Planes on carriers

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Planes on 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 >> Planes on carriers

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Planes on carriers - 4/15/2003 7:47:40 AM

Joe Kemper

Posts: 54
Joined: 11/1/2000
Status: offline

Currently in UV you can't damage or destroy aircraft on carriers other than sinking the ship.

Are there any plans in WITP to be able to bomb carriers that have planes on board and maybe damage or destroy some of the planes(just like on land airfields)?

Thanks

Post #: 1

- 4/16/2003 3:14:37 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Several preposals are on the board for enhancing the damage model for WitP.

No gurantees of change at this point however.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 2

- 4/16/2003 6:05:59 AM

Joe Kemper

Posts: 54
Joined: 11/1/2000
Status: offline

Thanks Nikademus.......it's good to know that they are considering changes. I hope that one makes it!

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 3

- 4/17/2003 3:57:18 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

Everything is considered... if something is posted on the board that seems worthwhile one of the testers will add it to the development boards. Usually the developers themselves are too busy to be reading everything in the public boards.
If the developers read it and it seems worthwhile it will be added to their list of features/changes they want to make. Unfortunately their list is very long so the value of the item and how much work would go into implementing it is taken into consideration as well.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 4

- 4/17/2003 7:21:46 AM

Joe Kemper

Posts: 54
Joined: 11/1/2000
Status: offline

Appreciate the comment Snigbert. Any loose lips aboard the Matrix/2by3 ship that might pass on a short list of likely changes. If not, just slip the list to the Pentagon and I'll read it in tomorrows paper.:)

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 5

- 4/17/2003 10:12:20 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

'The List' is coded and kept by Gary Grigsby in a wall safe beind his oil painting of Admiral Halsey.
Every time the list changes they alter the code and Gary eats the previous copy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 6

- 4/21/2003 4:05:23 AM

Cmdrcain

Posts: 1161
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Status: offline

Seems to me, planes being armed on carriers should if carrier hit have resulting damage to planes and carriers, its how most Japanese carriers at Midway got sunk...

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 7

- 4/21/2003 11:55:26 AM

showboat1

Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline

Actually I belive they were sunk by that one specialty that the US dominated, the art of dive bombing! Yes, the F4F was slow, stubby, underpowered, and.. initially ..underarmed. Yes, the TBD was a coffin with wings that had a better chance of damaging ships if they threw spitballs and left the torpedoes at home. BUT!!!!..... the SBD Dauntless was an exquisite example of aircraft design and manufacturing. And the divebomber pilots of the US Naval Aviation service were the best in the world at hitting moving ships on the open sea. Those 1000lb. armor piercing bombs worked wonders as well. A heck of alot better than those puny little 250kg bombs toted around by the Aichi99 Val's used by the IJN. Hail the Divebombers!!!!!!!!!

Beer for the likes of Wade McCluskey, Richard Best, Earl Gallaher, and Max Leslie!!!!!:D

_____________________________

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 Joe Kemper)

Post #: 8

- 4/24/2003 10:23:22 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Actually, the US didn't dominate it. While I like the SBD-3 Dauntless (I hate the SB2U and SB2C.... stupid Vindicators and Helldivers), in 1942 it was a woefully obsolete aircraft, by any standards. That's not saying the Type 99 carrier attack plane (Allied D3A "Val") wasn't, but all that made it good was that it was the best model we had. To say the SBD was an "exquisite example of aircraft design and manufacturing." you would have to say the same thing about the TBD, which was a great aircraft (in 1937) but woefully obselete when it was used. What made the SBD a great divebomber and airplane in general was: 1) Ease of flight (especially compared to the later Helldiver), 2) Modern landing gear (see Type 99 Val), 3), better durability (Compared to the SB2 Vindicator, also known as the "Vibrator. No, Im not being perverted), and 4) in late WW2 the ability to operate off CVEs, something that Helldivers couldn't do.

As far as Midway, we (the United States) got lucky. No CAP (brought down by VT-8 and a compined attack by VT-3 and VF-3), all the planes on deck armed with AVGAS and ordanced just hastily pushed aside from constant rearming, and as such the decks were a time bomb. One measly 500lb GP bomb would have caused them to go up. Also, the inneffective Japanese damage control (defeatist tactics) did little to stave off disaster.

BTW, remember that the 250kg bombs are roughly equivelent to about 550lb, not exactly ship killers, but not measly either. Besides, they did a good enough job on the Lexington, Hornet, and Yorktown (yes, I know Yorktown was eventually sunk by I-168).

On another note remember that another plane participated at Midway and was also badly mauled, yet proved to be the most versatle torpedo bomber of the war: the TBF-1 Avenger.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 9

- 4/24/2003 12:40:14 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tankerace
[B]Actually, the US didn't dominate it. While I like the SBD-3 Dauntless (I hate the SB2U and SB2C.... stupid Vindicators and Helldivers), in 1942 it was a woefully obsolete aircraft, by any standards. That's not saying the Type 99 carrier attack plane (Allied D3A "Val") wasn't, but all that made it good was that it was the best model we had. To say the SBD was an "exquisite example of aircraft design and manufacturing." you would have to say the same thing about the TBD, which was a great aircraft (in 1937) but woefully obselete when it was used. What made the SBD a great divebomber and airplane in general was: 1) Ease of flight (especially compared to the later Helldiver), 2) Modern landing gear (see Type 99 Val), 3), better durability (Compared to the SB2 Vindicator, also known as the "Vibrator. No, Im not being perverted), and 4) in late WW2 the ability to operate off CVEs, something that Helldivers couldn't do.
Woefully obsolete by any standards? Without even half trying, I can think of at least two standards of measure by which the SBD was not "woefully obsolete" in 1942. It's true that if you measure the SBD's speed and agility vs. contemporary fighters, then the SBD comes out looking pretty sad. There's just one problem with that: the SBD was not a fighter. Range/payload and stability in the dive were much more important for the SBD's actual mission, and - hey! - the SBD looks pretty good in those areas. (And on the durability and defensive firepower fronts, too, though those aren't strictly performance issues.) So that's the first. For the second, look at what other nations were using as dive bombers in 1942 - basically, the Val and the Stuka (the RN having abandoned the VB mission more or less entirely by then). If the SBD was "woefully obsolete," how would you desribe these two aircraft, which were inferior to it pretty much across the board? No, the SBD was about the least obsolete dive-bomber in service anywhere in 1942. I might not describe the SBD as "exquisite," but it certainly at least merits the title of "classic" - and not just in the sense of "old," as the word is usually (mis)used today, but in the original sense of "that which sets the standard by which the rest are judged."

