Merchant Aircraft Carriers

[Shark7]

OK, first of, I know historically these never served in the Pacific Theatre in the MAC configuration, but...

If one did want to model these ships in game which would be the best way to go about it?

1. Simply as a CVE with a 4 plane capacity AND having its bulk or liquid cargo capacity.

or

2. Make them normal AK or TKs with 4 Aircraft capacity, a small amount of aircraft ordnance and making a psuedo-floatplane Swordfish to fly from them?

I'm going to try both ways, one or the other or both may not work, but I'd like to try it.

[paradigmblue]

I'm pretty sure that the first option is the way to go, as I don't think that anything but float planes will fly from ships that are not carriers.

[Dili]

What about the Ise, Hyuga convertions? are they only floatplane able?

The problem with CAM ships is the the aircrafts after flying go to land or ditch so you should have a day of employment only.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The problem with CAM ships is the the aircrafts after flying go to land or ditch so you should have a day of employment only.

Maybe CAM aircraft can be defined as a very effective and long ranged AA device?

then you can make it have very low ammo and high rearm cost?

not as exciting, I know

MAC in the other hand should probably be dealt as if they were CVE with cargo capability. This is how the late war IJA Maru-carriers are defined

[Shark7]

The only thing that concerns me with the CVE method would be AI stupidity...IE the AI seeing it is a CVE sticks it into a combat TF instead of just using it as a merchant escort. And trust me a 'carrier' TF based on a flight deck tanker with 3-4 string-bags does not an air combat TF make. [:D]

AV won't work since they can't launch ASW patrols while at sea, a CS will run into the same problem as the CVE.

As you can see, I'm torn on the issue.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

AVs can launch FPs while at sea. Check/ test the Japanese ones. I know historically they didn't but the game allows it

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The only thing that concerns me with the CVE method would be AI stupidity...IE the AI seeing it is a CVE sticks it into a combat TF instead of just using it as a merchant escort. And trust me a 'carrier' TF based on a flight deck tanker with 3-4 string-bags does not an air combat TF make. [:D]

AV won't work since they can't launch ASW patrols while at sea, a CS will run into the same problem as the CVE.

As you can see, I'm torn on the issue.

The AI won't put it into a CV TF but it will put it into a CVE Escort TF when the script calls for air cover of amphibious/transport TFs.

The real problem you have is in determining the sorties. That gets recorded as device 194 IIRC in weapon slot #19. You can overlook torpedo sorties (device #195 IIRC) in slot #20. Unless you assign sorties, you are going to be limited to use of a floatplane only. Following on from this, is that only "carrier" type ship classes are supposed to have assigned sorties. In game terms that means CV/CVL/CVB/CS type ships. One suspects that there would be a code conflict if you attempted to assign sorties to an xAK class ship.

Look up the editor manual under AI scripting for some useful hints as to when "carrier" type ships get pulled into task force. Note the "special" script triggers.

Alfred

[jmolyson]

MACs and CAMs are two different ship types. CAMs catapulted modified land planes, specifically the Hurricane, on a one-way mission to intercept enemy bombers. Once launched, the plane would return to a land base or ditched near the convoy. MACs were true aircraft carriers, that is they could launch and recover a small aircraft with landing gear. Both types retained some cargo capacity, Up to four planes were carried. Both types were used to countered enemy reconnaissance aircraft and overly aggressive subs. Both types were quickly replaced in the Atlantic when numbers of CVEs appeared. The small number of obsolescent aircraft were never intended to fight off multiple attack aircraft or enemy fighters. If you want to simulate this in the Pacific Theater, it would (historically speaking) not logical to have this ships in play after 1942. There were too many CVEs and other aviation solutions by that time. Also, the Swordfish would be probably not be embarked, but rather the F4F/Martlet or perhaps the OS2U Kingfisher, both of which could be supported by the American logistics system.

[Shark7]

I am specifically modeling the MAC ships, CAMs simply won't work, there is no way to simulate the fact that the planes can not be recovered by the launching ship in game.

The MAC ships had arrestor gear and were in all respects very similar to a small carrier without a catapult. The tanker versions did not have hangars, but the grain bulker versions gave up 30% of cargo space to gain a makeshift hangar. The MAC ships were also specifically designed to combat U-Boat attacks, unlike the CAM ships that were intercepting FW-200 Condors. Also, MAC ships were considered to transport replacement aircraft or be converted even further to serve the AO role in some cases. By upgrading to AKV or AO and removing the aircraft capacity while withdrawing the flight groups, this can be easily accomplished in game.

