|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 3, 2017 18:31:19 GMT -6
I decided to find some information in AAR about carrier launch times and here are some of them.
USS Yorktown, May 8th 1942 - Commenced launching at 0900, completed launching at 0915. The Attack Group consisted of 6 VF, 7 VS, 15 VB, and 9 VT.
USS Lexington - launched Attack Group at 0907 - completed about 0925, 11 VB, 4 VS, 12 VT, 9 VF plus 4 VF relief Combat Patrol were launched by Lexington.
These two are from Coral Sea, our first major carrier battle. We launched about 37 aircraft in 15-17 minutes. In carrier wars, the side that detects and launches first, will generally win the battle. We always launched faster than the Japanese.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 3, 2017 19:29:31 GMT -6
why did we launch faster then the japanese? also what does VB VS VA etc, etc mean?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 3, 2017 19:45:30 GMT -6
why did we launch faster then the japanese? also what does VB VS VA etc, etc mean? Let me answer question two first. VB stands for bombing squadron which initially was equipped with SBD-5 Dauntless carrying 1000 lbs. bombs. The VS is the scout bomber squadron that used the same aircraft except they were trained to do reconnaissance but generally carried 500 lbs. bombs so that if they found a target, they could attack it. VF is the fighter squadron, and VA is a later replacement for the VB, it was an attack squadron. The Japanese carriers used enclosed hangars and two hangars, in some cases three, stacked on top of each other. Which means that their aircraft had to be elevated up all the way to the deck and their elevators were slower. They also could not warm-up their radials in the hangars so they had to bring the aircraft up, warm-up engines then launch. We used a deck launch and could warm up the engines then when the enemy was found, launch immediately. The Japanese could launch one aircraft in about 20-30 seconds. The lighter aircraft like the Zero were first since they took less deck space to takeoff, about 200 feet. The Japanese never had catapults. Japanese launched in two separate cycles with on group of aircraft in the air waiting for the other, costly on fuel. The total time to perform this type of launch was about 30 minutes. Believe me, the time difference between our carriers and theirs made big difference in the first four battles. Also, we could carry more aircraft up to 92 in most cases, while they could only carry up to 70 on the Shokaku's. That made large difference also.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jul 4, 2017 7:35:55 GMT -6
Very informative discussion about the history of the British carriers. Though that tidbit of the aircraft designers not talking with their carrier counter parts reminded me of a similar incident in the creation of the US 16" Mark 2 and 3 naval guns www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.phpAnybody know how did this mistake take place?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 4, 2017 9:57:08 GMT -6
Some further information on Japanese carriers and how they were deployed. I am using "Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway" because it delves into this subject more completely. I am using page 89 as the starting point.
The Japanese tradition was the idea of massed firepower against an object. This led them to the first carrier striking force-the First Air Fleet. With their carriers massed together, they could send out a pulse of ordnance accurately and destructive. The attack generated by the fleet was a multi-division attack, with each division of two carriers providing elements of all three aircraft types. So, the first division would launch all of its dive bombers while the second would launch all of its torpedo bombers. The escorts would be provided by all the divisions. This system provided a well-balanced large strike.
In line with this carrier organization, the Japanese developed "deck-load spotting". This is a procedure where a carrier would launch half of its air group at any one time, again all torpedo bombers or dive bombers and a chutai of fighters, which would be six aircraft. The advantages of this system is that the carrier still retained half of its striking power for any further air actions required. This method probably was developed because of the way Japanese carriers were designed. It would take two complete deck cycles to launch a whole air wing which is time consuming and in war, time and speed are important. The authors bring out the point that the smaller carriers like Soryu and Hiryu would have difficulty fitting a whole air group on the deck and launching it. This goes along with what I have said, carrier design does have direct consequences on aircraft design and use. No catapults contributed to this problem. For the US, we could and did, in the first carrier battles launch an entire air group.
Now, were there problems with their approach? Yes there was, and Midway showed what they were. As the authors illustrate, in war speed is important, not just mass. For the IJN, before Midway there was really no need to concern themselves with that issue since they had never encountered a situation, not even at Coral Sea, where the speed of spotting and launching were more important than mass. At Midway, the system failed. One problem with having all your carriers grouped together was simply, once an enemy found one carrier, he found them all eliminating any reason to go searching for more, now he could load his decks and launch. If he spotted you first, and launched, he might find you and attack you first and now all your carriers are in jeopardy. This is the scenario that occurred at Midway.