quote:

As far as Midway, we (the United States) got lucky. No CAP (brought down by VT-8 and a compined attack by VT-3 and VF-3), all the planes on deck armed with AVGAS and ordanced just hastily pushed aside from constant rearming, and as such the decks were a time bomb. One measly 500lb GP bomb would have caused them to go up. Also, the inneffective Japanese damage control (defeatist tactics) did little to stave off disaster.

Sure there was some luck involved. There were a lot of other things involved that weren't luck, though. It wasn't luck that the US spent years trying to figure out the Japanese codes; it wasn't luck that they eventually succeeded. It wasn't luck that caused Yamamoto to formulate such a hideous operational plan, nor was it luck when said plan came off the rails. The uncoordinated, piecemeal attacks were bad luck for the USN, as a coordinated strike with fighters escorting the dive and torpedo bombers would have broken through the Japanese CAP (neither side was capable of stopping such a strike at this point in the war) and acheived similar results at a much lower cost, particularly to the VT squadrons (of course); the miserable weather that caused flights to become separated en route to the target area (or miss each other entirely) was bad luck, but par for the course for the North Pacific. The failure of Tone's scout plane to launch on time was bad luck for the Japanese, but Japan's failure to develop an adequate scouting doctrine was not luck. And if we were lucky to catch the hangar decks of Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu full of fueled- and bombed-up aircraft and improperly stowed ordnance, there still remains the question: What was Hiryu's excuse?

quote:

BTW, remember that the 250kg bombs are roughly equivelent to about 550lb, not exactly ship killers, but not measly either. Besides, they did a good enough job on the Lexington, Hornet, and Yorktown (yes, I know Yorktown was eventually sunk by I-168).

The fatal damage to all four US CVs lost in 1942 was inflicted by torpedos. Wasp was lost to sub-launched torpedos, Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet to aerial torpedos plus (respectively) massive AVGAS explosions, sub-launched torpedoes, and surface gunfire and torpedos. The Vals did occasionally manage to slow a flattop down, thereby allowing the torpedo-shooters to score; but the most they rated was a couple of assists. No goals - when the Vals were on target but the Kates missed the mark (which happened a couple of times) the US CV got away to fight another day. Every time.

quote:

On another note remember that another plane participated at Midway and was also badly mauled, yet proved to be the most versatle torpedo bomber of the war: the TBF-1 Avenger. [/B][/QUOTE]
Which brings me back to the first point. In terms of speed and maneuverability, the Avenger was scarcely better than the "woefully obsolescent" SBD. And yet the TBF became a Great Plane, why? Because speed and agility weren't key performance parameters for its designed mission - the TBF did the things it did need to do well enough.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 10

- 4/25/2003 12:40:31 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Woefully obsolete by any standards? Without even half trying, I can think of at least two standards of measure by which the SBD was not "woefully obsolete" in 1942. It's true that if you measure the SBD's speed and agility vs. contemporary fighters, then the SBD comes out looking pretty sad. There's just one problem with that: the SBD was not a fighter. Range/payload and stability in the dive were much more important for the SBD's actual mission, and - hey! - the SBD looks pretty good in those areas. (And on the durability and defensive firepower fronts, too, though those aren't strictly performance issues.) So that's the first. For the second, look at what other nations were using as dive bombers in 1942 - basically, the Val and the Stuka (the RN having abandoned the VB mission more or less entirely by then). If the SBD was "woefully obsolete," how would you desribe these two aircraft, which were inferior to it pretty much across the board? No, the SBD was about the least obsolete dive-bomber in service anywhere in 1942. I might not describe the SBD as "exquisite," but it certainly at least merits the title of "classic" - and not just in the sense of "old," as the word is usually (mis)used today, but in the original sense of "that which sets the standard by which the rest are judged."[/QUOTE]

First of all, I never compared the SBD to a fighter. As an aircraft, it was using an older engine, an older designed airframe, had shorter range than the Val, and the plane had design generations since 1937. That's what makes it obsolete. Even the navy said so, hence their research into developing a better divebomber, with more payload, an enclosed bomb bay, a more powerful engine, heavier armament, and longer range. It was those reasons that made it obsolete, not comparing it to a fighter. And yes, as I hinted, the Stuka, Val (and no, the RN did NOT give up divebombing, they used the blackburn Skua) were obsolete, for the same reasons as the SBD but also due to fixed landing gear. Yes, the SBD was [I]the least[/I] obsolete, but still obsolete nonetheless. However, as it proved, in most respects (not all), the SBD turned out to be a better aircraft than its replacement, the Helldiver. This doesn't mean its not obsolete, just the replacement wasn't good enough.

