|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2021 12:18:09 GMT -6
Here is a quote about the design of the Illustrious class carriers -
"Admiralty Board member responsible for new construction, was determined not to build further Ark Royals because he regarded the design as being vulnerable to air attack by land-based bombers in the confined waters of the North Sea and Mediterranean. "
From this quote, one can surmise that air wing size was not the prime consideration, but protection was, in the small confines of the Mediterranean. Remember also that the British had Malta, just like Midway an unsinkable aircraft carrier although close enough to get constant bombings. She also had aircraft and bases in North Africa, on and off but always in Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 14, 2021 12:20:33 GMT -6
I believe the British armored carriers were driven by specific, time and theater related concerns. They clearly were able to build good unarmored carriers also - HMS Ark Royal is an excellent carrier design for her day.
My concern is not whether or not armored carriers are desirable, but that I should be able to build them in-game and have somewhat historical results in battle. At present, I think the game sometimes rewards minor hits with extreme damage. And it must be said that we tend to remember these extreme cases over the times when our (or the enemy's) carrier gets a bomb hit or a torpedo and nothing catastrophic happens.
In my last carrier action, once I had sorted out the battleship group, the separate cruiser group, the four carriers supporting my battleships by resolutely steaming downwind at high speed and going as far away as possible, the independent carrier group and the other carrier group that was supposed to be supporting them but which never came within two hundred miles of the battle - as I say, once I had made some effort to sort out that Rube-Goldberg-ian deployment, I took some hits. Four different carriers took at least one 500-lb bomb hit and none were lost; the light carrier that did catch fire succeeded in putting it out with minor damage.
Despite that, I think there could be some better fine-tuning of the damage results. Something along the lines of how magazine explosions get less likely after they happen or some damage control benefit for suffering through the loss of a carrier would be a nice touch.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 14, 2021 12:31:43 GMT -6
Besides being unnecessarily insulting, I'll point out that one of the first sentences in the referenced article on armored carriers is this: "I'll state right now that I think that, overall, the US Essex class carriers were clearly the superior assault carriers of World War II." (also edited the original statement to be less insulting as it was rather harsh and was not meant that way) Thank you christian . I know we all get a bit worked up in these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 14, 2021 12:34:42 GMT -6
I believe the British armored carriers were driven by specific, time and theater related concerns. They clearly were able to build good unarmored carriers also - HMS Ark Royal is an excellent carrier design for her day. My concern is not whether or not armored carriers are desirable, but that I should be able to build them in-game and have somewhat historical results in battle. At present, I think the game sometimes rewards minor hits with extreme damage. And it must be said that we tend to remember these extreme cases over the times when our (or the enemy's) carrier gets a bomb hit or a torpedo and nothing catastrophic happens. In my last carrier action, once I had sorted out the battleship group, the separate cruiser group, the four carriers supporting my battleships by resolutely steaming downwind at high speed and going as far away as possible, the independent carrier group and the other carrier group that was supposed to be supporting them but which never came within two hundred miles of the battle - as I say, once I had made some effort to sort out that Rube-Goldberg-ian deployment, I took some hits. Four different carriers took at least one 500-lb bomb hit and none were lost; the light carrier that did catch fire succeeded in putting it out with minor damage. Despite that, I think there could be some better fine-tuning of the damage results. Something along the lines of how magazine explosions get less likely after they happen or some damage control benefit for suffering through the loss of a carrier would be a nice touch. Agree for example a crewmember who was aboard Lexington when she sank came up with the idea for purging closing and securing fuel lines and filling them with CO2 when under air attack after his experiences on Lexington so that in the case that a carrier was hit her fuel lines to aircraft would not have built up vapors which would potentially cause a deadly explosion in fact Franklins explosive detonation was due to the surprise aircraft coming in which left no time for her to purge and secure her fuel lines which meant the Aft fuel system was still operating resulting in a large explosion
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2021 13:09:03 GMT -6
The question of armoring the flight deck revolves around protecting the carrier, but isn't there another better way to protect a carrier? Like, keep away from the enemy carriers and launching your aircraft first. So, if you make range a priority one in building a carrier aircraft whether a fighter, dive bomber or torpedo bomber, then you can launch your planes first and farther away from your enemy. Isn't this a better way to protect your carriers. Hit the enemy first. In the carrier battles of the Pacific War, it was the side that detected and launched first, that won the battles. Maybe that is a lesson to be learned. What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 14, 2021 13:17:19 GMT -6
The question of armoring the flight deck revolves around protecting the carrier, but isn't there another better way to protect a carrier? Like, keep away from the enemy carriers and launching your aircraft first. So, if you make range a priority one in building a carrier aircraft whether a fighter, dive bomber or torpedo bomber, then you can launch your planes first and farther away from your enemy. Isn't this a better way to protect your carriers. Hit the enemy first. In the carrier battles of the Pacific War, it was the side that detected and launched first, that won the battles. Maybe that is a lesson to be learned. What do you all think? This was also what the japanese thinking at the time was (which is why the zero has like 500 nm combat radius without the drop tank and with almost 1000 nm and the val being around 400 if i remember right) have further range thus strike first and win Problem in game is that getting to ranges where the enemy cant strike is really hard since most aircraft have atleast 150nm heavy range by 1935 and atleast 200-250 light range problem is travel time to strike area is really long and the enemy if they change course will avoid your strike
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 14, 2021 14:16:39 GMT -6
I will point one thing about armoured carriers built by UK before and during WW2. They were most durable carriers by quite a margin however it was not only because of armoured box they had.
