US squadrons on Brit CVs
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- pontiouspilot
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm
US squadrons on Brit CVs
I am contemplating putting SBDs, maybe some Wildcats on the Brit CVs....who thinks this is gamey?
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
Not gamey.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
-
- Posts: 8258
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
- Location: Sweden
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
When in doubt: Talk to your opponent. [:)]
Personally I would never consider that "gamey".
Personally I would never consider that "gamey".
- Jorge_Stanbury
- Posts: 4345
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
- Location: Montreal
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
I do the opposite... British torpedo bombers in US decks.
Never used USN squadrons on a British carrier. Their airplane capacity is small and easily filled with British squadrons. Pools of Martlet, Sea Hurrincane, Albacores/ Swordfish, although not plentiful, are adequate for the short window of opportunity early in 42 in which British carriers are active
Never used USN squadrons on a British carrier. Their airplane capacity is small and easily filled with British squadrons. Pools of Martlet, Sea Hurrincane, Albacores/ Swordfish, although not plentiful, are adequate for the short window of opportunity early in 42 in which British carriers are active
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
If you suspect it's gamey, it probably IS gamey. I only switch out squadrons from the same service, as well as USMC squadrons for USN squadrons after about mid-1944.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
- bomccarthy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
- Location: L.A.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
I know the Victorious operated with the Saratoga in mid 43 (while the Enterprise was undergoing repairs) -- I did a quick check on some sites and it appears that USN F4Fs and TBMs operated from the Victorious at various points during this time period, supporting the Solomons and New Guinea offensives. I can't verify which squadrons operated from the Victorious. A poster at one site noted that his father, a crewman aboard Victorious at this time, remembered USN aviation mechanics on board.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
Probably gamey, I believe there were different landing instructions, and while similar, US & FAA Wildcats could have different radios, power systems etc,
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
Some of the Brit flattops arrive with Canadian air groups. Maybe others, but I remember a FAA unit in particular that was Canadian. Messes with you for pilots.
I say if it's CV capable, put it on a CV if you want to. Or don't. There's such an opportunity cost to putting anything on a flight deck that it doesn't matter in terms of the oft-cited "gameyness" boogeyman. You're making a choice. If you use USN squadrons on the British decks, you're riding your USN pools that much harder as well as limiting your LBA portion of the USN (getting the USN groups within proximity to go on the Brit carrier is no small logistical hurdle either). If you fill up completely with fighters, you've got no strike planes, and vice versa. You can only carry so many planes.
I say if it's CV capable, put it on a CV if you want to. Or don't. There's such an opportunity cost to putting anything on a flight deck that it doesn't matter in terms of the oft-cited "gameyness" boogeyman. You're making a choice. If you use USN squadrons on the British decks, you're riding your USN pools that much harder as well as limiting your LBA portion of the USN (getting the USN groups within proximity to go on the Brit carrier is no small logistical hurdle either). If you fill up completely with fighters, you've got no strike planes, and vice versa. You can only carry so many planes.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Some of the Brit flattops arrive with Canadian air groups. Maybe others, but I remember a FAA unit in particular that was Canadian. Messes with you for pilots.
Still FAA squadrons. There are Australian and New Zealand FAA units too. That's not comparable.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
ORIGINAL: bomccarthy
I know the Victorious operated with the Saratoga in mid 43 (while the Enterprise was undergoing repairs) -- I did a quick check on some sites and it appears that USN F4Fs and TBMs operated from the Victorious at various points during this time period, supporting the Solomons and New Guinea offensives. I can't verify which squadrons operated from the Victorious. A poster at one site noted that his father, a crewman aboard Victorious at this time, remembered USN aviation mechanics on board.
The aircraft were American, but the units were FAA. They used American USN aircraft because the supply chain where they were operating had spares for those aircraft. They probably put USN mechanics on board because the RN mechanics were unfamiliar with the aircraft on board.
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Some of the Brit flattops arrive with Canadian air groups. Maybe others, but I remember a FAA unit in particular that was Canadian. Messes with you for pilots.
Still FAA squadrons. There are Australian and New Zealand FAA units too. That's not comparable.
I.... guess? In any case, it's not like you have an infinite amount of space on the ships. They can only carry so many. If your opponent doesn't think you should fill them out however you want, well... it's not gamey by any means.
