CVs OP

[battlevonwar]

I guess that CVs being so strong could be for game balance but historically the British CV Force was not strong vs it's counterparts. A few Stukas would of sunk a CV and there is probably nothing that a CV could of done about it(In fact a solitary U-boat did just that in the beginning of the war). These were not the Elite CVs of the IJN/USN that had a military Doctrine/Training/Cutting edge aircraft by 1941.

Meanwhile in game they make the Enterprise or Shokaku look frail. I know this might be for game balance though I ran a test with the Italian Navy vs 1 UK BB/CV and I couldn't touch him in 5-6 encounters. It was murder. I have seen it about a dozen other times in games. They're floating Super Naval Bombers.

Taranto did indeed sink 1 ship, damaged 5 more, in port without air protection. I wonder if a Navy would fall for this twice? (Americans did but they also fell for U-boat Campaign on their Coastline)

I bring this up in contrast to the U-boat menace talk.

[aspqrz02]

Ah.

Urban myths.

The reason British CVs 'weren't as strong' as US ones was because they carried fewer planes.

The reason they carried fewer planes was because they had armoured flight decks.

This was both an advantage and a disadvantage.

It was an advantage in that minor damage didn't KO them (as in render them non-operational rather than sink), as it could with USN carriers which had wooden flight decks.

It was a disadvantage in that medium damage warped the flight deck rendering them non-operational until fixed by extended rebuilding in a dockyard. USN carriers with wooden flight decks could be returned to service much more quickly.

As for being KO'ed by Stukas ... ROTFL (rolling on the floor laughing).

The Luftwaffe, as did the USN and RAF, found that actually hitting ships with bombs was rather more difficult than your blythe statement suggests ... in fact, unless the pilots were specifically trained for Aero-Naval warfare, it was effectively impossible *against a CV* and only moderately successful vs naval elements with no air support (cf. Crete or Dunkirk).

The crux of the matter was that standard Bombs carried by Stukas were less than 100% effective against ships.

The Luftwaffe had exactly ONE squadron trained and equipped for Aero-Naval warfare and it didn't fly Stukas. Its main aircraft was the He-111 but it also operated smaller aircraft early in the war (He-59s, IIRC) and Ju-88s later, and these were equipped with Torpedoes.

The interesting thing is that German aerial torpedoes tended to either break apart (about 50% of the time) or porpoise (bounce back to the surface and lose direction and speed and often power) when they hit the water much of the rest of the time ... being effectively useless.

So useless were they that the Germans bought a bulk batch of ITALIAN aerial torpedoes which they used instead!

Superior ITALIAN technology!

Phil

[battlevonwar]

Interesting information Phil, I appreciate the insight in British Carriers of which all I know about them comes from World of Warships. It doesn't really cover reality just the pretty design of the ship.

From what you're indicating USN Carriers would have been frail and IJN Ones even more so frail. They lacked good AA and were built around an entire culture of Naval Air Aviation that the west still doesn't understand to this day. Paraphrasing "Shattered Sword." They were built to project power from range...but by the time of Midway they were deficient in training/airplanes (I would know after 24 more hours of reading the story the one book tells and ONE SIDE of the multifaceted prism reveals)

Regardless in game, it feels as though the UK CV forces more so resembles a fantasy. How so you might ask? Weren't they carrying biplanes? Wasn't their primarily role to Patrol the Oceans for U-boats? Transfer planes to locations like Malta... Didn't the Axis Air Fleets nearly obliterate the shipping there?

In this game that is not the role they fulfill. USN Torpedoes were notorious for not working either. Unfortunately for many a men in WW2.

Thanks for the little history lesson though. I hope I also add 2 cents. I know so little but I do study every day.

[AlbertN]

Sorry but UK CV carriers were hardly a match in general and they are definitely sizeable targets - not like the small ships used to evacuate Dunkirk (Which the largest of was a Destroyer).

I posted already that CVs are way too overpowered - but I think the real problem is that their Carrier Air component is free and infinite and self-regenerating.
They can be sunk, it happens - but right now UK surface fleets can venture with carriers in the waters controlled by land based Axis air without grand fear.