I hope this examination, using this book, has helped all to understand. I will dive into US carrier operations later.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 4, 2017 10:01:04 GMT -6
Very informative discussion about the history of the British carriers. Though that tidbit of the aircraft designers not talking with their carrier counter parts reminded me of a similar incident in the creation of the US 16" Mark 2 and 3 naval guns www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk2.phpAnybody know how did this mistake take place? This happens all the time, as we used to say, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It is a regular occurrence in the military since it is such a large organization. If someone rights a report about weapons or something, it might not be completely reviewed before being signed and tucked away. So mistakes go unnoticed. This isn't anything new.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 4, 2017 11:57:03 GMT -6
One last idea for discussion after we have exhausted carriers, aircraft and doctrine would be the "Sensory Revolution" as it is characterized in another book which I have. I believe however, it should be extended to the "electronic revolution" to include HF and UHF radios, radio homing devices like Zed Baker and other electronic devices. These inventions might have been more important than the carriers themselves, in fact, without them, carriers would be very vulnerable to attack.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jul 8, 2017 8:41:00 GMT -6
Quick question for the thread. How would pilot skill and experience be possibly reflected in RTW2. I mean historically one of the big advantages the Americans had over the Japanese in the late war period was higher quality pilots. The average American pilot was better trained and experienced compared to the rushed training of late war Japanese pilots. While RTW had an experience system in place, it was designed for the crew of ships not pilots. Also how would RTW2 simulate the harsh conditions present in the Pacific campaign? Maybe a higher maintenance bill for aircraft operating in the Pacific region?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 8, 2017 9:40:19 GMT -6
Pilot skill and training would be handled probably in the same way as crew training in RTW. You train pilots in basic flight school then move on to advanced flight training. You can then develop an advanced combat training school like RED FLAG and TOP GUN. You can also just have training squadrons at the base where the squadrons are located and train the new pilots on the aircraft equipping the squadron.
As deployed squadrons conduct missions they could gain points for experience and those could be added to the carriers air group total experience points. There are many ways of designing this system. The Japanese system was a little different and so was the German and British. All these changes to pilots that occurred could be handled in background by the application or you could be given capability of rotating squadrons in and out of deployment. The Japanese did not replaced depleted squadrons on a carrier with a fresh squadron so the carrier was out of action until the depleted squadron was ready. This forced Zuikaku out of the Battle Of Midway although the carrier was undamaged. A serious flaw in their pilot deployment. In maintenance, they did not cannibalize aircraft to maintain a certain level of capability. The US always took good parts from damaged aircraft or aircraft with bad structures and used them to get other aircraft up and running. One note is that pilot training can deteriorate as the war progresses like it did for both the Germans and the Japanese. Their best pilots were not rotated back to the training facilities to educate pilots, these pilots and their experience was lost.
As far as the harsh conditions, those could be represented with a maintenance variable that with deployment, could go up and down. It's all up to the designer.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 8, 2017 9:50:47 GMT -6
I'd imagine that Crew Quality would work well enough. Maybe put it into a separate Air Wing Quality attribute for the carrier or make the squadrons and carrier distinct but connected entities, if you want to keep the quality of the carrier's crew separate from the quality of the air crews.
I'm a bit ambivalent about special upkeep mechanics for the Pacific. Japan has no choice but to keep most of its fleet in the Pacific region even if they acquire significant colonial holdings outside of it, and none of the other powers, except maybe the USA and Russia, really have that much cause to keep a significant fleet in the region even if they have the base capacity to do it unless they're fighting Japan or trying to invade colonies.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 8, 2017 12:37:04 GMT -6
Let me go over this question of crews in a little more detail.
On a carrier, you have three separate groups: A. Ships company B. Ground crews C. Air crews
Ships company is already covered by RTW but you might want to add some additional training but it isn't necessary.
Ground crews handle the aircraft. They handle movement, propulsion including warmup, ordnance, pneumatics, hydraulics, mechanical systems and electronic systems which in the early years would be the radios. The crews would be assigned to squadrons, as they were early in the Pacific war by the US Navy but later they were assigned to the carrier. In times of emergency, these ground crews could and were assigned land bases to service carrier aircraft that had been moved from the carrier to the land bases to reinforce them. This might occur after damage and the carrier was returning to the yards, or just as an emergency procedure to support the bases until land based air could arrive. The Japanese Navy had a land based air component titled the Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service. Japanese ground crews and aircrews were assigned to the carrier. If she was damaged, they returned with her and waited but retrained. In the US Navy, there was some duplication between ground crews and aircrews. The Aviation Ordnance men were qualified to fly as gunners in the aircraft. My father performed that function.
