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 which should not operate on small CVE

 
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 >> planes which should not operate on small CVE Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/3/2021 2:36:55 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		OK I'm hoping for some contributions.

Could anyone give me a basic list of aircraft they feel should not operate on CVE. If you like you can extend it to CVL.


This would be an optional rule in my mod. It will be easy to keep track of because I'm adding the smallest ship the plane can operate from in its description.

For the sake of simplicity I'm going to assume that all carrier aircraft can operate from CV.

Your contributions are welcome.

CAV
Post #: 1
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/3/2021 2:48:14 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		If you want to be consistent, a similar limitation should also apply to Japanese submarines.

Alfred

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 2
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/3/2021 2:52:52 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Yes that is already covered - only Glen. And Seiran later for the I14 and I400

Please advise if you can on the planes

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/3/2021 8:50:48 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline 		IRL, all US carrier-capable planes did operate from CVEs at various points during the war (ex: USN Hellcats operating from Bogue and Casablanca class CVEs provided CAP for the invasion of Southern France; USMC Corsairs based on Commencement Bay class CVEs provided support during the Okinawa and Balikpapan campaigns; RN Hellcats and Corsairs operated from various CVEs throughout the war). The only USN plane that you might restrict would be the SBD, since its lack of folding wings made it burdensome for use on CVEs and CVLs.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 4
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/4/2021 1:03:06 AM   
jmolyson

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline 		Two types of Army aircraft flew off carriers.

The B25C flew off the CV USS Hornet during the Doolittle Raid, but could not land there.

P-40 aircraft flew off one of the CVE's in the Operation TORCH task force but again had to land ashore.

I think the Army operated light observation aircraft from CVE's (L-1's, L-5's, etc) during some invasions.

USN CVE and some RN CVE flew the FM-2 Wildcat/Martlet II (more powerful version of the F4F-4) as well as the Swordfish and TBM Avenger torpedo planes. The F4F-4 had folding wings for storage.

The Hellcat F6F was heavier and larger than the F4F-4/Martlet II and had trouble taking off from a CVE, most of which could only make 18 knots or so. It was not the preferred CVE fighter.

The RN CV could not fly the (F4F-3) Martlet I because their wings could not fold. The aircraft elevators were too narrow to
accommodate aircraft without folding wings.

I know of at least one case where a carrier aircraft, the SBD, was purchased by the Army as a land-based dive bomber. Unlike it's Navy cousin, it could not land on a carrier because it lacked an arrestor hook.

The RN CV could also operate the Walrus flying boat but could not strike it below. It's landing speed was so slow it didn't need a hook.

The British also flew modified Hurricanes (Sea Hurricanes)and Spitfires (Seafires) from their CV's.



_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to bomccarthy)
Post #: 5
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/4/2021 5:23:08 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Hosho could not operate Zeros, Vals and Kates nor more modern types in combat, until the flight deck was lengthened by 12 meters in 1944. However, that modification made her so top heavy that her use was restricted to fair weather. She was used almost exclusively as a training carrier, but she participated in the Midway operation carrying eight "Jean" torpedo bombers.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to jmolyson)
Post #: 6
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/4/2021 6:03:46 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		The Judy needed a longer take-off run than the Vals and could not be operated from the smaller / slower carriers like Ryuho, Zuiho, Hiyo.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 7
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/4/2021 9:22:37 AM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Great stuff and thanks - when you say SBD do you mean all Dauntless?
These are all good comments but I need to make it fairly easy and will take this info and restrict a few planes in the game just to CV (not smaller CVL and CVE) rather than do too much on too many types as players will not readily follow. It will be an optional rule anyway ( but I would want it) .

But I suppose a few carriers like Junyo could be made CVL classified as a work around. I imaging Chotose and other similar CVL come within the mention on the Judy?

What about the Jill and Myrt? And the late arriving allied planes like Bearcat and so on?? Any of those?
I imagine both navies were designing planes looking to a future of CV rather than CVL and stop gap and old CVE?

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 8
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/4/2021 7:22:11 PM   
jmolyson

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline 		SBD = Douglas Dauntless

Not for CVE: Bearcat, Tigercat and SB2C Helldiver, too heavy to launch at 18 knots from short flight deck.

The Japanese did not operate their twin-engine bombers from any carrier.

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 9
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/27/2021 6:25:49 PM   
29000Kevin

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 9/26/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Judy needed a longer take-off run than the Vals and could not be operated from the smaller / slower carriers like Ryuho, Zuiho, Hiyo.


You are wrong with the Hiyo.

The D4Y was Historically operated from the following Japanese aircraft carriers: Chitose, Chiyoda, Hiyō, Junyō, Shinyo, Shōkaku, Sōryū, Taihō, Unryū, Unyō and Zuikaku.