[aspqrz02]

USN carriers were actually quite robust. They had superior damage control to the IJN carriers and, interestingly, flushed the refuelling pipes in the hangars with non-flammable gas when under attack, whereas IJN carriers didn't and any damage that penetrated to the hangars was likely to rupture those fuel lines and cause massive fires and even fuel-air explosions.

The RN carriers carried Swordfish Torpedo Bombers which, yes, were Biplanes ... they were also extremely tough and capable of delivering torpedoes with great accuracy (cf Taranto as the Regia Marina found out) ... they remained in service because their replacement, the Albacore (also a Biplane) was slow to come into service, but was at least as successful as the Swordfish and was only replaced in 1943 with the (monoplane) Barracuda.

As for Fighters, Hurricanes and Spitfires from 1941 ... before then Sea Gladiators, Rocs and Fulmars, of which the Gladiator was the best.

It's fortunate that those 1939-40 RN Carriers didn't have to fight in the Pacific ... but in the North Atlantic and North Sea out of range of any German Fighters and the Mediterranean against the generally equally bad Italian Fighters, if they got into range, unplanned, it wasn't a problem.

As for the Malta Convoys, the RN carefully kept their carriers as far away from German/Italian air power as possible ... IIRC the resupply convoy with more aircraft for Malta flew off an RN CV *at range* ...

Later on, of course, with better Fighters and more carriers, supported by Land Based air in North Africa and, later, Sicily and Southern Italy, they had fewer problems.

As for USN torpedo problems ... that only applied to SUBMARINE torpedoes. The ones fired by DDs, CLs and CAs were fine as were the Air Launched ones ...

Phil McGregor

[tyronec]

The Luftwaffe had exactly ONE squadron trained and equipped for Aero-Naval warfare and it didn't fly Stukas.

Not correct. The Luftwaffe had a group of pilots who were originally trained to be crew on the Graf Zepplin before she was scrapped. They flew Stukas in the ground war although they were still designated as Naval well into the war (and had to scrounge for their support equipment because as a Naval unit the didn't need trucks !). Stukas had some good success attacking ships.

[aspqrz02]

Being designated as 'naval' and actually being any good at it are two different things.

Sending Stukas against Carriers, with CAP, as opposed to surface vessels is suicide ...

Even against surface vessels the Stukas were less than effective (one RN DD off Crete fought off multiple attacks to the point where she had to fight off the last one with practise shells ... the puff of smoke evidently did wonders in driving the Stuka Pilots to distraction ... ) though, yes, they DID manage to get some licks in when the RN had no air support.

As for the 'crew' of the Graf Zeppelin, since it never got beyond the hull being complete or there being any decision as to the air complement, or who the heck would control said air complement, I seriously doubt that any real 'training' was done for aeronaval attack ... or any that was worth spit.

Phil McGregor

[battlevonwar]

Original Issue is that CVs are strong/strong... trust me if you don't realize that now play about 5 long games against a good player and you will you feel it. The Kido Butai of the ETO.

Is this good? Maybe necessary...

[AlbertN]

Err... if we look at the historical perspective, sorry but adequate planes will easily obliterate a flattop.
And in a game of the scale of Warplan, a land based unit is -large-.

Anyhow to me the problem simply rest in the fact that the air component self regenerates and is infinite.
It should be only repaired in port, and for a cost in production. Since that air component of a CV can also shot down and damage incoming planes attacking it.

[tyronec]

As for the 'crew' of the Graf Zeppelin, since it never got beyond the hull being complete or there being any decision as to the air complement, or who the heck would control said air complement, I seriously doubt that any real 'training' was done for aeronaval attack ... or any that was worth spit.

Phil McGregor

Interesting statement, just an assertion of opinion rather than based on research. So you got something wrong here, not a big deal but take it on board don't try and negate it by saying it doesn't make any difference anyway.
The Naval pilots were trained for naval operations pre-war.
Axis did get to have some practice against shipping and naval vessels during Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, Crete, Malta to name just a few. Yes, their munitions weren't quite right and Stuka bombs bounced off ships instead of exploding but they were able to learn from the experience. One thing that is impressive about the Luftwaffe is their pilots seemed to have the ability to adapt and improvise way beyond many other branches of other military bodies.

[aspqrz02]

Interesting statement, just an assertion of opinion rather than based on research ...


