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

Why are CV planes so slow compared to how fast they fly historically?

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
38 posts
3,845 battles

Go to wiki and do some search, and you will find that most 1940s fighters move at 400+ knots and TBs move at 250+ knots. Isn't it just silly to cut the real plane speed by more than half just for balance? Just make TBs and DBs turn more awkwardly and I don't think the extra speed would be much of a problem: CVs don't get to adjust their drops that well and people can avoid it more easily. Planes moving at under 200 knots is just silly: they can't even stay in the air at that speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
509 posts

Its because they are secretly blimps shaped like planes =P

 

Its the same reason why dive bombers can become submarines and dive through enemy ships deep down into the ocean :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
350 posts

Go to wiki and do some search, and you will find that most 1940s fighters move at 400+ knots and TBs move at 250+ knots. Isn't it just silly to cut the real plane speed by more than half just for balance? Just make TBs and DBs turn more awkwardly and I don't think the extra speed would be much of a problem: CVs don't get to adjust their drops that well and people can avoid it more easily. Planes moving at under 200 knots is just silly: they can't even stay in the air at that speed.

 

Oh really?

 

Name some that could do 400+ knots in level flight.

Edited by FG_IMONABOAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
213 posts
4,335 battles

Think you are confusing knots with mph/kph. An A6M maxed out at about 160 knots at low altitude.

For 400+ your looking at Mig 15s. 

Also, to, ther is a huge speed multiplier to make the game playable. Those ships are moving like bullet trains and those TBs can probably out run an f-35.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,725 posts

Go to wiki and do some search, and you will find that most 1940s fighters move at 400+ knots and TBs move at 250+ knots. Isn't it just silly to cut the real plane speed by more than half just for balance? Just make TBs and DBs turn more awkwardly and I don't think the extra speed would be much of a problem: CVs don't get to adjust their drops that well and people can avoid it more easily. Planes moving at under 200 knots is just silly: they can't even stay in the air at that speed.

 

Not sure if this counts as my bingo card.

 

Anyway, what you really want is...

(1) Just want simply change the cruise speed to its original BUT in-game performance will be the same; OR

(2) You really want to buff the plane's speed to destroy ships fast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Let them move at historical speeds, am fine with that.

 

Provided, of course, CVs have to be moving into the wind at at least half speed to conduct flight ops and, most importantly, the launch/recovery/rearming times are ALSO moved to historical norms.

 

That should take care of any CV complaint threads, as none of them will achieve anything in 20 minutes.

 

Next?

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

Go to wiki and do some search, and you will find that most 1940s fighters move at 400+ knots and TBs move at 250+ knots. Isn't it just silly to cut the real plane speed by more than half just for balance? Just make TBs and DBs turn more awkwardly and I don't think the extra speed would be much of a problem: CVs don't get to adjust their drops that well and people can avoid it more easily. Planes moving at under 200 knots is just silly: they can't even stay in the air at that speed.

 

Dude, 400 knots is like approx 800 km/h or 600 mph. It is obviously not for the propeller-aged aircrafts. Not to mention cruising is much much slower, because the air groups are moving at formation; high speed maneuver is risking the safety of the crew.

 

Furthermore, if you make aircraft moving even slightly faster, then the entire delicated balances would be broken. Ba-bam! Now they would either have to buff the AA on every ship or further reduce the damage on aircraft attack...

 

That's a huge big NO NO NO don't funk with my machine here...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
51 posts
504 battles

Let them move at historical speeds, am fine with that.

 

Provided, of course, CVs have to be moving into the wind at at least half speed to conduct flight ops and, most importantly, the launch/recovery/rearming times are ALSO moved to historical norms.

 

That should take care of any CV complaint threads, as none of them will achieve anything in 20 minutes.

 

Next?

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
802 posts

Go to wiki and do some search, and you will find that most 1940s fighters move at 400+ knots and TBs move at 250+ knots. Isn't it just silly to cut the real plane speed by more than half just for balance? Just make TBs and DBs turn more awkwardly and I don't think the extra speed would be much of a problem: CVs don't get to adjust their drops that well and people can avoid it more easily. Planes moving at under 200 knots is just silly: they can't even stay in the air at that speed.

