Jump to content


British CV loadouts


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

SeaKnight_1990 #1 Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 516
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

I, no, make that we, know that Royal Navy CVs are ways off. But hey--I thought why not do some speculation. For attack group size, it would be large (7-8 planes,) with only 2-3 squads per carrier, and the planes have large HP pools. As for types, there'd be obviously the Fairey Swordfish and Albacore, and later the Barracuda for torpedo planes, the Blackburn Skua for a dive bomber, and the Fairey Fulmar and Firefly for fighters, along with the Supermarine Seafire. I think a few lend-lease types (Avenger, Martlet, Hellcat, Corsair) might go into the mix. At the higher tiers, there might also be twin-engine Sea Mosquitos and Sea Hornets.

 

That's what I think might be coming for the Royal Navy.

 

What do you think?


 

dark.png


pewpewpew42 #2 Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,633
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

I mean... that feels like it would be too much like USN by way of squad sizes, and we all know how that's worked out :hiding:


light.png

Estimated_Prophet #3 Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:57 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,886
  • Member since:
    09-16-2015
No matter what the loadouts are and what tier they are; Swordfish Torpedo Bombers get massive survival and critical hit bonuses versus any Bismark, and at least attack bonuses versus Italian ships... :hiding:

                           Forget Ise! Give me Hyuuga!!!


Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao #4 Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:03 PM

    Ensign

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,014
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
For the most part they will have sub-par speed, sub-par fighters, and sub-par bombers for a lot of tiers (probably till tier 8) this is due to the fact that the British really didn't need to develop better planes for their carriers with no active enemy cv to congest them and with the battle of Britain and what not they had more a need for ground based planes than cv based ones early in the war

 

AM Fog Heavy Cruiser Takao. Top 5 Anime: Arpeggio of Blue Steel, Gate-Thus the JSDF Fought There, The Familiar of Zero, A Certain Magical Index/Scientific Railgun, and Steins;Gate


pewpewpew42 #5 Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:14 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,633
  • Member since:
    02-28-2016

View PostFog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao, on 15 March 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

For the most part they will have sub-par speed, sub-par fighters, and sub-par bombers for a lot of tiers (probably till tier 8) this is due to the fact that the British really didn't need to develop better planes for their carriers with no active enemy cv to congest them and with the battle of Britain and what not they had more a need for ground based planes than cv based ones early in the war

 

Not necessarily. They would simply put, say a 1945 UK CV against a 1942 US CV if they're roughly equivalent.
light.png

SparvieroVV #6 Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:38 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,149
  • Member since:
    06-20-2015

View PostEstimated_Prophet, on 15 March 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

No matter what the loadouts are and what tier they are; Swordfish Torpedo Bombers get massive survival and critical hit bonuses versus any Bismark, and at least attack bonuses versus Italian ships... :hiding:

 

You mean penalty, since they normally missed?

My battle chat is disabled. So this is me saying "Hello" if I should happen to see you in battle.


Estimated_Prophet #7 Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:38 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,886
  • Member since:
    09-16-2015

View PostSparvieroVV, on 15 March 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

You mean penalty, since they normally missed?

 

Nah; just make them impossible for a Bismark to shoot down and any torpedo hit in the stern area is an automatic rudder critical... :B


Edited by Estimated_Prophet, 15 March 2017 - 06:38 PM.

                           Forget Ise! Give me Hyuuga!!!


CaptChico #8 Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:10 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 274
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Wowzers, did the Brits have some ugly looking planes 8( 

What was Fairey, thinking??

I admit I have a soft spot for the Swordfish, for a Bi-plane she does have a sleek look.

I will be playing the UK CVs on account of being a Brit Fan Boy but man its going to suck looking at most of the planes i will be controlling 8P


Commander, III Scouting Group

Group Flagship SMS Yorck

SMS Kolberg, SMS Karlsruhe, SMS Konigsberg, SMS Nurnberg.


mr3awsome #9 Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:22 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 13,702
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostFog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao, on 15 March 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

For the most part they will have sub-par speed, sub-par fighters, and sub-par bombers for a lot of tiers (probably till tier 8) this is due to the fact that the British really didn't need to develop better planes for their carriers with no active enemy cv to congest them and with the battle of Britain and what not they had more a need for ground based planes than cv based ones early in the war

 

Half right. For a long time between the wars the Fleet Air Arm was part of the Royal Air Force, and was the ginger stepchild of the service. 

