WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Question for those of you owning and building carriers. What's the ideal mix of planes you look for in an air group? Half the capacity in fighters? Equal number of interceptors, dive bombers, and torpedo planes? Does the ratio vary according to the size of the carrier, or how many carriers your navy can operate?

Long technical essay follows

Depends.......(HoOhman isn't going to like this.)

The question is not what can WW carriers do, its what can WW planes do?

Well.........

That brings us to another question, what can WW plane armament do?

The WW carrier fighter as of 1936.

Still not equal to the WW land based types

General characteristics
Pilot 1
Engine 1 usually 700-1100 HP, 520-820 kW
Speed cruise about 150 knots combat, 75 m/s rarely exceeds 270 knots, 140 m/s.
Mission endurance 1 hour
Climb rate of about 16-23 ft/s, 5-7 m/s
Effective service ceiling rarely exceeds 23,000ft, 7000 meters
Turn radius varies wildly but usually at median DF speeds less than 1500 meters.
wing loading is about 10-23 kg/m^2.

Armament usually 2-4 machine guns equivalent to 8-13 mm.

The fighter is just adequate to deal with most land WW based anti-ship threats that surface navies face. I would be looking at faster climb rates and more endurance as a high priority item.

WW Dive bombers are simpler. Take your baseline fighter and reduce operating characteristics by 25-40% increase endurance to 200% and add a 500 kg bomb base line model bomb load. Most of the dive bombers I see out there based on historic Japanese or British designs are crap. Those based on the Dauntless or the Vengeance are excellent ship killers. If we get a navalized Stuka or Arado-WATCH OUT. The Italian R-2005 fighter converted to dive bombing is also a deadly little bird. I have some of my own RTL surprises, but those are MY surprises.

Torpedo planes: take the baseline fighter performance figures and reduce those by 50%, increase endurance to 125% and allot 1000 kilograms bombload. The only birds out there that qualify as decent, are the Swordfish and Kate clones. For now you have to worry about loft and that means BIPLANES. The aerial torpedoes available to you-even the 1939 Japanese ones are pathetic. You won't see open ocean warship killers for at least another three years.

So..........WW now......

Fighters-adequate.
Dive bombers-mostly suck at what they do with rare exceptions.
Torpedo planes-again suck at what they do, until you get better fish-which isn't anytime soon since we are looking at 2200lb-3300lb, 1000-1500 kilogram torpedoes.

WW surface ship flak is as bad as RTL ship flak was, so your fleet air defense will still have to be fighter-based.

THAT is why you need carriers HoOhman.

Air defense and scouting.
Carrier size? This is measured in aircraft capacity, so 40 should do for now, mixed half and half; fighters and dive bombers. Your dive bombers are your scouts. Don't forget your slow launch rates and your current poor aircraft endurance, so you will have a scout radius of about 160,000 meters-unless you are the Japanese in which case it is 300,000 meters.

ASW.
Carrier size can be as small as 15 aircraft, though I would aim for 24. 1/3 fighters and 2/3 torpedo planes. You need the torpedo planes' extra bomb loads to drop clusters of depth charges on diving submarines.

Anti-ship or strke:

Not quite there yet: The Essex monsters don't have the right planes yet, but if they ever get here; 1/2 fighters, 1/4 dive bombers, and 1/4 torpedo planes. Trust me you will NEED those fighters, if Avenger clones ever show up.

Quoted

I still don´t understand why there are so many carriers build in WesWorld - especially by nations that can hardly afford any large navy anyway and thus put all their money on a yet unproven concept.

The South American war failed to prove a carrier is a formidable strike platform. You may attack anchored targets with success but so can you with land based planes. At sea no carrier has proven to be superior to even an old and mediocre capital ship. Heck, there have been reports those carrier planes could not even sink merchants and had to call for a cruiser doing the job.

In maneuvers carriers may have shown some potential but the only life fire test with sustained carrier operations, the ultimate test, they failed as it seems. So I think realistically any nation that muses about putting most of its money into one single large design should and would focus on any kind of capital ship or at least super-cruiser, not a carrier. But this is not the case obviously....

So please all of you who design and build (large) carriers:

What´s the reason nations rate the carrier so high? Especially those with no (WW) history in developing carrier based aviation but an interest to buy relatively large (15ooots and more) vessels? There is not much testing with small or converted ships. No, you obviously aim for the big ones. But why (other than hindsight of course)?

Just curious,

HoOmAn

Peru notes that current carriers can operate aircraft in sea states that hobble surface ship-launched scout planes, and that it is suicide to operate fleets without air defense against enemy naval scout or spotting planes.

See first, evade first, or pursue first.

RECONNAISSANCE.

Then there is the convoy defense and attack mission: where do you want to see and drive down the surfaced enemy submarine? 5000 meters away or 50,000 meters away? Can't sink them yet, but you sure can mess them up with depth charges and machine gun fire from the air with what you have now.

Same deal is there for enemy merchant ships. A carrier can shatter a scattered convoy that can easily evade a surface raider. Surface raider gets one. Carrier air wing shoots up a dozen and cripples them, and there is nothing the surface gun ship escort can do to stop it; if the carrier is beyond surface gun range.

H.

Peru NOW has a rational assigned ASW mission in the East Pacific.

