Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

IJN CV & CVL Airgroups

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> IJN CV & CVL Airgroups Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 5:24:25 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1166
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
I am looking for a list of which IJN CVs and CVLs could not carry Kates. My memory is that the AE team did a lot of refinement on airgroup limitations, torp storage, etc.

Shattered Sword hinted that the Junyo's could not create enough wind across the bow to launch a fully loaded Kankoh and that one of the CVLs lifts were too small.

Can someone enlighten me? I am trying to play my ongoing WITP and UV games with more realistic airgroups.
Post #: 1
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 5:40:27 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13233
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I am looking for a list of which IJN CVs and CVLs could not carry Kates. My memory is that the AE team did a lot of refinement on airgroup limitations, torp storage, etc.

Shattered Sword hinted that the Junyo's could not create enough wind across the bow to launch a fully loaded Kankoh and that one of the CVLs lifts were too small.

Can someone enlighten me? I am trying to play my ongoing WITP and UV games with more realistic airgroups.



it´s not only the question which CVLs could carry a Kate, it´s rather the question which CVL could launch a TORPEDO carrying Kate. Was there any CVL able to do this? Or were only the CVEs not able to do it?

_____________________________


(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 2
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 5:52:50 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1166
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


it´s not only the question which CVLs could carry a Kate, it´s rather the question which CVL could launch a TORPEDO carrying Kate. Was there any CVL able to do this? Or were only the CVEs not able to do it?


Agreed. Though in vanilla WITP & UV, if you can launch a Kate, it can carry a Torp.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 3
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 6:00:58 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4623
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Go to j-aircraft site, it is the best source about that issues.

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 4
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 6:13:33 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
I am looking for a list of which IJN CVs and CVLs could not carry Kates. My memory is that the AE team did a lot of refinement on airgroup limitations, torp storage, etc.

Shattered Sword hinted that the Junyo's could not create enough wind across the bow to launch a fully loaded Kankoh and that one of the CVLs lifts were too small.

Can someone enlighten me? I am trying to play my ongoing WITP and UV games with more realistic airgroups.

it´s not only the question which CVLs could carry a Kate, it´s rather the question which CVL could launch a TORPEDO carrying Kate. Was there any CVL able to do this? Or were only the CVEs not able to do it?

Castor is spot on. In AE, a carrier has Aircraft Ordnance (defines number of regular sorties) and Torpedo Ordnance (defines number of torp sorties). All the CVL rated carriers (Ryuho, Ryujo, Zuiho classes - and Hosho) have Torpedo Ordnance, although some have more than others. When you run out of torp sorties, your Kates fly with bombs.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 7:27:26 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1166
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
OK, I found the reference in Shattered Sword, p46. Junyo could not generate enough wind speed across the bow in light wind conditions to launch "torpedo planes".

Ryuju's elevators were too small for Type 99s (so too small for Vals, not Kates). But a Kate is larger than a Val...

Type 99 Val
Length: 33.46ft (10.20m)
Width: 47.18ft (14.38m)
Height: 12.63ft (3.85m)

Type 97 Kate
Length: 33.79ft (10.30m)
Width: 50.92ft (15.52m)
Height: 12.14ft (3.70m)

I assume the key to the question is the Kate could be loaded on Ryuju's elevators with its wings folded or it may have been a height issue.

< Message edited by Wirraway_Ace -- 4/29/2009 7:45:13 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 6
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 7:46:52 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1166
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Go to j-aircraft site, it is the best source about that issues.


Thanks Dili. I very interesting site.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 7
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 8:07:45 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
You have to take references (all references) with a bit of salt, and some thought. Akagi could do 28 knots (29 with a lotta push), but she was certainly capable of flying off VT sorties. Junyo could do 25 knots (26.2 with a push) and that's not far off. Most carrier ops took place in the 'trade' zones, with 20 - 30 knot consistent Easterly breezes, so wtfo? Driving into the trades puts 40 - 50 knots over the bow, and that's enuf to lift an F4U off a CVE. Beilieve me, Naval Officers knew, in thier heart of hearts, exactly what the nominal aero/hydronamic conditions were in their area of operations.

Junyo class has always been pissed on, for reasons I don't understand. Yeah, there were logistical issues, but this 'they were too slow' stuff just does not pass practical muster.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 8
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 8:21:07 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3873
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Kaga wasn't much faster than the Junyos (if at all). Never remember her having a problem launching Kates.

Re: Ryuju's elevators . . . not a height issue for the Vals, just a lack of folding wings.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 9
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 9:20:43 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Yeah, Kaga, knew it was one of those. Thanks anarchy.