By the time the war starts they hadn't been able to fully overcome that. 

The Battle of Britain & Bomber Command further delay the process. 

Which is why you end up with a lot of US planes in the FAA. 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


hipcanuck #10 Posted 15 March 2017 - 10:45 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 967
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
There will balance, cant all be shat planes :) In fact, they may be of sub par offensive capability, but I would put $ on the planes being tough as nails due to the extreme shortage of aircraft carried

HMS_Formidable #11 Posted 19 March 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

The biggest problem is people keep comparing the Fleet Air Arm's 1939-41 aircraft with USN 1942-45 aircraft.

 

When the Fulmar went into service in 1940, the USN's front-line fighter remained the F3F 'flying barrel' biplane which wasn't replaced until the second half of 41.

And the Fulmar was a 'stop-gap' aircraft, not intended for development.

 

The FAA fell into a hole in 41-42 after the Battle of Britain emergency decree that suspended all development and production of aircraft except for the Spitfire, Hurricane and one or two bombers to defend the homeland.

The FAA air program never recovered until 44 with the arrival of the Firefly, and later the Sea Mosquito and the Sea Fury.


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


Monty9185 #12 Posted 19 March 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 90
  • Member since:
    10-04-2015

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 19 March 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

Sea Mosquito

 

I have to confess I raised an eyebrow when I read that, I'm a massive fan of the 'wooden wonder' but had no idea there had been serious attempts to navalise the aircraft, do you know if the air frame had to be strengthened at all to cope with the increased forces of carrier landings? Wouldn't of thought the wooden construction would be up to that task, still an interesting titbit.

PD666 #13 Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:07 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 33
  • Member since:
    05-30-2015

I agree with both squad size and number. I even put together a paper of all CVs on the line.

Tier                                    Name                                    Aircraft Held                                    #of squads

 

 

                                    British Carriers

                                    (I think squads of 8)

 

4                                    HMS Eagle                        25-30 (possible upgrade)                        2

 

5                                    Illustrious                        36-57 (possible upgrade)                        2

 

6                                    Courageous                        48                                                            2

 

7                                    Audacious                        60                                                            3

 

8                                    HMS Ark Royal            72 (50-72 possible upgrade)                        3

 

9                                    Implacable                        81                                                            4

 

10                                    Malta                                    108 (80-108 possible upgrade)            4

Hope this was helpful.

 

 



HMS_Formidable #14 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:25 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostMonty9185, on 20 March 2017 - 04:36 AM, said:

 

I have to confess I raised an eyebrow when I read that, I'm a massive fan of the 'wooden wonder' but had no idea there had been serious attempts to navalise the aircraft, do you know if the air frame had to be strengthened at all to cope with the increased forces of carrier landings? Wouldn't of thought the wooden construction would be up to that task, still an interesting titbit.

 

No less than famous test pilot Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown first landed the Mossie aboard HMS Indefatigable.

There was some arrester hook strengthening, yes. But the issue wasn't landings. It was humidity delaminating the wood-glue construction.

He wrote an amazing account of his first landing ... He surprised even himself with its success.

 

(The aircraft in the above footage isn't the 'first' landing ... Brown was flying a Mosquito IV with a perspex nose, not the radar 'thimble' of the purpose-built Sea Mosquitos or the smooth cannon-mg armed nose of the MkVI fighter bomber) The crash-test footage where a Mk VI is slammed into the crash barrier is pretty amazing!


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 20 March 2017 - 04:46 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


HMS_Formidable #15 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:40 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

It's obvious that in this 'arcade game' that WoWS don't model aircraft beyond their definition of 'balance' and 'flavour'...

So here are the aircraft 3D models I'd like to see in-game.

