|
Post by Adseria on Apr 4, 2020 14:03:21 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that a ship meant to engage destroyers would likely be better served by a larger number of 5" or even 4" guns than a smaller number of 6" guns, especially relatively early in the game when destroyers typically cannot survive that much punishment and 6" and even 5" guns may suffer accuracy penalties against them due to the small size of the ships; similarly for AA escorts. Other than that, I'm a bit doubtful of its utility within the game due to it being unlikely to act like an escort if not manually controlled, and its ability to function as an escort will be somewhat impaired by its need to fall out of formation to launch or recover aircraft - not that that's particularly less true of cruisers fitted to carry floatplanes.
For those who don't know, a scout cruiser is basically a hybrid cruiser/floatplane tender; armament of a small cruiser/large destroyer, cruiser armour, cruiser speed, but capacity for a dozen or so floatplanes. While Scout Cruiser is perhaps not an unsuitable appellation for such a vessel, the historical Scout Cruiser was typically a small, fast, lightly-armed, and lightly-armored cruiser along the lines of the British Active or American Chester classes or the various Italian esploratori (that said, the Omaha-class cruisers - which were large and heavily armed for the time at which they were laid down - were originally designated as Scout Cruisers). A lot of the historical scout cruisers were scrapped shortly after the First World War; many of those which remained or which were built afterwards were at some point reclassified as destroyers, destroyer/flotilla leaders, or light cruisers, depending in part on their capabilities and in part on the preferences of their operators. Due to both their size - rarely more than 4,000 tons, often less than 3,500 - and the time when many of them were built, few if any historical scout cruisers had even rudimentary aviation facilities or sported floatplanes.
Apologies; I'm referring to ships such as the WW2-era Japanese cruiser Chitose (pre-carrier refit); cruiser size, speed and armour, but the ability to operate a decent number of floatplanes. War in the Pacific refers to them as "CS," or "cruiser, scout." I was under the impression that this was common practice.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Apr 4, 2020 14:51:16 GMT -6
I am of the opinion that a ship meant to engage destroyers would likely be better served by a larger number of 5" or even 4" guns than a smaller number of 6" guns, especially relatively early in the game when destroyers typically cannot survive that much punishment and 6" and even 5" guns may suffer accuracy penalties against them due to the small size of the ships; similarly for AA escorts. Other than that, I'm a bit doubtful of its utility within the game due to it being unlikely to act like an escort if not manually controlled, and its ability to function as an escort will be somewhat impaired by its need to fall out of formation to launch or recover aircraft - not that that's particularly less true of cruisers fitted to carry floatplanes.
While Scout Cruiser is perhaps not an unsuitable appellation for such a vessel, the historical Scout Cruiser was typically a small, fast, lightly-armed, and lightly-armored cruiser along the lines of the British Active or American Chester classes or the various Italian esploratori (that said, the Omaha-class cruisers - which were large and heavily armed for the time at which they were laid down - were originally designated as Scout Cruisers). A lot of the historical scout cruisers were scrapped shortly after the First World War; many of those which remained or which were built afterwards were at some point reclassified as destroyers, destroyer/flotilla leaders, or light cruisers, depending in part on their capabilities and in part on the preferences of their operators. Due to both their size - rarely more than 4,000 tons, often less than 3,500 - and the time when many of them were built, few if any historical scout cruisers had even rudimentary aviation facilities or sported floatplanes.
Apologies; I'm referring to ships such as the WW2-era Japanese cruiser Chitose (pre-carrier refit); cruiser size, speed and armour, but the ability to operate a decent number of floatplanes. War in the Pacific refers to them as "CS," or "cruiser, scout." I was under the impression that this was common practice. WITP is a great game and simulation but many of its designations are inaccurate for game purposes Chitose was simply referred to as a seaplane tender
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 4, 2020 15:15:33 GMT -6
Chitose was simply referred to as a seaplane tender Or a seaplane carrier - pg 9.
