Use of F4U on CV....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Use of F4U on CV....

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 >> Use of F4U on CV....

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 12:45:34 AM

Gilligan

Posts: 78
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Hey guys,

I've read a few posts mentioning the use of Corsairs on CV in the game, and all th epros and cons, but my question is, is it worth it given the fact they're only "carrier capable"? Doesn't that mean they'll suffer a very high rate of loss or repairs? Is it worth it to even use up CV space with those units?
I don't think its a question of gaminess, as they did in fact see service in numbers by late '44.

< Message edited by Gilligan -- 9/25/2005 12:59:11 AM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 12:49:30 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

As I inderstand it the first type Corsair to arrive can not actually safely take off or land on the deck of the Aircraft carriers because of some design problem or feature of the airframe. All I have seen is comments that the first type should not be allowed on carriers for regular service because of this.

(in reply to Gilligan)

Post #: 2

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 1:38:30 AM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

It seems to me that the hooks or the wheel legs were the problem and the USN rejected the Corsair for service aboard the US CVs. The British corrected it and then the upgraded Corsairs were fully able to serve aboard CVs.

By the way in WITP the units are 'carrier capable' or not, not the aircraft. And all aircraft have the same serviceability, accident rate and difficulty to pilot.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 3

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 1:49:36 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

The problem was the long nose and resulting poor visablilty during a carrier landing. The problem was solved by training, not technology. Howver for a very long time, the Navy refused to allow them on carriers .

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 4

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 1:51:56 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

In mid-1944 your US carriers will upgrade their composition to include F6F-Hellcats, F4U-1D Corsairs, Helldiver and Avengers.

At least some of mine have. I've received some new Essex carriers with that configuration but the latest CV I got had 1 F6F squadron, 2 dauntless squadrons and an avenger squadron. It confuses me all these configurations.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Gilligan)

Post #: 5

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 1:53:22 AM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
By the way in WITP the units are 'carrier capable' or not, not the aircraft. And all aircraft have the same serviceability, accident rate and difficulty to pilot.

I respectfully think you got that back to front
Manual para 7.2.2.15:-
".....Certain other units will be listed as Carrier Capable on their Air Unit Information Screen. These planes may be fully functional on aircraft carriers, but have a higher chance of suffering Operational Losses during take-offs and landings. Just because an aircraft is carrier capable (i.e. it is built for carrier operations, having a tailhook and other necessary equipment) does not mean the pilot flying it is trained to land and take off from one"

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 6

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 2:04:12 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

At least some of mine have. I've received some new Essex carriers with that configuration but the latest CV I got had 1 F6F squadron, 2 dauntless squadrons and an avenger squadron. It confuses me all these configurations.

Was the last CV you received a replacement for a sunk one?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 7

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 2:09:06 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
By the way in WITP the units are 'carrier capable' or not, not the aircraft. And all aircraft have the same serviceability, accident rate and difficulty to pilot.

I respectfully think you got that back to front
Manual para 7.2.2.15:-
".....Certain other units will be listed as Carrier Capable on their Air Unit Information Screen. These planes may be fully functional on aircraft carriers, but have a higher chance of suffering Operational Losses during take-offs and landings. Just because an aircraft is carrier capable (i.e. it is built for carrier operations, having a tailhook and other necessary equipment) does not mean the pilot flying it is trained to land and take off from one"

You both said the same thing.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to saj42)

Post #: 8

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 2:12:42 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

At least some of mine have. I've received some new Essex carriers with that configuration but the latest CV I got had 1 F6F squadron, 2 dauntless squadrons and an avenger squadron. It confuses me all these configurations.

Was the last CV you received a replacement for a sunk one?

I haven't lost a single carrier during this game ... yet.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 9

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 2:13:56 AM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
By the way in WITP the units are 'carrier capable' or not, not the aircraft. And all aircraft have the same serviceability, accident rate and difficulty to pilot.