Aircrews is almost self-explanatory, they flew in the aircraft either as pilots or gunners. I can't speak to how RTW2 might develop this but this is how it was structured. As to the other issue, I can only say that RTW2 will not be limited to the Pacific but will have the Atlantic, North Sea, Med, Indian Ocean and the Pacific to deal with. Only four nations really have a requirement for carriers: Great Britain, France, Japan and the US. Two other nations like Germany and Russia might be able to use smaller carriers for defense of the coastal regions and trade protection. Italy and Austria-Hungary really have no need for carriers. Just my personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 8, 2017 15:35:20 GMT -6
Italy may have no need for carriers, but they still have some, and if they had them during the war they might have done a little better. also carriers ought to be really good for supporting invasions because they are a floating airbase and can carry thousands of soldiers when not loaded with planes. you also should have the option of rotating squadrons off the front to train other squadrons up
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 8, 2017 18:25:00 GMT -6
Italy may have no need for carriers, but they still have some, and if they had them during the war they might have done a little better. also carriers ought to be really good for supporting invasions because they are a floating airbase and can carry thousands of soldiers when not loaded with planes. you also should have the option of rotating squadrons off the front to train other squadrons up I want to remind you that the British lost the Ark Royal in the Med and the Eagle. The Mediterranean is a narrow, enclosed sea but it is deep. In the Med, Italy enjoys a commanding geostrategic position in the center. She has the powerful position of controlling Sicily which dominates the approaches to and from the Central Med and the rest of the Med. The problem for the Italians was the lack of effective cooperation between the Royal Aeronautica and the Royal Marina plus their poor night combat abilities. I really don't think that a carrier would have made any real difference. Had those two problems been corrected, there would be no need for a carrier. In RTW2, I would probably develop a very good, well trained air force with medium and heavy bombers, dive bombers and fighters deployed to Sicily and Sardinia along with the boot and along the eastern and western coasts of Italy. This would be far more effective than a nice fat carrier as a target for submarines.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 8, 2017 19:47:07 GMT -6
Only four nations really have a requirement for carriers: Great Britain, France, Japan and the US. Two other nations like Germany and Russia might be able to use smaller carriers for defense of the coastal regions and trade protection. Italy and Austria-Hungary really have no need for carriers. Just my personal opinion. While I agree that Germany would not need (large) aircraft carriers to meet its naval requirements for coastal defense and trade protection, it also didn't need the fleet that it built during the pre-WWI naval arms race with Britain for those purposes. Also, even into WWII, the ranges of most single-engine fighters are short enough that providing air cover from bases in Libya, mainland Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and the Dodecanese to ships operating in the waters off Spain, the Levant, and eastern Egypt would be somewhat problematic, especially if the aircraft have to avoid violating a neutral country's airspace, and if memory serves most twin-engine fighters proved somewhat disappointing against their single-engine counterparts. I know that the view that the Regia Marina didn't need aircraft carriers because its ships were unlikely to be operating out of range of land-based air cover prevailed historically, but there are certainly reasons why a Regia Marina primarily concerned with operations in the Mediterranean might want aircraft carriers even so. As for Austria-Hungary: If Austria-Hungary is to be assumed to be a viable playable or opposing state in Rule the Waves 2 beyond maybe the mid-1920s, we have to assume that it's trying to be a Mediterranean naval power even after air power starts coming into its own, and I don't think Austria-Hungary could avoid needing carriers (though it might avoid recognizing that it needs carriers) as a Mediterranean naval power once air power starts to come into its own - certainly not if it lacks airbases outside of its historical territory, either in colonial possessions or allied states. Assuming a 200-mile radius of action (maximum range of ~600-800 miles), no land-based fighter aircraft based out of historical Austro-Hungarian territory could reach much beyond the Straits of Otranto or the far coast of the Italian Peninsula above the ankle of the boot; even with a much more generous 400-mile radius of action and passing freely through airspace over Italy or the Balkans, fighter aircraft flying out of historical Austro-Hungarian territory would have trouble reaching much beyond the Ionian, Tyrrhenian, and Ligurian seas, the northern end of the Aegean Sea, and the eastern third or so of the Gulf of Lyon. Austria-Hungary could maybe get away with not having carriers if it chose to go in for a predominantly submarine fleet rather than a predominantly surface fleet, though WWII-era air power eventually proved rather unhealthy for WWII-era submarines (there's also the issue that switching to a predominantly submarine fleet is essentially a tacit admission that you are a lesser naval power than your likely opponents, at least in the traditional sense of what it means to be a naval power). However threatening the Austro-Hungarian navy may be prior to the point in Rule the Waves 2 when air power will presumably become a credible threat to major warships or to Italy and the northwestern Balkan states with land-based air cover protecting the fleet in the Adriatic, if Austria-Hungary does not have either aircraft carriers or airbases outside its historical territory, then it will not be a viable opposing state beyond that point against any playable state except maybe Italy.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 8, 2017 20:57:56 GMT -6
