|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 12:55:08 GMT -6
Name a few of the battles they played a role in to help us see what a lot of service means. I'm going to have too look it up (post will be in a new thread to avoid being off topic) when I get home from university, so in a couple days. However as far as I recall the autogyros (note not the true helis) provided a reconissance aid for the larger uboots late war, and the actual helis were used in their intended role of rear area transport, as the kriegsmarine didn't exactly launch any big ship sorties late war. Note: neither the Wehrmacht nor Luftwaffe used them. Here is a web page on German Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe - www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/secret-weapons-of-the-luftwaffe.aspThe helos and autogyros are on this page.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 14:26:25 GMT -6
I'm going to have too look it up (post will be in a new thread to avoid being off topic) when I get home from university, so in a couple days. However as far as I recall the autogyros (note not the true helis) provided a reconissance aid for the larger uboots late war, and the actual helis were used in their intended role of rear area transport, as the kriegsmarine didn't exactly launch any big ship sorties late war. Note: neither the Wehrmacht nor Luftwaffe used them. Here is a web page on German Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe - www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/secret-weapons-of-the-luftwaffe.aspThe helos and autogyros are on this page. Bah, I have been one upped! (Joking) I was planning on including the sources the book sites, but I believe this site is correct so I won't even bother. So they made less than I remember, but the ones produced were a success and where a valid contribution to the conversation, not just late war derpyness. Just as well as I have no clue where the book is at home other than it is in the house somewhere .
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Dec 5, 2016 14:34:29 GMT -6
Regarding helicopters and jets, remember that the developers have stated the game will cover the period 1900 to 1950. This means that the level of development of these vehicles depicted in the game should not stop with what had been accomplished during WWII. These vehicles improved considerably in the years immediately after the war.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 14:35:35 GMT -6
Bah, I have been one upped! (Joking) I was planning on including the sources the book sites, but I believe this site is correct so I won't even bother. So they made less than I remember, but the ones produced were a success and where a valid contribution to the conversation, not just late war derpyness. Just as well as I have no clue where the book is at home other than it is in the house somewhere . Hey, us old guys are good at one upmanship. We have all day, cause we are retired.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 14:46:54 GMT -6
Heh, funny. When I moved I had to leave all but one of my history books behind, and discussions on this forum regularly make me regret the decision to bring clothes instead of books
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 14:52:13 GMT -6
Heh, funny. When I moved I had to leave all but one of my history books behind, and discussions on this forum regularly make me regret the decision to bring clothes instead of books Well, seems to be a good decision; Clothes for books. Do you want to be dressed or smart. This is why I converted almost all my books to Ebooks except for large format books, so I can carry them around with me all the time. However, that is what the internet is for, to research. I research using books on Internet Archive and Google Books. Sometimes I don't have to buy the book, just look at the examples extracted from the book on Google.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 15:12:34 GMT -6
Here are some facts to deal with in this discussion of flight deck cruisers or hybrids. Keep in mind only three nations had the capability and requirements to build carriers but that doesn't mean other nations couldn't or shouldn't.
F4F Take-off distance with 25-knot wind is not more than 190 feet.
F4U in fighter configuration with 25-Knot wind is 217 feet, bomber is 232 feet, fighter overload is 318 feet.
F6F Take-off distance with 25 knot wind in Fighter overload is 335 feet, normal fighter is about 320 feet.
A6M2 Japanese Zero with 27 knot wind take off distance was 229 feet. For a proposed flight deck cruiser CF-2 Circa 1939 the deck length was 390 Feet with a width of 65 feet and only one elevator. For another designed around the same time, the deck length was 420 feet, again with only one elevator but this time, two deck catapults, one aft and one up forward.
It looks to me, that take-off, even under a 25-27 knot wind over the deck will take about half of the deck, with the elevator up forward. You could, with a 400 foot deck, possibly bring up 10 aircraft, five side by side in two rows, to launch one at a time. That will still take you much more time, since the rest of the air wing will have to remain below. If you try to land while launch, that will not work, you will not have enough deck length to retrieve and launch at the same time. It takes well over 100 to 150 feet to comfortably land a carrier aircraft and taxi it forward. If it has to go down into the hangar, now you have a problem as the elevator is up forward. It gets even better with shorter decks.
|
|
|
Post by director on Dec 5, 2016 17:45:16 GMT -6
That goes some way to explain the extremely high top-speed requirement for Shokaku and Zuikaku, and their longer length than US carriers of same vintage.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 18:30:37 GMT -6
That goes some way to explain the extremely high top-speed requirement for Shokaku and Zuikaku, and their longer length than US carriers of same vintage. Possibly, but their flight operations were conducted different than ours. They needed the whole deck empty to retrieve aircraft in order to taxi forward and lower them into the hangar. The IJN did not use deck parks to a great extent. We used crash barriers and Tilly when required. they also did not use catapults. All these factors contributed to their designs.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 5, 2016 18:53:14 GMT -6
Keep in mind only three nations had the capability and requirements to build carriers but that doesn't mean other nations couldn't or shouldn't. Well, technically 5 nations did build aircraft carriers, its just that only 3 completed their designs, and much earlier before the other 2 started trying to build aircraft carriers. I am of course talking about Germany and Italy, both of which nearly completed their own aircraft carrier but never got them into service.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 19:31:49 GMT -6
Keep in mind only three nations had the capability and requirements to build carriers but that doesn't mean other nations couldn't or shouldn't. Well, technically 5 nations did build aircraft carriers, its just that only 3 completed their designs, and much earlier before the other 2 started trying to build aircraft carriers. I am of course talking about Germany and Italy, both of which nearly completed their own aircraft carrier but never got them into service. While those two build two, they never fielded them so had absolutely no experience. Experience in actual war and field problems makes a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 5, 2016 19:46:00 GMT -6
Didn't Canada have carriers at some point? Might be late cold war tho, and I suspect we (me being Canadian) didn't build them
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 19:50:14 GMT -6
Didn't Canada have carriers at some point? Might be late cold war tho, and I suspect we (me being Canadian) didn't build them They were CVL's so yes and no you did not build them.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 5, 2016 20:30:21 GMT -6
Keep in mind only three nations had the capability and requirements to build carriers but that doesn't mean other nations couldn't or shouldn't. Well, technically 5 nations did build aircraft carriers, its just that only 3 completed their designs, and much earlier before the other 2 started trying to build aircraft carriers. I am of course talking about Germany and Italy, both of which nearly completed their own aircraft carrier but never got them into service. France says hello... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Béarn
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 20:34:15 GMT -6
Well, technically 5 nations did build aircraft carriers, its just that only 3 completed their designs, and much earlier before the other 2 started trying to build aircraft carriers. I am of course talking about Germany and Italy, both of which nearly completed their own aircraft carrier but never got them into service. France says hello... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_BéarnHi France: Bearn was a carrier.... but really just an experiment but she was built and did serve. Nice catch. However, I reiterate that only three nations actually tested, built and fielded carriers during WWII. They are the only ones that had extensive carrier experience during the war.
|
|