Carrier AC Missions and AC updates

[Dili]

I dont know if this have been adressed so i apologise beforehand if it has been.

Should not heavier bombs, heavier planes(more consumption) reduce the number of missions a Carrier can put in Air? I was just reading HMS Eagle history and they increased fuel for air ops but had to reduce Ship range in 41-42 refit.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, Eagle was quite a small, old carrier.

[Dili]

True. But that doesnt adresses totally the question, while i agree that a bigger ship has more capabiliy to be  more flexible and probability to find some unused space. If attack planes start to use 1000lb there will less bombs overall unless something is cut or they are just put outside armored bunkers.

[DuckofTindalos]

And yet, Allied carriers continued to grow in offensive capability throughout the war.

[el cid again]

Dili is correct in principle: in principle if you need more fuel and ordnance per aircraft, and a ship always is both space and weight limited in what it can carry, you will reduce the number of sortees you can generate. In addition, ships tended to "grow" the number of AA mountings, radars, and associated spaces for ammunition, equipment, etc.

One effect of this was that ships tended to ride lower in the water, slow down, and lose range. And we could work that in by making upgrades slower and have less range. And in a very few cases, where the data is known, I think we already do that.

Related to aircraft, another aspect of it was that later aircraft were too big to operate from small carriers. USN used a variation of the F4F (FM-2) from its lighter carriers, because they could not handle the F4U (and certainly not an F7F). The IJN used a later model of zero to replace the Judy - because it was no longer possible to put any of their late model bombers on a small carrier. Players could (and probably should) be doing this sort of thing - no gigantic bombers on CVLs - nor F4Us.