|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Sept 19, 2018 12:42:52 GMT -6
I want to konw about Seaplane Fighter.(For example,Nakajima A6M2-N,Macchi M.5) I want to operate in small bace capacity area. I want to develop original plane. Do you it can? Seaplane fighters saw very limited use historically. Not sure if those will be included in RTW2. We must concentrate on the most commonly used aircraft types before spending a lot of programming time on including exceptions or rarely used equipment. |
|
bubby
Junior Member
Posts: 66 
|
Post by bubby on Sept 19, 2018 13:42:14 GMT -6
Seaplane fighters saw very limited use historically. Not sure if those will be included in RTW2. We must concentrate on the most commonly used aircraft types before spending a lot of programming time on including exceptions or rarely used equipment. Will Battleships and CA's be able to launch/recover scout planes with the required technology?
I apologize if this has been mentioned beforehand.
|
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Sept 19, 2018 21:05:06 GMT -6
Seaplane fighters saw very limited use historically. Not sure if those will be included in RTW2. We must concentrate on the most commonly used aircraft types before spending a lot of programming time on including exceptions or rarely used equipment. Will Battleships and CA's be able to launch/recover scout planes with the required technology?
I apologize if this has been mentioned beforehand.
Yes. While I don't know if this will be modeled in battles (Fredrik could weigh in there), ships equipped with scout aircraft will be better raiders per the development journal: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1445/rule-waves-2-developers-journal |
|
bubby
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by bubby on Sept 20, 2018 13:17:39 GMT -6
Yes, thank you kindly. I was particularly looking for clarification on the possibility of Scout Planes being modeled/included in battles themselves.
Also, would they all function as merely scouts? IIRC Early 1920's-30's American Naval doctrine utilized BB aircraft as Spotters for long-range gunnery rather than true Scouts, correct me if i'm wrong however.
|
|
bakara
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by bakara on Sept 21, 2018 0:48:44 GMT -6
Yes, thank you kindly. I was particularly looking for clarification on the possibility of Scout Planes being modeled/included in battles themselves.
Also, would they all function as merely scouts? IIRC Early 1920's-30's American Naval doctrine utilized BB aircraft as Spotters for long-range gunnery rather than true Scouts, correct me if i'm wrong however.
From the precious little I have read on the subject that was the primary purpose of seaplanes on BB's (spotting the main battery splashes) with only really the japanese (of the three carrier navies) using seaplanes from BB's/CA's/CL's for scouting. Please correct me if im wrong on this. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 21, 2018 9:35:22 GMT -6
For the German Navy seaplanes were definitely primarily scouts, especially on the Deutschland clas and the HSK's. Yes, thank you kindly. I was particularly looking for clarification on the possibility of Scout Planes being modeled/included in battles themselves.
Also, would they all function as merely scouts? IIRC Early 1920's-30's American Naval doctrine utilized BB aircraft as Spotters for long-range gunnery rather than true Scouts, correct me if i'm wrong however.
From the precious little I have read on the subject that was the primary purpose of seaplanes on BB's (spotting the main battery splashes) with only really the japanese (of the three carrier navies) using seaplanes from BB's/CA's/CL's for scouting. Please correct me if im wrong on this. |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 21, 2018 10:13:11 GMT -6
Seaplanes based on BBs and especially cruisers were generally in daily use when ships were deployed in combat zones. These planes flew ASW and patrol missions searching the area around surface fleets. Even when carriers were present catapult-launched seaplanes took their turn at the daily ASW patrols (one of the least liked missions for most aircrew). This occurred in all three major carrier navies. Early British carriers were specially equipped with docking bays, ramps and cranes to facilitate the use of seaplanes and most British carriers carried a contingent of seaplanes through the 20s and 30s. During peacetime many American and British aircrews rotated through duties as catapult plane crews prior to serving on carriers. On the American side it was not uncommon to serve stints on flying boats prior to joining carrier squadrons. The Japanese were not as flexible; once you were assigned a role you tended to stay in that role.