_____________________________


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 10
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 10:40:14 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 4633
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: online
Does the lenght of the flight deck make a diference? Don't know but if there is a shorter flight deck, maybe the reduced speed was an issue with the heavier load.

B

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 11
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 10:52:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16825
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Glad you guys have looked this over and gone with the good, strong sources that do confirm these things.  It is very tough to balance what one source says compared to another.

What did the Designers do the size of Air Groups on the large Japanese CVs.  I assume they are about the same.  Any changes there?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 12
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/29/2009 10:55:01 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
They're a bit reduced in size, to something more realistic.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 13
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 3:20:00 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10429
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Although we now have stricter overstrengthing capability as well - which needs to be used carefully else your airgroups might fit on board the carriers but not operate - I think I overstrengthed Hosho too much in my current game - and don't think she will fly sorties any more.


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Project Lead

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 14
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 3:41:53 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16825
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Mr. Wilkerson--What do you mean by "overstrengthened."  More planes then the CV is rated for?  Is that what you mean? 

What have you done with Hosho?  What is the starting airgroup compared to what you have on it now?

VERY curious...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 15
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 3:58:22 AM   
dwesolick


Posts: 528
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Hi guys,

Certainly not my area of expertise, but I just happen to be re-reading Richard Frank's "Guadalcanal" and I just finished the section on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. He states that Ryujo (before she was sunk) was carrying 23 Zeros and 9 Kates.

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 16
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 4:28:40 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7890
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Mr. Wilkerson--What do you mean by "overstrengthened."  More planes then the CV is rated for?  Is that what you mean? 

What have you done with Hosho?  What is the starting airgroup compared to what you have on it now?

VERY curious...



Not that I have seen AE, but overloading Hosho probably isn't that hard. As orginally built, she could carry ~22 aircraft, after her rebuild and reclassification to training carrier, that aircraft capacity was halved, and in truth the only time she operated with the fleet she carried only 8 B4Y Jeans. And TBH, I don't think Hosho was capable of carrying the larger Type 99 or Type 97 carrier bombers.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 17
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 5:11:10 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10429
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Mr. Wilkerson--What do you mean by "overstrengthened."  More planes then the CV is rated for?  Is that what you mean? 

What have you done with Hosho?  What is the starting airgroup compared to what you have on it now?

VERY curious...



I'm not the expert on the rules in this area - but it seems like each air unit in question can take 4 extra planes - so for Hosho with two air units this means I can add 8 total extra planes and I think this pushed me over the max operating limit of the ship - but I'd have to go check to get you the exact numbers.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Project Lead

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 18
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 6:20:34 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16825
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks guys.  Anyone playing the Japanese in AE Testing able to answer this question?



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 19
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 8:56:30 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Does the lenght of the flight deck make a diference? Don't know but if there is a shorter flight deck, maybe the reduced speed was an issue with the heavier load.

B


Length of flight deck makes a big difference--VTs needed most of it to get airborne. Apparent wind speed over deck is also important, particularly for landing, which is why slower CVs were problematic. The basic issue is the acceleration required to get airborne or land. This takes place over the available flight deck length. If the plane is heavily loaded, the specific power available is lower, which means the acceleration is lower. It appears from WWII data that a CV could land aircraft in less than 400 feet with a wind over deck of 30 knots. It could launch fighters in 150 feet without a catapult with a wind over deck of 30 knots, and heavily loaded attack aircraft in 450 feet or so. Probably the best way to to get a feel for this is the Dolittle raid of 1942, when 16 medium bombers were launched from the Hornet with a light bombload. The lead bomber had 467 feet of flight deck. The difference between the flight deck length and the (launch distance for fighters plus the landing distance) was the space available for the deck park during continuous CAP operations. Some small carriers were too short or too slow for a deck park, and some of them used catapults in normal operations.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 20
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 12:10:56 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5293
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Kaga wasn't much faster than the Junyo's but she was the biggest carrier the IJN had pre-Shinano so her flight deck was longer. IIRC the Junyos were about 700 ft long which allowed them to spot and launch 6 torpedo carrying Kates in a strike package given some ambient wind speed. They were "screwed" in a dead calm though. IIRC the Zuiho did launch some torpedo carrying a/c at the Battle of the Philippine Sea but apparently that was a singular event. The IJN CVE's were less than 600 feet long and only capable of low-20s speed. Their operational use appears to have been as strictly aircraft ferries until late 43 in any case. Then, they acted as platforms for ASW planes; not strike planes. At least a number of them lacked arrestor gear.