I respectfully think you got that back to front
Manual para 7.2.2.15:-
".....Certain other units will be listed as Carrier Capable on their Air Unit Information Screen. These planes may be fully functional on aircraft carriers, but have a higher chance of suffering Operational Losses during take-offs and landings. Just because an aircraft is carrier capable (i.e. it is built for carrier operations, having a tailhook and other necessary equipment) does not mean the pilot flying it is trained to land and take off from one"

You both said the same thing.

SO WE DID

my apologies

It's just gone midnight here - i'm tired and need my bed. Gotta stop doing turns or i'll f**k up and loose something big like a CV TF

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to rogueusmc)

Post #: 10

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 2:16:11 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

I haven't lost a single carrier during this game ... yet.

Hmm, well... The air group change routine thingy doesn't always change consistently. I'm fielding two or three different configurations on my fleet carriers at the moment, as well. Ghu bless the Independences; they've only got two squadrons, and less potential for confusion...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 11

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 3:40:56 AM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

There is nothing in the game to prevent using Marine F4U groups on CVs. The op losses will be a bit higher but the effect is negligible.

Personally I wouldn't do it but then I'm nice :)

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 12

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 9:35:50 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

I usually play with a house rule that prevents carrier-capable (as opposed to carrier trained) aircraft flying any mission off of carriers prior to 1/1/1944. Mostly, this rule is about Corsairs, and keeping them off of carriers (by 1/1/1944, the allies have a lot of Hellcats, and don't really need F4U1s on their carriers anyway). This also has the side benefit of preventing cheesey all torpedo bomber PH raids. Without restrictions on carrier-capable squadrons, the Japanese can start the game by offloading all their Val squadrons on KB, and transferring Kates from Japan on in their place.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 13

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 12:59:08 PM

Gilligan

Posts: 78
Joined: 6/19/2002
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Thats the point I was getting at, about higher op losses. I wonder if its worth it or if I will crash my highly trained units into oblivion. I like the idea of disallowing it until sometime in '44, but to whoever said you have enough F6F and don't need em, I'll explain why I do need them.

My opponent and I have run into a very nasty design glich/bug/whateveryacallit using Tanaka's scenerio whereby we have hit the cap of pilot slots in the game. I am not really clear on it, but I think the figure is 30k...problem is the top pilot list doesn't free up slots when the pilot is killed or out of the game. So, we cant get replacement pilots in game, our pilot pools are drained, and so when we purge units by flying transports into an un capped base so we can kill them and get room for replacements, those replacements come in trained at about 20 xp.

Just a heads up for those who might also be nearing this in their game. Our pilot replacement button stopped working, which gave us our first sign of trouble, then we noticed the replacments weren't being put in automatically...also, another bug is when we added a pilot using the button, it would throw over 200 in the unit by repeating the name of each pilot 5 times or so.
Anyhow, the operational loses are what I was most concerned about. I think I'll try using them just to see how they respond. Our game is at 12/'44

_____________________________

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 14

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 1:55:29 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

The problem with not allowing carrier capable units to fly on carriers is the CVE on both sides that have no air complement. For the Allies I prefer to put and SBD 16 plane squadron on them and use them for ASW. Pretty ineffective but makes me feel like I am using them for something useful

The Japanese have more Aircraft Carriers witn no air wings and earlier. I would never agree to that house rule.

(in reply to Gilligan)

Post #: 15

RE: Use of F4U on CV.... - 9/25/2005 6:05:36 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

For me iy depends on the circumstances I would never willingly beef up my carrier air with corsairs unless the situation was desperate. i.e. I dont like messing with CV airgroups as it screws things up.

i.e. If I have lost all or most of my US CV's or I am hit by the air gp stuck in the que problem.

If it was early 43 and I was having to cover a major invasion with CVE's because all my CV's were sunk I probably would use corsairs on my USN CVE's or CVL's as I need the best aircove i can gt to stop super betties or 90+ xp KB pilots.

In my game with String one of my RN Sqns has a 24 VMF Corsair sqn as its airgroup is stuck in the re inforcement q

And

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 16