Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

American Seaplane Carriers!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> American Seaplane Carriers! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/16/2007 5:43:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		WITP seems to have always combined the Curtiss and Currituck classes - which were similar but not identical.
They have the wrong armament - the quad 1.1 inch are missing and there are too many .50 cals. Later the quad
40 mm are not present in their proper configurations - and apparently there were no lighter guns.

Both these classes - and other large and small classes - were really CS type ships - with catapults to launch USMC dive bombers fitted with floats! Not sure how to handle this yet - BUT I have long been rating USS Langley as an AV with aircraft ordnance - and it works. I have separated Curtiss and Currituck classes - givein them the right speed, fuel and armament (early and late) - and defined them as CS in the BBO scenario set - and left them as AV in the CVO scenario set (which includes EOS). In the BBO set they will get a squadron of floatplanes that converts to the Wild Catfish seaplane fighter when it becomes available. I will see what can be done to give USMC float fitted dive bombers ??? Is there such a thing in WITP???? Since they were not USED this way - in spite of being built this way - they will be rated as AV for the CVO scenarios - in case that helps them support flying boats better. It appears rating them as CS helps them operate floatplanes at sea better - but they also carry them and operate them as AVs. I am not certain if in AV form they are restricted to being anchored for this? The manual seems to say only two classes of Japanese AV act as CS - presumably hard coded by slot.
Post #: 1
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/16/2007 6:51:12 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Are you saying that the Curtis class could launch USMC dive bombers? If you are, I believe you are wrong. The Curtis could not launch any aircraft. They acted only as a mother ship. They had cranes to pick up seaplanes to work on them.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/16/2007 7:29:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Yep. In 1940 USMC developed a concept of working from forward locations without airstrips. The dive bombers were to be fitted with floats and operated from "seaplane carriers" - which ALL the existing ships were designed to do. To that end they had a catapult to launch them. What the ships could NOT do was land them! Hence the floats - so the cranes could pick them up. Once an airfield was available the planes would operate without floats. And, indeed, for attack (vice patrol, recon, scouting work) the planes ALSO could operate without floats - but they then had to ditch on return - and it would be iffy if the plane were recovered or not in that case. Still - they could attack at full non-float plane speed - an interesting concept.

Further - I have figured out how to do this in the game system. I will implement it in the BBO scenario set - but not in the CVO scenario set. As always - we offer options.

Conway's first put me on to this.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/16/2007 7:30:06 PM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 3
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/16/2007 7:43:02 PM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		Well, I learn something new everyday because that's the first time I've heard of that.  But... it's not really surprising given all the little gimmicks that the services were testing and experimenting with in the 1930's.

_____________________________

SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/16/2007 10:50:22 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
That's the first time I've heard of it too, and I served on the Norton Sound for two years.

There were a number of plans made pre-war for conversion of standard single-engine aircraft types into floatplanes. Prototype conversions were made for F4F and TBD, and probably others. None of it ever went into production but it is not surprising that it would be considered for use with AVs.

Norton Sound did not carry a catapult, and I have no reason to believe that Currituck or any other purpose-built AV did. They were heavy, consuming of deck space, and would restrict the hoisting of seaplanes on and off of the maintenance deck.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/16/2007 11:05:02 PM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		Can't imagine how bad a TBD's performance would be hauling some big floats. The thing was a flying sloth to begin with.

_____________________________

SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 6
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/17/2007 12:28:27 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline 		My understanding is that the Curritucks were designed with a catapult but the design was changed while they were still under construction.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 7
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/17/2007 1:49:11 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Even if this is correct - in BBO that design is the one implemented - since thinking didn't change as fast as IRL. In that case, my classification as CS in the BBO set but AV in the CVO set is more justified - since it isn't just a matter of use but of equipment.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/17/2007 1:51:00 AM >

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 8
RE: American Seaplane Carriers! - 6/17/2007 4:25:09 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		The XSB2C-2 was an experimental float plane version of the Helldiver.  If there were plans to put dive bombers on AVs, it was probably this.  The SB2C was supposed to enter service about the same time as the TBF.  The Navy thought its introduction was imminent when they first got SBDs so they quickly passed on the SBDs to the Marines.  Only when the SB2C program ran into snags did the Navy reconsider the SBD.

The TBD is a dog in WitP, but it was a radical advancement in carrier aviation when it first flew in 1935.  It was one of the fastest carrier planes in the world when it was introduced, the first all metal monoplane ordered by the USN, and the first monoplane to operate from US carriers.  It was simply completely obsolete by the start of the Pacific War.  It had been overtaken by the massive changes in aircraft in the 1930s.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> American Seaplane Carriers! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.218