Jump to content


British CV loadouts


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

TheHunter2_EAD #21 Posted 01 April 2017 - 11:18 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 372
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
This is my UK CV Line aircraft load out & Modernization year:

IV Archer 1940/1941  3/1942 12 Martlet 35 Swordfish

V Pretoria Castle 1944 6 Sea Hurricane 12 Swordfish

VI Vindex 1943-1946 3/1944 6 Sea Hurricane 12 Swordfish 1/1945 7 Wildcat 12 Swordfish 4/1945 12 Wildcat 8 Swordfish

VII Unicorn 1943-1945 5/1943 18 Swordfish 7/1943 10 Seafire 13 Swordfish 9/1943 17 Wildcat 38 Seafire 3 Swordfish

VIII Illusrrious 1943-1946 4/1940 15 Fulmar 18 Swordfish 7/1943 10 Seafire 24 Martlet 12 Barracuda 3/1945 36 Corsair 15 Avenger

IX Indomitable 1943-1946 5/1942 12 Fulmar 9 Sea hurricane 24 Albacore 5/1944 24 Hellcat 24 Barracuda 5/1945 33 Hellcat 21 Avenger

X Implacable 1946 6/1944 12 Seafire 12 Firefly 24 Barracuda 6/1945 48 Seafire 11 Firefly 21 Avenger 2/1945 40 Seafire 12 Firefly 21 Avenger


I run all CV Tiers:
IJN: all
USN: all
Kriegsmarine​: still in process of negotiate for it come to game
​U.S.S.R.: ask Xero_Snake how it going on it
​HMS: still in process
France: Béarn ​need to negotiate​
​Italian:  Aquila need to negotiate
​Except for few other ship class for a small fleet.
 

Carrier_Lexington #22 Posted 02 April 2017 - 11:59 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,072
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Postbyebye360, on 01 April 2017 - 05:50 PM, said:

 

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.

 

.50s can't rip-off wings, all they can do is kill pilots and burn engines. 20mm's will rip wings asunder, which makes them better for Boom-and-Zoom (BnZ) than .50s.

However, both British and American fighters were BnZ aircraft. The Americans never built a dogfighter that was very good, and you need a dogfighter for the sustained fights which make .50s worthwhile.


"Heresy!"


SeaKnight_1990 #23 Posted 03 April 2017 - 12:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 515
  • Member since:
    10-23-2015

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 02 April 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

 

.50s can't rip-off wings, all they can do is kill pilots and burn engines. 20mm's will rip wings asunder, which makes them better for Boom-and-Zoom (BnZ) than .50s.

However, both British and American fighters were BnZ aircraft. The Americans never built a dogfighter that was very good, and you need a dogfighter for the sustained fights which make .50s worthwhile.

 

IRL the .50s tore up Japanese fighters like it was nobody's business. There was one episode of Dogfights (Guadalcanal) where they mentioned that if you aimed for a specific spot on a Zero (the place where the trailing edge of the wing met the fuselage) the wings would fall off. The armor on Japanese planes (or the lack thereof) didn't help them.

 

dark.png


457th_FighterGroup #24 Posted 03 April 2017 - 01:48 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 15
  • Member since:
    11-19-2016

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 02 April 2017 - 11:59 PM, said:

 

.50s can't rip-off wings, all they can do is kill pilots and burn engines. 20mm's will rip wings asunder, which makes them better for Boom-and-Zoom (BnZ) than .50s.

However, both British and American fighters were BnZ aircraft. The Americans never built a dogfighter that was very good, and you need a dogfighter for the sustained fights which make .50s worthwhile.

No, the P-51 was a superb dogfighter to pretty much every plane it met, but was never modified to have cannons. The 6 .50s were reliable.

Plus 20 MMs were not accurate and ran out of ammo fast.



HMS_Formidable #25 Posted 03 April 2017 - 02:14 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,013
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

Regarding the guns: Things changed.

 

In 1939-40, having 8x .303 guns was considered to be a very heavy armament. And it was ... until nations started up-armouring their aircraft and introducing self-sealing fuel tanks etc.

