would see everyone motoring about in super dreads. While that is partially true, for a decade or more, it was the 1929 Wall Street Crash and subsequent world economic downturn that actually stopped the building of those large ships. The British people and government were tired of building those ships and wanted social reforms. The German government was broke, the French were focusing on internal economic social issues(the people were tired of wars also) and their army along with Franco-German Border, the Japanese were almost broke and so were the Italians. The US was passive and isolationist. Lots of contributing factors besides the Washington and London Naval Treaties.
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Nov 3, 2019 12:28:53 GMT -6
Is there no way to get a similar layout to thw Ise-class? The Ise class wasn't so much a battlecarrier class (in terms of being able to field wheeled fighters and bombers) as it was a battleship class with an outsized complement of seaplanes for scouting/spotting. I'll often turn an early BC that's over the tonnage limit for a CVL, but not big enough to be a worthwhile CV, into such a ship by removing a turret and adding aircraft. That's a good idea, rimbecano. I'm starting a new game as Japan in 1900 and I'm going to try that.
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Nov 3, 2019 12:55:18 GMT -6
Good idea, someone would have to test that, as it would actually solve the problem these absurdities monstrosities were made to solve, which is the lack of CAP over the main force.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 3, 2019 14:54:05 GMT -6
The problem with this approach is that the ships get the "CVL" AI and battle manager assignment. If these ships would be used by the batle manager like BC/CA and participate in smaller battles as the main ship they couls really shine, especially on foreign station. Just imagine having this design tasked with coastal bombardment, two escort DD and an opposition of two BC/CA with a sundry of CL and DD. You might be able to try them out with BB/BC/CA AI and OOB assignment if you change the ShipType line in the design file appropriately. I don't know what it'd do with the air group, though.
I already tried that, airgroups are only generated for CV's and CVL's, they are connected to the type, not the flight deck.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 3, 2019 19:08:19 GMT -6
Just some information that I thought might be interesting. First there is a very good book titled "Agents of Innovation: The Gernal Board and the dEsign of the Fleet that Defeated the Japanese Navy" by John T. Kuehn. It has a very good discussion and description of the events concerning the Hybrid class of vessel, the flying deck cruiser. Here is a quote from a speech by retired Admiral Hilary Jones in a Navy League speech - "“a hermaphrodite— neither a real cruiser nor a real airplane carrier. It has all the weaknesses of both and none of the efficient characteristics of either.” While this is meaningless in the game, as game is virtual history, it is in my opinion important to read and understand why things were done the way they were. Lastly, a drawing and specifications for the flying deck cruiser. _
|
|
|
Post by xt6wagon on Nov 4, 2019 3:03:45 GMT -6
Over gunned carriers are somewhat useful as the carrier ai is pants on head stupid at times. More than once the ai ignored the fleet going one way and wandered off straight into the escort forces of the enemy. Not even a wind issue as they'll do it when the fleet is already heading into the wind. That said, good 5 or 6" guns in large numbers are better than a couple of large guns, so just go crazy with big DP guns.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 4, 2019 9:10:11 GMT -6
London Naval Treaty.pdf (827.62 KB) One more historical bit of information and I promise to shut up. I've uploaded a copy of the London Naval Treaty. If you read through Article's 1-5, you will see why the Flying Deck Cruiser was not built, but full scale, aircraft carriers were. I believe that this treaty or a similar treaty should be in the game, and those hybrid ships outlawed by the treaty.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 4, 2019 15:16:50 GMT -6
Here is an interesting question that someone should think about. You have built a flying deck cruiser or battleship. The deck is on the stern. You turn into the wind to launch aircraft. Where does the smoke from the stack go when you do this.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 4, 2019 15:40:36 GMT -6
Here is an interesting question that someone should think about. You have built a flying deck cruiser or battleship. The deck is on the stern. You turn into the wind to launch aircraft. Where does the smoke from the stack go when you do this. Battery powered submarine aircraft carrier! There is no spoon, er smoke!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 4, 2019 16:11:18 GMT -6
Here is an interesting question that someone should think about. You have built a flying deck cruiser or battleship. The deck is on the stern. You turn into the wind to launch aircraft. Where does the smoke from the stack go when you do this. Battery powered submarine aircraft carrier! There is no spoon, er smoke! Uh huh, right.
|
|