Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops IRL

 
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 >> RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops IRL Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 2/9/2019 6:47:59 PM   
sPzAbt. 502

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/8/2018
Status: offline
Wiki says Unruy class elevators took 19 seconds from the lower hangar deck, it also says they where designed to have planes spotted on the deck.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 31
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 2/12/2019 3:26:38 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Thx for the suggestions and the data boys

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt. 502)
Post #: 32
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 2/12/2019 12:04:04 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1518
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
I see the map of Ghormley and check it with the map of the WitPAE...and Fidjis are a bit more closer to Guadalcanal in his map than in game...

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 33
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 2/12/2019 2:30:41 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Well these larger-scope maps are all classic Mercator. WitP's map being completely theater-wide they did all they could to reflect actual geography with a custom projection, while taking into account the hex grid AND trying to keep the landmasses untwisted. Not an easy task indeed...

Regarding naval charts of the era more generally, they certainly were lacking on a few other aspects as well, relying sometimes on expeditions going as far as late 19th century. Here's an example I am coming across on actual early 1940s USHO Navy charts - the kind of stuff SOPAC went to war with on August 1942




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 34
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 2/12/2019 4:59:26 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1518
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Thanks !!

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 35
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 3/31/2019 4:01:42 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
We've been doing some work during the last two weeks. We've been focusing on the deck management system, with all the challenges it involves. Putting 90 airframes on a Yorktown class CV on 2 decks + in 2 sets of spare (suspended and disassembled) takes a lot of wit. Makes you admire the Ouija crew and the Air Boss' job, as any AI designed for this task will require long hours of debugging.

Even with 3 elevators and 10 outriggers, we're talking permanent SNAFU whenever air ops have to occur, whether it's for spotting or landing business. Not to mention planes of different dimensions and all, with folding wings (F4F4, TBD, TBF...) or not (F4F3, SBD...). I am quite sure Herwin would have loved the challenge - too bad he isn't around anymore to lend a hand, Rest in Peace...

Anyway. Here are a few snapshots of what is being done. Hopefully, we're getting a bit closer to the first flight everyday it seems!







First GIF has the wartime deck paint, GIF 2 & 3 are taken aboard a pre-war MS1 paintjob. I'll love to share the Yorktown girls when I'll have the opportunity, if there's any amateur out there...

Cheers!

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 3/31/2019 4:27:00 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 36
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 3:42:18 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
From the Savo Thread.....responding here instead....
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
@Buckrock yes unfortunately, even sources like Norman Friedman's book only have scarce info here and there. If you refer to reports such as Enterprise's damage report at Santa Cruz and thereafter, or Lexington during the Lae Salamaua raids (I remember in both occasions that a single elevator was out of order) it was a fair idea. I didn't look at them for that sort of info, maybe I should.

On the IJN side, the late Mark Peattie, in Sunburst, gives a value of a 40 sec for elevator cycles aboard the Shokaku class (including loading and unloading, and knowing Japanese ships have deeper shafts because of the 2-hangar decks configuration) but goes on saying Akagi and Kaga were slower... Really a tough cookie

According to Dickson's Warship International (V 14, No 1) article, she had the 40 sec elevator cycle you stated, could go from lower hanger to flight deck in 15 sec and had an elevator max velocity of 50 meters per minute. I assume you've also seen the lift speeds for the Kaga's three elevators in Shattered Sword?

Shattered Sword also mentions the Lex and Sara's slow elevator speeds. What references I saw when I was looking around on your question a month ago normally stated 2fps (or 37 meters per minute) as the fwd elevator speed for the Lexington Class but there was also an archived article from Naval Aviation News (May 1962) quoting the design team as having selected a fwd elevator speed of only 1 foot per second. If true, I could see what the criticisms were about regarding the Lex and Sara's deck cycle times.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 37
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 4:07:11 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Aye, found the actual reference to Dickson's article in Warship International. Took the liberty to browse Warship International and get my hands on very interesting stuff (thank you my University, for allowing me access to Jstor ). I was actually reading that just a few minutes ago, great synchro . I'll check again with Shattered Sword, but I should really start to use post-its, otherwise I'll just miss that sort of info. Great thanks for pointing this out.