|
|
|
Post by hotellobby on Apr 5, 2020 4:02:19 GMT -6
Perhaps the only WW2 era ship that could truly be called a scout cruiser was the Tone class, since those actually had proper cruiser guns, armor, etc. 29knt speed, 4x5" guns, and no armor worth speaking of is hardly the definition of a cruiser, while 35 knts, 8x8" main battery, and a 4" belt does actually qualify. Gotland, Oyodo, and post-refit Mogami would probably also count as scout cruisers, but the Chitoses were full seaplane tenders.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Apr 5, 2020 12:10:01 GMT -6
Perhaps the only WW2 era ship that could truly be called a scout cruiser was the Tone class, since those actually had proper cruiser guns, armor, etc. 29knt speed, 4x5" guns, and no armor worth speaking of is hardly the definition of a cruiser, while 35 knts, 8x8" main battery, and a 4" belt does actually qualify. Gotland, Oyodo, and post-refit Mogami would probably also count as scout cruisers, but the Chitoses were full seaplane tenders. What about the Omaha-class? They were actually built as scout cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by forget83 on Apr 6, 2020 12:21:10 GMT -6
Perhaps the only WW2 era ship that could truly be called a scout cruiser was the Tone class, since those actually had proper cruiser guns, armor, etc. 29knt speed, 4x5" guns, and no armor worth speaking of is hardly the definition of a cruiser, while 35 knts, 8x8" main battery, and a 4" belt does actually qualify. Gotland, Oyodo, and post-refit Mogami would probably also count as scout cruisers, but the Chitoses were full seaplane tenders. What about the Omaha-class? They were actually built as scout cruisers. Different type of Scout Cruiser. If I remembered correctly, the Omaha decended from the WW1 to earlier type of protected cruiser. They were intended to directly scout for the fleet, hunt down any enemy scout ship they could come across before returning/radio-ing the fleet with their scouting information. These type of ships would later evolve into the treaty heavy cruiser. Tone-class (and to a lesser extend the Oyodo-class) were design to be armed seaplane carrier for the Japanese Carrier Fleet. Instead of "wasting" the fleet carrier aircrafts the Tone will provide the scout aircrafts for the strike fleet. In fact it was Tone scout plane that discovered the American carrier during the battle of Midway.
|
|
|
Post by polishkruk on May 12, 2020 13:54:24 GMT -6
I 100% agree with this. In fact. I feel like there is a strategic level missing between the management sim mode of the Naval Secretary and the tactical mode of the task force commander. Aircraft in general are tricky in my opinion and their use goes well beyond battle recon and battle strikes.
The option to have tenders operate of mobile air bases would be of a huge boon.
To me, the battle generator seems to work a bit backward once aircraft arrive. Excepting for the Japanese surprise attacks at the onset of a war any fleet aviation unit would have regular patrol flights already set up. Our land based craft especially but even the CAGs to an extent would have active patrols flying set recon and CAP vectors around the fleet/task force before the battle even begins.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 12, 2020 15:39:50 GMT -6
To me, the battle generator seems to work a bit backward once aircraft arrive. Excepting for the Japanese surprise attacks at the onset of a war any fleet aviation unit would have regular patrol flights already set up. Our land based craft especially but even the CAGs to an extent would have active patrols flying set recon and CAP vectors around the fleet/task force before the battle even begins. Unless, of course the captain is a submariner who doesn't believe in air patrols and has sent his CAG back home for court martial for knowing a propeller from an aileron.
|
|
|
Post by polishkruk on May 12, 2020 18:54:04 GMT -6
Unless, of course the captain is a submariner who doesn't believe in air patrols and has sent his CAG back home for court martial for knowing a propeller from an aileron. Lol I had no idea. That explains a lot about that action. You just highlighted something that would be great flavor for the game. Appointed officers and staff with visible and hidden characteristics! It may be a bit too RPG for some people but would be a great way for the team to explain away some of the quirks of the engine.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on May 13, 2020 12:52:44 GMT -6
A way to keep Tenders relevant later into the game would be to give them ASW capabilities based on their tonnage and the number of float planes they operate. Give float planes the ability to hunt subs the way larger flying boats do from turn to turn as well as allowing them to spot subs on the tactical map...effectively allowing them to act as pseudo ASW helicopters since those are not currently in game. Give me the chance to build a Moskva style Tender and i'll happily keep building them later into the game.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on May 26, 2020 13:28:32 GMT -6
Here's an interesting idle thought. I've had many games where the tech for swivel catapults comes way earlier than deck catapults – sometimes a decade earlier! That's more than long enough to get some interesting service out of a catapult-equipped AV / aviation cruiser. I might have to try it.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on May 27, 2020 0:06:08 GMT -6
Unless, of course the captain is a submariner who doesn't believe in air patrols and has sent his CAG back home for court martial for knowing a propeller from an aileron. All too common a trend with carrier operations in the British Navy in WW II, and HMS Glorious serves as the most disastrous example. Mike Crosley, an FAA fighter pilot, remembered that in Operation Pedestal, Admiral Syfret ordered HMS Indomitable's entire fighter complement to ditch. Indomitable's captain ignored the order and recovered them.
Even into 1945, British carriers were operating in groups commanded by surface officers who didn't seem to understand carrier operations. Crosley also recalled that Philip Vain, a surface officer with 2 years of experience commanding carriers, didn't seem understand how dangerous it was for his Seafire pilots to ditch. During the BPF's voyage to Tokyo Bay after the surrender, HMS Implacable had to break fleet formation to recover its Seafires after Vain ordered a superfluous course change that interrupted landing operations.
|
|
|
Post by decourcy2 on May 29, 2020 14:45:04 GMT -6
An earlier poster said that seaplane carriers dies out after WW1, that is incorrect. The Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, and Mizuho were full sized seaplane carriers.
|
|