 

Wikipedia doesn't not equal research, but a quick reference. Maximum speed doesn't equal the speed of an aircraft in level flight. Compare the F4U as an example. The wikipedia entry states its maximum speed as 417mph (362 kn, 671 km/h), but the document it takes that info from gives it's maximum level speed performance as 382mph (@ 17800 ft) (331knts or 614 kph)

 

As others have mentioned, the scaling in this game is off as well. I think you'll find that DDs and other vessels travel a lot faster in game than the GUI indicates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ST Coordinator
2,325 posts
2,203 battles

Due to time compression (if not one match would take hours to finish), your torpedoes are actually going at supersonic speed if you take into account how fast torpedoes close the distance to their target. :trollface:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,825 posts
5,317 battles

Its because they are secretly blimps shaped like planes =P

 

Its the same reason why dive bombers can become submarines and dive through enemy ships deep down into the ocean :P

 

If you play CnC: Red Alert 3. There is a Japanese unit that can do that. :trollface:

WG is just trying to steal the idea from EA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,929 battles

Let them move at historical speeds, am fine with that.

 

Provided, of course, CVs have to be moving into the wind at at least half speed to conduct flight ops and, most importantly, the launch/recovery/rearming times are ALSO moved to historical norms.

 

That should take care of any CV complaint threads, as none of them will achieve anything in 20 minutes.

 

Next?

 

+1 and also have CV decks that are basically made of wood/little armor like in reality that would cause a magazine detonation when hit by a single bomb like at Midway 1942 :trollface: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

+1 and also have CV decks that are basically made of wood/little armor like in reality that would cause a magazine detonation when hit by a single bomb like at Midway 1942 :trollface: 

 

Actually, in WWII thats not much of a problem, or rather even a good thing.

 

Why the IJN CV in Midway getting destroyed by a few Dive Bomber hits is because of the US Bombs detonates Bombs and Torpedos on the deck as they are changing loadout for the Strike planes at the time.

 

On this topic though, USN CV indeed also had a Wooden deck as well and it is pretty prone to damage - but a feature of the USN Carrier is that they are easy to damage but very very hard to sink.

Enterprise took multiple Bomb hits during the earlier stage of the war, but due to her skilled crew as well as Wooden deck is easy to repair, she usually maintain ability to launch/land aircrafts. (She didn't take a single Torpedo hit throughout though, which is the Yorktown Class's universal weakness)

But why?

 

US and (To a degree) the Japanese realize this very early on compare to any other country like Britain - It's better off to send more fighters to deal with an incoming air attack rather than making an "Armored" carrier. The Flight deck is very long and huge, and at most for any WWII CV you can only have ~80-90mm of armor all around, and that is excluding the elevators. 80mm-90mm of armor would stop a 250 kg Bomb reliably, but it is already consider "Small" in the later stage in WWII (USN are using 800-1000kg Bombs, for example - Or the Stukas can carry some heavier bombs too after upgrades).

 

The HMS Illustrious is a good example of Armored Carrier in WWII.

In 1941 when it's guarding a Convoy she was nearly sunk due to an concentrated attack by 43 Stukas - And Oh Boy she take a beating.

She was hit by at least 3-4 500kg AP Bomb and Multiple 270kg Bomb as well - Her Rudder Dies, On Fire everywhere, Deck was completely ruined despite the armored deck (2 of the 270kg bombs hit the elevator which is unarmored).

She Survives due to the excellent protection to the Damage Control Systems and Ammunition - and TBF any US Carrier taken such beating would probably sunk 2 times - but wouldn't it be easier to send fighters to kill these un-escorted and slow Stukas? Illustrious AA only mange to shot down 4 of them.

 

Armored CV usually had a "Closed" Hangar - which means they are better protected indeed, but it seriously affect the capacity, especially when quantity is much more important in WWII.

Low Aircraft capacity is always an issue for the Brits - and if you don't have enough planes whats the point of building a CV? IMO, Yankees is much more clever on this issue.

 

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,314 posts
7,145 battles

While we're on this, one does observe than pretty much every IJN CV up to Shokaku burns easily when bombs hit the deck. I can't say much for Taiho, Hakuryuu and USN CV cos I hardly ever, if not, never get the opportunity to engage them. But I reckon that Tai-Hak would be less prone to deck fores since they have metal armoured flight deck unless of course your deck hands decide that it's better to leave fuel hose and ammo all over your flight deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
33 posts
1,334 battles

While we're on this, one does observe than pretty much every IJN CV up to Shokaku burns easily when bombs hit the deck. I can't say much for Taiho, Hakuryuu and USN CV cos I hardly ever, if not, never get the opportunity to engage them. But I reckon that Tai-Hak would be less prone to deck fores since they have metal armoured flight deck unless of course your deck hands decide that it's better to leave fuel hose and ammo all over your flight deck.

