You are not logged in.

1

Friday, September 3rd 2004, 10:59pm

Aviation in the 1920's

I've just finished reading a book about naval aviation in WWI. I'll just give you a quick summary.

-seaplanes aren't very good unless they can can actually take off onboard ship. When landing, floats tend to break a lot. can't take off/land on calm or rough seas.

-bombing, both level and dive, is a complete farce. you'll never hit anything.

-torpedo bombing worked some of the time, at others, torpedoes malfunction etc.

-planes are very rudimental. These aircraft carriers we are designing may be able to carry 72planes but you'll mabe only get half that amount off the deck, and half of that back again due to mechanical failure, propellors destructing, oil leaks, just being fairly crap in general.


People here are putting too much faith into their carrier designs. It really isn't that simple. No country had it worked out until 1930+ when mechanical failure was less common.

2

Friday, September 3rd 2004, 11:45pm

seems like Loki wasn't such a bad idea after all!!
(Mental note, build more Lokii!!)

3

Saturday, September 4th 2004, 3:10am

What book is this? Sounds interesting.

I don't disagree that we're probably over-emphasizing the value of naval aviation at this time. Some of us are more dependent on carriers than others, with some of us now operating or building a handful. It's worth noting that the Lexingtons, Kaga, and Akagi weren't even converted at this time, yet we have some carriers afloat that are just as large.

I figure we'll have to see some carriers in action to see just how limited they are...

Commodore: No more Lokis for you!

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

4

Saturday, September 4th 2004, 3:17am

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
What book is this? Sounds interesting.

I don't disagree that we're probably over-emphasizing the value of naval aviation at this time. Some of us are more dependent on carriers than others, with some of us now operating or building a handful. It's worth noting that the Lexingtons, Kaga, and Akagi weren't even converted at this time, yet we have some carriers afloat that are just as large.

I figure we'll have to see some carriers in action to see just how limited they are...

Commodore: No more Lokis for you!


I second the question for more info on that book! :oP

Regarding carriers I also agree. We just reached 1924 after all. Too early for large carriers methinks but having some around already makes things more interesting. So keep ´em coming... :o)

5

Saturday, September 4th 2004, 8:57am

"It's worth noting that the Lexingtons, Kaga, and Akagi weren't even converted at this time, yet we have some carriers afloat that are just as large."

Yes carriers, amoung other ship types, are also about 5 years before their time in the sim. I suppose some of this could be attributed to all the extra nations building credible navy's, pushing warship design slightly faster than historical.

While the Carriers of Atlantis may seem advanced they still don't possess efficient arrestor wires, can't carry the designed 72 aircraft and of course have those flying off decks forward which were abandoned in historical designs early, but the ships size is what makes them reasonably effective.

The planes used, in comparasin, are even more rudimental, all you have to do is look at the current plane designs of Atlantis and you'll see this.

"I figure we'll have to see some carriers in action to see just how limited they are..."

Well we do have enough of them in the sim to find out! In 4/5 years we will have even more....

6

Saturday, September 4th 2004, 10:05am

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN…2856388-7926228

I'll go into the book a bit more when i get in tonight.

7

Saturday, September 4th 2004, 10:16am

Quoted

Originally posted by The Rock Doctor
Commodore: No more Lokis for you!


Aaaah, but why???????