 

The 50cal was a good all-round weapon, though Britain's FAA wasn't totally in love with it as it had a tendency to jam in cold weather (which was all the time in the UK/North Atlantic)

 

The 20mm cannon served its purpose, hard-hitting (though limited ammunition) strike power in a single-pass against Germany's heavily protected bombers. Such protection was never really an issue against Japanese and Italian aircraft.

 

Once again, the point is: Different theaters had different requirements at different times. There were few 'silver bullets' in World War II


Edited by HMS_Formidable, 03 April 2017 - 02:20 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 


Admiral_Thrawn_1 #26 Posted 06 April 2017 - 10:35 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,615
  • Member since:
    02-27-2017
Lol as a player that loves using BBs Hope British planes don't get those Tallboy bombs also known as Grand Slam bombs, those were what they used on Tirpitz as well as the most reinforced bunkers in the war. :amazed: :hiding:

Carrier_Lexington #27 Posted 06 April 2017 - 06:28 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,072
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostAdmiral_Thrawn_1, on 06 April 2017 - 05:35 AM, said:

Lol as a player that loves using BBs Hope British planes don't get those Tallboy bombs also known as Grand Slam bombs, those were what they used on Tirpitz as well as the most reinforced bunkers in the war. :amazed: :hiding:

 

They won't: Lancaster Mk. IIIs (the bombers that carried the 22,000lb Grand Slams) were land-based heavy bombers, and, as such, they cannot be launched from carriers.

"Heresy!"


mr3awsome #28 Posted 06 April 2017 - 06:47 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 13,697
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

View PostCarrier_Lexington, on 06 April 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

They won't: Lancaster Mk. IIIs (the bombers that carried the 22,000lb Grand Slams) were land-based heavy bombers, and, as such, they cannot be launched from carriers.

I see your common sense and I raise you Project Habakkuk. 


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


Carrier_Lexington #29 Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:02 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,072
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View Postmr3awsome, on 06 April 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

I see your common sense and I raise you Project Habakkuk. 

 

.............We don't talk about Project Habakkuk.............

XD


"Heresy!"


Admiral_Thrawn_1 #30 Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:11 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,615
  • Member since:
    02-27-2017
Hope they don't add any British planes that can carry Tallboy Bombs... :trollface:

HMS_Formidable #31 Posted 07 April 2017 - 07:28 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,013
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

Bouncing bombs were developed for Mosquitos... and Sea Mosquitos were a thing...

 


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 


Carrier_Lexington #32 Posted 07 April 2017 - 06:00 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,072
  • Member since:
    12-25-2014

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 07 April 2017 - 02:28 AM, said:

Bouncing bombs were developed for Mosquitos... and Sea Mosquitos were a thing...

 

 

Well, speaking of bouncing bombs, skip-bombing (the practice of dropping bombs from low level so that they "skipped" off the water and hit the side of the enemy ship) was a much-used tactic throughout WWII, because it was cheaper than torpedoes and had a similar level of effectiveness.

"Heresy!"


Helstrem #33 Posted 08 April 2017 - 01:22 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 262
  • Member since:
    05-18-2015

View PostSeaKnight_1990, on 02 April 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:

 

IRL the .50s tore up Japanese fighters like it was nobody's business. There was one episode of Dogfights (Guadalcanal) where they mentioned that if you aimed for a specific spot on a Zero (the place where the trailing edge of the wing met the fuselage) the wings would fall off. The armor on Japanese planes (or the lack thereof) didn't help them.

LOL.  No.  Pilots could barely hit another plane.  Nobody was aiming for particular parts of a fighter.  The Japanese were a generation behind on armor.  The Spitfire Mk I, Hurricane Mk I and pre-Battle of Britain Bf109 had exactly as much armor as the A6M2, none.  Armor and self sealing tanks were added to those, but the A6M never got an engine powerful enough to add all of that.  Later Japanese planes were armored with protected fuel systems roughly equivalent to American and European aircraft.  Of course, by that time it was much to late, the cream of the Japanese pilots were dead.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users