Besides that, in Scen 1 (and after 7/1/42 in Scen 2) the IJN player can size their CV groups however they wish.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
As for me, I would not much care if my opponent did it. But it is correct to ask.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
- pontiouspilot
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
Thank you for the opinions. The Aussie thinks it's gamey and I'm playing an Oz so I won't be doing it. I can't ask opponent since it would give away location...more or less.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
It has long been a tradition in naval forces to "help out" and ally by allowing "cross decking" of one force to another one's carrier to provide training when the 1st has no carriers available for "carrier qualification". THAT's IN peacetime. Considering the USS Wasp had just made not one but TWO delivery's of RAF Spitfires to Malta, that British FAA pilots were being trained at Brunswick Maine and in Pensacola Florida , then being allowed to use USN CV's to learn basic carrier skills, why is it so incredibly incredulous to believe that ALLY's would provide excess air group's to support each other in their time of need?
Oh, I forget. There is often the mentality that the Japanese may do anything they wish , and the allies MUST play exactly as they historically did. WE MUST give the poor Japanese EVERY advantage. While I might consider this policy , NOT till 1944. The Japanese don't need it.
Let's not forget the Surface force at Savo Island was commanded by RADM Crutchfield RN , and consisted of USN and RAN ships. Or that the reason the USN 4 pipers were at Balipikan on 8 December , was cause they were heading to Singapore to Screen force Z.
Sorry folks , I see absolutely nothing gamey in "cross-decking" aircraft. And there reaches a point that approaches foolishness if you have to qualify every single action with your partner. "I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?" [:D]
Oh, I forget. There is often the mentality that the Japanese may do anything they wish , and the allies MUST play exactly as they historically did. WE MUST give the poor Japanese EVERY advantage. While I might consider this policy , NOT till 1944. The Japanese don't need it.
Let's not forget the Surface force at Savo Island was commanded by RADM Crutchfield RN , and consisted of USN and RAN ships. Or that the reason the USN 4 pipers were at Balipikan on 8 December , was cause they were heading to Singapore to Screen force Z.
Sorry folks , I see absolutely nothing gamey in "cross-decking" aircraft. And there reaches a point that approaches foolishness if you have to qualify every single action with your partner. "I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?" [:D]
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
"I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?"
Now that is just going a bit too far...[:@]
Now that is just going a bit too far...[:@]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
Only a bit? [:D]ORIGINAL: crsutton
"I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?"
Now that is just going a bit too far...[:@]
My point is there is a growing tendency on this forum to regard WAYYYYYY too many things as gamey. It destroys any possibility of creativeness. There is absolutely nothing technically wrong, illegal, or even immoral about say launching a group of "unemployed" us CV planes (like their ship is sunk) from a empty brit CV (say it's air group is wiped out). Unusual? Sure, you betcha. But so is launching B-25's off a CV. Or planes off a sub. And if you have to clear every single tactic or unorthodox play with your opponent , you'll have an extremely boring game. I LOVE it when my opponent surprises me with a unconventional tactic. Doing something weird is not gamey. It's just weird. And if "creative" isn't your style, there's always "Chutes and ladders". [:D]
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
warspite1ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
It has long been a tradition in naval forces to "help out" and ally by allowing "cross decking" of one force to another one's carrier to provide training when the 1st has no carriers available for "carrier qualification". THAT's IN peacetime. Considering the USS Wasp had just made not one but TWO delivery's of RAF Spitfires to Malta, that British FAA pilots were being trained at Brunswick Maine and in Pensacola Florida , then being allowed to use USN CV's to learn basic carrier skills, why is it so incredibly incredulous to believe that ALLY's would provide excess air group's to support each other in their time of need?
Oh, I forget. There is often the mentality that the Japanese may do anything they wish , and the allies MUST play exactly as they historically did. WE MUST give the poor Japanese EVERY advantage. While I might consider this policy , NOT till 1944. The Japanese don't need it.
Let's not forget the Surface force at Savo Island was commanded by RADM Crutchfield RN , and consisted of USN and RAN ships. Or that the reason the USN 4 pipers were at Balipikan on 8 December , was cause they were heading to Singapore to Screen force Z.