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Anyway, refering to the orriginal topic Atlantis operates three carriers at present with 2 more acting as training carriers. Typically Atlantis has its airgroups split roughly 50/50 between fighters and attack aircraft, with torpedo bombers representing the majority of the attack types.

This is not logical, your best torpedo plane the ANAF TBN-8 still isn't good enough to justify these large torpedo plane strike complements. 819 miles? Cut that into fourths......200 miles? And what torpedo are you using? If you are using a Devastator clone that has got to be a Mark XV clone as your tech limit........

Quoted

Alioth aircraft compliment: Max 55, typically 24 fighters, 12 bombers, 19 scout-torpedo bombers

trade war and fleet defense.

Quoted

Arrogant class aircraft compliment: Max 84, peacetime operational 72, typically 42 fighters, 18 bombers, 24 scout-torpedo bombers

fleet attack type.

Quoted

The training CV Nautica was designed to be able to be refitted to act as a trade protection CV and carry a similar number of aircraft as the Alioth, whom she resembles size wise. Alioth on the other hand has proven that size does matter with fleet carriers and eventually will act as an escort for the fleet carriers trading some of her attack aircraft for more fighters.

Something like a Chiyoda. I will not comment on this since that is not a lesson learned yet.

Quoted

The current Atlantean naval plans call for 4-6 new fleet CV's and several trade protection CVL's.

You might want to seriously rethink that build program.

Quoted

Arcturus class aircraft compliment: Max 75, typically 30 fighters, 18 bombers, 24 scout-torpedo bombers

Soryu or Hiryu clone. KABOOM!

H.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Anyway, refering to the orriginal topic Atlantis operates three carriers at present with 2 more acting as training carriers. Typically Atlantis has its airgroups split roughly 50/50 between fighters and attack aircraft, with torpedo bombers representing the majority of the attack types.

This is not logical, your best torpedo plane the ANAF TBN-8 still isn't good enough to justify these large torpedo plane strike complements. 819 miles? Cut that into fourths......200 miles? And what torpedo are you using? If you are using a Devastator clone that has got to be a Mark XV clone as your tech limit.........

Initial Torpedo bombers shipped, the TBN-6 Sea darts, acted as scouts. Currently the Banshee's fulfill that role given their longer range. It is interesting that you note the range issue. Something that is currently an issue with Atlantean naval aircraft.

I don't think in terms of range, but in terms of hours aloft. Before you estimate fuel use you subtract a fourth of your aloft burdened endurance to give you your safety margin. Then you compute fuel use off what's left. Land based aircraft, you then think in the rule of thirds-1/3 to get there, 1/3 to fight, and 1/3 to get back. With carrier aircraft, its rule of fourths, 1/4 to form up, 1/4 to get out there, 1/4 to fight, and 1/4 to get back; and that is after you subtracted the initial 1/4 reserve cushion from both types to make sure you have enough fuel in case you use more than you normally estimate at your cruise endurance. A carrier plane with a book ranger of 819 miles actually has a flight endurance of 4 hours and cannot afford to fly out more than thirty minutes to an hour from its carrier at cruise speed. That is about 100-150 miles 160- 220 kilometers MAXIMUM.

Quoted

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Alioth aircraft compliment: Max 55, typically 24 fighters, 12 bombers, 19 scout-torpedo bombers

trade war and fleet defense.

Quoted

Arrogant class aircraft compliment: Max 84, peacetime operational 72, typically 42 fighters, 18 bombers, 24 scout-torpedo bombers

fleet attack type.

Correct.

You did read my comments about WW carrier planes? You have to mass carriers to mass the effect of your air attacks. Three or more would be about right to saturate an enemy defense and to bring enough planes to bear to sink a few ships. Rough rule of thumb-you need at least ten bombing planes to cripple one ship-based on the Rio de Janeiro raid reports. A ship that needs six torpedo hits will need at least twelve torpedo planes! The attack carriers are not quite there yet.

Quoted

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassinThe training CV Nautica was designed to be able to be refitted to act as a trade protection CV and carry a similar number of aircraft as the Alioth, whom she resembles size wise. Alioth on the other hand has proven that size does matter with fleet carriers and eventually will act as an escort for the fleet carriers trading some of her attack aircraft for more fighters.

Something like a Chiyoda. I will not comment on this since that is not a lesson learned yet.

Somewhat. You could argue that she's a shadow carrier but the original idea was to provide a training CV that could be converted in an emergency. Not an ideal provision but

Still won't comment on the lesson, since it hasn't been learned yet, but I wonder if the Atlanteans have thought about (if you read above what I said) about aviation defense ships (Princetons)?

Quoted

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
The current Atlantean naval plans call for 4-6 new fleet CV's and several trade protection CVL's.

You might want to seriously rethink that build program.

Why? Not meglomanical enough? The key word here is "current", plans can change when needed.

WW I naval lessons learned. Atlantis is an island! You don't need attack carriers.........as much as you need trade defense ships.

Quoted

Quoted

Originally posted by howard

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Arcturus class aircraft compliment: Max 75, typically 30 fighters, 18 bombers, 24 scout-torpedo bombers

Soryu or Hiryu clone. KABOOM!
H.

The historical Soryu's were 7,000 tons lighter. Yorktown is a more applicable comparison.

No its not. Look at your protection scheme. Floating bombs you've built there.

H.