Page 3 of 3
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:38 am
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Pascal
herwin, do you have the original study available? Is it now in electronic file format? Could you post it on Spooky's site?
Thirty years ago? I may still have the original data around, but I've moved three times since then. Two moves = one fire. If I have it, it's back at my US residence.
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:07 pm
by el cid again
820 length and 88 beam. The Kaga was 812 by 100.
This is not a thoughtful analysis. Study the Graf and you will learn the Germans had very different ideas - in spite of being given plans for Akagi and Kaga! The Graf is a gunship - a light cruiser - as well as a carrier - much more so than the Japanese carriers. Also, the Graf is intended for North Atlantic operations, and it is simply stupid to put planes on deck in many sea states.
Frankly counting flight deck space at all is a mistake for WITP. Since we cannot lose planes in a storm, players will "cheat" and use it all the time - and risk no losses. The only fair system is to count hanger space alone.
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:37 pm
by HMSWarspite
ORIGINAL: el cid again
820 length and 88 beam. The Kaga was 812 by 100.
This is not a thoughtful analysis. Study the Graf and you will learn the Germans had very different ideas - in spite of being given plans for Akagi and Kaga! The Graf is a gunship - a light cruiser - as well as a carrier - much more so than the Japanese carriers. Also, the Graf is intended for North Atlantic operations, and it is simply stupid to put planes on deck in many sea states.
Frankly counting flight deck space at all is a mistake for WITP. Since we cannot lose planes in a storm, players will "cheat" and use it all the time - and risk no losses. The only fair system is to count hanger space alone.
How can they cheat? If the game calculated a CV capacity for planes, and strike sizes, max cap %, etc, via CV stats (in the DB) how could they cheat? I don't think anyone is proposing it should be evealuated on the fly in game... The storage algorthims would be calibrated against RL stated capacities, so would only change if a player took say all the fighters off, and replaced them with medium twins! (Well, alright, SBDs)
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:44 pm
by Feinder
Oh, I almost forgot to ask.
What do you mean when a carrier has rated at "0" for CAP. Is that just a rouding issue? Obvsiusly, if you can launch planes, you can put -something- up on CAP. Might be that your deck is too short to support coninuous operations, but you can at least put some planes in the air.
I'm not following. Please to explain.
And thanks for the clarification on the "deck points".
-F-
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:57 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Feinder
Oh, I almost forgot to ask.
What do you mean when a carrier has rated at "0" for CAP. Is that just a rouding issue? Obvsiusly, if you can launch planes, you can put -something- up on CAP. Might be that your deck is too short to support coninuous operations, but you can at least put some planes in the air.
I'm not following. Please to explain.
And thanks for the clarification on the "deck points".
-F-
0 for CAP meant there was no room for a deck park during CAP operations. You couldn't be launching and landing simultaneously. If someone had to land, you had to move everybody up the deck.
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:18 pm
by bradfordkay
I think that the carriers should be rated on the number of aircraft that they did handle, not some contrived number of what they might possibly have been able to handle if all conditions were favourable. For most of the carriers on this list, we have actual operational records showing waht they did. For the rest we need to correlate their navy's doctrine with their design. I also feel that we should not attribute to any carrier more aircraft than it's navy designated for its use. To do otherwise is to enter into the realm of fantasy.
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:06 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
I think that the carriers should be rated on the number of aircraft that they did handle, not some contrived number of what they might possibly have been able to handle if all conditions were favourable. For most of the carriers on this list, we have actual operational records showing waht they did. For the rest we need to correlate their navy's doctrine with their design. I also feel that we should not attribute to any carrier more aircraft than it's navy designated for its use. To do otherwise is to enter into the realm of fantasy.
The figures I provided are consistent with operational records where available.
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:54 am
by bradfordkay
I guess that my comment stems from seeing the Graf Zeppelin listed as nearly the equivalent of the Kaga. Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding your numbers (which is why I feel that it's better to just list the actual numbers of aircraft involved), but it appears to me that your ratings do not indicate a 30+ plane difference between those two carriers.
RE: Aircraft Carrier Capacity
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:18 am
by herwin
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
I guess that my comment stems from seeing the Graf Zeppelin listed as nearly the equivalent of the Kaga. Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding your numbers (which is why I feel that it's better to just list the actual numbers of aircraft involved), but it appears to me that your ratings do not indicate a 30+ plane difference between those two carriers.
The hanger volume of the GZ may be a bit too high, since there were six inch guns along the hull on the hanger deck. The other thing is how the ship was to be used operationally--a carrier-cruiser engaging in gun duels would not maintain a deck park. On the other hand, everyone stored planes on the flight deck by 1944. Even the RN had come up with a way to park fighters with their tails extending off the main flight deck to increase capacity.