They were designed to survive and armoured box was only one of several features to make it happen. Hangar seperation, safety features for fuel (but more bulky), sprinkler system etc. All this together made them more durable, not only armoured box.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 14, 2021 16:12:38 GMT -6
I will point one thing about armoured carriers built by UK before and during WW2. They were most durable carriers by quite a margin however it was not only because of armoured box they had. They were designed to survive and armoured box was only one of several features to make it happen. Hangar seperation, safety features for fuel (but more bulky), sprinkler system etc. All this together made them more durable, not only armoured box. True british carriers had rather extensive damage control systems it is a shame we cant really replicate it in RTW however that does not change the fact that flight deck armor in game at almost twice the thickness of real life is almost useless against even 1000 lb bombs which the flight deck should resist although does not and even if it was resisted would still deal significant damage due to the games damage model Armored decks prevent the bombs from getting in the hangar and it is alot easier to contain a fire on the deck than it is in the hangar in addition to substantially lowering hull damage and making the carrier more resilient to being permanently knocked out and combat inoperable (cant launch or land aircraft) if its only a flight deck fire its usually rather fast and easy to get under control
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2021 17:35:37 GMT -6
Here is what D.K. Brown says about this issue. In Nelson to Vanguard, D.K. Brown critiques the choices made by designers of aircraft carriers. "I would suggest that both the RN and USN were right for the wars they planned to fight, the RN in narrow seas, facing shore-based aircraft while the USN expected to engage the Japanese fleet in the open Pacific". This is what I said earlier but I will add that the US Naval aviation did have a second dive bomber squadron specifically trained to scout, in fact it was a VS or scout squadron of 18 aircraft. The actual dive bomber squadron was the VB. The US Navy always valued the scouting aspect of tactical and operational naval warfare. It found the enemy first, launched first and generally either won the carrier battle or it was a tie ball game. In most cases operationally, it was a win. Here is the article that I have felt characterized both attitudes perfectly. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.phpNow, trying to relate history to the game... well that is another issue. I have some designs where I used the armored deck but I haven't lost any carriers no matter what I do, I keep them away from the main action. I think that my next game I will build carriers when I reached the research point, then test them in a field exercises to see how effective they are. This in accordance with building aircraft with range as the primary focus of the bird. I don't know how this is going to work, but hope springs eternal.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 15, 2021 9:11:48 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - yes, the best place to defend yourself, as Patton said, is on someone else's real-estate. That's one of the reasons that RN fighter direction (for example) was so much better than anyone else's including the USN. it is also the reason that the US substantially increased the number of fighters aboard its carriers during the war. But... When the armored carriers were designed, the RN was in the awkward position of knowing how valuable carriers could be, but not having any control over aircraft design and procurement for those carriers. For the RAF, taking care of the RN's needs fell somewhere between neglect and laughter. The carriers had to be armored because they simply would not have good aircraft in sufficient numbers to keep an umbrella over a fleet operating in confined waters (such as the Mediterranean). Given the money and control of a separate Fleet Air Arm, the RN might well have opted for bigger air wings and less protection. I find it interesting that post-war carrier designs show the British moving toward the American style (less armor, bigger air wing) and the US moving toward he British (more armor, enclosed bow and hangar). That suggests to me that the real drivers of pre-war British and American designs were financial and political, with more concern for weather in the Atlantic and less in the Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 15, 2021 9:51:51 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - yes, the best place to defend yourself, as Patton said, is on someone else's real-estate. That's one of the reasons that RN fighter direction (for example) was so much better than anyone else's including the USN. it is also the reason that the US substantially increased the number of fighters aboard its carriers during the war. But... When the armored carriers were designed, the RN was in the awkward position of knowing how valuable carriers could be, but not having any control over aircraft design and procurement for those carriers. For the RAF, taking care of the RN's needs fell somewhere between neglect and laughter. The carriers had to be armored because they simply would not have good aircraft in sufficient numbers to keep an umbrella over a fleet operating in confined waters (such as the Mediterranean). Given the money and control of a separate Fleet Air Arm, the RN might well have opted for bigger air wings and less protection. I find it interesting that post-war carrier designs show the British moving toward the American style (less armor, bigger air wing) and the US moving toward he British (more armor, enclosed bow and hangar). That suggests to me that the real drivers of pre-war British and American designs were financial and political, with more concern for weather in the Atlantic and less in the Pacific. I've worked on the Tico, Midway, Kittyhawk's and the Nimitz. Trust me, those hangars are still very open and it was the nuclear power, that changed how the ships were built. It's a complex situation but interesting.
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 15, 2021 10:36:27 GMT -6
I was referring to the British Malta class and the US Midway class. Those don't appear to be as wide-open as the Yorktowns. Given the lack of treaty restrictions and wartime experience I found it interesting that designs seemed to converge (not merge).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 15, 2021 10:59:43 GMT -6
I was referring to the British Malta class and the US Midway class. Those don't appear to be as wide-open as the Yorktowns. Given the lack of treaty restrictions and wartime experience I found it interesting that designs seemed to converge (not merge). I understand. Here is a quote from David Hobb's book. It is in regards to the design of the Malta class carriers. A ship’s hull can be considered as a hollow beam which is stressed by the distribution of buoyancy caused by wave motion. In closed-hangar ships the flight deck is the upper part of the beam; in open-hangar ships the flight deck is built as superstructure and the hangar deck becomes the upper part of a smaller beam. The deeper beam of the closed hangar represents the stronger and lighter structure; it is capable of resisting greater loadings, and the difference between the two can be considerable. Against this, the Admiralty was aware that the USN was able to run aircraft engines in its open-hangar ships and bring them rapidly to the flight deck to increase the size of a launch. It was also believed to be easier to move aircraft in the large, open hangars of American ships than in the relatively cramped closed hangars of existing British ships, but many other factors would have to be taken into consideration if an open-hangar design was to be considered seriously. Both four-and five-shaft layouts were considered and various applications of armor were investigated. Hobbs, David. British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development & Service Histories . Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 15, 2021 12:40:32 GMT -6
Just some more information on the Malta class. They were originally designed as a double closed hangar of 55,000 tons deep load. It would have operated 108 aircraft in a 50/50 mixture of fighters and TBD's with a complement of 3300. This was design C and it was approved in April 1944. Unfortunately, the Fifth Sea Lord responsible for air matters questioned this design based on urgent representations from aircrews with extensive experience operationally. This was the design that was again discussed and approved. The new design was approved in August 1944 and was set to 60,000 tons deep load. The hangar was open-sided aft but plated-in forward to prevent water from entering during bad weather. There was to be no flight deck armor, but a 6 inch protection over the citadel under the hangar deck with two centerline and two side lifts. The open hangar now allowed the latter lifts, whereas the closed-hangar did not. Logistically, the side lifts allowed stores to be transferred rapidly into the hangar by a jackstay from a stores ship alongside and then distributed throughout the hull. The side lifts also allowed rapid aircraft movements during flying operation were in progress. The new design meant that the flight deck was now part of the superstructure and needed expansion joints. www.navygeneralboard.com/the-malta-class-the-carriers-that-never-were/ Now, in regards to the game, what if you built a carrier with no armored deck but with armored sides, does the game allow side lifts? I am going to find out. Update: Here is a design from my 1956 Germany game. Notice: no flight deck armor but armored hangar sides. Deck edge lifts are allowed. Now the question, is this ship an open hangar or not. I say it isn't an open hangar with the armored sides. If that is true, then the game is wrong because you cannot armor the sides and not have an enclosed hangar. If you do have an enclosed hangar, the you cannot have deck edge lifts. It ain't gonna work, sports fans. Any one got the answer?
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Apr 15, 2021 13:07:50 GMT -6
Notice: no flight deck armor but armored hangar sides. Deck edge lifts are allowed. Now the question, is this ship an open hangar or not. I say it isn't an open hangar with the armored sides. If that is true, then the game is wrong because you cannot armor the sides and not have an enclosed hangar. If you do have an enclosed hangar, the you cannot have deck edge lifts. It ain't gonna work, sports fans. Any one got the answer? I believe both deck park and deck edge lifts are not implemented and the checkboxes don't work in-game.
|
|