Sorry folks , I see absolutely nothing gamey in "cross-decking" aircraft. And there reaches a point that approaches foolishness if you have to qualify every single action with your partner. "I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?" [:D]
I think you mean RADM VAC Crutchley [;)]
Re the second bolded comment, completely different context of course but reminds me of Airplane:
Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.
Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?
Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Only a bit? [:D]ORIGINAL: crsutton
"I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?"
Now that is just going a bit too far...[:@]
My point is there is a growing tendency on this forum to regard WAYYYYYY too many things as gamey. It destroys any possibility of creativeness. There is absolutely nothing technically wrong, illegal, or even immoral about say launching a group of "unemployed" us CV planes (like their ship is sunk) from a empty brit CV (say it's air group is wiped out). Unusual? Sure, you betcha. But so is launching B-25's off a CV. Or planes off a sub. And if you have to clear every single tactic or unorthodox play with your opponent , you'll have an extremely boring game. I LOVE it when my opponent surprises me with a unconventional tactic. Doing something weird is not gamey. It's just weird. And if "creative" isn't your style, there's always "Chutes and ladders". [:D]
1-up for this man.
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
Thank you for correcting me. Yes I did mean him, and the memory is the.......hmmm.[:D]ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
It has long been a tradition in naval forces to "help out" and ally by allowing "cross decking" of one force to another one's carrier to provide training when the 1st has no carriers available for "carrier qualification". THAT's IN peacetime. Considering the USS Wasp had just made not one but TWO delivery's of RAF Spitfires to Malta, that British FAA pilots were being trained at Brunswick Maine and in Pensacola Florida , then being allowed to use USN CV's to learn basic carrier skills, why is it so incredibly incredulous to believe that ALLY's would provide excess air group's to support each other in their time of need?
Oh, I forget. There is often the mentality that the Japanese may do anything they wish , and the allies MUST play exactly as they historically did. WE MUST give the poor Japanese EVERY advantage. While I might consider this policy , NOT till 1944. The Japanese don't need it.
Let's not forget the Surface force at Savo Island was commanded by RADM Crutchfield RN , and consisted of USN and RAN ships. Or that the reason the USN 4 pipers were at Balipikan on 8 December , was cause they were heading to Singapore to Screen force Z.
Sorry folks , I see absolutely nothing gamey in "cross-decking" aircraft. And there reaches a point that approaches foolishness if you have to qualify every single action with your partner. "I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?" [:D]
I think you mean RADM VAC Crutchley [;)]
Re the second bolded comment, completely different context of course but reminds me of Airplane:
Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.
Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?
Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.
And YES, the Airplane quote was exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that. [:)]
RE: US squadrons on Brit CVs
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Thank you for correcting me. Yes I did mean him, and the memory is the.......hmmm.[:D]ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
It has long been a tradition in naval forces to "help out" and ally by allowing "cross decking" of one force to another one's carrier to provide training when the 1st has no carriers available for "carrier qualification". THAT's IN peacetime. Considering the USS Wasp had just made not one but TWO delivery's of RAF Spitfires to Malta, that British FAA pilots were being trained at Brunswick Maine and in Pensacola Florida , then being allowed to use USN CV's to learn basic carrier skills, why is it so incredibly incredulous to believe that ALLY's would provide excess air group's to support each other in their time of need?
Oh, I forget. There is often the mentality that the Japanese may do anything they wish , and the allies MUST play exactly as they historically did. WE MUST give the poor Japanese EVERY advantage. While I might consider this policy , NOT till 1944. The Japanese don't need it.
Let's not forget the Surface force at Savo Island was commanded by RADM Crutchfield RN , and consisted of USN and RAN ships. Or that the reason the USN 4 pipers were at Balipikan on 8 December , was cause they were heading to Singapore to Screen force Z.
Sorry folks , I see absolutely nothing gamey in "cross-decking" aircraft. And there reaches a point that approaches foolishness if you have to qualify every single action with your partner. "I'm going to attack you at sun up tomorrow with a CV strike from the east. Is that OK?" [:D]
I think you mean RADM VAC Crutchley [;)]
Re the second bolded comment, completely different context of course but reminds me of Airplane:
Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.
Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?
Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.
Shirley you're joking?! [:D]
And YES, the Airplane quote was exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that. [:)]
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home