Besides, it is funny that you mention the 2fps speed for the Lexingtons, because it is exactly what I just found out in another Warship International (CV-2 "Lex" and CV-3 "Sara", by Richard M. Anderson and Arthur D. Baker N4/77:291). The 1fps figure could also be, I suppose, the result of heavier loads later on during the war - the article does mention the weight of a 6-ton load for a 2fps figure, and says that planes, by 1944, had "outstripped the capabilities of her lifts. Break-downs became frequent despite almost continual tinkering and strengthening: the elevators were just too overworked". It is true in theory that a Helldiver together with deck hands manipulating it (a good additional 800-1000kg?) would go a bit over this limit if it got somewhat refueled in the hangar deck - but knowing arming is mostly done on the flight deck, this explanation is a bit strange. At any rate I don't quite see how a Hellcat would go over this 6t limit. An Avenger much more so, but then it is strange to say that limitations started to appear only by 1944...

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 4/1/2019 4:09:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 38
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 5:06:23 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
For Kaga, Shattered Sword (page 545) has her elevator speeds (fwd to aft) as 35, 40 and 44 meters per minute.

As for Sara's lift speed in relation to late-war heavy loads, I didn't see anything myself that explained whether the 2fps was at full design load or some standard lesser weight. I do know her wartime records mentioned the upgrading of her lift machinery during a '44 refit (IIRC, after she returned from the Indian Ocean operations with the RN) to bring her elevator speed up to "fleet standards" in operating the now heavier aircraft of the day. This is not to be confused with the refit she received in '45 that effectively gave her the same elevator size as the Essex Class carriers. So the '44 refit could suggest she was struggling to lift some of the latest aircraft types.

In regards to the Naval Aviation News article, it also mentioned the smaller aft elevator for the Lexington Class as designed (with help from the Otis Elevator Company) was to have a speed of 2fps compared to the 1fps of the fwd. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think somewhere between design and construction, it might have been decided why not have both fwd and aft elevators with that same 2fps speed.

In regards to the wartime USN operational reports I had also looked at, there was at least an interesting comment for the Lae-Salamaua Raid that noted the operation had to cater for the Lex's slower cycle time. Whether that was a dig at her slower elevator speed or at the carrying limitations of her smaller aft elevator or both, it didn't specify.

I don't have easy access to them but the historical BuShips reports are probably where all the USN elevator data can be found.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 39
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 5:53:30 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
AFAIK Lexington had one non-operational elevator at the time of the Lae-Salamaua raid. I would have to check what caused the malfunction (and which one it was). Slower cycle time was already a thing that could be easily seen at Coral Sea in May when compared side by side with Yorktown (especially during the strike against CarDiv 5), but accessing only one of its elevator against the three of Yorktown in March certainly didn't help a bit. Sara ended up fighting with a single elevator at the end of the war, but by then she was a night-fighter platform and hardly a full-fledge strike carrier indeed.

Anyway, I can see the stuff you are referring to regarding the naval aviation news 1962 issue ( https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/evolution-of-aircraft-carriers/car-3.pdf ), it is regrettable that the entry dedicated to the Yorktowns doesn't benefit from the same amount of details... Such a daunting quest for such a vital info that I would have thought to be paramount to any carrier specs!

Do you have an idea where these BuShips reports might be found, if they were ever scanned at all? If not I suppose I can approximate the speed of the Yorktown's elevator a bit, nobody's gonna die... But it is still very frustrating.

