Page 2 of 2
RE: USS Long Island was a CVE!!
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:06 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Wonder why the USS Long Island, in every mod, enters as pretty much a "door stop", when it was really the 1st CVL in the USN?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/001.htm
Was used to ferry by late 1942, but that is an option all gamers have.. I would like to see the ship enter as a CVE, as designed.
Must agree with Bob (what in the world is m10?), with all due respect to Terminus, Conways and DANFS.
In a perfect world, a CVE, as an aircraft transport, can deliver a day-1, fully operational air group (ok squadron or 2), as opposed to mailing it by AK, boxed and 'assembly required' upon delivery. Thus the CVE has a place in the lineup.
Notwithstanding, as players, we are Roosevelt, King, BUSHIPS, Nimitz, etc.. (and Churchill, and Somerville, hello Dixie) and can decide how we wish to allocate our resources. Given a 'carrier capable' squadron, there is no reason why we cannot choose to deploy it on any 'air' capable ship. Don't forget, during the Korean Agression, Marine F-4 FB squadrons were routinely deployed on CVE types, offshore in the Sea of Japan.
Ciao. JWE
Due to a technical problem - or disagreement if it isn't a problem in the mind of Matrix programmers - there are lots of "extra" carrier squadrons in RHS right now. The problem - partially cleaned up in the last two updates from Matrix - is the "resize" of carrier squadrons. This is ahistorical - insofar as the software imposes ahistorical sizes on units at ahistorical times - and results in significant issues even though now it won't overload the ship. I used the CVE fleet as a way to define squadrons that will "resize" to the "standard" squadron sizes - mainly 18 - sometimes other values - which you can then use in place of squadrons that resize in unpleasant ways if that happens to you.
Anyway - IRL units sometimes were transferred to carriers - particularly USMC units - so in RHS you now have this option even for units nominally "land" based. IF you want Long Island with an air group, transfer an 18 plane unit to her from a different CVE/CVL/CV. These ships sometimes get sunk or damaged - and you may end up with squadrons that need a temporary home - as it were. Long Island is just about the only US CVE without an air group in RHS.
RE: USS Long Island was a CVE!!
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:10 am
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Marine F4U squadrons were first deployed on CVEs in 1945. I can't recall if it was during the Iwo Jima or Okinawa campaign.
It would be nice if the game gave us the flexibility to assign air groups to carriers in any way we choose. The game engine doesn't lend itself to that sort of flexability. Bill
Not exactly for this reason - but it is ratified by this reasoning - RHS does give you this flexability. We will not think of removing it unless Matrix removes the air group resize code - which IMHO forces you NOT to use historical units.
Why do all the research on units only to have blind code ruin it? Never understood that. So I put in lots of units that - under 1.6 code - will be stable in size - of one of the standard sizes you need - and you will find that you have lots of options to "mix and match." Maybe when a unit is not in good shape you simply put some Marines on board for a while?
RE: USS Long Island was a CVE!!
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:33 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Wonder why the USS Long Island, in every mod, enters as pretty much a "door stop", when it was really the 1st CVL in the USN?
http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/001.htm
Was used to ferry by late 1942, but that is an option all gamers have.. I would like to see the ship enter as a CVE, as designed.
Must agree with Bob (what in the world is m10?), with all due respect to Terminus, Conways and DANFS.
In a perfect world, a CVE, as an aircraft transport, can deliver a day-1, fully operational air group (ok squadron or 2), as opposed to mailing it by AK, boxed and 'assembly required' upon delivery. Thus the CVE has a place in the lineup.
Notwithstanding, as players, we are Roosevelt, King, BUSHIPS, Nimitz, etc.. (and Churchill, and Somerville, hello Dixie) and can decide how we wish to allocate our resources. Given a 'carrier capable' squadron, there is no reason why we cannot choose to deploy it on any 'air' capable ship. Don't forget, during the Korean Agression, Marine F-4 FB squadrons were routinely deployed on CVE types, offshore in the Sea of Japan.
Ciao. JWE
Erm, when did I ever say that the Long Island had no place in the lineup? I've had lots of use for her in my various games, as an aircraft ferry and ASW platform...[&:]
RE: USS Long Island was a CVL!!
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:55 pm
by JWE
You never did. I was just acknowledging your original take.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Long Island never operated as anything other than a testbed and aircraft transport. She wasn't used offensively...
As you know, I'm one who believes in games as simulations. I do not hew to the rule that every action must give a precisely historical result, or that every 'item' must only be utilized in its strict historical context.
I want to be Ernie King, that arrogant, pigheaded, brilliant old man, and make operational decisions on my own nickel. If I screw up, then I learn. It's not like real war, I can restart.
I was just acknowledging that others might have a different perspective and was offering them all due respect. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings.
JWE
RE: USS Long Island was a CVL!!
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:02 pm
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: JWE
You never did. I was just acknowledging your original take.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Long Island never operated as anything other than a testbed and aircraft transport. She wasn't used offensively...
As you know, I'm one who believes in games as simulations. I do not hew to the rule that every action must give a precisely historical result, or that every 'item' must only be utilized in its strict historical context.
I want to be Ernie King, that arrogant, pigheaded, brilliant old man, and make operational decisions on my own nickel. If I screw up, then I learn. It's not like real war, I can restart.
I was just acknowledging that others might have a different perspective and was offering them all due respect. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings.
JWE
Okay..that is 3 attorneys I like....BTW..Love the unit crest..I was 2/503rd
RE: USS Long Island was a CVL!!
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:58 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: JWE
You never did. I was just acknowledging your original take.
ORIGINAL: Terminus
The Long Island never operated as anything other than a testbed and aircraft transport. She wasn't used offensively...
As you know, I'm one who believes in games as simulations. I do not hew to the rule that every action must give a precisely historical result, or that every 'item' must only be utilized in its strict historical context.
I want to be Ernie King, that arrogant, pigheaded, brilliant old man, and make operational decisions on my own nickel. If I screw up, then I learn. It's not like real war, I can restart.
I was just acknowledging that others might have a different perspective and was offering them all due respect. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings.
JWE
So am I. No apology needed...
RE: USS Long Island was a CVL!!
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:17 am
by MkXIV
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Taken at Pearl, summer of '42
First time I have seen this photo, I knew she had no island, where was her bridge?
RE: USS Long Island was a CVL!!
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:48 am
by el cid again
A tiny control station starboard side forward - you can see it - barely