The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17505
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by RangerJoe »

Bullwinkle58, Long time no see. Have you been hanging out with a squirrely character around Frostbite Falls visiting some wild relatives?
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

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

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by spence »

Never understood the 'Ranger is too slow for the Pacific' logic. She and Wasp had the same speed and they were limited to the speed of the fast BBs in any case. End of 42 the USN could use every CV available. Anyone have better insight on this? Less belt armor than Wasp, but at the end of the day belt armor ended up not really mattering. anti-torp protection did, as the Wasp learned. And deck armor as well. Curious. Sort of like why Hellcats were generally not used on CVEs. Avengers were much bigger and heavier yet they operated from the CVEs.

It seems that few have heard of 'Operation Leader' where the USS Ranger (CV-4) conducted air strikes against shipping along the Norwegian coast.

http://www.airgroup4.com/operation-leader.htm
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20284
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: spence
Never understood the 'Ranger is too slow for the Pacific' logic. She and Wasp had the same speed and they were limited to the speed of the fast BBs in any case. End of 42 the USN could use every CV available. Anyone have better insight on this? Less belt armor than Wasp, but at the end of the day belt armor ended up not really mattering. anti-torp protection did, as the Wasp learned. And deck armor as well. Curious. Sort of like why Hellcats were generally not used on CVEs. Avengers were much bigger and heavier yet they operated from the CVEs.

It seems that few have heard of 'Operation Leader' where the USS Ranger (CV-4) conducted air strikes against shipping along the Norwegian coast.

http://www.airgroup4.com/operation-leader.htm
Ranger started the war on the East Coast and stayed in the Atlantic for most of it. As urgent as the need for carriers was in the Pacific, the Atlantic needed carriers too, to deal with the U-boats raiding shipping on the East Coast. That situation did not change until enough CVEs were available. Ranger was almost 15,000 tons, about twice as big as the smallest CVEs and 1.5 times as big as the larger ones - so she likely carried more aircraft. The report on the raid on Norway mentions both fighters and bombers from the US carrier.

After participating in the attack on Casablanca in late 1942, Ranger spent December 42 - February 43 in refit. This suggests she needed major improvements before she could enter service in the Pacific - likely AA and air defence radars/directors/computers. I think that is one of the reasons she was not used in the Pacific in 1942. I suspect steaming range was another issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-4)
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Ian R »

There are quite a few historical named/cancelled Essex, Baltimore & Cleveland class ships that were ordered (and some completed post war). Most of the carriers have been mentioned above.

Also some Tacoma PFs received smaller city names (Sacramento, Annapolis etc) that might have been used on CLs or CLAAs. And there are a few US state capitals that missed out - including Hartford, Pierre ... and Bismarck.

You might also rename some of the -II DDs for any KIA Admirals you have, other than ones that are already in there (Kidd, Callaghan, Norman Scott).
"I am Alfred"
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Ian R »

Ranger's operational capability was incompatible with what was required in fleet carrier actions.

Though 70+ aircraft could in theory be spotted, on 14575 tons displacement (overgrown from her treaty dictated designed 13800t) things were cramped. That meant the pace of flight operations and availability rate was slower/lower than the larger carriers.

In 1939 her captain reported that in rough seas she pitched too much to conduct flying operations (i.e. sea states which did not stop flight ops on the larger carriers, or the Wasp).

The USN learned from the mistakes made with Ranger when they designed the Yorktown, and later the Wasp to use their remaining treaty tonnage.

Also, with only 54000 SHP, 25 knots was about her best speed at full load. Wasp was built with 70000 SHP.

See discussion here:

tm.asp?m=994449
"I am Alfred"
jwolf
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:02 pm

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by jwolf »

For the replacement US CVs, I took inspiration from the Wasp and Hornet and added the new CVs Yellowjacket, Bumblebee, and Tarantula Hawk.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Bullwinkle58, Long time no see. Have you been hanging out with a squirrely character around Frostbite Falls visiting some wild relatives?

Yes, that's it exactly. [8D]
The Moose
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17505
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by RangerJoe »

Moose meat is delicious . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

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

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by geofflambert »

HMS Insipid
HMS Intransigent

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17505
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by RangerJoe »

HMS Inebriated
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

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

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Zorch »

HMS Incontinent (avoid her wake at mess hour)
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by geofflambert »

Wouldn't that be the HMAS Incontinent?

User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by rustysi »

Bismarck.

Doubtful the U.S. would have used this name during WWII.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
dcpollay
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:58 am
Location: Upstate New York USA

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by dcpollay »

When I play Rule the Waves, I use the "Pathogen" class DDs. Ebola, Malaria, Salmonella, etc.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: dcpollay

When I play Rule the Waves, I use the "Pathogen" class DDs. Ebola, Malaria, Salmonella, etc.
Doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit use of biological named ships?
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by jdsrae »

The motor launch HMS Inconsequential
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Ian R »

There was an HMS Terrible (a Majestic class CVL). Build suspended in 1945, acquired by the RAN in 1946, and renamed HMAS Sydney (III) on completion in 1948.

In my mod all the RN light fleets turn up in 45/6/7, including Hermes II. I also put the Audacious class in - Eagle II, Ark Royal II (which is actually about Ark Royal VII) and the third one arrives as Pegasus II. Pegasus was one of the original names used for aircraft carrying ships in the RN. A projected Colossus class was assigned the name, but when the balance of that class was re-ordered as Majestic class, it slipped out of use.
"I am Alfred"
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by Zorch »

Roman trireme Incontinentia Buttocks
User avatar
CaptBeefheart
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
Location: Seoul, Korea

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by CaptBeefheart »

Maclan5: I like your thinking on naming DDs after famous beermen. Also, I think Bismarck, state capital or not, might not have been on any list of potential CA/CL names.

Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: The 1001 Carrier Deployment Question / 10th anniversary edition

Post by jdsrae »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Roman trireme Incontinentia Buttocks

Good one, I thought of that name when i saw the Incontinent.
A few others could form a Monty Python class of ships.

I have a gweat fwiend in Wome...
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”