That sums up your original claim.

Just an assertion.

Provide evidence.

Phil

[tyronec]

Extracts from Black Cross/Red Star - haven't read it all.
Memoirs of a Stuka pilot - Helmut Mahlke (he is the one who was in the navy).
Stuka pilot - Hans Rudel (sank warships in Russia).

I find it strange that you are saying Stukas are not effective against ships when there are so many examples in WW2 of large ships coming off worst against dive bombers.

[aspqrz02]

Where did I say they weren't effective against SHIPS?

They weren't all THAT effective against WARSHIPS was my point.

That and the fact the the only Aeronaval unit the Luftwaffe had wasn't equipped with Stukas ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerf% ... r_Atlantik

I believe that you are reading things into what I HAVE said that, in fact, I have NOT said.

Phil

[tyronec]

It is all there in the two biographies - both good reads.
Not a contradiction of your wikipedia link which is about the Luftwaffe in '41, which is after the naval unit was reclassified.

For a couple of references to Stukas against warships:
The Stukas had numerous successes against Allied naval vessels and in particular the Royal Navy which posed a formidable threat to German naval and coastal operations. The heavy cruiser Suffolk was attacked on 17 April. Her stern was virtually destroyed but she limped back to Scapa Flow with 33 dead and 38 wounded crewmen. The light cruiser squadron consisting of the sister ships Curacoa and Curlew were subjected to lengthy attacks which badly damaged the former for one Ju 87 lost. A witness later said, "they threatened to take our masthead with them in every screaming nerve-racking dive".[99] The same fate nearly befell the sloop Black Swan. On 27 April, a bomb passed through the quarterdeck, a wardroom, a water tank and 4-inch (10.2 cm) magazine and out through the hull to explode in the fjord. The muffled explosion limited the damage to her hull. Black Swan fired 1,000 rounds, but failed to shoot any of her attackers down. HMS Bittern was sunk on 30 April. The French large destroyer Bison was sunk along with HMS Afridi by Sturzkampfgeschwader 1 on 3 May 1940 during the evacuation from Namsos. Bison's forward magazine was hit, killing 108 of the crew. Afridi, which attempted to rescue Bison's survivors, was sunk with the loss of 63 sailors.[98] 49 officers and men, 13 soldiers and 33 survivors from Bison were lost aboard Afridi.[100] All ships were targeted. Armed trawlers were used under the German air umbrella in an attempt to make smaller targets. Such craft were not armoured or armed. The Ju 87s demonstrated this on 30 April when they sank the Jardine (452 tons) and Warwickshire (466 tons). On 15 May, the Polish troopship Chrobry (11,442 tons) was sunk.[101][102][103]

The Stukas also had an operational effect, even when little damage was done. On 1 May 1940, Vice Admiral Lionel Wells commanded a Home Fleet expedition of seven destroyers, the heavy cruiser Berwick, the aircraft carriers Glorious and Ark Royal, and the battleship Valiant. The carriers mounted fighter patrols over the ships evacuating troops from Andalsnes. The Stuka waves (accompanied by He 111s) achieved several near misses, but were unable to obtain a hit. Nevertheless, Wells ordered that no ship was to operate within range of the Ju 87s' Norwegian airfields. The Ju 87s had, in effect, driven British sea power from the Norwegian coast. Moreover, Victor reported to the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet Admiral, Charles Forbes, that carrier operations were no longer practical under the current conditions.[104]

and

On 23 September, Hans-Ulrich Rudel (who was to become the most decorated serviceman in the Wehrmacht) of StG 2, sank the Soviet battleship Marat, during an air attack on Kronstadt harbour near Leningrad, with a hit to the bow with a single 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bomb.[152] During this action, Leutnant Egbert Jaeckel sank the destroyer Minsk, while the destroyer Steregushchiy and submarine M-74 were also sunk. The Stukas also crippled the battleship Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya and the destroyers Silnyy and Grozyashchiy in exchange for two Ju 87s shot down.[153]

Given that there weren't many Stuka units and that they weren't used for naval operations much they had a major impact for moderate losses.

[aspqrz02]

1939 and pre-War

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/l ... -40.39557/

Four Staffeln in one unit, with one minor sinking,

Phil McGregor