|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 4, 2019 0:00:44 GMT -6
Please fix this! These cats need to be legal. We can't put cats on the back of our ships because, stupid! Cats 3&4 should be fine on a BB!  illegalcats.jpg (95 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 4, 2019 6:21:11 GMT -6
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  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 4, 2019 11:36:10 GMT -6
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. |
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 4, 2019 15:26:26 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 5, 2019 2:57:07 GMT -6
Strangely, the USA was the only nation that made a habit of this, though technically their positions were further astern than 3 & 4 due to being mounted on the stern.
More nations had catapults attached to one of the main battery turrets.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 5, 2019 9:08:51 GMT -6
There were a lot of BB's from other nations that had rear deck cats.
|
|
|
|
Post by colprice on Nov 6, 2019 15:02:54 GMT -6
And the South Dakota managed to set her floatplanes alight, then blow them overboard with the next salvo...
The problem with stern catapults is that the only place for a hangar is right aft, under the quarterdeck. This large space right over the screws suffers from induced vibrations.
The RNs preference was for midships catapult & hangars, with tracks for moving aircraft from one to the other. Obviously, the USN had different preferences.
One of the problems with turret catapults is the strain on the turret roof, another is the possibility of the aircraft catching fire in action (see KM Graf Spee), then making the turret uninhabitable.
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 6, 2019 16:13:11 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 6, 2019 21:55:11 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 7, 2019 0:18:04 GMT -6
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. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 7, 2019 4:20:18 GMT -6
What naval equipment (other than the ugly bags of mostly water required to operate them) doesn't rely on some form of engineering?  |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 7, 2019 9:31:24 GMT -6
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. |
|
