RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity

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 >> RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:46:06 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Not ignored at all. Look at the original post.

OK - perhaps I am dense. I do not see how this system relates to this game! I can see how it might allow one to come up with a plane rating for a ship if you assume so many fighters, bombers, etc. But why might not a player put different squadrons on the ship? Game carriers always are loaded - but real world carriers are not. Look at carriers in USN at the start of the war - TINY air groups.

My solution was to take typical air groups and revise them for each modernization of a ship - which means the plane count may go down over time on the same ship. It is a compromise - but WITP does not well tolerate moving squadrons around anyway. You can lose carrier status if you transfer units ashore even - and I once quite a game because I could not send planes back to their own ships! It seems wise to keep the groups on board and not mess with them. That may help keep players from doing strange things.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 31

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 8:50:30 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

A major fly in your ointment is that you are taking no account for the number of elevators the ships carried, especially the elevators which were NOT part of the "deck space".
(I.E., the Essex class which had a 3rd elevator on the side of the ship, for moving those planes up or "out of the way".) IMHO this should have a bearing on the number of plane capability for those flights.
I agree, a CAP of nearly the entire fighter complement is ideal, just not practical.
(Especially when the F6F has been hamstrung with a far shorter "range" of 4 hexes.)
The Essex was not the only flattop class with the side mounted elevator.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 32

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/14/2006 10:29:01 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

A major fly in your ointment is that you are taking no account for the number of elevators the ships carried, especially the elevators which were NOT part of the "deck space".
(I.E., the Essex class which had a 3rd elevator on the side of the ship, for moving those planes up or "out of the way".) IMHO this should have a bearing on the number of plane capability for those flights.
I agree, a CAP of nearly the entire fighter complement is ideal, just not practical.
(Especially when the F6F has been hamstrung with a far shorter "range" of 4 hexes.)
The Essex was not the only flattop class with the side mounted elevator.

Yep, the Wasp and Midway class had side elevators. Useful. I didn't count the side elevator as part of the deck area. The usual pair of elevators took a chunk out of the landing area and a chunk forward of the deck park. For a deck load strike, the rear one served as part of the deck. The Sara and Lex had a third elevator that wasn't good for much.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 33

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 12:34:34 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Then too, another deviation is that not all planes had folding wings. It would mean less prep time to get them up, but less stowage as well.
Perhaps an "averaging" would be needed to simulate the true capabilities with all these factors figured in ?

_____________________________

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 34

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 7:05:26 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

" It would mean less prep time to get them up, but less stowage as well. "

Not just less stowage, but either smaller strikes or strikes with shorter range as a/c wait in the air for others to be brought up from the hangar deck.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 35

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 7:21:04 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Even the Fairey Swordfish had folding wings !!
Some of the elevators on the Brit carriers were thin, only allowing for the size of the folded planes! (The Ark Royal comes to mind.)

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 36

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 7:41:14 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Why does this list show the Graf Zepellin, a carrier which most sources say was to carry 40-45 aircraft, rating almost as high as the Kaga?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 37

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 9:48:22 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

herwin, do you have the original study available? Is it now in electronic file format? Could you post it on Spooky's site?

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 38

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 10:30:54 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Even the Fairey Swordfish had folding wings !!
Some of the elevators on the Brit carriers were thin, only allowing for the size of the folded planes! (The Ark Royal comes to mind.)

I missed that when I was calculating the deck spot of various planes. If you want to provide some corrections, feel free.

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 39

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 10:35:54 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Why does this list show the Graf Zepellin, a carrier which most sources say was to carry 40-45 aircraft, rating almost as high as the Kaga?

820 length and 88 beam. The Kaga was 812 by 100.

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 40

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 10:38:01 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

herwin, do you have the original study available? Is it now in electronic file format? Could you post it on Spooky's site?

Thirty years ago? I may still have the original data around, but I've moved three times since then. Two moves = one fire. If I have it, it's back at my US residence.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 41

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 2:07:04 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

820 length and 88 beam. The Kaga was 812 by 100.

This is not a thoughtful analysis. Study the Graf and you will learn the Germans had very different ideas - in spite of being given plans for Akagi and Kaga! The Graf is a gunship - a light cruiser - as well as a carrier - much more so than the Japanese carriers. Also, the Graf is intended for North Atlantic operations, and it is simply stupid to put planes on deck in many sea states.