I've decided that the only way to accurately depict these ships is to maintain their merchant designation while modding in a Swordfish Mk. II *Spec* aircraft that is a Patrol with float capable checked. Keep production numbers very low so they barely have enough to keep the MAC ship flights replaced. They will then act as naval search spotter aircraft. While they might not be able to attack (as historical), they will spot the subs so that the escorting destroyers, SCs, etc can attack. It really does seem the most logical way to proceed.

Unless someone can make a strong counter-argument?

[Dili]

I agree that a false floatplane is the best solution.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: AYAAD
Both types were quickly replaced in the Atlantic when numbers of CVEs appeared. The small number of obsolescent aircraft were never intended to fight off multiple attack aircraft or enemy fighters. If you want to simulate this in the Pacific Theater, it would (historically speaking) not logical to have this ships in play after 1942.

Historically it's not logical to have them in play before May 1943 as Empire MacAlpine, the first MAC, didn't complete until April. WRT them being 'quickly replaced' Gadilla was still escorting convoys in March 1945 and Macoma in May, see http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Gadclass.htm

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
CAMs simply won't work, there is no way to simulate the fact that the planes can not be recovered by the launching ship in game.

I haven't tried it, but squadron size of 1 and dev 194 value of 3? That would get you three sorties total, even if you are using a single aircraft three times to simulate three aircraft each being used once.

[Andy Mac]

For Ironman I designated an AK/AMC/xAK type ship to have aircraft capacity then gave them a float fighter group i.e. Sea Gladiator set to be a float fighter the AI still treats it like an AK and uses it in transport TF's and the fighters fly CAP as normal it seems to work

[m10bob]

The British had "one flight" Hurricanes with catapult launchers on some of their AK's for a while. Of course it was expensive.
The editor will allow you to make the planes "floatfighters" if you wish, plenty of slots, and you can give AK's a 'launching capability" the same way. I suggest you put a designator in the name of the ship so you will remember them?.

For chrome, the USN experimented with the Catfish, (Wildcat on floats), and a few Fletcher DD's had a single Kingfisher mounted!(Eight of them IIRC) and that too was an experiment doomed to fail as it caused top heaviness problems.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Ironman I designated an AK/AMC/xAK type ship to have aircraft capacity then gave them a float fighter group i.e. Sea Gladiator set to be a float fighter the AI still treats it like an AK and uses it in transport TF's and the fighters fly CAP as normal it seems to work

Yes, it works bloody well. Not too mention that those things have 36" guns (it seems) and 100's of AA guns (literally). Nasty buggers those "Q" ships you created.

Oh, and did I forget the inflatable tubes? Yeah, they seem to get extra float too as they are almost impossible to sink. [:D][:D][:D]


[&o][&o][&o]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The British had "one flight" Hurricanes with catapult launchers on some of their AK's for a while. Of course it was expensive.
The editor will allow you to make the planes "floatfighters" if you wish, plenty of slots, and you can give AK's a 'launching capability" the same way. I suggest you put a designator in the name of the ship so you will remember them?.

For chrome, the USN experimented with the Catfish, (Wildcat on floats), and a few Fletcher DD's had a single Kingfisher mounted!(Eight of them IIRC) and that too was an experiment doomed to fail as it caused top heaviness problems.

Just before the war the USN experimented putting float planes on a 4 piper destroyer which got the brass intrigued, but it was an even tighter fit than an Fletcher:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0534301.jpg

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The British had "one flight" Hurricanes with catapult launchers on some of their AK's for a while. Of course it was expensive.
The editor will allow you to make the planes "floatfighters" if you wish, plenty of slots, and you can give AK's a 'launching capability" the same way. I suggest you put a designator in the name of the ship so you will remember them?.

For chrome, the USN experimented with the Catfish, (Wildcat on floats), and a few Fletcher DD's had a single Kingfisher mounted!(Eight of them IIRC) and that too was an experiment doomed to fail as it caused top heaviness problems.

Just before the war the USN experimented putting float planes on a 4 piper destroyer which got the brass intrigued, but it was an even tighter fit than an Fletcher:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0534301.jpg

Now that's just plain crazy!...[X(]

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The British had "one flight" Hurricanes with catapult launchers on some of their AK's for a while. Of course it was expensive.

IIRC the british had some Hurricanes fitted with floats....GP

[JeffroK]

Not the Hurri, but definitely the Spitfire.

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Not the Hurri, but definitely the Spitfire.

Ok, that was it. Thanks Jeff....GP