|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 8, 2020 7:01:01 GMT -6
Flight deck catapults can launch torpedo bombers. oh really are you sure about this ? the manual states otherwise but the manual might need an update if tbs can be launched via catapults My apologies, I did not intend to be so abrupt with my response. After reading the concerns about this process I went into the game and checked for mysellf. I tested with fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers flying recon missiions. The carrier did not turn into the wind when launching a recon mission when it was equipped with flight deck catapults regardless of which plane type was used. Historically there was always a give-and-take between the weight that the most recently developed catapult was capable of launching versus the increasing weight of planes. Torpedo bombers tended to push the very top of that weight capabilty and occsssionally exceeded it, especially when fully loaded, but in RTW2 catapults are assumed to be able to launch any carrier plane. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 8, 2020 7:26:20 GMT -6
oh really are you sure about this ? the manual states otherwise but the manual might need an update if tbs can be launched via catapults My apologies, I did not intend to be so abrupt with my response. After reading the concerns about this process I went into the game and checked for mysellf. I tested with fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers flying recon missiions. The carrier did not turn into the wind when launching a recon mission when it was equipped with flight deck catapults regardless of which plane type was used. Historically there was always a give-and-take between the weight that the most recently developed catapult was capable of launching versus the increasing weight of planes. Torpedo bombers tended to push the very top of that weight capabilty and occsssionally exceeded it, especially when fully loaded, but in RTW2 catapults are assumed to be able to launch any carrier plane. TBF's were launched from carriers with catapults. Quote from an article on catapult history from Naval Aviation News navalaviationnews.navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/08/05/launch-and-recovery-from-flywheels-to-magnets/ |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 8, 2020 7:58:03 GMT -6
Another thing to note about catapult launches in RTW2 is that they are considerably slower than happened historically. In WW2 a well trained crew could typically catapult a plane every 30 seconds. In RTW2 the launch rate for recon planes is 1 plane per minute even if a carrier has two catapults.
The game does seem to take note of the number of catapults when flying a naval or ground strike from a seaplane carrier. Such a ship can launch a cohesive strike, in which every plane is simultaneously launched, that is exactly the same size as the number of catapults the ship carries. Of course those catapults are different than flight deck catapults.
The launch rate for a ground or naval strike from a carrier equipped with catapults does not seem to be affected by the presence of catapults. The manual states that the catapults will increase the spot value of the carrier, but I have not tested this in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 8, 2020 8:12:54 GMT -6
Typical landing cycle times varied from the beginning of the war to the end. It went from 20 seconds at the end of the war to 50 seconds at the beginning. It was based on the extensive training afforded crews throughout the war.
Time to launch for a prepared deck strike was 10-20 seconds. Cycle times for a catapult was 45-60 seconds. Fighters generally did not use cat's, but the bombers did as they increased in gross takeoff weight due to heavier bombloads and extra fuel tanks for range.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 8, 2020 8:37:07 GMT -6
The manual states that the catapults will increase the spot value of the carrier, but I have not tested this in the game. Catapults increase spot value by 1 per catapult:
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 8, 2020 8:52:00 GMT -6
aeson , that is quite disappointing. I am not positive about the historical numbers, probably oldpop knows better, but I believe that catapults would allow around two more rows of planes to be launched from the front of a full deck park, perhaps 6 to 10 additional planes.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 8, 2020 9:19:33 GMT -6
The manual states that the catapults will increase the spot value of the carrier, but I have not tested this in the game. Catapults increase spot value by 1 per catapult:
that seems very very low per catapult it would make more sense if it was 5-6 per catapult |
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 9, 2020 21:47:14 GMT -6
Takes time to taxi the plane forward, connect it to the catapult and check the fastening, launch the plane and recycle. Plus, for steam-powered catapults it can take a minute or two to retract it and get the pressure up again.
My understanding is that catapults are for weight of plane, not for speed of launch-cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 9, 2020 22:39:15 GMT -6
The increase in spot value for having catapults represents placing planes at the very front of the deck spot in a position from which there is insufficient deck space to use a rolling take off. These planes were launched via catapult first until there was sufficient room for the remainder of the strike to take off normally. Torpedo bombers normally were placed at the back of the strike because they required the longest run to get aloft, but when this method was used TBs were often placed at the front of the pack because they were longer ranged planes and could afford to wait for the remainder of the strike to get aloft. It took the entire strike longer to get into the air but it allowed the inclusion of more planes in the strike. This particular method was only used later in the war and especially for land strikes where getting the strike aloft quickly was not as important as mass. I don't recall reading that it was used in the first two years of the Pacific campaign. Ideally the use of catapults would allow more additional planes than aeson noted in his test. But then, there are many other carrier processes that are standardized in RTW2 that were typical of certain nations but not universally used (such as always striking returning planes down to the hangar). A certain amount of simplification and standardization of process was required to simulate this very complex system. |
|