_____________________________


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 40
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 5:59:26 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Oh btw just came across this reference on the Midway Roundtable (http://midway42.org/Backissues/2014/20140301.aspx) from Barrett Tillman himself:

"The only thing I would add is elevator speed. I don't have the figures at hand (I cited them in the CV6 book) but the Yorktowns' elevators were significantly faster than the Lexingtons. That was especially important in cycling CAPs, as at E Sols and Santa Cruz."

That means he did put this data somewhere in his book about USS Enterprise. I happen to have this very book in my bookshelf (but didn't pay that much attention to it till now), I'll see if I can dig up something... ^^

_____________________________


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 41
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 6:25:16 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
Sorry but in my limited experience with BuShips records, they are found either via NARA visits or in dusty old report books that pop up for sale every now and then. Digitalization hasn't caught up with them yet.

Interesting on the Lex's inoperative aft elevator. I might go back to look at the combat reports at some point and check what its status was by the time of Coral Sea. Perhaps see what the Sara's status was with it too.

If you get a confirm on the Yorktown's elevator details, is that the US side covered or are you chasing the Essex, Independence and CVE classes too?

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 42
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/1/2019 6:42:31 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
I suppose that Lexington's condition got fixed during her stay at Pearl between the Lae raid and Coral Sea, if not before. I will check tomorrow what it was about. It was certainly logged in the ship's cruise report back to Pearl anyway.

Regarding other CVs, well, any additional info is always welcome, but we are focusing on pre-war CVs. As a matter of fact, Wasp and to a lesser extent Ranger are a more relevant matter. I suppose Wasp's classic elevators would have the same characteristics as Yorktown, but gotta have to find a realistic value for the deck-edge one. I'll check if I don't have a video out there...

_____________________________


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 43
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/2/2019 5:24:34 PM   
Buckrock

 

Posts: 497
Joined: 3/16/2012
From: Not all there
Status: offline
Never seen a vid with the Wasp's swing-arm type elevator in action. I've just assumed in the past the cycle time and weight capacity was below that of the deck lifts, although the benefits of the elevator position made up for it.

Good luck with that one.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 44
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 4/3/2019 9:25:00 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Unfortunately () you're right - I had the feeling I had seen something, but it's because the few very good B&W photos that exist of it morphed into some sort of false memory regarding a possible video
Back to square one on this one...

_____________________________


(in reply to Buckrock)
Post #: 45
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/12/2019 9:06:26 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Just a small update after one month of progress, if anyone's interested.

Experiments are still going on, thanks to all who gave a hand. We're currently quite busy with the flight model and deck ops in general. The Air Boss AI is now pretty much ready to roll and answer the expectations of the commander, while the air AI is already able to proceed with basic flight instructions (that is taking off, flying in formation, and landing back on the carrier using a classic pattern). Still a long way to go, but hopefully we'll get there eventually

Naturally everything is very much work in progress, it is still a feasibility study and prototype more than anything coming close to a game and actual gameplay. But it grows a bit more everyday. Let's see where it will lead us... In the meantime, enjoy the show

































_____________________________


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 46
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/12/2019 10:28:44 AM   
AleRonin


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/30/2019
Status: offline
Wow

Can you give me more details about the game?

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 47
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/13/2019 4:21:42 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Thank you bro ^^
Would be a bit insensitive to talk about it in here though - and, well, design details are still little more than expectations, if not speculation. There isn't much actual work done just yet as we are still early in prototyping.

But let's say that, if everything goes well, it will be a command simulation, some sort of hybrid between a wargame and a simulation. More about that when we'll go live and public next month (hopefully!). And it's gonna be all about US carriers in 1942, but I suppose it was rather obvious considering what Ive been asking the forum about since the beginning

Stay tuned

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 5/13/2019 4:25:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to AleRonin)
Post #: 48
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/13/2019 4:40:43 PM   
AleRonin


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/30/2019
Status: offline
I will do

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 49
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/14/2019 4:58:48 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Hey AleRonin

Been posting some random stuff at Grogheads, if you're interested to follow the development - I'll keep updating the topic over there with some new experiments until the moment we go live
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=10341.75

Take care!