[QUOTE]Sure there was some luck involved. There were a lot of other things involved that weren't luck, though. It wasn't luck that the US spent years trying to figure out the Japanese codes; it wasn't luck that they eventually succeeded. It wasn't luck that caused Yamamoto to formulate such a hideous operational plan, nor was it luck when said plan came off the rails. The uncoordinated, piecemeal attacks were bad luck for the USN, as a coordinated strike with fighters escorting the dive and torpedo bombers would have broken through the Japanese CAP (neither side was capable of stopping such a strike at this point in the war) and acheived similar results at a much lower cost, particularly to the VT squadrons (of course); the miserable weather that caused flights to become separated en route to the target area (or miss each other entirely) was bad luck, but par for the course for the North Pacific. The failure of Tone's scout plane to launch on time was bad luck for the Japanese, but Japan's failure to develop an adequate scouting doctrine was not luck. And if we were lucky to catch the hangar decks of Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu full of fueled- and bombed-up aircraft and improperly stowed ordnance, there still remains the question: What was Hiryu's excuse? [/QUOTE]

I am not saying the entire battle of Midway was luck, nor did I hint at that. What I said was that the quick destruction of 4 Japanese carriers due to relatively minor bomb hits [I]WAS[/I] brought about by luck. Hiryu'e "excuse" was two fold. It survived the bombing on June 4, 1942, due to hiding in a rain squall (much like Enterprise did during the Battle of Santa Cruz), and two herself was not only preparring for an attack when she was bombed, but also was a Washington Treaty compromise, being able to give punishment, but not receive it.

[QUOTE]The fatal damage to all four US CVs lost in 1942 was inflicted by torpedos. Wasp was lost to sub-launched torpedos, Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet to aerial torpedos plus (respectively) massive AVGAS explosions, sub-launched torpedoes, and surface gunfire and torpedos. The Vals did occasionally manage to slow a flattop down, thereby allowing the torpedo-shooters to score; but the most they rated was a couple of assists. No goals - when the Vals were on target but the Kates missed the mark (which happened a couple of times) the US CV got away to fight another day. Every time.[/QUOTE]

OK. first, the Wasp was sunk by Japanese submarine torpedoes, and hence was never mentioned by me. The Lexington was holed by torpedoes, but it was AVGAS explosions caused by ruptured gas lines which were in turned caused by bomb damage that did her in, and even then she was afloat and had to be scuttled. Yortown took torpedo hits and developed a bad list, but it was the bomb damaged received from the Hiryu which put her out of action. She still could have been saved if not for the I-168, but the main point I was and am trying to make is that she was put out of action by bombs, there by rendering her defenseless (unable to launch a CAP). Hornet went down to a fury of BOTH bombs and torpedoes, taking 3 bombs, 2 torpedoes, and 2 airplanes (while not kamikazes, both were shot down and subsequently plunged into the deck). Granted a later torpedo hit did her in where the Destroyer Andersen had to scuttle her. But the point that I tried to make and I think was misunderstood is that while the bombs themselves didn't [I]SINK[/I] the carriers, the werenevertheless large enough to [I]DAMAGE[/I] or [I]CRIPPLE[/I] the ship.

Also, I think its worth mentioning that of the 4 carriers sunk in 1942, the 2 that had been attacked soley by aircraft, irregardless of bombs or torpedos, had to be scuttled as opposed to simply sunk by there attackers.

OH, and BTW, no US carrier ever came under attack by an enemy surface warship. In fact, the only carrier in HISTORY to was HMS Courageous, when she was caught by Scharnhorst and Gneisnau in 1940.

[QUOTE]Which brings me back to the first point. In terms of speed and maneuverability, the Avenger was scarcely better than the "woefully obsolescent" SBD. And yet the TBF became a Great Plane, why? Because speed and agility weren't key performance parameters for its designed mission - the TBF did the things it did need to do well enough.[/QUOTE]

Speed and agility have nothing to do with a bomber, and therefore can't really be used as a factor in determing if a bomber is great or not. What made it good was armament, ability to mount radar ( for guiding night flying F6Fs, ability to carry 1000lb and 500lb bombs, torpedoes, 5" rockets, or depth charges (something other torpedo bombers couldn't do), great range, and a powerful engine (about the same used by the P-47). Again, some of these things, most notably engine and range, the SBD lacked in comparison to the Helldiver, both things you really need in the Pacific. It has nothing to do with Speed and agility. Bombers as a whole are not agile, and don't need a lot of speed. They do need a powerful engine to carrier extra payload weights, and a long range to launch attacks from longer distances.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 11

- 4/25/2003 1:31:15 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I have to agree with CynicAl on this one. If the Dauntless was the least obsolete, then it wasn't really obsolete in my opinion. Least obsolete is kind of a contradictory term in my book.
The Dauntless had a fairly good success rate compared to the Val, Stuka, and Vindicators...I would rate it at the top of it's class there.
Simply because the Dauntless doesnt incorporate the latest in design/technology of 1942 (it's only what, 5 years old at that point?) doesnt mean it is obsolete. For example, the A-10 Warthog used by the US currently has generally speaking old technology, but it is one of the best tank-busters in the world. It has the right technology to perform it's role. So too did the Dauntless.
Actually, after rereading the thread I think you both more or less agree...

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 12

- 4/25/2003 2:34:12 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Believe it or not, I too believe we are in agreeance. My stance on its obsolescence is based on the fact that the navy classified it as such at the time, not the fact that it was a bad aircraft (I am of the firm believe that, with the exception of payload flexibility and range, it was the best divebomber of the war). But obsolescence is a tricky word. What I mean is, how do rate something as obsolete. Like you said, the A-10 has been in service for a decade or more. The B-52 longer than a century. Yet in WW2 the TBD (for example) was the best torpedo bomber in 1936, yet it is unanimously agreed then and now that it was junk when it went into combat. But why? It had crappy range, sure, but other than that, it was no different from any other torpedo bomber. IMO, I think the Dauntless is a mixed bag, and what I mean by that is on one hand, it was a great dive bomber up until 1945, yet on the other it was obsolete. It was very stable in a dive, had retractable landing gear, and in the end handled better than a Helldiver. Yet its range (while better than the TBD) was insuffiecent for "modern" (and I use that term loosely) carrier war. Vals and Kates had longer range than the SBDs and TBDs, forcing the Americans to come in "close".

