Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

Carrier Preference  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. which aircraft carrier from each nation will u play the most?


23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
64 posts
274 battles

The Battle of Midway and Coral Sea proved that carriers were FAR superior than battleships if ur gonna play carriers from which nation would it be?

plus ill be using the Lexington and Yorktown class carriers their insignias look real bad ass and intimidating

321px-CV-2_Lexington_insignia.png

1024px-CV-5_Yorktown_insignia.jpg

Edited by The_Big_Red_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
128 posts
3,247 battles

The issue with armoured carriers was the weight and also the below deck height room.

The armoured deck meant more weight higher above the water line and hence the hanger decks had to be placed as low as possible to the water line. That in itself is a problem as for practicle reasons of access to the flight deck for the aircraft. Usually it meant the hanger decks where quite a bit shorter in height than US carriers.

Now this might not have been such a huge issue for the RN, if they had been able to develop their own carrier borne aircraft. Alas they were not really able to do so, as much of the UK's aircraft industry was building aircraft for service from home airfields and they had priority, naturally.

This meant that many of the RN's Fleet Air Arm used modified aircraft of RAF background or the use of US carrier designed aircraft.

US carrier aircraft were designed to operate from the constraints of US carriers, not RN carriers and this made things a little difficult for the RN carriers being really effective in being able to provide large and really effective Air Armadas.

Below deck hanger space was made more cumbersome because the armoured deck also required more support from below the decks, hence more bulkheads and columns to support the weight. This made the hanger decks a little "fragmented' and once again impeded the carriers ability to launch large air groups.

The US saw that the principle role of the carriers as being able to launch aircraft effectively rather than them being able to better withstand battle damage. I guess they favoured offensive capabilities over defensive ones.

 

The RN carriers performed well in the constrained waters of the Mediterranean where they were more often exposed to land based aircraft, and this meant the enemy had more ability to launch attacks at regular intervals without as much regard for weather conditions.

 

In the Pacific US carriers often operated at extreme ranges from land based air assets of the enemy whenever they could only having to close on an enemy airbase when it was part of a larger offensive. The US carriers also had to bear in mind that they were facing an enemy who also had carriers that were active. The ability to be able to strike enemy naval assets with a large and effective air group was at the top of the agenda for US planners and designers. That and being operationally flexible in being able to launch air strikes at short notice against an elusive enemy. The Pacific is a big theatre to operate in and the ability to attack targets quickly before they moved out of your area of operations and disappeared out of range or view of spotting aircraft was vital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
679 posts
3,522 battles

The issue with armoured carriers was the weight and also the below deck height room.

The armoured deck meant more weight higher above the water line and hence the hanger decks had to be placed as low as possible to the water line. That in itself is a problem as for practicle reasons of access to the flight deck for the aircraft. Usually it meant the hanger decks where quite a bit shorter in height than US carriers.

Now this might not have been such a huge issue for the RN, if they had been able to develop their own carrier borne aircraft. Alas they were not really able to do so, as much of the UK's aircraft industry was building aircraft for service from home airfields and they had priority, naturally.

This meant that many of the RN's Fleet Air Arm used modified aircraft of RAF background or the use of US carrier designed aircraft.

US carrier aircraft were designed to operate from the constraints of US carriers, not RN carriers and this made things a little difficult for the RN carriers being really effective in being able to provide large and really effective Air Armadas.

Below deck hanger space was made more cumbersome because the armoured deck also required more support from below the decks, hence more bulkheads and columns to support the weight. This made the hanger decks a little "fragmented' and once again impeded the carriers ability to launch large air groups.

The US saw that the principle role of the carriers as being able to launch aircraft effectively rather than them being able to better withstand battle damage. I guess they favoured offensive capabilities over defensive ones.

 

The RN carriers performed well in the constrained waters of the Mediterranean where they were more often exposed to land based aircraft, and this meant the enemy had more ability to launch attacks at regular intervals without as much regard for weather conditions.

 

In the Pacific US carriers often operated at extreme ranges from land based air assets of the enemy whenever they could only having to close on an enemy airbase when it was part of a larger offensive. The US carriers also had to bear in mind that they were facing an enemy who also had carriers that were active. The ability to be able to strike enemy naval assets with a large and effective air group was at the top of the agenda for US planners and designers. That and being operationally flexible in being able to launch air strikes at short notice against an elusive enemy. The Pacific is a big theatre to operate in and the ability to attack targets quickly before they moved out of your area of operations and disappeared out of range or view of spotting aircraft was vital.

 

Outstanding overview +1ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
2 posts

Midway class carriers thanks. massive air group of 136, armoured decks, 2in hangar deck plus 2in main deck to back up the heavy flight deck.

On the downside I'm guessing she will be tier 10 which will take some grinding to get to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
948 posts
5,652 battles

I think they might be a bit of hard work. you will have to keep CAP over your own friendly ships plus send out scout planes, attack plane, these will need escort planes, and then you also have to look after your own ship so it can turn away any air attack.

Guess that is why I have my eye on the Battleships, slow can take a hit and can dish it out too easy :great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
47 posts
1,837 battles

Perhaps the Japanese Taiho is a better mix, large flight group (up to 75) plus an armoured flight deck.

I am in support of this, though it never got to prove itself due to incompetent damage control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
70 posts
991 battles

Perhaps the Japanese Taiho is a better mix, large flight group (up to 75) plus an armoured flight deck.

 

I am in support of this, though it never got to prove itself due to incompetent damage control. 

 

Don't forget that one Carrier  Shinano which we just know as the biggest carrier in its time but got sunk due to the fact that her Crew was all Inexperienced and Improperly Trained..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
65 posts
397 battles

A bit too early to say since we don't have the IJN carriers in the alpha/beta yet. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the skill of the carrier user. If you've seen the carrier gameplay of iChase (who's video was approved by WG), then you should have a good idea on how to play the carriers of each nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
16 posts
294 battles

Wonder if they will bring in HMAS Melbourne, Australia's only Aircraft Carrier and that was built in 1947 so it should by all accounts fit into this game and era of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
1,924 battles

Wonder if they will bring in HMAS Melbourne, Australia's only Aircraft Carrier and that was built in 1947 so it should by all accounts fit into this game and era of ships.

 

Not quite - HMAS Sydney was the first carrier (ex HMS Terrible).

(Still Majestic Class, same as HMAS Melbourne).

 

I'd guess that due our size, that the RAN (and other commonwealth countries) will be represented by the British tree, noting that the majority of our capital ships (BC, CA, CL, CV, DD) were based on British classes, modified for "colonial" duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
16 posts
294 battles

I expect no less than it to be put in the UK line but the yr of build should not keep it from being in game, time will tell when they bring in the UK line of ships, strange though that the UK and German ships were not put in first ahead of the Japanese and American ships, still trying to figure out the reasoning other than to satisfy the NA and the SEA servers of nationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
1,924 battles

At a guess when it comes to actual naval battles then IJN v USN were the main players in WW2.

For all of the SMS Bismark v HMS Hood PR, there were very few major engagements on that front (a lot of smaller skirmishes).

 

As you've stated commercial reality also plays a major part in any companies decision making processes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
266 posts
3,486 battles

US

 

still hoping to let them have angled flight decks for Essex and Midway

 

and the addition of the Midway-class armored carriers

 

 

 

aaaand I want the Lexington.. although the design looks horrid, her nickname is the one i love. "Lady Lex"

(good thing they rebuilt her to be a part of the Essex-class)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×