Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
AngryPitSnipe

Japanese Carriers carried LESS aircraft than US Full sized Carriers.

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,468 battles

Oh and @AngryPitSnipe. The Kido Butai was the most powerful fleet in the world at the start of WW II and Yamamoto's pride and joy for good reason. After Pearl Harbor they ran rampent, capturing The Philippines, Wake Island, Saipan, Guam, Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam. They sunk the battleship HMS Prince of Wales, and battlecruiser HMS Repulse. The fleet even went on a raid against Australia and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and sunk HMS Hermes. The victories only were stopped at The Coral Sea and even they they took out a quarter of the US carrier forces left in the Pacific. 

Also little bit of a history fact for you. The concept of the WW II and modern day Carrier Task Forces? Do you know what they are based on? 

Yah, The Kido Boutai. These six below are why the US is the Naval superpower it is, (and yes that does mean what it sounds, at Midway you only faced part of the Kido Butai).

?interpolation=lanczos-none&output-forma

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,339 posts
11,286 battles
5 hours ago, AngryPitSnipe said:

Wikipedia is rubbish kid. You listen to all that fake news instead of real vets and people with degrees in Military history.Lexington, Yorktown and Essex classes at some point had close to 100 aircraft taken aboard at various times in their career. Most US CVs operated with at least 80 when they left port, the Japanese Carriers simply couldn't handle more than about sixty- of which they rarely even loaded that number do to aircraft and pilot shortages.

The IJN was gutted at Midway They lost their best pilots there. The IJN Carriers never operated at some make-believe capacity after that anyhow. They also ran out of fuel around the middle of 1944. They got all their fuel prewar from the U.S.

No fuel, no planes , no pilots, I guess the Japanese Carriers didn't carry many planes at all.

If your gonna call that [edited] of "ima vet so u should listen" then gtfo cause im a vet as well. Next up even the conversion carriers you speak of (Kaga and Akagi) both carried large amounts of planes comparable to USN CVs at the time. As well fleet carrier's Shokaku/Zuikaku were fielded in the battle of the coral sea were both fought well. Though that battle could be seen as a draw the IJN lost a cv and so did the USN. But regardless your wrong about in game, in game USN fleet carriers have more planes than same tier counter parts with the exception of the Ranger/Saipan vs Kaga. Kaga was a bigger cv and historically carried more planes.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
195 posts
8,639 battles
Quote

Yah, The Kido Boutai.

 

Sorry pal, the USN pioneered carrier air ops  (stealing ideas from the British) and in any given engagement could put more planes per carrier into the air than the IJN CVs. US carriers, as pointed out before, had larger hangar bays, larger and more elevators, more aircraft due to fully folding wigs (most IJN planes only folded the wingtips, and some TBs like the Yokosuka D4Y  carried by Taiho had *fixed* wings!), and faster more flexible carrier ops practices. At a minimum the USN in WOWs, even if you kept everything the same, should have MUCH faster turn around times -- being able to land, rear and launch planes faster than IJN CVs.

 

But in WOWs IJN Carriers are almost TWICE as fast at landing, rearming and launching planes! For example, just look at actual T9 US Essex vs IJN Taiho (the Taijo is basically a Japanese copy of a US Lexington class CV). 

Taiho - average 23 secs

Fighters: 24sec

TBs: 25sec

DBs: 20sec

 

Essex - average 40 secs:

Fighters: 35sec

TBs: 44sec

DBs: 40sec

 

How does THAT make sense??

An Essex carried x102 aircraft in combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. But in WOWs the capacity is x72, but only has x49 aircraft, maximum of x4 squadrons.

 

The Taiho only carried x64 aircraft as a combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. In WOWs the capacity is x83, and has x52 aircraft in x6 squadrons.

 

So the Taiho capacity is much greater in WOWs than in real life (+23%), and Essex capacity much lower (-30%) than real life. And Essex flies 30% fewer squadrons than in real life. And in game terms the Taiho's planes rearm and fly again 173% faster than the Essex planes. 

