« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Carrier classes  (Read 3457 times)

Offline texace

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
      • http://www.usmc.mil
Carrier classes
« on: August 11, 2001, 06:15:00 PM »
I think something that might improve the naval aspect would be to model the different carrier classes. I think, not sure, that the 3 navies had 2 different class carriers, one large and one smaller, escort type carrier. (correct me if I'm wrong) The large carriers, complete with a largers escort fleet (2 cruisers, 5 destroyers) could launch all navy aircraft at the expence of speed. The escort carriers were faster, but could only launch lighter aircraft (A6M, light F6F, Seafire) as well at PT's and LVT's.

I could be wrong though....
Logged

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Carrier classes
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2001, 06:21:00 PM »
Don't forget the Germans!  They had the Graf Zepplin with Bf 109T's

They had it for about 5 mins anyway til the Brits sank it alongside it's docking pier.  :D
Logged

Offline Mathman

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1921
Carrier classes
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2001, 06:40:00 PM »
The Independence class CVL's could carry any of the USN planes we have in AH, including the F4U.  I am fairly certain that they could carry the Helldiver and Dauntless, but didn't because of a need for fighters.  Thus, they only carried a few TBM's and several F6F's.  The escort carriers in the Atlantic (i.e the Bogue and Block Island) could and did carry TBM's and F4F's.  Not sure if the could carry F6F's, but they probably could.  I am fairly certain the reason they didn't was that all of the Hellcats were needed in the Pacific where the air threat was much more significant than that of the Atlantic.
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Carrier classes
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2001, 07:15:00 PM »
milnko,

No, the Germans didn't.  They had plans for it, but they also had plans for a 150,000 ton battleship.  Plans don't mean squat.

That kimd of comment is what makes the German fans the laughing stock of AH.  The idea that the never built German carrier should be modeled over Japanese carriers.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Carrier classes
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2001, 07:21:00 PM »
I got it Milenko, even if you are a stupid LuftWaffle!  :p Don't mind Karnak, he's still got a bug up his bellybutton about 1.08 and it's making him pissy.


SOB
Logged
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Carrier classes
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2001, 08:48:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak:
milnko,
No, the Germans didn't.  They had plans for it, but they also had plans for a 150,000 ton battleship.  Plans don't mean squat.

That kimd of comment is what makes the German fans the laughing stock of AH.  The idea that the never built German carrier should be modeled over Japanese carriers.

Gee!  Sure looks like they had more than just plans to me.....
   

Suggested Reading for Karnak
 http://www.voodoo.cz/ww2car/ger.html

*** Not that I give a rat's ass, one way or the other, but to clarify, I'm not a German fan, I'm a fan of the FW 190 in a GAME called ACES HIGH.  

 OH MY!™   :eek:

[ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: milnko ]
Logged

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Carrier classes
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2001, 09:15:00 PM »
Apparently, the Brits did not sink it.

 http://home.inreach.com/rickylaw/kriegsmarine/carrier/zeppelin/zeppelin.html


"Although the Graf Zeppelin had some advanced features she displayed her designers' lack of experience. The heavy surface armament was of little use and accounted for too much weight; the anti-aircraft armament was heavy but badly sited, all on the starboard side; the radius of action was low for a fleet carrier intended to operate with the capital ships on the Atlantic shipping routes.

The wrangles over aircraft were matched by arguments over the equipment of the ship, and construction was suspended in 1940. Work started on a revised design in 1942 but was stopped in 1943. The catapults were fitted partly on the flight deck when construction was ceased but they were never completed and eventually destroyed by a special German crew on 25 April 1945 when the hull was scuttled at Stettin.

The ship was reported to be listing to the starboard with heel about 0.5 degree after scuttling. After Germany's surrender the Russians raised it. Loaded with booty and with her hangars full of sections of U-boats and other bulky items, she left Stettin in tow for Leningrad in August 1947. Afterwards, she was renamed by the Russians as "ðâ-101" (this designation means F(loating)B(ase) No. 101). The ship was further towed to the naval polygon off Swinemünde to be anchored as a training target for Russian dive-bombers and torpedo vessels."

Several other sources on the net say essentially the same thing, including some of the more reliable places.

Never saw combat, though. Even though don't see why the Jerries shouldn't get it. A nice, unusual addition don't you think?
Logged
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Octavius

  • Skinner Team
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6651
Carrier classes
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2001, 09:33:00 PM »
ehhh.. hostile shores ring a bell karnak?   :)
Logged
octavius
Fat Drunk BasTards (forum)
"bastard coated bastards with bastard filling?  delicious!"
Guest of the ++Blue Knights++[/size]

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
Carrier classes
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2001, 10:41:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Toad:
Apparently, the Brits did not sink it.

<SNIP>
Never saw combat, though. Even though don't see why the Jerries shouldn't get it. A nice, unusual addition don't you think?

I stand corrected, Sorry Toad and all,
it's just that I'm so used to blamin' the UK and especially them Canadians for the world's problems  :D that I just ASSumed they sank the Graf Zeppelin   :)
Logged

Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Carrier classes
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2001, 11:42:00 PM »
Germans had also plans to convert one of their fastest passenger ships (One of their North-Atlantic "Blue Ribbon" chasers) to the carrier.
Not sure if ship was "Europa" or "Bremen".

Edit:
Ship was "Europa", 130,000hp/28,5knots, and plans were made in 1942.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Staga ]
Logged

Offline Westy MOL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
Carrier classes
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2001, 09:41:00 AM »
"Never saw combat, though. Even though don't see why the Jerries shouldn't get it. A nice, unusual addition don't you think?"

I agree. It was close enough to being finished that I personally would like to see an Axis (Euro Axis) CV. It really belongs in a wild "what-if" realm as it was never finished nor deployed. (unlike the P-51H ... sorry <bseg> just had to add that  :) )

 Westy
Logged

Offline xHaMmeRx

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
      • http://www.netaces.org
Carrier classes
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2001, 10:05:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by texace:
I think something that might improve the naval aspect would be to model the different carrier classes. I think, not sure, that the 3 navies had 2 different class carriers, one large and one smaller, escort type carrier. (correct me if I'm wrong) The large carriers, complete with a largers escort fleet (2 cruisers, 5 destroyers) could launch all navy aircraft at the expence of speed. The escort carriers were faster, but could only launch lighter aircraft (A6M, light F6F, Seafire) as well at PT's and LVT's.

I could be wrong though....

Actually, the fleet carriers were much faster than the escort carriers (talking U.S. here).  Of the battleships, only the IOWA class could keep up with them and even the cruisers and destroyers were hard pressed to match their (if I remember right) 30+ kts speed.

Escort carriers were designed to escort the slow moving convoys.  It seems like I recall that some were even built on Liberty Ship hulls.

HaMmeR
Logged

Offline Digr1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: Carrier classes
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2010, 09:05:33 PM »
See Rule #10
« Last Edit: April 15, 2010, 02:12:33 PM by Skuzzy »
Logged

Offline halo342

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
Re: Carrier classes
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2010, 09:12:26 PM »
Since waystin is nowhere to be found.

Logged
Quote from: Plazus on May 01, 2011, 11:49:00 PM
Oh my God, what has the Internet evolved itself into? :huh

Offline uptown

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8566
Re: Carrier classes
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2010, 09:15:57 PM »
Logged
Lighten up Francis
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »