|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 10:25:28 GMT -6
This thread is for the discussion of the development of carrier aviation and carriers. This is a continuation of the RTW-2 Suggestions discussion which needs to go to another thread.
Update: I've changed the name of the thread to include Land-Based Aviation. I feel the two need to be discussed together.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 15:06:08 GMT -6
On the RTW-2 thread I asked for the Zed Baker, and here is what a Zed Baker is; simply put it is piece of radio navigation equipment; a direction finder for aircraft to guide them back to the carriers. The first experimental model came out in 1937, and all carriers and aircraft were equipped by the start of WWII in the Pacific.
The main system was on board, down below decks in the carrier with an orange peel antenna on its side which rotated at the top of the mast to give it good beyond horizon range. The system transmitted coded signals identifying twelve sectors through 360 degrees at a frequency of 246 MHZ modulated at 540 to 830 KHZ. The strongest signal indicated the sector in the 360 degrees and had a range of 275 miles depending on the atmosphere and other variables. It was dual frequency which thoroughly confused the Japanese who knew that our aircraft were successfully returning to the carriers but they never did figure out how it was done. Later the British adopted the system and it was finally replaced by TACAN or tactical air navigation, which I tested and repaired. There were many glowing reports from pilots and air crews who successfully returned to the carrier due to this piece of equipment, developed by NRL or the Naval Research Lab.
As a further note, they were temperamental like all tube based electronics of that era. You had to be at altitude of line of sight of the antenna. If you were too low, you would miss the signal. It was FM which was means line of sight, not AM.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 5, 2016 16:39:45 GMT -6
Well created, this thread .
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 5, 2016 17:28:18 GMT -6
One of the things that surprised me reading John Lundstrom's First Team books was just how many planes left the carrier and disappeared never to be seen again because for technical or navigation reasons they got lost or ditched with no explanation. Also the number of flight accidents on take-off and landing that totalled aircraft. Being a naval pilot was incredibly hazardous even before they went into combat. Attrition to naval aircraft should be pretty high, high enough that it might annoy many players. The Zed Baker technology would definitely be something that could be developed to lower attrition rates of carrier aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 17:36:51 GMT -6
We have been discussing the pros and cons of armored decks versus non-armored decks. I want to remind all of you.... for millionth time, that carriers are systems. Don't judge one aspect of their design without assessing other aspects. Stuart Slade points out other deficiencies and book that I have, " Military Innovation in the Interwar Period" by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett provides the complete story of why and how the British Royal Navy could be so deficient at the start of the war in the design of their carriers. As the latter book points out, all three nations that fielded carriers failed to assess the contribution that airpower would make to the conduct of the next war. As the book says " all three navies underestimated the extent to which naval airpower represented a significant departure in the wary they would conduct their business" However, of the three, the British were the least perceptive and the IJN the most. It was a matter of a few degrees, believe me.
The first and most important tool for the analysis of current and future technology to guide your carriers designs was the war game, not on sand tables but in the water. Both the US and the Japanese conducted there games throughout the Interwar Period. The British did not conduct any.
I've ventured off of the real point. The British air wings were very small, not because of the armored decks, but because they started the war with less than 147 carrier based aircraft. We started with over a 1000. they failed to develop arrester wires, catapults and deck parts. The lack of faith in the Naval fighters caused the RN who expected to fight in narrow waters near shores, not on the briny blue, to invest heavily in armored decks and anti-aircraft guns. They felt that this alone would prevent any other nation from attacking their carriers which would sail with the battle fleet. They were sadly mistaken. But it wasn't the armored decks alone that caused the British carriers to be so deficient in both offense and defensive strength and very slow to launch and recover aircraft, it was the whole system. The carriers they developed were developed on the idea of gradualism, make small changes on every new class, not technological leaps like the US and Japan. The armored deck issue could have been resolved with the addition of all the items I have listed and especially better aircraft, with folding wings, deck parts and open hangers. You can always install large, sliding doors, and close them during poor weather. A simple solution, easily done.
Please examine the armored deck issue from a system approach. Every aspect of a carriers construction and operation should be considered together, not individually.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 17:42:00 GMT -6
One of the things that surprised me reading John Lundstrom's First Team books was just how many planes left the carrier and disappeared never to be seen again because for technical or navigation reasons they got lost or ditched with no explanation. Also the number of flight accidents on take-off and landing that totalled aircraft. Being a naval pilot was incredibly hazardous even before they went into combat. Attrition to naval aircraft should be pretty high, high enough that it might annoy many players. The Zed Baker technology would definitely be something that could be developed to lower attrition rates of carrier aircraft. That is the truth, the Zed Baker did not eliminate the need to navigate accurately. At Coral Sea the Air Group Commander was lost due to that and at Midway, the Hornet squadrons got lost and had to land in the water. What we call non-operational losses were high. I actually have a picture of a TBF Avenger torpedo bomber on the edge of the deck of the USS Saratoga almost ready to fall over board. It was take by one of my dad's buddies.... my dad was the gunner on the bird. I've always laughed at that picture. But yes, attrition was high and that's why later in the war, the jeep carriers were used to supply replacement aircraft to the fleet aircraft carriers to maintain air wing strength. My father always told me that any landing you could walk away from, was a good one and that landing on the carrier was a controlled crash.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 18:14:35 GMT -6
Well I am going to stick my neck out, done it before and its used to it. Here are the countries in the game, that I believe are important and here are the carriers they should build. 1. USA - Large, open hangar carriers, with big air wings. Build with side elevators and please take the damn 5 inch guns off, you don't need them and they take up space. 2. Japan - Large, open hangar carriers with big air wings. Balance the air wing with more fighters and a scout bomber squadron. That scout bomber squadron could be Kate torpedo bombers. It gets hot around the South Pacific, build for the heat. 3. Great Britain - Large, open hangar carriers with armored decks. Place large air wings on board which have defensive fighters and torpedo bombers capable of carrying regular bombs also. You might consider building a dive bomber, but not entirely necessary. Remember to include arresting gears, deck parks, and catapults. Please don't put so many AA guns on board, let the tin cans defend you and your folding wing defensive fighters. 4. Russia - don't waste your money, you are a land power. 5. Germany - Same as above 6. France - Let the British build your carriers and deploy them to the Med. 7. Italy - Same as the Russians, you don't have enough fuel even for your motor boats. 8. Spain - Same as Germany 9. AH - Same as Germany Enjoy Just quick note about Italy. If Italy discovers oil in Sicily ( it won't but this is a game), then go ahead and build light carriers with open hangers and armored decks. It get's hot in the Med, gents. For the defensive fighter, build a navalized version of the Macchi MC-205 Folgore with folding wings. Don't clutter the decks with strike aircraft, Sicily is very close, I would suggest a good scout aircraft. Much more useful when providing air cover for convoys. Another quick note: To all intrepid carrier builders; don't forget transverse bulkheads in the hangar with doors to isolate fires and also hangar doors on the opening to the outside. You could consider catapults in the opening on the sides... yup, the Yorktown class had them and I have seen an F4F being launched from one in a picture. They were later found to be unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 5, 2016 20:14:23 GMT -6
We have been discussing the pros and cons of armored decks versus non-armored decks. I want to remind all of you.... for millionth time, that carriers are systems. Don't judge one aspect of their design without assessing other aspects. Stuart Slade points out other deficiencies and book that I have, " Military Innovation in the Interwar Period" by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett provides the complete story of why and how the British Royal Navy could be so deficient at the start of the war in the design of their carriers. As the latter book points out, all three nations that fielded carriers failed to assess the contribution that airpower would make to the conduct of the next war. As the book says " all three navies underestimated the extent to which naval airpower represented a significant departure in the wary they would conduct their business" However, of the three, the British were the least perceptive and the IJN the most. It was a matter of a few degrees, believe me. The first and most important tool for the analysis of current and future technology to guide your carriers designs was the war game, not on sand tables but in the water. Both the US and the Japanese conducted there games throughout the Interwar Period. The British did not conduct any. I've ventured off of the real point. The British air wings were very small, not because of the armored decks, but because they started the war with less than 147 carrier based aircraft. We started with over a 1000. they failed to develop arrester wires, catapults and deck parts. The lack of faith in the Naval fighters caused the RN who expected to fight in narrow waters near shores, not on the briny blue, to invest heavily in armored decks and anti-aircraft guns. They felt that this alone would prevent any other nation from attacking their carriers which would sail with the battle fleet. They were sadly mistaken. But it wasn't the armored decks alone that caused the British carriers to be so deficient in both offense and defensive strength and very slow to launch and recover aircraft, it was the whole system. The carriers they developed were developed on the idea of gradualism, make small changes on every new class, not technological leaps like the US and Japan. The armored deck issue could have been resolved with the addition of all the items I have listed and especially better aircraft, with folding wings, deck parts and open hangers. You can always install large, sliding doors, and close them during poor weather. A simple solution, easily done. Please examine the armored deck issue from a system approach. Every aspect of a carriers construction and operation should be considered together, not individually. If I recall, part of the reason for the small air wings on the RN carriers was because in line with the armor+AA mix, the idea was to huddle up the air wing in the hangar during an air attack. As such, the air wing was limited to what would fit in the hangar; they could and later did carry larger air wings by adopting the USN practice of having a permanent deck park. Of course, it was some time before they really had any aircraft worth putting onboard carriers; until they started buying from the US their naval aircraft were either obsolete designs like the Swordfish and Fulmar or poorly-suited adaptations of land-based aircraft like the Seafire.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 20:26:57 GMT -6
We have been discussing the pros and cons of armored decks versus non-armored decks. I want to remind all of you.... for millionth time, that carriers are systems. Don't judge one aspect of their design without assessing other aspects. Stuart Slade points out other deficiencies and book that I have, " Military Innovation in the Interwar Period" by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett provides the complete story of why and how the British Royal Navy could be so deficient at the start of the war in the design of their carriers. As the latter book points out, all three nations that fielded carriers failed to assess the contribution that airpower would make to the conduct of the next war. As the book says " all three navies underestimated the extent to which naval airpower represented a significant departure in the wary they would conduct their business" However, of the three, the British were the least perceptive and the IJN the most. It was a matter of a few degrees, believe me. The first and most important tool for the analysis of current and future technology to guide your carriers designs was the war game, not on sand tables but in the water. Both the US and the Japanese conducted there games throughout the Interwar Period. The British did not conduct any. I've ventured off of the real point. The British air wings were very small, not because of the armored decks, but because they started the war with less than 147 carrier based aircraft. We started with over a 1000. they failed to develop arrester wires, catapults and deck parts. The lack of faith in the Naval fighters caused the RN who expected to fight in narrow waters near shores, not on the briny blue, to invest heavily in armored decks and anti-aircraft guns. They felt that this alone would prevent any other nation from attacking their carriers which would sail with the battle fleet. They were sadly mistaken. But it wasn't the armored decks alone that caused the British carriers to be so deficient in both offense and defensive strength and very slow to launch and recover aircraft, it was the whole system. The carriers they developed were developed on the idea of gradualism, make small changes on every new class, not technological leaps like the US and Japan. The armored deck issue could have been resolved with the addition of all the items I have listed and especially better aircraft, with folding wings, deck parts and open hangers. You can always install large, sliding doors, and close them during poor weather. A simple solution, easily done. Please examine the armored deck issue from a system approach. Every aspect of a carriers construction and operation should be considered together, not individually. If I recall, part of the reason for the small air wings on the RN carriers was because in line with the armor+AA mix, the idea was to huddle up the air wing in the hangar during an air attack. As such, the air wing was limited to what would fit in the hangar; they could and later did carry larger air wings by adopting the USN practice of having a permanent deck park. Of course, it was some time before they really had any aircraft worth putting onboard carriers; until they started buying from the US their naval aircraft were either obsolete designs like the Swordfish and Fulmar or poorly-suited adaptations of land-based aircraft like the Seafire. The problems for the British, included the poor aircraft, was the lack of the deck park so you had to put it all in the hangar. It all revolves around the lack of funds during the 1920's and 1030's but more because of their lack of enthusiasm waiting to see how carrier aviation was going to work out. By the time they found out, it was far too late to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 5, 2016 21:15:52 GMT -6
Well I am going to stick my neck out, done it before and its used to it. Here are the countries in the game, that I believe are important and here are the carriers they should build. 1. USA - Large, open hangar carriers, with big air wings. Build with side elevators and please take the damn 5 inch guns off, you don't need them and they take up space. 2. Japan - Large, open hangar carriers with big air wings. Balance the air wing with more fighters and a scout bomber squadron. That scout bomber squadron could be Kate torpedo bombers. It gets hot around the South Pacific, build for the heat. Excellent post as usual. 1. I might question the idea of dropping the 5" armament on the US carriers. I read a post-war USN report on USN anti-air effectiveness I think on the hyperwar web page. If I can find it again, I'll post it. It stated that effectiveness of anti-air depended on many things but one of them was the effectiveness of the fire went up for ships that were the actual target vs. ships that were escorting the target. Kinda makes sense. If the plane is headed towards you then the fire control solution is easier because there isn't as much movement across the field of fire to deal with. I do agree with the idea of getting the turrets off of the flight deck. Might have needed the Midway's tonnage to make it happen (as did in real life) but they do take up a lot of room. 2. Basically build American carriers and American air groups. I would add, make the airgroups organizationally independent of the carriers as well so they can transfer from one to the other so you don't lose one carrier's availability at Midway because the carrier was fine but the airgroup was torn up and they couldn't transfer the damaged sister carrier's airgroup which was intact but an integral part of the carrier organizationally. Probably outside of the scope of a game like RTW but still something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 5, 2016 21:29:35 GMT -6
Well I am going to stick my neck out, done it before and its used to it. Here are the countries in the game, that I believe are important and here are the carriers they should build. 1. USA - Large, open hangar carriers, with big air wings. Build with side elevators and please take the damn 5 inch guns off, you don't need them and they take up space. 2. Japan - Large, open hangar carriers with big air wings. Balance the air wing with more fighters and a scout bomber squadron. That scout bomber squadron could be Kate torpedo bombers. It gets hot around the South Pacific, build for the heat. Excellent post as usual. 1. I might question the idea of dropping the 5" armament on the US carriers. I read a post-war USN report on USN anti-air effectiveness I think on the hyperwar web page. If I can find it again, I'll post it. It stated that effectiveness of anti-air depended on many things but one of them was the effectiveness of the fire went up for ships that were the actual target vs. ships that were escorting the target. Kinda makes sense. If the plane is headed towards you then the fire control solution is easier because there isn't as much movement across the field of fire to deal with. I do agree with the idea of getting the turrets off of the flight deck. Might have needed the Midway's tonnage to make it happen (as did in real life) but they do take up a lot of room. 2. Basically build American carriers and American air groups. I would add, make the airgroups organizationally independent of the carriers as well so they can transfer from one to the other so you don't lose one carrier's availability at Midway because the carrier was fine but the airgroup was torn up and they couldn't transfer the damaged sister carrier's airgroup which was intact but an integral part of the carrier organizationally. Probably outside of the scope of a game like RTW but still something to think about. The 5/38 mounts on the Yorktown and Essex hulls probably could have been pared down, but having those onboard with VT shells probably proved to be a good thing later on when the carriers dealt with kamikaze attacks. As far as the air wings, I'm assuming you're referring to the IJN, which sat out Zuikaku at Midawy because her air group had been mauled at Coral Sea. The US by contrast used Saratoga's air wing and surviving aircraft and pilots from Lexington to replace losses on the Yorktown.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 21:36:37 GMT -6
Excellent post as usual. 1. I might question the idea of dropping the 5" armament on the US carriers. I read a post-war USN report on USN anti-air effectiveness I think on the hyperwar web page. If I can find it again, I'll post it. It stated that effectiveness of anti-air depended on many things but one of them was the effectiveness of the fire went up for ships that were the actual target vs. ships that were escorting the target. Kinda makes sense. If the plane is headed towards you then the fire control solution is easier because there isn't as much movement across the field of fire to deal with. I do agree with the idea of getting the turrets off of the flight deck. Might have needed the Midway's tonnage to make it happen (as did in real life) but they do take up a lot of room. 2. Basically build American carriers and American air groups. I would add, make the airgroups organizationally independent of the carriers as well so they can transfer from one to the other so you don't lose one carrier's availability at Midway because the carrier was fine but the airgroup was torn up and they couldn't transfer the damaged sister carrier's airgroup which was intact but an integral part of the carrier organizationally. Probably outside of the scope of a game like RTW but still something to think about. The 5/38 mounts on the Yorktown and Essex hulls probably could have been pared down, but having those onboard with VT shells probably proved to be a good thing later on when the carriers dealt with kamikaze attacks. As far as the air wings, I'm assuming you're referring to the IJN, which sat out Zuikaku at Midawy because her air group had been mauled at Coral Sea. The US by contrast used Saratoga's air wing and surviving aircraft and pilots from Lexington to replace losses on the Yorktown. The IJN had the air wing from the Shokaku which could have filled in the gaps, allowing the carrier to participate in the Midway Campaign. Could she have tipped the balance, I think she could have. She could have provided more combat air patrols and stopped the dive bombers. This was standard practice for the IJN, not to mix airwings and it cost them throughout the war. I believe that adding more 40 mm Bofors and providing more CAP fighters would have been much more effective. I just like to have the deck clear of turrets and use the room and weight gain for other more effective technology. Just a note: half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945 were credited to the 40 mm/Mark 51 Gun Director system combo. Source is Navweaps. According to the AAA Summary from Hyperwar, the 5 " with VT fuse fired 75,961 round with 207.5 kills for 1945. The 40 mm for the same year, had 718,699 rounds with 476.5 kills. The same article states that the 40 mm was the most effective weapon in the fleet. I would replace the 5 " guns and add more 40 mm. Rounds per bird is useless, only the kills matter. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.html
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Sept 5, 2016 22:09:16 GMT -6
As far as the air wings, I'm assuming you're referring to the IJN, which sat out Zuikaku at Midawy because her air group had been mauled at Coral Sea. The US by contrast used Saratoga's air wing and surviving aircraft and pilots from Lexington to replace losses on the Yorktown. Yes, that's what I was referring to. Of course you could always go back even farther and not allow politics and internal rivalries to allow the 1st Mobile Striking Fleet to be split up prior to Midway in the first place. Then you don't risk your two best carriers in a useless side show. Oh, that brings up an idea for RTW2 I need to put on the suggestion thread.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 5, 2016 22:33:20 GMT -6
I believe that adding more 40 mm Bofors and providing more CAP fighters would have been much more effective. I just like to have the deck clear of turrets and use the room and weight gain for other more effective technology. Just a note: half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945 were credited to the 40 mm/Mark 51 Gun Director system combo. Source is Navweaps. According to the AAA Summary from Hyperwar, the 5 " with VT fuse fired 75,961 round with 207.5 kills for 1945. The 40 mm for the same year, had 718,699 rounds with 476.5 kills. The same article states that the 40 mm was the most effective weapon in the fleet. I would replace the 5 " guns and add more 40 mm. Rounds per bird is useless, only the kills matter. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.htmlI was having a gander at the ammunition-based AA performance tables in Naval Weapons of WW2, and it has 40mm accounting for 41 per cent of attacking aircraft shot down Oct 44 through end Jan 45, but this proportion was higher for Kamikaze attacks (49.6 per cent) than non-Kamikaze (29.3 per cent). The 5"/38 accounted for 34.1 per cent of non-Kamikaze, and the 20mm 32.2 per cent. That said, I'd keep at least a separate long-range and close-in AA system on a ship I wanted to defend (such as a carrier , as my understanding (limited, so by all means enlighten me) is that they don't serve exactly the same role (something which those figures at least suggest). On the issues with British carrier development, I'd bet a lot of the issue was the aircraft not being in Admiralty control from the early 1920s to 1937 (I think, head hazy, but about then). As Director mentioned in the suggestions thread, this had a huge impact on the development of things, and when those carriers were designed, it wouldn't have been guaranteed the Navy would get control of their planes back. In that context, designing a 'big' carrier that they were unlikely to have aircraft for doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense (unless they can see into the future, but that'd be cheating . As per that thread, though, I'm not sure how you'd model something like that in-game, unlike armoured/non-armoured decks (where I think there is a discussion because there are legitimate arguments from both angles), Naval control of carrier air looks to be a no-brainer in hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 5, 2016 23:08:51 GMT -6
I believe that adding more 40 mm Bofors and providing more CAP fighters would have been much more effective. I just like to have the deck clear of turrets and use the room and weight gain for other more effective technology. Just a note: half of all Japanese aircraft shot down between 1 October 1944 and 1 February 1945 were credited to the 40 mm/Mark 51 Gun Director system combo. Source is Navweaps. According to the AAA Summary from Hyperwar, the 5 " with VT fuse fired 75,961 round with 207.5 kills for 1945. The 40 mm for the same year, had 718,699 rounds with 476.5 kills. The same article states that the 40 mm was the most effective weapon in the fleet. I would replace the 5 " guns and add more 40 mm. Rounds per bird is useless, only the kills matter. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/index.htmlI was having a gander at the ammunition-based AA performance tables in Naval Weapons of WW2, and it has 40mm accounting for 41 per cent of attacking aircraft shot down Oct 44 through end Jan 45, but this proportion was higher for Kamikaze attacks (49.6 per cent) than non-Kamikaze (29.3 per cent). The 5"/38 accounted for 34.1 per cent of non-Kamikaze, and the 20mm 32.2 per cent. That said, I'd keep at least a separate long-range and close-in AA system on a ship I wanted to defend (such as a carrier , as my understanding (limited, so by all means enlighten me) is that they don't serve exactly the same role (something which those figures at least suggest). On the issues with British carrier development, I'd bet a lot of the issue was the aircraft not being in Admiralty control from the early 1920s to 1937 (I think, head hazy, but about then). As Director mentioned in the suggestions thread, this had a huge impact on the development of things, and when those carriers were designed, it wouldn't have been guaranteed the Navy would get control of their planes back. In that context, designing a 'big' carrier that they were unlikely to have aircraft for doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense (unless they can see into the future, but that'd be cheating . As per that thread, though, I'm not sure how you'd model something like that in-game, unlike armoured/non-armoured decks (where I think there is a discussion because there are legitimate arguments from both angles), Naval control of carrier air looks to be a no-brainer in hindsight. Your best defense against the Divine Wind was your escorts and your defensive fighters. If any aircraft gets through, then the 40 mm is the best weapon to deal with it. The more of those you have, the more effective your close range defensive fire power is, believe me. The escorts have the longer ranged 5 " 38 caliber weapons, it is a dual purpose weapon and really does not belong on a carrier. Naval control of its aircraft and hence, carriers is, as you say, a no brainer. But the real story is very complex and starts at the end of WWI. It had to do with budgets, a lack of foresight in the RN, plus a failure to take quantum leaps in technological changes and last, a failure to test at sea the ideas, like the US and Japan did.
|
|