Also, on the subject of obsolescence being a tricky word, look at the F4F and FM-2 Wildcats. Technically, an obsolete aircraft in 1942, it was no match for an A6M. Yet Jimmy Thatch and his boys of VF-3 put it to great use. The P-40, also a plane dubbed obsolescent by the USAAC, and look what the Flying Tigers did. Look at the Hurricanes during the battle of Britain, or the PZLs in Poland. They got creamed, and they were all obsolescent according to who made them, but they were still tough. Just because a plane is cream of the crop, doesn't mean it is the best, but because its the best of its class doesn't mean its not obsolescent either.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 13

- 4/25/2003 2:40:07 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Oh, BTW, just so you guys know, the reason I also called it obsolete, is go to Google or Yahoo and type SBD-3 Dauntless and search, and alsmost every page will quote it as a great plane, but also obsolete when it began service. THat is where I based the evidence for my post.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 14

JU87 - 4/25/2003 3:40:59 AM

Highlander

Posts: 50
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Germany
Status: offline

I think the best dive bomber was the Ju87 !!!
Here is a good comparison of some dive bombers :
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html
With his 1800kg bomb the Ju87 can kill every ship...

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 15

- 4/25/2003 4:15:42 AM

Micah Goodman

Posts: 197
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tankerace
[B]Like you said, the A-10 has been in service for a decade or more. The B-52 longer than a century. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure this was a typo on your part but just to clarify, the B-52 has not been in service for a century. It went into service in the late 50's to early 60�s. But hay 45 plus years is nothing to turn your nose up at either!

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 16

- 4/25/2003 11:48:29 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tankerace
[B]First of all, I never compared the SBD to a fighter. As an aircraft, it was using an older engine, an older designed airframe, had shorter range than the Val, and the plane had design generations since 1937. That's what makes it obsolete. Even the navy said so, hence their research into developing a better divebomber, with more payload, an enclosed bomb bay, a more powerful engine, heavier armament, and longer range. It was those reasons that made it obsolete, not comparing it to a fighter. And yes, as I hinted, the Stuka, Val (and no, the RN did NOT give up divebombing, they used the blackburn Skua) were obsolete, for the same reasons as the SBD but also due to fixed landing gear. Yes, the SBD was [I]the least[/I] obsolete, but still obsolete nonetheless. However, as it proved, in most respects (not all), the SBD turned out to be a better aircraft than its replacement, the Helldiver. This doesn't mean its not obsolete, just the replacement wasn't good enough.
On replacements: Of course the Navy was setting out requirements for the SBD's replacement even as the Dauntless entered service. That was standard practice - consider that the initial development work on the Navy's second generation monoplane fighter (which eventually resulted in the F4U and F6F) actually started a couple of years before the first generation (F2A and F4F) even entered the fleet, so that both the Chance-Vought and Grumman designs were pretty well along by the time of Pearl Harbor. Planning ahead didn't mean the new types were obsolete before they entered service, just that the Bureaus were being prudent. Much the same happened with ship design, for example - the new generation CV design, Essex was already under construction by the time CV-8 Hornet commissioned. So Hornet should have been obsolete before she even entered service - and yet even after the arrival of large numbers of Essex class ships, the Navy managed to find front-line duties for old Saratoga and Enterprise.

On contemporaries: Shorter range than the Val? How do you figure that? The maximum ranges for the Val and Dauntless were roughly similar, with the advantage actually going to the SBD - with an equivalent bombload. Of course the SBDs' range suffered when they carried their maximum payload; but on the other hand their max load was double that of the D3A, so a half-load still represented a useful capability. Also, the D3A and SBD were almost exactly contemporaneous - "Type 99" means the Val was accepted for service in 1939, just a few months ahead of the US plane... not enough to explain the significant differences in capability. Finally, the British relegated the Skua to training roles, without replacement, in the spring of 1941 - though Albacore and Barracuda pilots would continue to sporadically train in dive-bombing techniques beyond that point, by mid-1941 the RN was out of the dive-bombing business for all practical purposes.

quote:

I am not saying the entire battle of Midway was luck, nor did I hint at that. What I said was that the quick destruction of 4 Japanese carriers due to relatively minor bomb hits [I]WAS[/I] brought about by luck. Hiryu'e "excuse" was two fold. It survived the bombing on June 4, 1942, due to hiding in a rain squall (much like Enterprise did during the Battle of Santa Cruz), and two herself was not only preparring for an attack when she was bombed, but also was a Washington Treaty compromise, being able to give punishment, but not receive it.

Your earlier post certainly read as if you were putting all of Midway down to luck. I wouldn't blame Hiryu on the Treaty, by the way - the IJN certainly showed themselves willing enough to ignore the treaty any other time they found it convenient. Regardless - the need for an alternate explanation to cover the loss of Hiryu implies that the peculiarly "lucky" circumstances specific to the morning of 4 June were not an absolute requirement for the ravaging of Kido Butai.

quote:

OK. first, the Wasp was sunk by Japanese submarine torpedoes, and hence was never mentioned by me. The Lexington was holed by torpedoes, but it was AVGAS explosions caused by ruptured gas lines which were in turned caused by bomb damage that did her in, and even then she was afloat and had to be scuttled. Yortown took torpedo hits and developed a bad list, but it was the bomb damaged received from the Hiryu which put her out of action. She still could have been saved if not for the I-168, but the main point I was and am trying to make is that she was put out of action by bombs, there by rendering her defenseless (unable to launch a CAP). Hornet went down to a fury of BOTH bombs and torpedoes, taking 3 bombs, 2 torpedoes, and 2 airplanes (while not kamikazes, both were shot down and subsequently plunged into the deck). Granted a later torpedo hit did her in where the Destroyer Andersen had to scuttle her. But the point that I tried to make and I think was misunderstood is that while the bombs themselves didn't [I]SINK[/I] the carriers, the werenevertheless large enough to [I]DAMAGE[/I] or [I]CRIPPLE[/I] the ship.