Seaplanes were used for combat missions, though they were not well adapted to that role. This was more common in the Japanese navy where seaplanes were tasked with both ground attack and naval attacks and even air superiority and escort roles. Their pontoons and robust construction (catapult launches were not gentle) made floatplanes inferior to almost any dedicated fighter and even the best (the A6M2-N Floatplane Fighter "Rufe") had great difficulty surviving an encounter with enemy fighters. Despite their meager martial abilities, in areas where the enemy had weak or non-existent air assets, seaplanes could provide a useful air presence.
Seaplanes, both floatplanes and flying boats, excelled at downed crew rescue, especially in the Allied navies, which went to great lengths to rescue downed aviators. The Americans often saved over 50% of the aircrew that went into the sea through a dedicated and well-planned submarine and search plane rescue effort. The Japanese paid lip service to this effort but were much less effective.
The one area where they were expected to provide assistance, gunnery spotting, seldom took place in WW2. Had a naval war occurred during the 20s or early 30s, when carrier planes were not much of a threat compared to naval gunnery, it is likely that this role would have been more common.
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 21, 2018 13:37:01 GMT -6
I should mention some of the downsides of operating seaplanes. Seaplanes were impacted by bad weather even more often than carrier planes. They could be launched under most circumstances, but because they had to land on the water, even moderate seas could preclude their flight. Catapult launches were violent affairs and resulted in a higher percentage of accidents than occurred from carrier launches. Seaplanes were often carried in an exposed position on the catapult and were subject to the increased weathering that resulted.
Seaplanes also posed a threat to the ship that carried them in a couple of ways. In battle the seaplane, along with the stored fuel and ordnance on the ship, posed a significant threat to the ship if hit by gunfire or bombs. In addition, each time the ship recovered a seaplane it had to slow down and for a time steam in a straight line to allow the seaplane to be craned on board rendering it vulnerable to submarine attack. Most navies developed improved methods of recovering seaplanes (the USN recognized 4 different methods) but none totally eliminated this risk.
Toward the end of the Pacific war threats from Japanese surface and submarine vessels decreased while the threat of air attack increased, which flipped the equation for the validity of seaplanes. Many were removed and often replaced with additional AA weapons. Within a few years of the end of WW2 the remaining seaplanes began to be replaced with helicopters.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 21, 2018 13:58:45 GMT -6
I should mention some of the downsides of operating seaplanes. Seaplanes were impacted by bad weather even more often than carrier planes. They could be launched under most circumstances, but because they had to land on the water, even moderate seas could preclude their flight. Catapult launches were violent affairs and resulted in a higher percentage of accidents than occurred from carrier launches. Seaplanes were often carried in an exposed position on the catapult and were subject to the increased weathering that resulted. Seaplanes also posed a threat to the ship that carried them in a couple of ways. In battle the seaplane, along with the stored fuel and ordnance on the ship, posed a significant threat to the ship if hit by gunfire or bombs. In addition, each time the ship recovered a seaplane it had to slow down and for a time steam in a straight line to allow the seaplane to be craned on board rendering it vulnerable to submarine attack. Most navies developed improved methods of recovering seaplanes (the USN recognized 4 different methods) but none totally eliminated this risk. Toward the end of the Pacific war threats from Japanese surface and submarine vessels decreased while the threat of air attack increased, which flipped the equation for the validity of seaplanes. Many were removed and often replaced with additional AA weapons. Within a few years of the end of WW2 the remaining seaplanes began to be replaced with helicopters. There two more downsides to seaplanes and that is the launch and fuel. On Japanese ships it was done with a small black powder charge exploded in a steel container. However, that black powder has to be store somewhere and generally it was in a ammunition storage locker in the stern, next to the naval rifle ammunition storage. Black powder is far more dangerous. The US later used black 5in charge but earlier battleships used