Carrier operations

Carrier operations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

derwho -> Carrier operations (1/17/2003 11:55:43 PM)
Whilst reading the english translation of Kojinsha No.6 "Warships of the Imperial Japanease Navy" I stumbled upon this and it stroke me like lightning: http://64.124.221.191/kojinshavolume6.pdf --[CLiP]-- The ordnance for SHOKAKU's air group included 45 Type 91 aerial torpedoes. Nine torpedoes could be handled simultaneously on the torpedo-arming platform. The ship also carried sixty 800kg bombs, sixty 500kg bombs, three hundred-and-twelve 250kg bombs, five hundredand- twenty-eight 60kg bombs, as well as forty-eight 30kg bombs. There was one hoist for large and one for smaller-caliber bombs. --[CLiP]-- In UV, you can sustain a Carrier battlegroup as long as you can fuel it and you could propably fly weeks on attack-missions on let's say an airfield, sowing literally tousands of bombs. I hope this will be corrected in WITP. Sorry if this has been discussed earlier, I couldn't find any reference when I did a quick search.

denisonh -> (1/18/2003 12:25:12 AM)
Since a BB has limited ammo without resupply, I guess it makes sense that a carrier should too....

GunRange -> (1/18/2003 12:42:38 AM)
But then we would need TRUE replentish ships that can fill up weapon loads and other stores and those are not modelled either.

Grumbling Grogn -> (1/18/2003 1:06:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GunRange [B]But then we would need TRUE replentish ships that can fill up weapon loads and other stores and those are not modelled either. [/B][/QUOTE] I think I read that ammo ships would be in WitP.

Yamamoto -> Re: Carrier operations (1/18/2003 4:22:47 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by drwho [B]The ship also carried sixty 800kg bombs, sixty 500kg bombs, three hundred-and-twelve 250kg bombs, five hundredand- twenty-eight 60kg bombs, as well as forty-eight 30kg bombs. [/B][/QUOTE] If you are doing any kind of action more intense than bombing a defensless atoll, you'll run out of planes before you run out of that many bombs. I don't think we need to keep track of indivdual bombs on each carrier. Yamamoto

denisonh -> (1/18/2003 4:23:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GunRange [B]But then we would need TRUE replentish ships that can fill up weapon loads and other stores and those are not modelled either. [/B][/QUOTE] Most certainly, and I think GG is right about them being in WitP.

Mr.Frag -> (1/18/2003 4:49:05 AM)
Wow, 6 Depth charge launchers and passive sonar and DF ... can we use it to hunt them US subs? :D It's better armed and equipped then the SC's

LTCMTS -> Carrier Ammo Loadouts (1/19/2003 11:53:33 PM)
You may find in WITP that continuous air ops in support of landings can put a strain on your AC magazines. In 1944, an Essex carried 508 100lb, 292 500lb bombs, 147 1,000lb and 18 2,000lb GP bombs. This is essential eight sorties by the carrier air group. The Independence class carriers carried 162 100lb, 72 500lb and 36 1,000lb GP bombs. The Sangamon carried 240 100lb, 72 500lb, 18 1,000lb and 9 2,000lb GP bombs. There would seem to be plenty of anti-ship, the Essex carried 292 500lb, 128 1,000lb SAP bombs, and 110 1000lb and 18 1600lb AP bombs, but only 36 torpedoes, enough for two strikes by a full VTB squadron. The problem with the replenishment at sea is that while the USN solved the refueling problem in the late '30's, the transfer of heavy ordnance at sea was not really solved until late '44 in time for the Okinawa campaign.

Attack Condor -> Control issue...? (1/20/2003 3:00:20 AM)
If WitP will keep track of AC ammo replenishment, will certain missions be no longer available as ammo is used? I can understand that on a carrier, but what about base ammo stores. Talk about the proverbial can o' worms... :)

Veer -> (1/20/2003 3:51:58 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]Since a BB has limited ammo without resupply, I guess it makes sense that a carrier should too.... [/B][/QUOTE] I always thought they did.... Anyway, i usually send my carriers back to a port (any port) after 2-3weeks at sea. I've never had a BB (or CA for that matter) run out of ammo for it's main guns. I've seen AA guns run out of ammo, but never its main guns. Not even that Yamato.

denisonh -> (1/20/2003 4:02:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Veer [B]I always thought they did.... Anyway, i usually send my carriers back to a port (any port) after 2-3weeks at sea. I've never had a BB (or CA for that matter) run out of ammo for it's main guns. I've seen AA guns run out of ammo, but never its main guns. Not even that Yamato. [/B][/QUOTE] I see my BBs and Cas run out of main gunammo all the time. Particularly in a couple of my PBEM games, where there are multiple and massive surface engagements. All is is takes is one or two heavy surface engagements, and voila, no main gun ammo. I have seen this effect in bombardment groups as well.

Veer -> Possible solution (1/20/2003 4:13:06 PM)
Of course, one possible solution would be modify the algorithim that 2by3 uses for Level bomber missions (if supplies at base is equal to half or less than half of required supplies, planes will carry lighter load) and use it for all bombers. CV's could then be given a supply capacity - variable dependent of it's aircraft cap - of say 250 or so. When this level falls into the 'pink', Bombers will fly with ligher loads. Maybe your kates will fly with bombs and Avengers won't fly at all. When it falls into the red, none of your bombers will fly. The supply on board a CV could then be replenished once you click on the 'fuel TF from port button' - provided the port has enough supplies. The game already keeps track of how many missions are flown and what bomb load the planes carry. To my knowledge all bombs are expended before any plane lands back on it's carrier, so once it's flown it's gone. It shouldn't be too hard to give each bomb a supply value, then track how many missions were flown from carrier A carrying that bomb in one turn, multiply and then deduct the end value from the total supply stores onboard the carrier. Sense?

derwho -> (1/20/2003 9:05:20 PM)
I think something like you are suggesting would be very good. I think the fact that planes don't land with ordinance is actually realistic & historical.. I don't think it would have been very safe in WW2-conditions to land with a full ordinance load.. ;)

denisonh -> (1/21/2003 12:06:47 PM)
It was standard procedure to drop unexpended ordinance prior to landing. (Ususally in the ocean if available). The only time an aircraft would land with ordinance was if there was a problem and they couldn't. Carrier aircraft would ditch before landing with stuck munitions. None in their right mind would attempt a carrier landing with unexploded ordinance onboard! Nor would a sane skipper let someone land on his boat under those conditions!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375