 

In WOWs they make IJN carriers clearly more flexible, faster and superior to US carriers. Yet in WW2 the US lost x11 CVs in the Pacific war, and the IJN lost x20 CVs.

 

Edited by EasyEight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,625
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
4 hours ago, EasyEight said:

 

Sorry pal, the USN pioneered carrier air ops  (stealing ideas from the British) and in any given engagement could put more planes per carrier into the air than the IJN CVs.

 

Everyone stole, not only ideas but entire methods and designs from the British as far carriers were concerned. The Taiho being a prime example, and a very nice result of copying too. What did the USN innovate as far as CVs were concerned, between 1912 and 1945? Not very much.:Smile_popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[MIA-I]
Privateers
1,255 posts
12,834 battles

The Kido Butai was as successful as it was because they had ten years' shooting war experience by the time they faced the USN, and they had aircraft that, while fragile, were more maneuverable in the hands of highly-skilled pilots than the planes the US had aboard their carriers. Unfortunately, that experience and skill died with their pilots, who were irreplaceable, while the US mastered not only the art of making their more rugged though less agile aircraft into effective killers, they swiftly trained new pilots to survive and kill while introducing ever more deadly aircraft. The combination meant that even as Japan retained some of the more advanced carriers and introduced ships like Shinano and Taiho, they had no chance of being effective with novice pilots in very vulnerable planes. 

 

Should this game ever introduce crew efficiency as a measure in the game, that aspect of the carrier war could be demonstrated. It is impossible at this time to represent in the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[BSC]
Beta Testers
75 posts

Shinano should have been used over the "hakuryu" which really never existed.  The shinano was a yamato conversion that, completed and handled competently, would have been scary.  But it, and the rest of the IJN was doomed.  American CV's didn't need to carry more planes than the equivalent IJN.  We had a shitload more carriers.  We built 24 Essex class in 5 years.  Wrap your head around that.  That's one 800+ foot carrier every 2.5 months.  Putting 1 American CV against 1 IJN CV is totally artificial necessity of the game.  The IJN lost at Midway because they got hacked, and they lacked the industrial strength to ever recover.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
195 posts
8,639 battles
Quote

What did the USN innovate as far as CVs were concerned, between 1912 and 1945? Not very much.


Gave you some examples, guess you don't like them. Oh well. What innovations did the IJN introduce by 1945 other than the submarine carrier (that's a joke son)?. By the end of WW2 US naval planes were faster, more maneuverable and had a longer range than IJN planes. Some fighters were also multi-role, they could arm with bombs & rockets as well a provide air superiority, and the Sto-Wing system allowed US CVs to carry more planes than any other carriers during the war. In contrast, the IJN still flew single role planes, some of which didn't even have folding wingtips let alone folding wings. In terms of operations, the US pioneered night ops to a degree not done before, innovated a "shuttle" system that fed planes from escort carriers into Fleet carriers to continue a higher pace of operations than the IJN, and standardization also helped the US be more efficient than the IJN which might see different CVs with different planes and armaments. 

And as the numbers say -- x20 sunk IJN CVs, x11 sunk US CVs in the Pacific War.

 

So it's fine if WOWs wants to do game balance, but cutting US CV aircraft capacity by 30% while boosting IJN aircraft capacity by 23%, and giving the IJN a 173% faster rearm time  -- not so much of a game balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,625
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
8,193 posts
9,171 battles
1 hour ago, EasyEight said:


Gave you some examples, guess you don't like them. Oh well. What innovations did the IJN introduce by 1945 other than the submarine carrier (that's a joke son)?. By the end of WW2 US naval planes were faster, more maneuverable and had a longer range than IJN planes. Some fighters were also multi-role, they could arm with bombs & rockets as well a provide air superiority, and the Sto-Wing system allowed US CVs to carry more planes than any other carriers during the war. In contrast, the IJN still flew single role planes, some of which didn't even have folding wingtips let alone folding wings. In terms of operations, the US pioneered night ops to a degree not done before, innovated a "shuttle" system that fed planes from escort carriers into Fleet carriers to continue a higher pace of operations than the IJN, and standardization also helped the US be more efficient than the IJN which might see different CVs with different planes and armaments. 