Frankly counting flight deck space at all is a mistake for WITP. Since we cannot lose planes in a storm, players will "cheat" and use it all the time - and risk no losses. The only fair system is to count hanger space alone.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 42

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 6:37:19 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

820 length and 88 beam. The Kaga was 812 by 100.

This is not a thoughtful analysis. Study the Graf and you will learn the Germans had very different ideas - in spite of being given plans for Akagi and Kaga! The Graf is a gunship - a light cruiser - as well as a carrier - much more so than the Japanese carriers. Also, the Graf is intended for North Atlantic operations, and it is simply stupid to put planes on deck in many sea states.

Frankly counting flight deck space at all is a mistake for WITP. Since we cannot lose planes in a storm, players will "cheat" and use it all the time - and risk no losses. The only fair system is to count hanger space alone.

How can they cheat? If the game calculated a CV capacity for planes, and strike sizes, max cap %, etc, via CV stats (in the DB) how could they cheat? I don't think anyone is proposing it should be evealuated on the fly in game... The storage algorthims would be calibrated against RL stated capacities, so would only change if a player took say all the fighters off, and replaced them with medium twins! (Well, alright, SBDs)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 43

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 6:44:43 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Oh, I almost forgot to ask.

What do you mean when a carrier has rated at "0" for CAP. Is that just a rouding issue? Obvsiusly, if you can launch planes, you can put -something- up on CAP. Might be that your deck is too short to support coninuous operations, but you can at least put some planes in the air.

I'm not following. Please to explain.

And thanks for the clarification on the "deck points".

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 44

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 6:57:08 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Oh, I almost forgot to ask.

What do you mean when a carrier has rated at "0" for CAP. Is that just a rouding issue? Obvsiusly, if you can launch planes, you can put -something- up on CAP. Might be that your deck is too short to support coninuous operations, but you can at least put some planes in the air.

I'm not following. Please to explain.

And thanks for the clarification on the "deck points".

-F-

0 for CAP meant there was no room for a deck park during CAP operations. You couldn't be launching and landing simultaneously. If someone had to land, you had to move everybody up the deck.

_____________________________

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 45

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 7:18:18 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I think that the carriers should be rated on the number of aircraft that they did handle, not some contrived number of what they might possibly have been able to handle if all conditions were favourable. For most of the carriers on this list, we have actual operational records showing waht they did. For the rest we need to correlate their navy's doctrine with their design. I also feel that we should not attribute to any carrier more aircraft than it's navy designated for its use. To do otherwise is to enter into the realm of fantasy.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 46

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/15/2006 8:06:11 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I think that the carriers should be rated on the number of aircraft that they did handle, not some contrived number of what they might possibly have been able to handle if all conditions were favourable. For most of the carriers on this list, we have actual operational records showing waht they did. For the rest we need to correlate their navy's doctrine with their design. I also feel that we should not attribute to any carrier more aircraft than it's navy designated for its use. To do otherwise is to enter into the realm of fantasy.

The figures I provided are consistent with operational records where available.

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 47

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/16/2006 6:54:36 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I guess that my comment stems from seeing the Graf Zeppelin listed as nearly the equivalent of the Kaga. Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding your numbers (which is why I feel that it's better to just list the actual numbers of aircraft involved), but it appears to me that your ratings do not indicate a 30+ plane difference between those two carriers.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 48

RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity - 2/16/2006 1:18:42 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I guess that my comment stems from seeing the Graf Zeppelin listed as nearly the equivalent of the Kaga. Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding your numbers (which is why I feel that it's better to just list the actual numbers of aircraft involved), but it appears to me that your ratings do not indicate a 30+ plane difference between those two carriers.

The hanger volume of the GZ may be a bit too high, since there were six inch guns along the hull on the hanger deck. The other thing is how the ship was to be used operationally--a carrier-cruiser engaging in gun duels would not maintain a deck park. On the other hand, everyone stored planes on the flight deck by 1944. Even the RN had come up with a way to park fighters with their tails extending off the main flight deck to increase capacity.

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 49

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity

Page: << < prev 1 [2]