_____________________________


(in reply to AleRonin)
Post #: 50
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/14/2019 5:28:53 PM   
AleRonin


Posts: 125
Joined: 4/30/2019
Status: offline
Thanks Fishbed, very nice the last picture full of books!

Time to increase my library...

< Message edited by AleRonin -- 5/14/2019 5:29:08 PM >

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 51
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/21/2019 1:06:46 AM   
Korvar


Posts: 813
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline
I just have to say that the previews look fantastic!


Also, I have been reading a great book you might want to pick up, if you haven't already: How Carriers Fought: Carrier Operations in WWII by Lars Celander. It brings together a lot of information regarding many niche topics regarding WW2 carriers and covers multiple navies.





As an example of how good it is, it has explained a lot of very specific design choices in WitP:AE in a way that no other book has. For example, it's much better to fight the urge to assign carrier captains with high AIR skill and instead use captains with NAVAL skill and to use an admiral with high AIR skill at the task force command level to cover the command skill need for the air group. Using high NAVAL skill captains is to give your carriers the best chance of dodging attacks. From page 93 in the book:




Although you can get particular pieces of info from other sources, this book is crammed with such tidbits across many topics.

Best of all, it's only $1 USD in Kindle format from the Amazon store. A great reference, a steal for the price.

_____________________________


(in reply to AleRonin)
Post #: 52
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/21/2019 4:31:21 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Thank you for the suggestion and the kindness both Korvar. I did buy that book online already indeed, no worries!

_____________________________


(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 53
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/22/2019 6:11:10 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 6525
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
Naval skill for not just dodging attacks but aso friendly ships.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 54
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/22/2019 6:29:42 PM   
Korvar


Posts: 813
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline
Good point - in fact, the book addresses that within a page of what I quoted above.

quote:


How Carriers Fought pp. 93-95:
On a major warship it takes about 15–30 seconds to turn the rudder
over from straight ahead to hard over, that is to a deflection of 30–35°. On
a destroyer it might take around 5 seconds. A deflection more than 30–35°
did not result in sharper turn, it only slowed down the ship and put great
stress on the rudder. After the rudder has been put hard over, it then takes
several seconds more for the turn to fully develop. Once in a turn a ship can
choose to stay in that turn. Doing that avoids going in a relatively straight
line while the rudder is being turned over to the other side. Staying in a hard
turn might be the most difficult maneuver for the attacker to handle despite
being somewhat predictable.

While in a fully developed turn, the speed of a major warship drops to
about 15–20 knots. For this reason, the sharpest turns may be avoided and
reserved for really critical situations like avoiding a torpedo. A smaller ship
like a destroyer slows down less in a turn, having more excess horsepower at
lower speeds. A destroyer will also accelerate faster out of the turn.

The latency inherent in executing a turn means that it is impossible to turn
in unison with another ship by simply observing what the other ship is doing.
There has to be some sort of general command for a fleet to turn in unison.
It is this latency that is the core problem why ships sometimes collide for no
apparent reason. It is not enough to react to what the other ship is doing,
the reaction has to be started before it is apparent what the other ship is
doing — hence the need for communication between ships in close proximity.

(emphasis mine)


< Message edited by Korvar -- 5/22/2019 6:30:23 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 55
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/22/2019 9:00:36 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 6525
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
Interesting. I know that in WWI at Jutland, the British lead ship would turn and the rest would take the turn in order to keep in the same order. Much like soldiers marching in column where they follow the leader. But the Germans would signal and the entire column would turn at the same time. Much harder to do safely but better seamanship actually.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 56
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/22/2019 10:25:01 PM   
Korvar


Posts: 813
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline
In terms of the Pacific Theater of WW2, I know that the column formation was generally preferred, but an "all ships turn" command was available as an option to pretty much all navies at the time. It primarily has to do with the improvement of radio technology as well as its prevalence in naval vessels compared to WW1. The column would generally be maintained in surface combat groups unless there was a compelling reason to break it - such as a known or suspected incoming torpedo attack which would take the column too long to dodge as columns add another layer of latency to a turning command. For surface combat groups, the effects of Trafalgar were still very much felt - forming a column and trying to "cross the T" of the enemy column was still primary doctrine for the black shoe navies at the outbreak of WW2.

