Page 2 of 2
RE: F4F-3S "Wild Catfish" Seaplane Carriers
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:31 pm
by showboat1
ORIGINAL: Tallyho!
Ooohhh the CAM ships - a hastily improvised solution to the Fw200 Condors, shadowing North Atlantic convoys, relaying info to the wolfpacks
I have a hard time imagining that this was a job that guys lined up around the block for. Ditching in the North Atlantic? Not my cup of tea.
RE: F4F-3S "Wild Catfish" Seaplane Carriers
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:36 pm
by el cid again
Any armed plane is a problem for a submarine. But the Marines envisaged island based warfare - with "seaplane" carriers to transport the planes - then support them until a base could be built. They were not really intended to fight at sea so much as from anchor.
RE: F4F-3S "Wild Catfish" Seaplane Carriers
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:58 am
by el cid again
We have given 5 of the 7 early AVs air groups - the other two only could carry a single patrol plane.
These are a flight of USN observation aircraft and a squadron of Marine utility planes able to drop 250 pound bombs. These latter upgrade to the float dive bomber in 1943.
We gave the 7 late ships air groups including a navy observation flight, a seaplane fighter squadron, and 5 of the 7 (all but the last two in 1945) get a dive bomber squadron to begin with. We have not at this time created a special unit for the float dive bomber - but we may have to do that bye and bye.
We also removed many regiments of navy engineers in the same set - so the seaplanes may stay relevant longer for that reason. The BBO set - based on pre war and early war planning and thinking - is continuing to diverge from the CVO set - based on what actually happened - including some pretty unlikely shifts in purchases and strategy.