* remembering that the Fleet Air Arm wasn't a huge fan of dive bombers after the Skua

 

Tier IV: Don't know enough about 1920s aircraft

Tier V: Fairy Fulmar  I, Fairy Swordfish and Skua dive bomber ( a timeline appropriate match to the F4F-3 and Devastators on Bogue - though I maintain Bogue should be using the F3F Flying Barrel biplane that was the USN's front-line fighter until late 1941)

Tier VI: Sea Hurricane and Albacore (a timeline appropriatematch to the F4F-4 and Devastators aboard Independence)

Tier VII: Seafire LF-IIC, Barracuda I (a timeline appropriate match to the Hellcat and Avenger loadout of Ranger)
Tier VIII:  Corsair II, Barracuda II and Firefly MkI (a timeline appropriate match to the Hellcat, Avenger and Devastator of Lexington)

Tier IX: Seafire III, Avenger, Firefly MkI (a timeline appropriate match to the Corsair, Avenger and Helldiver of Essex)

Tier IX: Sea Fury, Sea Hornet, Spearfish (British late/post-war piston-engine equivalents of Midway's loadout)

 


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 20 March 2017 - 05:47 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


DeMatt #16 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:48 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 216
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

If the Brit formations do not use "Vic"s, I will be sorely disappointed.  A double-Vic of TBs dropping in a double-vee spread would be a nice departure from the current line-abreast spreads of USN and IJN.

 

Making Graf Zeppelin use Schwarms of 4 would then mean Allied CVs got groups of 6, while Axis CVs got groups of 4.



CurtisWBrown #17 Posted 29 March 2017 - 03:06 PM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 8
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

No Martlets, Corsairs or Avengers as they are US aircraft. Although it was the Brits to first put Corsairs on CVs, as the US thought they were incapable of landing on CVs and they Brits taught them how it was done.  Most of the rules used today for landing aircraft on US carrier decks were first invented by the Brits.

 

Don't forget the Swordfish.  The Swordfish was actually effective against the Bismarck not because it was so good, but because it flew so slow the Bismarck's automatic AA guns could not track it properly.



Carrier_Lexington #18 Posted 29 March 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,126
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

I heard something about "sub-par" fighters.

Let's get one thing clear: British fighters weren't sub-par. If anything, American fighters were sub-par, because the Americans insisted on putting .50s on planes. The British, on the other hand, knew what kind of power was needed, so they put 20mm Hispanos on them. I expect British fighters to be stronger, slower, and have less ammunition than American fighters.


"Heresy!"


HMS_Formidable #19 Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:10 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,016
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

The problem is confused timelines.

For some reason the US-Japan war is compared to the UK-Italian/German war as though they were parallel.

 

In terms of fighter aircraft alone: 

 

1939: The FAA had the Skua and Gladiator, the USN had the F3F 'Flying Barrel' and Japan the A5M Claude

1940: The FAA had the Fulmar and Skua, the USN had the F3F 'Flying Barrel' and Japan the A6M Zero

1941: The FAA had the Fulmar, the USN had the F3F 'Flying Barrel' and Japan the A6M Zero

1942: The FAA had the Sea Hurricane, Martlet, Fulmar, the USN had the Wildcat and Japan the A6M Zero

1943: The FAA had the Sea Hurricane and Martlet, the USN had the Wildcat, and Japan the A6M Zero

1944: The FAA had the Seafire, Martlet and Corsair, the USN had the Hellcat and Corsair, and Japan the A6M Zero

1945: The FAA had the Seafire, Hellcat, Corsair, Firefly, the USN had the Hellcat and Corsair, and Japan the A6M Zero

 

Yeah, Japan developed better naval fighters in 1944-45 but they could not go to sea as the big ships that could carry them had been sunk.

 

 


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 30 March 2017 - 05:16 AM.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


byebye360 #20 Posted 01 April 2017 - 10:50 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 34
  • Member since:
    11-07-2014

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 29 March 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

I heard something about "sub-par" fighters.

Let's get one thing clear: British fighters weren't sub-par. If anything, American fighters were sub-par, because the Americans insisted on putting .50s on planes. The British, on the other hand, knew what kind of power was needed, so they put 20mm Hispanos on them. I expect British fighters to be stronger, slower, and have less ammunition than American fighters.

 

The .50 is not sub par for shooting down fighters and light bombers only in shooting down large multi engine aircraft are 20mm and up guns better, also the US never had to shoot down large numbers of bombers.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users