The more primitive radio technology of WW1 meant that visual communications were paramount. This influence can even be seen in the main US Pacific Battle Fleet in the interwar period - for instance, the range clocks (often confused as being timekeeping clocks) mounted on the upper part of the masts. The lead ship (or any ship which acquired a good visual) would set the estimated range to the enemy ships, and the following ships would update their own dials to relay that information down the battle line visually. I believe they were developed by the Royal Navy as part of the fallout of Jutland and were largely no longer in use by WW2.

The increasing potency of sub and air attacks meant that columns no longer were effective in many instances. Various forms of 'ring' formations were used, with the most valuable/vulnerable assets clustered in the middle as much as possible. Determining the stations of the various ships was often a balance between offering AA and sub screening vs the maneuvering restrictiveness of close formations. Early war carrier formations tended to favor looser formations as maneuver was still the primary defense against air threats and for the US Navy in particular, the formations tightened up as time moved forward - the improvements in quantity / quality of AA armament as well as fighter direction / CAP meant that maneuvering became a secondary last line of defense. Captain Wayne Hughes goes into the game theory of this calculus quite well in his Fleet Tactics book.

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 57
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/22/2019 11:29:59 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 14921
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Good discussion on maneuver. Apparently the IJN grasped he significance of communication and favoured formations that let their DD squadrons maneuver independently of the flagship with appropriate comms of course. I never heard of IJN ships shooting at each other as a result of this independence but it may have contributed to Adm. Goto's reluctance to open fire at the beginning of the Battle of Cape Esperance.

Adm. Spruance seemed to be particularly good at anticipating carrier movements for his screening cruisers, presumably by watching aircraft preparing to land and take off and paying attention to the wind direction. Legend has it that Halsey recommended Spruance as replacement (for Halsey) because of his skill at maneuvering.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 58
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/23/2019 12:35:07 AM   
Korvar


Posts: 813
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline
Makes sense since Spruance was a cruiser skipper before he ever commanded carrier groups.

The IJN favored maneuver in general, which explains a lot about their carrier operations. This well-known image of the Sōryū at Midway demonstrates that the carriers were given a wide berth in which to maneuver:





Even the IJN flight deck operations were set up in such a way to have minimum interference between the carriers. Carriers generally sail into the wind for aircraft takeoffs and landings, ideally directly into the wind for takeoff and slightly offset for landings. The reason to be slightly offset during landings is to minimize the turbulence from the island interfering with the landing, while still giving the landing aircraft a general headwind. Thus, carrier landing patterns are generally opposite the island.

Japanese doctrine had their carriers operate as purpose-built pairs, which formed the nucleus of each carrier division. If you ever wondered why some Japanese carrier islands were on the port side and others starboard, this is why:




This allowed the carriers to sail closer together to give a degree of mutual support, while still being able to turn away from one another when needed to maneuver; however, the practice of building mirrored flight decks was abandoned by the time Shōkaku and Zuikaku were built - both of their islands were starboard like most carriers of various navies were.

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 59
RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops... - 5/23/2019 1:41:37 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
Well it's funny you'd mention signals & procedures for maneuvers. We were actually discussing this photo just yesterday with the dev team. By 1945, that's how well the USN had drilled itself into making Task force simultaneous "all ships" maneuvers happen. It's quite a sight...




< Message edited by Fishbed -- 5/23/2019 1:42:07 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Participating thread - about carriers & carrier ops IRL Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.155