Isn't that true for most ships in the game? At least for me, currently at tier V, bomb on the deck of CV/BB sets fire like ~80% of the time and that's pretty much all DB can reliably do for their less-than-a-salvo damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

~ interesting stuff ~

 

To be fair, however, the operating environment of the Brits in the Atlantic and Mediterranean differed greatly from that of the Pacific.

 

Part of what influenced the Brits' thinking was the likelihood of being within air based land very often, in which case you'd never carry enough planes to deal with the numbers potentially available to attack you. That and the thought they'd not have the great distances between bases that was going to be a feature of the Pacific.

 

While many have come down on the side of the USN approach, it's worth noting that the Brit thinking wasn't crazy and comparing the two types isn't necessarily all that valid due to the very different requirements of their respective theatres of ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

 

 

Yeah, espically considering the Brits never had any "Real" contenders in the Atlantic on CVs~ :B

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,230 posts
2,682 battles

 

ToTalk about realism

okay, first 3 fact

 

1. you NEVER, EVER, FOREVER found a 'fair fight' in war.

2. you WANT a fair fight in game

and how the hell this two gonna come together???

 

All world war 2 weapon are design to Overpower enemy as much as possible.

but in game, no one want any side to be OP right?

 

once weapon form WW2 are put into game, some need to buff up, and some need to be nerf (it may sound simple, it EXTREMELY hard for dev. team to decide) to make both side stand on equal ground.

 

to sum it up......

 

Only thing in this game that can be made realistic is.......

'Ship model'

that's all,

the rest is purely made up for the game.

 

oh yeah, last fact

3. No naval fleet battle in real life are finish within 20 minutes.

P.S., This's PGM199's content, can't find the original thread

 

Edited by Conkhead_12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,177 posts
4,110 battles

OP, this game does not have real-world scale. Ships in this game are two-fold or three-fold larger than they appear in real life, and hence distances are significantly shortened as well. What looks like 10km to the eye in-game is actually something like 40km. The RU forum devs explained that this game would be too boring if ships engaged in combat as they were spread out in real-life; would you really find it fun if you needed to sail for 120 minutes just to spot your first enemy ship? Using the ship speeds in this game, you'd be sitting in your Kongo for hours and hours if the game had real-world distance perception. The scale in distance was shrunk for the same of this being, you know, an arcade game. Try parking your destroyer next to a bunch of houses in one of the island maps, and see how tiny they are (they're houses for dwarves).

 

With this in mind, do you really think it makes sense to have planes fly any faster, especially since the game-world distances are much smaller?

Edited by benlisquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,536 battles

Its because they are secretly blimps shaped like planes =P

 

Aw, man!

Don't give away highly secret information on the upcoming soviet divebombers!

 

 1Vw9UE4.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
423 posts
3,175 battles

 

Aw, man!

Don't give away highly secret information on the upcoming soviet divebombers!

 

 1Vw9UE4.jpg

 

 

Retyanka, you should be sent to Gulag, I'm telling Tavarisch Stalin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,929 battles

 

To be fair, however, the operating environment of the Brits in the Atlantic and Mediterranean differed greatly from that of the Pacific.

 

Part of what influenced the Brits' thinking was the likelihood of being within air based land very often, in which case you'd never carry enough planes to deal with the numbers potentially available to attack you. That and the thought they'd not have the great distances between bases that was going to be a feature of the Pacific.

 

While many have come down on the side of the USN approach, it's worth noting that the Brit thinking wasn't crazy and comparing the two types isn't necessarily all that valid due to the very different requirements of their respective theatres of ops.

 

Unfortunately for the Brits, while their carriers were up to date (despite the low plane capacity), their aircraft were rather inferior for most of the war (possibly due to lack of Carrier opponents in Europe) - they had to resort to importing US built Corsairs, Wildcats and Avengers to supplement their obsolete Skuas, Swordfish and Fulmars. Only late into the war and afterwards did they receive updated and suitable aircraft such as the Sea Fury (my personal favourite carrier borne piston fighter beside the Corsair) and the Barracuda 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×