I mostly included Wasp for completeness' sake; of course, it didn't hurt that it didn't hurt the case I was trying to make. As for the rest: The AVGAS lines which eventually doomed Lexington ruptured in proximity to and as a result of one of the two torpedo hits that ship suffered - the bomb hits were relatively inconsequential. At Midway, Yorktown was bombed first, then torpedoed - the Vals got in their licks first, slowing her to 20kts, but left her still capable of flight ops. It was the second attack, carried out by torpedo-armed Kates, which left her dead in the water, unable to operate aircraft, and - eventually - easy meat for I-168. Hornet at Santa Cruz was hurt by the bombs, but again it was the torpedos which did the real damage, leaving her burning and dead in the water. With Japanese surface forces closing in, the decision was made to abandon and scuttle. US DDs tried to finish her off using 5" gunfire and surface-launched torpedos; when that was ineffective the US DDs cleared out just ahead of an IJN force, which briefly considered trying to board and capture the derelict before firing additional surface torpedos to complete her scuttling. Again: in all cases it was torpedos, not bombs, which inflicted the critical damage. Carriers hit only by bombs (Yorktown at Coral Sea and even Midway, Enterprise at Eastern Solomons) could often be repaired enough to restart flight operations just minutes after being hit.

As for your "misunderstood" point, when you say that bombs "did good enough" against three CVs, then add the caveat that one of the three was later finished off by torpedos, the obvious interpretation is that you are claiming that bombs sunk the other two. That is demonstrably false. Your further explanation on the subject reveals that you consistently confuse bombs and torpedos, repeatedly attributing damage inflicted by each to the other (most obviously in the case of Yorktown at Midway, where you have the sequence of attacks exactly backward). By now I think it's fair to say you're more misunderstanding than misunderstood on this point. Just out of curiosity, are you a native English speaker?

quote:

OH, and BTW, no US carrier ever came under attack by an enemy surface warship. In fact, the only carrier in HISTORY to was HMS Courageous, when she was caught by Scharnhorst and Gneisnau in 1940.

One word: Samar. During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Taffy 3 (comprising a number of US CVEs, DDs, and DEs) were caught out by the major remaining strength of the IJN off of Samar and were subjected to gunfire attacks from Yamato and Nagato, among others, resulting in the sinking of the CVE USS Gambier Bay. The demise of CV-8 Hornet I addressed above.

quote:

Oh, BTW, just so you guys know, the reason I also called it obsolete, is go to Google or Yahoo and type SBD-3 Dauntless and search, and alsmost every page will quote it as a great plane, but also obsolete when it began service. THat is where I based the evidence for my post.

First off, the Web has some pretty serious limitations as a serious research tool. It's convenient, but there's a lot of garbage out there - just because it's on the Web doesn't make it true. Heck, I saw one site claiming that the SBD had a maximum range of only 400 miles, which is obviously, ridiculously wrong. Last, I actually tried to replicate the search you described, but I did not get the same results you say you did. Ground over there looks a mite shaky, friend...

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 17

Re: JU87 - 4/25/2003 12:09:58 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Highlander
[B]I think the best dive bomber was the Ju87 !!!
Here is a good comparison of some dive bombers :
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ju87.html
With his 1800kg bomb the Ju87 can kill every ship... [/B][/QUOTE]
First off: there was no 1800kg bomb. There was a 1400kg bomb though, which is still pretty big. Possibly a shipkiller - if you could get it to the target. Aye, there's the rub.

Negatives for the Ju-87 include extreme vulnerability to interception, and short range - in particular, it's not going to get very far carrying its maximum bomb load. You can't very well "kill every ship" unless you can get to them, and in that category there's a lot working against the Ju-87.

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 18

Dive Bomber - 4/25/2003 3:15:16 PM

Highlander

Posts: 50
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Germany
Status: offline

Yes, you are right the Ju87 had only a bomb load of 1800kg and not one bomb of 1800kg like the FW190.
Yes, the short range is the second big problem of this plane.
The Ju87 was build as a ground support dive bomber and for this duty the short range is OK.
With the Ju87 the Luftwaffe had a plane that could kill every ship but they need a good fighter escort for their protection.
Have a look at all the British ships that where sunk by this plane.
But the Ju87 could still fly home to the airfield with a lot of hits from the enemy. I have seen pictures of some Ju87 that are badly damaged they had no problem to fly home.
When you look at the first years of the war, the Ju87 kills a lot of allied ships. Together with the Ju88 they are the best dive bombers of the first years.
The last great success of the Ju87 against naval units take place in 1943. Later in the war the Luftwaffe can�t protect this slow bomber against the allied fighters.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 19

- 4/26/2003 12:47:14 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

I am going to answer points as I see them, because I'm busy and don't have a lot of time to read all of them (I'm at school).

OK, at the century thing, that was meant to say half a century. Was typing fast at school and didn't catch it.

Yes, finding replacements was standard practice, but still, almost every source I have ever read about the SBD has called it obsolete upon entering service. Even books published by the USNI agree on this.

As far as Enterprise and Saratoga, they did find good uses for them, but as Enterprise was unable to mount twin 5"/38 guns, she often found herself in a predicament in late war kamikaze fights and aerial attacks (hence her eventual basic removal from combat due to damage). Saratoga's shortcomings were found, and in 1945 with a plethora of Essex class carriers available, was relegated to carrier training duties following a kamikaze attack.

As far as range, how do I figure that? The range of a Val acting as a divebomber was between 915 and 1200 miles as a bomber. The range of an SBD acting as a divebomber (anti ship payload) was roughly 800 miles, and 1200 when configured for scouting (According to the Boeing website), So, this proves that yes, the SBD has better range as a scout, the range is shorter as a bomber. It doesn't get much plainer than that, Cynic. I am not saying that the Val was a better plane, but that it had longer range. The SBD carried a heavier payload and was more stable in a dive.

Yes, Japan did break away from the treaty when they wanted, but given of the 6 prewar fleet carriers, Hiryu was the smallest, had the least armor, and lowest stowage capacity, becaus eon this one they actually tried to conform (They mostly broke away for the Yamatos, not carriers or other ships).