And as the numbers say -- x20 sunk IJN CVs, x11 sunk US CVs in the Pacific War.

 

So it's fine if WOWs wants to do game balance, but cutting US CV aircraft capacity by 30% while boosting IJN aircraft capacity by 23%, and giving the IJN a 173% faster rearm time  -- not so much of a game balance.

I'm sorry but nothing of what you have written contains examples of innovation by the USN which is specific to aircraft carriers, deck configuration? British, catapult launch and arrested recovery? British, damage containment and armouring configurations, British (and IJN with Taiho), deck islands on the starboard side? British, 1st aircraft carrer launched plane to torp and sink an enemy ship? British, in 1915! And so much more besides which came to define, just what is an aircraft carrier (though I would, being stubborn, insist the French got the ball rolling in 1912 with their porte-hydravions Foudre)

So please, who didn't copy the British? The USN certainly did, (and they were welcome) no more and no less than the Japanese.:Smile_popcorn:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
195 posts
8,639 battles
Quote

 

I'm sorry but nothing of what you have written contains examples of innovation by the USN which is specific to aircraft carriers, deck configuration? British, catapult launch and arrested recovery? British, damage containment and armouring configurations, British (and IJN with Taiho), deck islands on the starboard side? British, 1st aircraft carrer launched plane to torp and sink an enemy ship? British, in 1915! And so much more besides which came to define, just what is an aircraft carrier (though I would, being stubborn, insist the French got the ball rolling in 1912 with their porte-hydravions Foudre)

So please, who didn't copy the British? The USN certainly did, (and they were welcome) no more and no less than the Japanese.:Smile_popcorn:

 

I've listed America contributions to carrier aviation, which you don't want to recognize -- but it does allow you to obsessively ignore this thread, doesn't it? And 20 sunk IJN Cvs vs 11 sunk US CVs, not a bad record -- so the Americans must have been doing something right, eh? And on the topic of this thread I looked at two CVs, Essex and Taiho (since the pioneer Brits don't rate CVs yet in the game). Why is it "game balance" if WOWs cuts US CV aircraft capacity by 30% while boosting IJN aircraft capacity by 23%, and giving the IJN a 173% faster re-arm time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
271
[PAT]
Members
1,663 posts
4,135 battles
14 minutes ago, EasyEight said:

I've listed America contributions to carrier aviation, which you don't want to recognize -- but it does allow you to obsessively ignore this thread, doesn't it? And 20 sunk IJN Cvs vs 11 sunk US CVs, not a bad record -- so the Americans must have been doing something right, eh? And on the topic of this thread I looked at two CVs, Essex and Taiho (since the pioneer Brits don't rate CVs yet in the game). Why is it "game balance" if WOWs cuts US CV aircraft capacity by 30% while boosting IJN aircraft capacity by 23%, and giving the IJN a 173% faster re-arm time?

Wasn't it just proved twice that IJN CVs had comparable plane numbers, besides if you want it to be like you say, then ijn CVs would be dramatically underpowered. And making sure that ships of the same class have roughly comparable power levels is balance, and making us CVs vastly better then ijn CVs is not that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[-SYN-]
[-SYN-]
Members
195 posts
8,639 battles
Quote

Wasn't it just proved twice that IJN CVs had comparable plane numbers, besides if you want it to be like you say, then ijn CVs would be dramatically underpowered. And making sure that ships of the same class have roughly comparable power levels is balance, and making us CVs vastly better then ijn CVs is not that.

No, it wasn't proven twice. I listed the combat aircraft complements for Essex vs Taiho:

 

In RL an Essex carried x102 aircraft in combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. But in WOWs the capacity is x72, but only has x49 aircraft, maximum of x4 squadrons.

 

In RL the Taiho only carried x64 aircraft as a combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. In WOWs the capacity is x83, and has x52 aircraft in x6 squadrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[HC]
Beta Testers
2,163 posts
11,256 battles
On 10/15/2017 at 7:42 PM, EasyEight said:

No, it wasn't proven twice. I listed the combat aircraft complements for Essex vs Taiho:

 

In RL an Essex carried x102 aircraft in combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. But in WOWs the capacity is x72, but only has x49 aircraft, maximum of x4 squadrons.