Only four nations really have a requirement for carriers: Great Britain, France, Japan and the US. Two other nations like Germany and Russia might be able to use smaller carriers for defense of the coastal regions and trade protection. Italy and Austria-Hungary really have no need for carriers. Just my personal opinion. While I agree that Germany would not need (large) aircraft carriers to meet its naval requirements for coastal defense and trade protection, it also didn't need the fleet that it built during the pre-WWI naval arms race with Britain for those purposes. Also, even into WWII, the ranges of most single-engine fighters are short enough that providing air cover from bases in Libya, mainland Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and the Dodecanese to ships operating in the waters off Spain, the Levant, and eastern Egypt would be somewhat problematic, especially if the aircraft have to avoid violating a neutral country's airspace, and if memory serves most twin-engine fighters proved somewhat disappointing against their single-engine counterparts. I know that the view that the Regia Marina didn't need aircraft carriers because its ships were unlikely to be operating out of range of land-based air cover prevailed historically, but there are certainly reasons why a Regia Marina primarily concerned with operations in the Mediterranean might want aircraft carriers even so. As for Austria-Hungary: If Austria-Hungary is to be assumed to be a viable playable or opposing state in Rule the Waves 2 beyond maybe the mid-1920s, we have to assume that it's trying to be a Mediterranean naval power even after air power starts coming into its own, and I don't think Austria-Hungary could avoid needing carriers (though it might avoid recognizing that it needs carriers) as a Mediterranean naval power once air power starts to come into its own - certainly not if it lacks airbases outside of its historical territory, either in colonial possessions or allied states. Assuming a 200-mile radius of action (maximum range of ~600-800 miles), no land-based fighter aircraft based out of historical Austro-Hungarian territory could reach much beyond the Straits of Otranto or the far coast of the Italian Peninsula above the ankle of the boot; even with a much more generous 400-mile radius of action and passing freely through airspace over Italy or the Balkans, fighter aircraft flying out of historical Austro-Hungarian territory would have trouble reaching much beyond the Ionian, Tyrrhenian, and Ligurian seas, the northern end of the Aegean Sea, and the eastern third or so of the Gulf of Lyon. Austria-Hungary could maybe get away with not having carriers if it chose to go in for a predominantly submarine fleet rather than a predominantly surface fleet, though WWII-era air power eventually proved rather unhealthy for WWII-era submarines (there's also the issue that switching to a predominantly submarine fleet is essentially a tacit admission that you are a lesser naval power than your likely opponents, at least in the traditional sense of what it means to be a naval power). However threatening the Austro-Hungarian navy may be prior to the point in Rule the Waves 2 when air power will presumably become a credible threat to major warships or to Italy and the northwestern Balkan states with land-based air cover protecting the fleet in the Adriatic, if Austria-Hungary does not have either aircraft carriers or airbases outside its historical territory, then it will not be a viable opposing state beyond that point against any playable state except maybe Italy. I certainly agree about Germany but they went ahead because the Kaiser like the Navy. I believe it was a big waste of money. The distance from the northern Sardinian coast to southern France is about 301 miles, the Macchi C202 fighter was about 475 miles without external fuel tanks. With external tanks, there is not reason that the Macchi could not have provided escort for ships. The distance from Tunis, to Sardinia was 193 miles, easy for that single engine fighter. As far as the Levant or the Dodecanese, you would have to invade and take Crete or Greece which they did, and now they have the distance that they need. It would be easier than building, and deploying a carrier. For Italians, all they have to do is control the Straits of Sicily and they have control of the Mediterranean, which eliminates the British. With better cooperation between the Air force and the Navy, it could have been accomplished. The Austro-Hungarians basically have the same issues as the Italians but they could move south into Jordan or head into Greece, they have those choices. The distance across the Adriatic Sea even at its widest point is 119 miles, any single engine fighter should be able to handle that distance. The area that you are referring to is death to a carrier force, is confined, shallow with many island which could hamper any attempt to sail into it. Carriers are blue water weapons systems thats why the British, US and Japanese built them, they had long distances across open oceans. I applaud you for your references to distances and locations on a map, it is very refreshing. Keep that up, it will bring benefits but a carrier does not belong in many areas that you are referring to. However, I am speaking of the real world events, not RTW2. For the game, maybe some small carriers might be useful in escorting convoys and providing air cover for the fleet. We will have to see. Keep up the geostrategic thought. I can refer you to an excellent book on narrow and enclosed seas. If you desire the name, just ask.
|
|