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 21
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 1:25:40 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

OK, I found the reference in Shattered Sword, p46. Junyo could not generate enough wind speed across the bow in light wind conditions to launch "torpedo planes".

Ryuju's elevators were too small for Type 99s (so too small for Vals, not Kates). But a Kate is larger than a Val...

Type 99 Val
Length: 33.46ft (10.20m)
Width: 47.18ft (14.38m)
Height: 12.63ft (3.85m)

Type 97 Kate
Length: 33.79ft (10.30m)
Width: 50.92ft (15.52m)
Height: 12.14ft (3.70m)

I assume the key to the question is the Kate could be loaded on Ryuju's elevators with its wings folded or it may have been a height issue.


Vals had fixed wings, while Kates had folding wings and required about 80% the spot area. Zeros required about the same spot as Kates. Wildcats and Hellcats required about 60% of the spot area of a Val.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 22
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 1:27:35 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Kaga wasn't much faster than the Junyos (if at all). Never remember her having a problem launching Kates.

Re: Ryuju's elevators . . . not a height issue for the Vals, just a lack of folding wings.


Kaga had a longer flight deck. Flight deck length traded off against windspeed over deck.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 23
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 1:29:23 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Kaga wasn't much faster than the Junyo's but she was the biggest carrier the IJN had pre-Shinano so her flight deck was longer. IIRC the Junyos were about 700 ft long which allowed them to spot and launch 6 torpedo carrying Kates in a strike package given some ambient wind speed. They were "screwed" in a dead calm though. IIRC the Zuiho did launch some torpedo carrying a/c at the Battle of the Philippine Sea but apparently that was a singular event. The IJN CVE's were less than 600 feet long and only capable of low-20s speed. Their operational use appears to have been as strictly aircraft ferries until late 43 in any case. Then, they acted as platforms for ASW planes; not strike planes. At least a number of them lacked arrestor gear.


Any carrier with a sustained top speed of less than 30 knots was screwed in a dead calm.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 24
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 1:49:42 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

Hi guys,

Certainly not my area of expertise, but I just happen to be re-reading Richard Frank's "Guadalcanal" and I just finished the section on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. He states that Ryujo (before she was sunk) was carrying 23 Zeros and 9 Kates.


Vals required 33 (length) x 50 (span) square feet of spot, and Kates and Zeros could get by with 33 x 40 square feet. (F4Fs and F6Fs needed about 33 x 30 square feet.)

Ryujo had a flight deck of 513 ft by 68 ft. For landing operations she had only 113x68 square feet for a deck park (6 aircraft). She could not maintain a continuous CAP keeping some aircraft on deck alert. Her deckload strike spot was 350 x 68 square feet (20-22 aircraft) with 50-100 x 68 square feet allocated to Kates (2-6 aircraft) and 250-300 x 68 square feet allocated to Zeros (the rest). You can see why she had limited operational utility.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 25
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 2:13:02 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10429
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thanks guys.  Anyone playing the Japanese in AE Testing able to answer this question?




I can answer the question - but I'll need a bit more time - gotta work the day job a little to pay a few bills so I can do some more AE!!!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Project Lead

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 26
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 4:52:31 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10429
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thanks guys.  Anyone playing the Japanese in AE Testing able to answer this question?




I can answer the question - but I'll need a bit more time - gotta work the day job a little to pay a few bills so I can do some more AE!!!



Well I went back in my test game and checked and actually Hosho is ok - looks like perhaps the extra planes were removed from the groups when they loaded back aboard the carrier.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Project Lead

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 27
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 4:55:44 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Thanks guys.  Anyone playing the Japanese in AE Testing able to answer this question?

I can answer the question - but I'll need a bit more time - gotta work the day job a little to pay a few bills so I can do some more AE!!!


Ships have an aircraft capacity number. If the total on-board is >115% of capacity, you can't fly ops, can only fly transfer missions (ship-to-ship or ship-to-shore). Can't ever have more than 2x the capacity. Good for both sides.

Btw, Joe, I know why your Hosho is boinked - sent you an email. Ciao.

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 28
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 5:53:37 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6880
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Sounds like IJN CVE's will become much less useful in AE.

Even though I play Japan, that's fine by me, they are way over-capable in WITP.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 29
RE: IJN CV & CVL Airgroups - 4/30/2009 7:26:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24912
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Probably the best way to to get a feel for this is the Dolittle raid of 1942, when 16 medium bombers were launched from the Hornet with a light bombload. The lead bomber had 467 feet of flight deck.


That was Jimmy Doolittle himself - hardly the center of the bell curve!

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> IJN CV & CVL Airgroups Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.246