In my first posts on this topic, relating to the 250kg bomb, all I trie dto state was that they were not puny. In my posts on US carriers, yes FATAL blows were struck by torpedoes, but from the conclusions you are stating bombs were inneffectual. This is just not the case. Granted, bombs alone didn't sink any, but carriers didn't simply "shrug them off", which is the impression you are sort of giving. In fact, I don't believe I ever said that bombs were responsible for sinking them. In fact, if I do believe, I made that perfectly clear. My whole point is that bombs could damage or at least render flight ops usless for a time being (I never said to the point where they would have to go to Pudget Sound).

I will admit that I was wrong on my carrier gunfire post. I was working at school typing this and I didn't have a lot of time and completely for got about Samar. I do apologize for that error. (But again, I was also reffering to fleet carriers, which I should have made evident. In either case I was wrong). On the Hornet, all info that I have found as to her scuttling cites torpedoes as the killer. 5" shell may (or may not) have been used, but in either case it was the torpedoes which would have opened her hull to the see, not the 5" shells.

As far as the search, I really do have to agree with you on that, because I too have noticed that when you search for a topic, then search later for the same, you get different results. I am just quoting what I have seen on the web, and in books that I own.

On the subject of the Yorktown (just read that part), I didn't say that was the sequence of attacks, I was talking about total damaged sustained. Yes I know the bombs hit first, then the torpedoes. What I was making clear (or at least trying to) was it was the bomb hits that prevented flight ops. The second bomb to hit the ship came from the port side, pierced the flight deck, and exploded in the lower part of the funnel. It ruptured the uptakes for three boilers, disabled two boilers themselves, and extinguished the fires in five boilers. Smoke and gases began filling the firerooms of six boilers, and if memory serves only one boiler was able to stay lit. This dropped the speed to six knots. This eliminated her ability for flight ops, and 20 minutes after this she was dead in the water, BEFORE any Kates had attacked. This is my point, which I believe should go with my original point that the 250kg bomb is still lethal enough to wound a ship. It wasn't until one hour later that she was again underway (at a 20 knot top speed), and 10 minutes after that the Kates befell her putting two torpedoes into her, causing her abandonment.

As for being a native English speaker, I must ask why you are even asking. I was born in the USA, and I have lived in the USA for all 18 years of my life. I was at school (Like I am today) and don't have all the time in the workld to proofread. I am sorry if I made it a bit misunderstanding.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 20

- 4/26/2003 1:14:15 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I thought you seemed clear enough. College will improve your ability to express yourself in writing, if that is an issue. Or it will improve your tolerance for alcohol.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 21

- 4/26/2003 1:32:28 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Thanks. I do agree about the college (especially about the last one :))

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 22

- 4/26/2003 6:50:29 AM

showboat1

Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline

Damage to the Hornet before her eventually sinking as recorded in [I]The Encyclopedia of the World's Warships[/I] Salamander Books, 1979

1942 (26 Oct) Hit by two bombs, two aircraft, and three torpedoes. US destroyers Mustin and Anderson attempted to sink her. Hit by 9 torpedoes and 400 rounds of 5in (127mm).
1942 (27 Oct) Sunk by four torpedoes fired from Japanese destroyers.

That seems to sum it up for the old Hornet. Tough old buzzard!

On the SBD, many people call it obsolete when compared to the fighters that would be intercepting it, though compared to the Val and SB2U it could HARDLY be considered obsolete.

On the JU-87, wasn't it considered to be basically flying artillery? There greatest successes came as tank busters in the Eastern Front.

_____________________________

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 Joe Kemper)

Post #: 23

Carriers & level Bombers - 4/27/2003 2:27:26 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

1. Will WITP support specal Air Ops for Carriers.

Like being able to use Level Bombers from carriers. Where B25's can launch from a carrier, attack and land at a land base.

2. What about having leveling bombers launch from one base and land at another?

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 24

- 4/27/2003 8:16:08 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Ok, once and for all, when they call it obsolete, its not in reference to a fighter. To compare a bomber of any type is stupid and ludicrous. When they say its obsolete, it is due to old technology or certain defencies. To say the SBD is obsolete compared to a fighter is like saying the B-18 Bolo (a very obsoete bomber) is only obsolete compared to the Bf-109. Granted, the Bf-109 is a more advanced plane. but it doesn't make the B-18 obsolete. The fact that the B-18 was obsolete compared to other bombers is what makes it obsolete. Granted, it still had some good featurres, but that doen't mean its not obsolete.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 25

- 4/27/2003 7:31:59 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tankerace
[B] The fact that the B-18 was obsolete compared to other bombers is what makes it obsolete. Granted, it still had some good featurres, but that doen't mean its not obsolete. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think thats the point people are making. The SBD was NOT obsolete compared to other DIVE BOMBERS ( Vindacater, Val, Stuka) of its era.

As you stated the B-18 was obsolete because it did not compare well with its twin engine Med Bmr. contempories, such as Wellington, He111, Betty..

The SBD on the other hand was equal if not better than its comtempories. It performed its role as well or better than its competitors.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 26

- 4/28/2003 3:12:20 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

I'm not saying it didn't perform better than its contemporaries. In fact, history proves it did. What I am saying is before World War 2, in 1940, the United States Navy called the SBD obsolete, but used it since it was better than the Vindicator. That is all I am saying. I used the comparison of the B-18 because everyone here seems to think I am calling the SBD obsolete compared to a Zero. I am sorry, but you just don't compare apples and oranges.

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 27

Stukas - 4/28/2003 9:27:12 PM

strawb

Posts: 90
Joined: 1/13/2003
From: Grongardville
Status: offline

Hate to be pendantic (but heh what would be new about that on ths board..)? but.... the Luftwaffe had to make the big move from shortish range tactical army support to longer range anti-navl operations intwo situations 1. In Norway where their tactics were woeful and their equipment unsuitable. 2. In the Med.