(Notice how Sōryū is on this list)

I have no clue why the IJN Shinyo is on this list.

Chitose meanwhile operated and launched aircraft of the 653rd Naval Air Group during the Marianas Turkey shoot.



< Message edited by 29000Kevin -- 2/27/2021 6:39:47 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 10
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/27/2021 7:22:02 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		The Soryu operated the prototype scout Judys at Midway, if I remember correctly. No catapults needed . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to 29000Kevin)
Post #: 11
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/27/2021 8:09:01 PM   
AtParmentier

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 12/15/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 29000Kevin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Judy needed a longer take-off run than the Vals and could not be operated from the smaller / slower carriers like Ryuho, Zuiho, Hiyo.


You are wrong with the Hiyo.

The D4Y was Historically operated from the following Japanese aircraft carriers: Chitose, Chiyoda, Hiyō, Junyō, Shinyo, Shōkaku, Sōryū, Taihō, Unryū, Unyō and Zuikaku.


(Notice how Sōryū is on this list)

I have no clue why the IJN Shinyo is on this list.

Chitose meanwhile operated and launched aircraft of the 653rd Naval Air Group during the Marianas Turkey shoot.




I did a full list of classes that could move the B7A2 on their elevators, I think I also did one on the Judy. The only limitation for most ships is their speed and flight deck length. Going to copy paste it.

Not sure about the ability of the elevators being able to move the B7A, but the dimentions of the B7A with folded wings is a bit less than 11.5m by 8m.
The smallest elevators (2) on Shokaku-class were 13 by 12m, the largest elevator was 13 by 16m. Going by dimensions the Shokaku-class should have been able to use the B7A, other elements are harder to come by. The height and weight would probably be more important, however hangar height was 4.8m vs Taiho 5m.

Taiho had 2 elevators, one was 14 by 13.6 and the other was 14 by 14m.

Akagi had 3 elevators one at 11.8 x 16.0m, a middle one at 11.8 x 13.0m and an aft one at 12.8 x 8.4m. Here I see issues, but the plane can still fit most elevators. Depending on the ability to turn the aircraft on deck and in the hangars. B7A wouldn't be efficient here, and can't maybe be used.

Kaga had 3 elevators their dimensions were 11.5 by 12.0m, 10.7 by 15.9m and 12.8 by 9.9m. Same issue as with Akagi, going by sizes the elevators should be able to handle the B7A, however not efficiently.

Soryu's elevators are 11.5 x 16.0m, 11.5 x 12.0m and 11.8 x 10.0m. Depending on willingness and ability to turn aircraft in the hangar, the B7A might be able to be operated on this carrier. Of the carriers shown so far, the least able.

Hiryu's elevators are suprisingly big compared to soryu at 13.0 x 16.0m, 13.0 x 12.0m and 11.8 x 13.0m. Only 1 elevator might have issues around the size of the aircraft.

Shinano's two elevators were 15.0 x 14.0m and 13.0 x 13.0m. No issues here.

The Unryu-class had 2 elevators at 15.0 x 14.0m. No issues here.


Now the CVL's,
Ryuho had 2 elevators at 13.6 x 12.0m, these are large enough.

Zuiho had 2 elevators at 13.0 x 12.0m and 12.0 x 10.8m, one elevator is a tight fit, the other has no problem.

Ryujo had 2 elevators at 11.1 x 15.7m and 10.8 x 8.0m, one elevator is too small, the other might be able to carry the B7A.

Chitose had 2 elevators at 13.0 x 12.0m and 12.5 x 12.0m, large enough.

Ibuki had 2 elevators at 13.0 x 11.6m, large enough.


Based upon these numbers the B7A could be used on Hiryu, the Shokaku-class, Taiho, Shinano, the Unryu-class, the Ryuho, the Zuiho-class, the Chitose-class and Ibuki.
The ships where it would be difficult to impossible to use the B7A would be the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Ryujo.

This is just based on the elevator sizes, their max load isn't taken into account. The plane had a height of less than 4.10m, even with folded wings. All the numbers I could find leave at least 0.20m of height above the plane, for the CVL's I'm not sure of the heights.
I do apologize for not putting US conversions into my post.

Looked into the CVE's and it seems that the elevators for Taiyo-class, Shinyo and Kayo were 12 x 13m, not sure if 0.5m (1 foot 7 inches)is enough wiggle room, length and speed of the CVE would be more important.
Forgot Junyo in my list elevators: 14.0 x 14.0m, speed might be a concern.

For the Judy the classes which can get the plane into the hangers are: Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Taiho, Junyo, Unryu, Shinano, Ryuho, Zuiho, Ryujo, Chitose, Ibuki, Taiyo, Shinyo, Kayo. Taking off is another matter

above lists copied from several posts I made.