the black powder. In fact, what sank the BB Arizona was a 1920 lbs. AP bomb, penetrating the deck, hitting the forward black powder charges and this threw flames into the open hatch of the main magazine setting it off. The West Virginia's stern floatplanes had 80 octane fuel in them and when she rolled after torpedo hits, 20 degrees, they rolled and the fuel went all over the stern, igniting causing the whole stern to catch fire. This is where many of her losses in personnel occurred. On the whole, as we progress through the game, the value of the seaplane decreases as land based aircraft improve and with the addition of the aircraft carrier it decreases even more. At some point, the decision has to be made as to whether the dangers of the system outweigh the value. It's hard to know but if we progress to carriers, there might not be many surface engagements which removes much of the dangers of the launcher and seaplane on board the ship. Its a cost per performance issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 21, 2018 17:41:34 GMT -6
The one area where they were expected to provide assistance, gunnery spotting, seldom took place in WW2. Had a naval war occurred during the 20s or early 30s, when carrier planes were not much of a threat compared to naval gunnery, it is likely that this role would have been more common. .... I should mention some of the downsides of operating seaplanes. Seaplanes were impacted by bad weather even more often than carrier planes. They could be launched under most circumstances, but because they had to land on the water, even moderate seas could preclude their flight. Catapult launches were violent affairs and resulted in a higher percentage of accidents than occurred from carrier launches. Seaplanes were often carried in an exposed position on the catapult and were subject to the increased weathering that resulted. The most common spotting of gunfire for seaplanes during WW2 was for shore bombardment, and it was used in all the Pacific Island invasions I've read about, Operation Menace, Operation Catapult and elsewhere (I can look up, just going from memory). As you say, the danger of enemy fighters severely limited seaplane spotting in WW2, but I think it happened on one or two occasions, and I'd imagine a naval conflict in the 20s or 30s would have seen a fair bit of it going on. On recovering catapults, there was a technique used fairly widely (I'm pretty sure by the big three at least) of steaming in a half-circle (or similar - going from memory again) which would create a relatively smooth patch of sea for landing, even in not particularly great sea conditions. I'm not sure at what kind of sea state this technique would no longer be useful, but seaplanes weren't solely subject to the sea conditions at the time because of this (and in my reading seemed to operate in some 'wouldn't have expected seaplanes to be operated in these conditions' situations, but am afraid I can't remember specific examples, and they're from all over the place - need a good book on 'catapult seaplane operations in WW2' to make looking this up easier!) |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 21, 2018 17:53:48 GMT -6
Also, and far more importantly, how good are those carrier top-downs in the DD thread?  |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 21, 2018 18:24:51 GMT -6
Crazy good.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 21, 2018 19:17:21 GMT -6
Possibly somewhat nit-picky, but it disappoints me somewhat that the flush-deck Furious is lumped in with its half-sisters Courageous and Glorious, which unlike Furious had islands. |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 21, 2018 19:40:31 GMT -6
I don't think they are official drawings or anything like that. From the description it's just one of the beta testers showing what can be done with the new drawing system with six superstructures and up to 24 points on each and allowing asymmetry. I assume the flight decks are one of six superstructures that you superimpose on a traditionally shaped hull form. No other way I could see them being so individualized.
Anyway the new system looks like going to 720p from 240i. It works really well.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 21, 2018 20:14:40 GMT -6
I know, and I agree that the drawings look good, it's just slightly disappointing to me that Furious isn't separate.
Also feels slightly odd to me to include the never-completed German Graf Zeppelin, Italian Aquila, and French Joffre but not Hiryu, Zuiho, and the barely-less-of-a-Second-World-War-carrer-than-Midway Saipan or the never-completed Ibuki, and to have both the original and post-1935 Kaga but not the post-1938 Akagi. Still, no one has infinite time, and drawing those 35 carriers probably took plenty of it already.
|
|