For the Med they used the Ju87R-2 (R-1? R something) which had extend range tanks and carried one large (1600lb?) anti-ship bomb. In the face of limited fighter oppsition and with fighter cover it proved highly effective against the RN. Look at Crete or off Greece etc etc.

Which I think shows that being 'obsolete' is in the eye of the beholder/opposition. Ok not a DB but the dear old (and over loved thier crews really wanted Avengers trust me!) Swordfish is an example. Fine for operations in Atlantic when not facing enemy CV fighters (Bismark), fine for a specifric task where fighters not an issue (Taranto) or on board CVEs in rough weather anti-sub ops, but disasterous in face of fighters eg Channel Dash. Tactic and other factors also determione obsolete/obscelence status

Same with Dauntless? Pilots liked it but would probably liked it less if IJN had kept CVs and had plenty of A6M5 around and USN did not have huge numbers of fighters to cover them.

Just a thought.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 28

- 4/29/2003 1:04:25 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

Sorry to be so late getting back, but I had some things to do this weekend. Anyway -
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tankerace
[B]Yes, finding replacements was standard practice, but still, almost every source I have ever read about the SBD has called it obsolete upon entering service. Even books published by the USNI agree on this.
Really? Because that's not at all the characterization of the SBD I've picked up over the past twenty-odd years.

The problem is, "obsolete" only makes sense as a relative term. If you want to call anything obsolete, you have to have a frame of reference for comparison. Essentially, what you're doing there is comparing the SBD to 1944-45 aircraft, and judging it obsolete based on that. Well, if you want to do that, you certainly can - and by that standard, the SBD was at the very least obsolescent. But it is fallacious to try to apply that same judgement to the SBD in 1941-43, because it is not true in that context. As an analogy, by 1950 the appearance of jets had rendered piston-driven fighters like the F4U and F6F obsolete - but that doesn't mean they were already obsolete in 1943, when the Navy was already looking ahead to a new generation of faster, more powerful aircraft.

quote:

As far as Enterprise and Saratoga, they did find good uses for them, but as Enterprise was unable to mount twin 5"/38 guns, she often found herself in a predicament in late war kamikaze fights and aerial attacks (hence her eventual basic removal from combat due to damage). Saratoga's shortcomings were found, and in 1945 with a plethora of Essex class carriers available, was relegated to carrier training duties following a kamikaze attack.

The problems with Big E and Super Sara were due in some part to their being older designs (especially with CV-3), but also to having come through an extremely rough year in 1942, wherein both were repeatedly smacked around and then patched up. That sort of abuse eventually takes a toll, even with periodic trips back to Bremerton for "full" refits. There are always little things - and sometimes not-so-little things - that are just "not quite right" after that sort of beating. It's the same reason you shouldn't buy a car that's been in a serious accident and repaired - it's not as good as new, and never will be.

quote:

As far as range, how do I figure that? The range of a Val acting as a divebomber was between 915 and 1200 miles as a bomber. The range of an SBD acting as a divebomber (anti ship payload) was roughly 800 miles, and 1200 when configured for scouting (According to the Boeing website), So, this proves that yes, the SBD has better range as a scout, the range is shorter as a bomber. It doesn't get much plainer than that, Cynic. I am not saying that the Val was a better plane, but that it had longer range. The SBD carried a heavier payload and was more stable in a dive.

1,200 miles is very, very high for a Val with any sort of payload. Maybe with a pair of 60kg bombs under the wings - but it would literally require an Act Of God for one of those little firecrackers to cripple a 20,000 ton ship. The SBD, on the other hand, typically carried a 500lb bomb when configured for scouting; the anti-ship payload was the 1,000lb bomb. The idea was that if the scouts found a target, they could vector in the rest of the air group, then get in a quick surprise attack and maybe put the enemy's flight deck out of commission so they couldn't reinforce their CAP when the main strike arrived. This was demonstrated in action in the attack on Zuiho at Santa Cruz - which was carried out by "scouting" SBDs. So yes, 1,200 miles in the "scouting" configuration for the SBD, which includes a 500lb bomb, really is longer than the <1,000 for the D3A with an equivalent load. It doesn't get any plainer than that.

quote:

Yes, Japan did break away from the treaty when they wanted, but given of the 6 prewar fleet carriers, Hiryu was the smallest, had the least armor, and lowest stowage capacity, becaus eon this one they actually tried to conform (They mostly broke away for the Yamatos, not carriers or other ships).

First off, Soryu was the smallest member of Kido Butai: Hiryu was about 10% bigger than her near-sister. The reason these two were smaller than the others has less to do with the Treaty and more to do with IJN priorities - they wanted to get the maximum possible striking power out of the smallest possible ship because smaller ships were cheaper and that would (in theory) allow them to build more ships, putting lots more power out in the Fleet. It turned out not to work as well as they'd hoped, and there were serious questions of vulnerability and efficiency; so Hiryu grew a little, and Shokaku grew a lot. As far as Japanese respecting the Treaty, just look at what they did with the Mogami-class cruisers. Announced to the world as "8,000t" light cruisers, they weighed in at half again that much when completed (which already put them over the Treaty limit); by the time they were actually ready for service they'd reached nearly twice that displacement, at 15,000t versus the 10,000t maximum allowed by the Treaty.

quote:

In my first posts on this topic, relating to the 250kg bomb, all I trie dto state was that they were not puny. In my posts on US carriers, yes FATAL blows were struck by torpedoes, but from the conclusions you are stating bombs were inneffectual. This is just not the case. Granted, bombs alone didn't sink any, but carriers didn't simply "shrug them off", which is the impression you are sort of giving. In fact, I don't believe I ever said that bombs were responsible for sinking them. In fact, if I do believe, I made that perfectly clear. My whole point is that bombs could damage or at least render flight ops usless for a time being (I never said to the point where they would have to go to Pudget Sound).