< Message edited by AtParmentier -- 2/27/2021 8:15:35 PM >

(in reply to 29000Kevin)
Post #: 12
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/28/2021 9:53:13 AM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		All this data is fantastic if there is ever a witp 3. For now we just have to have some work around. So what I have done is generally most modern heavy/ big aircraft after 1942 are CVL+ , some are CV Judy in my mod is CVL+. I have downgraded the Junjo class to CVL. The Japanese and allies were both developing heavier and bigger aircraft and heavier and bigger CV for them. The Japanese had the issue they had less and less CV and bigger planes hence this developing problem.
Soryu had 2 recon Judy at Midway. The were prototypes, I think Judy was a development initially as recon anyway. Remember Japan did not have the same kind of idea as recon DB as the allies did probably because their CV had less planes and their purpose was attack.

(in reply to AtParmentier)
Post #: 13
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/28/2021 10:08:04 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cavalry Corp
Soryu had 2 recon Judy at Midway. The were prototypes, I think Judy was a development initially as recon anyway. Remember Japan did not have the same kind of idea as recon DB as the allies did probably because their CV had less planes and their purpose was attack.


D4Y was developed as a dive bomber, but the initial airframes had wing flutter during dives, which sort of ruled out their use as dive bombers. Thus the initial airframes were repurposed for recon, and later once the issue was fixed, follow on airframes were used in their originally intended role.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 14
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/28/2021 6:32:20 PM   
Dan1977

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/28/2021
Status: offline 		I would not think that the US Tigercat should be allowed on US CV's, only the CVB's. I will add that the idea of operating the F4U Corsair off of a US CVE seems perilous to the extreme, especially if it is loaded for FB missions. Remember how long it took to get certified for US fleet carriers. Required new approach methods & redesign of the aircraft. I think it is important to consider how Ops losses would be affected. I love the Bearcat, would like to know if it could have SAFELY operated from a CVE. Also, the CVE Sangamon does better than most other CVE's, but that would be really getting into the weeds.

Also, great info on the Elevator sizes for the Japanese carriers.

< Message edited by Dan1977 -- 2/28/2021 6:42:10 PM >

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 15
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 2/28/2021 10:43:11 PM   
jmolyson

 

Posts: 174
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline 		You need to go to the books about the Corsair on CVE. I know the Allies operated F6F Hellcats in support of Mediterranean invasions after Spring 1944.I know they operated successfully from US and Brit CV.

The 4 Sangamon were built on (larger) talker hulls than the other earlier classes.

The USN operated the FM-2 Wildcat and Avenger quite successfully from CVE's. You really don't need to consider the Tigercats and Bearcats for these carriers, except perhaps when the CVE is used as an aircraft ferry.

Shore-basing worked well for the Japanese in the later stages of the war when most of the heavier aircraft appeared. Why place them on a vulnerable small carrier when even Japan's large carriers were no match for TF 38/58 by the time of the Marianas invasion?

What might be interesting is to investigate how the Japanese might have built a large, effective class of convoy escorts backed by their CVEs. It might have preserved some of their merchant fleet. Being an "offensive" Navy, this was another case of the Japanese warrior spirit enabling Allied victory.



_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to Dan1977)
Post #: 16
RE: planes which should not operate on small CVE - 3/1/2021 8:38:45 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jmolyson

You need to go to the books about the Corsair on CVE. I know the Allies operated F6F Hellcats in support of Mediterranean invasions after Spring 1944.I know they operated successfully from US and Brit CV.

The 4 Sangamon were built on (larger) talker hulls than the other earlier classes.

The USN operated the FM-2 Wildcat and Avenger quite successfully from CVE's. You really don't need to consider the Tigercats and Bearcats for these carriers, except perhaps when the CVE is used as an aircraft ferry.



Marines operated the F4U/FG-1D from the Commencement Bay CVEs in 1945 (and during the Korean War). The main reason for keeping the FM-2 on the Bogue and Casablanca class CVEs in the Pacific was that the FM-2 was a bit smaller than the F6F - switching to the F6F would require deleting 3-4 airplanes from a CVE airgroup. There was no performance issue: the TBM was a much larger and heavier aircraft than the F6F or F4U, and with a less powerful engine, but it had no problem operating from any CVE.

I doubt that there was much discussion about operating the F8F from CVEs. They didn't reach operational service until October 1945, so there were never enough of them to consider using on CVEs. Moreover, they were slower than the F4U-4 and had a much shorter range (and smaller payload), so they were all retired from frontline service by 1950, while the F4U-4/5 continued operating as frontline ground attack aircraft even after the end of the Korean War.

(in reply to jmolyson)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> planes which should not operate on small CVE 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

1.172