Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Medium bombers on CVs

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Medium bombers on CVs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Medium bombers on CVs - 12/7/2012 3:49:31 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline 		The US conducted trials with the PBJ-1H (B-25H) on the carrier Shangri-La in 1944 that were successful. These tests included landing, take-off using a catapult and movement around the hanger deck.



Is it possible to model this effectively in the game?

I wouldn't want to see a 70+ medium bomber load on a single carrier, and I don't know if there is a way to have an aircraft fill more than one aircraft slot on a vessel.

Am I missing any other problems with just making a carrier capable group equipped with this plane?
Post #: 1
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/7/2012 4:36:28 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is entirely true.

It all dates from the Doolittle Raid. The deal was cut - if the Navy cooperated with the raiders- they would get B-25 variants for the Marines.
It was feared we might have basing problems and need to stand off with carriers later on.

We didn't - so the development was not rushed - and the technical demonstration was merely for the record. There was no operational requirement.
But had there been, it was a possible thing.

One can define a medium bomber as a carrier plane. The PBJ is the best candidate - as it was intended for that role.

However, it isn't the real limit. Aside from C-47s used from carriers post war (in Antarctica, Operation Deep Freeze I think)

there is the case of C-130s - which were successfully tested with both take off and landing at FULL load! Without arrester gear!
[But it takes the whole deck to be safe] It was decided not to exploit that either - but it could be if needs be.


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 2
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/7/2012 8:38:13 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		The PBJ was not intended for this role, it was aland based medium used soley by USMC squadrons.

However ONE aircraft was equipped for a trial.

From the amazing Joe Baugher

PBH-1H 43-4700 (BuNo 35277) was modified for aircraft carrier catapult launch and arrest retrievals. The first landings and catapult takeoffs took place aboard the USS Shangri La (CV-38) on November 15, 1944. Although the experiment was successful, no further work on a carrier-based Mitchell took place since American advances in the Pacific made such an aircraft unnecessary.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/8/2012 12:39:27 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		While in fact only one aircraft was equipped and tested, that was not the original reason or intent in the PBJ program - which dates to
the DoLittle Raid. The reason only one plane was so equipped is that it was a technical demonstration/test of a capability no longer needed.

If you add a PBJ carrier variant, it should be a different plane from the land based one. It should be a supplimentary program and should rob
numbers from the land based production variant - or perhaps from AAF bomber production.

The idea was really quite similar to the raid - carrier basing to permit longer range strikes than possible with carrier aircraft - except it was
to allow for landing back on the carriers. Presumably the whole idea would have been implemented in a similar way - with pairs of carriers -
one running cover for the other with the bombers - its air group struck below or even sent ashore.

It was one of many ideas in 1942 which didn't see fruition due to the course of events as they really unfolded. No one could know of the
Battle of Midway before the fact - or the innovations in airfield construction yet to come - or a host of other things. So things like the B-36 got
authorized. There are many projects that were later downgraded and robbed of materials and labor in favor of mass production of things more
useful in the circumstances that might have had a different situation if we were thrown back across the ocean.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 4
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/10/2012 9:53:39 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline 		I think you'd need a house rule that they took up 2-3 slots per bird.

OTOH the US carrier capacities are the minimum that can be historically defended; the Essex class were operating groups of 103 aircraft by 1945 (granted 73 of them were Hellcats). That's right on the 115% limit for their game capacity of 90. So I wouldn't hesitate to really load your flat tops up.

I'd love to see a report of how making PBJ's carrier capable worked out in game.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/10/2012 10:40:43 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline 		Oops - should have remembered this earlier:

The game has a hard-coded limit on how far a strike mission will fly from a carrier. IIRC it is 7 hexes for the Allies, but for sure it is less than that of late-war birds with drop tanks. So you'd be putting on a nice long range search bird, but you wouldn't get any advantage in strike range.

So I'm going to revise my answer to 'can you model this effectively in the game' to an unqualified "no."

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 6
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/11/2012 2:11:31 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline 		Thanks for the feedback.

My plan was to have it as a new model within the game. It probably would have had folding wings and that would have effected range and such. It would also have sucked production away from other bomber programs, but if the Navy would have needed it, I'm sure that they would have found the airframes for conversion somewhere.

Is the strike range limitation only for anti-shipping strikes, or does it effect strikes against ground, airfield and port targets as well?

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 7
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/11/2012 5:04:51 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Matedow, lets take this one step further. Lets say that the navy found a need for the planes, and put them on the Essex's. My guess would they would remove the TBF's and the DB's. Question is how many bombers could they put on there. 12 perhaps and still handle fighters or would they use them in pairs so the other carrier is providing CAP?

_____________________________


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 8
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/11/2012 5:44:40 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Matedow, lets take this one step further. Lets say that the navy found a need for the planes, and put them on the Essex's. My guess would they would remove the TBF's and the DB's. Question is how many bombers could they put on there. 12 perhaps and still handle fighters or would they use them in pairs so the other carrier is providing CAP?


My thought was that they would operate in 4 plane groups and replace 12 planes in the onboard strength. 3:1 on deck footprint seems reasonable if they are equipped with folding wings. That would give you 8 planes if you wanted to replace all 24 torpedo bombers, or dive bombers onboard.

That should be possible with the deck spotting requirements without requiring paired carrier operations.

Other than fulfilling a standoff land attack role, I think that these planes would give more bang in amphibious assault support with their heavy gun armament, loiter time and bomb load. If you keep 24 attack planes, that would still allow for naval strikes, and shouldn't effect the fighter load at all.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 9
RE: Medium bombers on CVs - 12/15/2012 7:55:47 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

Is the strike range limitation only for anti-shipping strikes, or does it effect strikes against ground, airfield and port targets as well?

I think it is for anti-shipping only. I have seen ZEROs sweeping from KB on extended range.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Medium bombers on CVs 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

0.719