|
|
Post by garychildress on Jun 7, 2019 19:23:21 GMT -6
I notice in the 1.03 patch, it says squadron sizes above 20 planes are prevented. I'm wondering why we can't create larger squadrons? I believe most WWII era US squadrons were 24 planes (at least on paper strength).
|
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 7, 2019 20:01:06 GMT -6
I notice in the 1.03 patch, it says squadron sizes above 20 planes are prevented. I'm wondering why we can't create larger squadrons? I believe most WWII era US squadrons were 24 planes (at least on paper strength). Yeah, I was also a bit puzzled by that, because not only the americans had squadrons of 20+ planes...a lot of carrier-based japanese ones also did. What I do is to create "Flights" of 8 planes each. three "Flights" make a squadron. It's a bit of a pain in the ass to get them all properly named but...well, it kinda works  . |
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Jun 8, 2019 0:23:43 GMT -6
I notice in the 1.03 patch, it says squadron sizes above 20 planes are prevented. I'm wondering why we can't create larger squadrons? I believe most WWII era US squadrons were 24 planes (at least on paper strength). Yeah, I was also a bit puzzled by that, because not only the americans had squadrons of 20+ planes...a lot of carrier-based japanese ones also did. What I do is to create "Flights" of 8 planes each. three "Flights" make a squadron. It's a bit of a pain in the ass to get them all properly named but...well, it kinda works . I wonder if having larger squadrons also "wastes" strikepotential due to overkill...
For fun i build a cv with 200 planes capacity after updating to 1.03. And with autoasigning squads i got sizes of 33+.
This lead me to thinking about how many DBs actually DO need to attack on average to make an impact. Same for TBs. But considering the overkill that usually happens i am not sure it is worth staggering the strikes.
|
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Jun 8, 2019 5:36:22 GMT -6
Yeah, I was also a bit puzzled by that, because not only the americans had squadrons of 20+ planes...a lot of carrier-based japanese ones also did. What I do is to create "Flights" of 8 planes each. three "Flights" make a squadron. It's a bit of a pain in the ass to get them all properly named but...well, it kinda works .
For fun i build a cv with 200 planes capacity after updating to 1.03. And with autoasigning squads i got sizes of 33+.
When you think about such a CV - you'd think it should be able to service medium bombers. I've noticed, though that planes often go to already sinking target, instead of serching for active ones some more. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 8, 2019 6:46:47 GMT -6
It's an understandable thing and one that actually can be backed up by historical facts. During the air attacks on the japanese fleet in the Sibuyan Sea, almost every US Navy flier there was went gun ho for Musashi. That thing took an estimate of 20 torpedoes and as many bombs in what can only be called a ridiculous overkill. In fact she lasted far too long afloat because so many torpedo planes were dropping on her that torpedoes were coming from both sides (thus evening the floods and preventing a much faster capsizing).
And Musashi was sailing alongside the cream of the crop of the japanese surface fleet. Yamato and Nagato were sailing besides her, as was a good number of cruisers - some attacks happened on other ships but most of them focused on Musashi even while she already was beyond hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Jun 8, 2019 6:56:04 GMT -6
For fun i build a cv with 200 planes capacity after updating to 1.03. And with autoasigning squads i got sizes of 33+.
When you think about such a CV - you'd think it should be able to service medium bombers. I've noticed, though that planes often go to already sinking target, instead of serching for active ones some more. It wasn't that large tbh... if i remember correctly around 65k or so. So no... medium bombers would probably not be able to take off.
I will try to "spread" the attacks next playthru. As in assigning an area on the map - launch strike wave, assign a slightly different area - next strike wave. Maybe some overkill can be averted by this.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 8, 2019 9:33:58 GMT -6
It wasn't that large tbh... if i remember correctly around 65k or so. So no... medium bombers would probably not be able to take off. Considering that B-25s managed to take off from USS Hornet CV-8, a ~25,500t (full load) carrier, you could probably launch WWII-era medium bombers from a 65,000t carrier, though perhaps still not at the bomber's maximum take-off weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Jun 8, 2019 11:41:37 GMT -6
It wasn't that large tbh... if i remember correctly around 65k or so. So no... medium bombers would probably not be able to take off. Considering that B-25s managed to take off from USS Hornet CV-8, a ~25,500t (full load) carrier, you could probably launch WWII-era medium bombers from a 65,000t carrier, though perhaps still not at the bomber's maximum take-off weight.
Well... the Doolittle Raid, yes under specific circumstances you could make a medium bomber take off (and only that) from a CV... |
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Jun 8, 2019 14:23:54 GMT -6
Midway-class and upgraded Essex-class carriers routinely operated AJ-1s, which were quite a bit larger and heavier than any pre-war medium bomber. I imagine either class would have no trouble operating a navalized B-25.
|
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Jun 8, 2019 15:02:19 GMT -6
Midway-class and upgraded Essex-class carriers routinely operated AJ-1s, which were quite a bit larger and heavier than any pre-war medium bomber. I imagine either class would have no trouble operating a navalized B-25. And they are both under 50k. And, returning from derayling - 24 wing size would be much better for CVL, since late in game you build them only for CAP (correct me if I'm wrong - I think CVL have a better chance to be in main force, since Carrier force doesn't do patrols around main fleet), and CVL's are limited with 24 planes. (while Commencement Bay - not even a full CVL, but CV could have ~30 planes, and Saipan and Ryūjō more than 40). Also, Sea Mosquito existed. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 8, 2019 15:06:10 GMT -6
Were not all the B-25's Deck Parked on the Hornet? That's be a very specific use for something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by deeznuts on Jun 8, 2019 15:22:06 GMT -6
Just waiting till we can build project Habakkuk in game, 2.2 million ton limit or riot.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 8, 2019 15:28:10 GMT -6
Were not all the B-25's Deck Parked on the Hornet? That's be a very specific use for something like that. All of the B-25s used in the Doolittle Raid were carried all the way across the Pacific on Hornet's flight deck, yes. It's a big part of the reason why Enterprise accompanied Hornet to the launch point, and also a part of why the raid was launched early after a Japanese fishing/picket boat sighted the carrier group - Hornet couldn't conduct regular flight operations with the B-25s parked on its flight deck. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 8, 2019 15:36:36 GMT -6
I went to Stinson Field in San Antonio today, my girlfriend took me, she's a keeper, huh? And I read where the tail machine guns were replaced by broomsticks. They have a model of the U.S.S. Hornet with B-25's on the deck. Pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by namuras on Jun 9, 2019 0:17:21 GMT -6
Midway-class and upgraded Essex-class carriers routinely operated AJ-1s, which were quite a bit larger and heavier than any pre-war medium bomber. I imagine either class would have no trouble operating a navalized B-25. While they did operate them and the navy ordered them, they weren't "practical" since they took to much deckspace and hampered regular ops.
|
|
.