 

In RL the Taiho only carried x64 aircraft as a combat load out, flew 6 squadrons. In WOWs the capacity is x83, and has x52 aircraft in x6 squadrons.

 

In game, the base hull Essex in game carries 75 aircraft, the upgraded hull carries 90. with 4 or 5 squadrons,  BTD-1's appear to be pretty chunky aircraft, so 90's about right, especially if you don't include the dismantled aircraft hanging between the overhead beams in the hanger (you break them out overnight, so you have something to fly in the morning, and that may be impossible with the BTD-1 anyway). From what I've seen, including dismantled aircraft, the max was 108 (72 F6F's, 18 SB2C's, 18 TBF's, arranged in 4 squadrons)

 

The Taiho has 83 in game, regardless of hull, with 6 or 7 squadrons, with the B7A's she gets in game (the aircraft she was supposed to carry, along with the A7M1's) it's believable, The most she carried operationally was 73, and she was down to 56 by the time of the battle of the Philippine Sea. I was unaware the D4Y lacked folding wings, so I'll add that to the short list of non-folding wing aircraft on carriers (A6M5, F2A, A-4 and the Sea Hurricane are the only operational ones I know of without going to WW1) 

Edited by SgtBeltfed
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
255
[BLEP]
Alpha Tester
1,422 posts
13,537 battles

As this is a bit of a open topic I guess I should add my voice it here...

Now our OP is partly right, but is also partly wrong... WG is going by Blueprints and Planed Proposals for there ships...

This is how Taiho can have her second hull and all... It's a logical proposal since the  IJN 40 mm bofers wasn't out yet.

 

But let's take 2 others not in game now...

First one that never managed to host her full air group, The Unryuu class

This class only carried 63 aircraft... However they never got this chance since the IJN had so few pilots... It got so bad that one of them had it's entire deck covered with AA guns instead of aircraft.

 

Next up is Shinano I just basically completed a model of this one.

Now Shinano's personal airgroup consists of 47 aircraft... all of these are in the hanger at the front (Forward elevator and all side hatches lead here.).

Her second hanger carried 120 aircraft (on the model the hanger is sealed with only 2 entrances being the back elivator and a small opening between the fore and aft hanger... All aircraft here would be in parts, so really holding 120 in such a small space is not out of the question...

 

That's a grand total of 167 if you really want to go there...

 

But again both these ships never got to see there full air groups as the IJN just didn't have the pilots...

 

Or basically it's something like that.

 

Also we have to take into account the number of aircraft per squad and so on.... And what aircraft are on the carrier vs what the carrier actually had, or was supposed to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[EGIRL]
[EGIRL]
Members
584 posts
5,533 battles
On 10/31/2017 at 6:00 PM, OOM911 said:

And what aircraft are on the carrier vs what the carrier actually had, or was supposed to have.

This is a huge point that cannot be underestimated in terms of this conversation.  Certain IJN CV's had the capacity.  They simply didn't have the planes, pilots, mechanics to fulfill that capacity after Midway.  Further, while they had a ~10 year ramp up previous to USN hostilities, this was no replacement for the macro-logistical requirements learned from WWI...that the USN understood...albeit slowly and by force due to the IJN's early war dominance.  There was a massive trickle down effect from this discrepancy.  The IJN was also behind the USN in damage/fire control.  But, these are finer points that are hard to "balance" in game. 

