Either that, or the designer should swap the position of the rear turrets and catapults which would at least avoid the appearance of the ship being able to blow its own catapults off the ship
The 3 and 4 positions more or less correspond to the location of the catapults on a number of historical warships - on the fantail, aft of the rearmost main battery gun. As to a ship blowing its own catapults away, low-elevation fire more or less directly over one or the other end of the ship isn't that likely - you'd only do it if you had a target at short range more or less directly ahead or astern of the ship - and if the guns are elevated to engage a more distant target or trained around to engage a target more to one side or another it's unlikely that there'd be an significant danger of damaging the catapults.
As far as I'm concerned all catapult positions should be legal and up to player to decide whether he wants a more or less sensible setup. They should only be limited by displacement in my opinion (ship would need to be wide enough to support two catapults side-by-side.
There might be a reason why they wouldnt work, that I'm not aware of, but positions 3 and 4 were used historically at least.
The first US Navy successful calibrated catapult launching was in 1916 from the AC North Carolina. On the other hand, Samuel Langley launched an aircraft from a house boat in 1903. But 24 December 1924 is the actual beginning of the gun powder launching of an observation plane from the Langley. This is the system used, later, on cruisers and battleships.
This should give us an accurate time scale for research and development. I don't know where catapult development is in research but it should be in machinery because that is exactly what it is. The development of catapults was and should be an evolutionary piece of equipment. If you develop catapults for cruisers and battleships, then it should evolve to aircraft carriers and hybrids.
Last Edit: Nov 6, 2019 19:23:55 GMT -5 by oldpop2000
Catapults are in the shipboard aviation operation category, along with flight decks, elevators, arrestor wires etc.
Machinery in this game specifically refers to engines and boilers, which is not appropriate for catapults.
The maintenance manual for catapults is under the manual titled " Principles of Naval Engineering". Catapults on carriers and other ships is and was under the Naval Engineering system with training for its personnel. So, it is considered engineering just like the engines, boilers, hydraulics, lubrication systems, etc.
What naval equipment (other than the ugly bags of mostly water required to operate them) doesn't rely on some form of engineering?
That is essentially correct. Until around 1943, I don't remember the date, all ground crews for the birds were assigned to the squadron's, but after that, they were part of the ship's company. In the Pacific War, many of the carrier ground crews were moved to the islands as CASU or carrier air service units. So, if the team were to change were catapults were researched, it makes sense. The call is theirs, not mine.
Last Edit: Nov 7, 2019 11:32:41 GMT -5 by oldpop2000