You're right. You didn't - quite - state outright that any US CVs were sunk by dive-bombing alone. What you did say in your first post was, and I quote, "Besides, they did a good enough job on the Lexington, Hornet, and Yorktown (yes, I know Yorktown was eventually sunk by I-168)." Trouble is, when you qualify one of the three cases that way but leave the others hanging, the implication - the clear, obvious implication - is that dive bombing alone did, in fact, suffice for both of the other two. In your second post you repeatedly misattributed damage from bombs and torpedos. Remember this? "Yortown took torpedo hits and developed a bad list, but it was the bomb damaged received from the Hiryu which put her out of action. She still could have been saved if not for the I-168, but the main point I was and am trying to make is that she was put out of action by bombs, there by rendering her defenseless (unable to launch a CAP)." In fact, Yorktown was temporarily stopped by the dive bombing attack (mostly by the single, somewhat fluky, hit to her stack), but was under way again - and conducting flight operations again, including launching F4Fs for defense - by the time the Kates arrived. At Coral Sea Yorktown's recovery was even quicker - so was Lexington's, before the AVGAS fumes touched off: both ships were conducting flight ops again very shortly after being bombed. Much the same with Enterprise at Eastern Solomons, and again at Santa Cruz - if the Kates had found her while she was dealing with the bomb damage, she'd have been in trouble, but they didn't, so she did deal with it, and shortly afterward was able to conduct flight ops again. Did they "shrug off" the hits? No - as I said above, they never were "good as new" again, even if they survived the experience to return Stateside for major repairs. But they could be made "good enough" again in a remarkably short time. Damaged, NOT crippled. Big difference.

quote:

On the subject of the Yorktown (just read that part), I didn't say that was the sequence of attacks, I was talking about total damaged sustained. Yes I know the bombs hit first, then the torpedoes. What I was making clear (or at least trying to) was it was the bomb hits that prevented flight ops. The second bomb to hit the ship came from the port side, pierced the flight deck, and exploded in the lower part of the funnel. It ruptured the uptakes for three boilers, disabled two boilers themselves, and extinguished the fires in five boilers. Smoke and gases began filling the firerooms of six boilers, and if memory serves only one boiler was able to stay lit. This dropped the speed to six knots. This eliminated her ability for flight ops, and 20 minutes after this she was dead in the water, BEFORE any Kates had attacked. This is my point, which I believe should go with my original point that the 250kg bomb is still lethal enough to wound a ship. It wasn't until one hour later that she was again underway (at a 20 knot top speed), and 10 minutes after that the Kates befell her putting two torpedoes into her, causing her abandonment.

See above. The bomb hits prevented flight ops only for a relatively short time - Yorktown did manage to launch enough CAP to wipe out half of Hiryu's strike.

quote:

As for being a native English speaker, I must ask why you are even asking. I was born in the USA, and I have lived in the USA for all 18 years of my life. I was at school (Like I am today) and don't have all the time in the workld to proofread. I am sorry if I made it a bit misunderstanding. [/B][/QUOTE]
Same reason I usually ask questions - to find out the answer. It wasn't meant as a slight or a put-down. I did note you referring to the USA as "we," but that doesn't prove anything: you could also easily be a resident alien or a naturalized citizen, or perhaps a second-generation immigrant; for that matter, Spanish is an official language with the same standing as English in New Mexico, for all I know you're from Albuquerque or something (and if you are, or if you're not - I really don't need, or care, to know).

In this particular case, some of your usages (for example, "made it a bit misunderstanding") remind me of things I've seen on occasion from ESL writers elsewhere. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here... and now I'm forced offer my most sincere apologies to the many ESL writers of my acquaintance whose mastery of written English far surpasses yours. (You can take that as a slight if you want, but it's just the facts.)

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 29

- 4/30/2003 12:38:53 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Thank you guys for some fun "conversation" (arguing if you want), its been something fun to do after and during school. However, I am not going to participate in this discussion any further when my writing (and I assume also by that, my entire knowledge of the English language) skills are called into question. You are right, I "could" be a resident alien, but if you are going to pry, I am an American. I was born here to American parents in 1985. I am a senior in high school. My Grandfather was a gun Captain, Turret II, USS Mississippi BB-41 1943-45. And no, English is not a second language to me. If anything remotely is, it is German. And even if I did speak with English as a second language, what is the difference. So what if I was a resident alien or naturalized citizen? They are just as much Americans as you or I. Granted, their relatives might not have fought in World War II, or even if they did maybe not for the United States, but they are still Americans, and "we" still refers to the United States in my case or theirs.

You are right, I said "...made it a bit misunderstanding." What is wrong with that. In different parts of the U.S. people talk a little differently, varying on dialect. Would I have to type "made the matter a little misunderstanding" to suit how you would want me to write?

[QUOTE] I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here... and now I'm forced offer my most sincere apologies to the many ESL writers of my acquaintance whose mastery of written English far surpasses yours. (You can take that as a slight if you want, but it's just the facts.)[/QUOTE]
How else am I supposed to take it? You tell me I have no "mastery" of written English(or have little mastery of it). Also, for some reason that I am quite frankly at a loss to understand, you brought up this topic (my English skills), and then felt compelled to apologize to the many ESL writers who probably never read this, or could care less about my English skills. Remind me again what this has to do with Midway, planes on carriers, or anything else that this topic is about.

I do however wish to point out, you have no problem criticizing my written English skills, but your own are not 100% grammatically correct either ("[B]putting lots more power out in the Fleet.[/B]"). The difference is I saw no reason to bring them up or point them out, as they have no bearing on this topic. Perhaps due to errors like this you can only write on a pre-high school level. I doubt it, but you never know...

However, in any case, this is all academic. I thank those of you who were willing to discuss a topic with me and not bring my ability to write into question. Thanks again. Good day, gentlemen (and ladies).

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe Kemper)

Post #: 30