 

And to that point...this game takes designs (both existing and predicted) and employs them in a best case scenario.  Is it even a remote reflection of the reality facing both navies from 1941-1945?  Not at all.  But, how would you do that in such a limited variable environment?  Would you have all early IJN CV's just mop up all USN CV's?  Then, would you flip that over somewhere in the mid tiers?  Also, you would need to have a ridiculous imbalance of everything CV-related tilted towards the USN the higher tier you went.  Excluding some of the logistical variables and just focusing on numbers, you would have anywhere from double to 20 times (or more) the number of USN CV's as IJN CV's.  And, keep in mind, I haven't even touched on the human element.  Better individual tactical strategy?  Superior luck? Commander versus Commander?  You could really sink into a massive list of variables to generate this environment.  In short, there is no way to balance a game based on this reality.  I'm not even sure you could create a playable game with only CV's if the goal was to correctly reflect every known variable between the two.    

 

WG made a good faith effort to balance the two lines as best as they could.  Unfortunately, there were some serious inherent flaws in this process...which resulted in the IJN holding a decided edge.  This edge does not sit well with those who hold onto the notion that this game should reflect reality to a certain degree.  But, you really have to understand that the very second WG decided to add CV's into the mix, they were forced to substantially bend reality to make this square peg fit into a round hole.  Otherwise, CV's would just wreck everything in the game.  I would submit that the only true reality these ships offer is their in game model of their ideal designs.  Everything else is just an attempt to make it work within the game.  It is not a statement of actual technical specs.  It is not a statement of design superiority/flaws.  It's certainly not a statement national superiority.  Rather, it is a statement about an earnest but flawed process to create balance in a game...both against other CV's...and about CV's in general...that resulted in imbalance.  Ironic...yet true.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[TFP]
[TFP]
Members
791 posts
23,652 battles
On 12/10/2017 at 10:52 PM, Doomlock said:

Doesn't change anything I said because you said: 

And I quite clearly showed that only two were. I didn't use wikipedia as my source, I used a book.

 

The Japanese had the best carrier force in the world at the outbreak of WWII in the Pacific. A strong, powerful force of highly trained pilots and crew which had years of experience. Yes Kaga and Akagi are conversions, but they did not all sink because, "They caught fire". They sunk because of concentrated air attack, and poor timing on aircraft servicing. Kaga and Akagi were jumped by divebombers, and Soryu shortly after. 

 

To your comment about Soryu and Hiryu, do you honestly expect me to believe you after that ridiculous comment? First off, no such class of, "Princeton-class carriers" exists.

Secondly, you are trying to tell me that this: 

ceP3jfq.jpg

USS Princeton (CVL-23), Independence-class light carrier.

 

Equates to this: 

dxmSan5.jpg

Hiryu, fleet carrier.

 

Independence class dimensions: Length: 622 ft; width: 109 ft. Aircraft: 33.

Hiryu dimensions: Length: 746 ft; width: 88 ft. Aircraft: 64.

 

Yeah, more like my foot.

 

 

 

 

Aircraft complement:

USS Saratoga (Lexington class): 78. 

USS Enterprise (Yorktown class): 90.

USS Yorktown (CV-10) (Essex class): 90-100.

 

Akagi: 91. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/akagi

Kaga: 90. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/kaga

Soryu: 71. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/soryu

Hiryu: 73. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/hiryu

Shokaku: 84. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/shokaku

Zuikaku: 84. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/zuikaku

Taiho: 65 in combat, 84 designed. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/taiho

 

 

Also this line here:

So, the pilots of the fleet carriers Shokaku and Zuikaku were not their best pilots as well? Despite them partaking in the Attack on Pearl Harbor? Also, apparently you have never heard of the battles of the Eastern Solomans or Santa Cruz. Shokaku and Zuikaku were the forefront of the IJN carrier force after Midway, and they did a great job at it considering the circumstances.

 

 

 

All in all most everything you have said concerning the IJN carrier force has been in error. I have provided links to where your insinuations about the number of aircraft carried are debunked. 

Fair winds and following seas captains. :Smile_honoring:

to be raised on this issue ??? put all the CV with your historic hangar ?? Sounds good to me! and also better handle the issue of the shielding of the CV and its displacement for a better determination of the HP of CV, And another thing if the enterprise CV had 90 aircraft (historically), where did that appear 6 additional aircraft? . I do not get it. and all the other Cv take away planes.

with respect to the determination of a better HP for cv is because a cv can not have a HP very similar to another if its displacement is very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×