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

US carrier split possibilities

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

16
[-_W_-]
Members
32 posts
4,167 battles

I've been thinking that since there is so little diversity or opportunity for it in the carriers tech trees, because very few nations actually committed to aircraft carriers like the US, UK, and Japan did, that there should be (and hopefully there is) some sort of plan in the future for WG get more top tier CV's in here. So on that premise i started thinking about the US line first as that would probably be the easiest. So this is what i came up with, they split the line at tier 7, and introduce the Wasp. At tier 8 they could have the Yorktown's. I would love to see the Hornet in this game in some capacity. At tier 9 Saratoga, (my personal favorite WW2 carrier) now i know there might be a few eye brows raised at that with the Lex already at 8, (they are the same class of ship in case you were not aware) but the Lex  was sunk in '42, and the Sara went on till the end of the war, which would allow WG to improve it over her tier 8 sister, better consumables, aircraft, larger HP etc. and at tier 10 the Essex class, having split from the Midway line and becoming a tier 10 in its own right. Obviously that leaves a hole in the Midway tree, and i really cant come up with a solution for it, thats where i got stumped. Do any of you know of any designs of the US that were not used (other than the United States, too late in the time frame) that we could put in the Midway line? On a related note, while i was thinking about this I also thought that with Saipan gone at tier 7, that the Wasp would be a perfect replacement for it. She was the only one of her class, and was unique in that she was built deliberately "weak" to make her treaty compliant. This is also what lead to her being destroyed by 3 IJN torps fired from a sub during the Guadalcanal campaign. She seems like a perfect candidate for a 7 premium, respectable aircraft compliment, not the fastest, and has a glass jaw - extremely susceptible to torpedo attack. Anyway that was my rant. Once they get the "CV problem" resolved i personally would like to see more diversity for the class at high tiers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[RLBAD]
[RLBAD]
Members
69 posts
1,972 battles

It would be nice to see a split or add a new CV nation like Germany or Britain. Maybe one part of the split will be heavy carrier ( more HP, hangar space, secondary's ) While the other line is light carriers with higher speeds, turn radius, and most importantly, concealment.

I'm at Lex now, but I got a cartload of tier 7's  I've been concentrating on lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,399 battles

Well, split off at tier 6, Wasp at tier 7, Yorktown at tier 8,  one of the early Essex configs at tier 9 (with the flight deck mounted guns), and Ticonderoga at 10 (AKA the long-hulled Essex variant). The real defining thing would have to be, how would the airwings be different? Give them rocket armed aircraft? Take a fighter, give it a one shot alt attack that would be like an HE dive bomber with a stand off range?

For the IJN,  split off at tier 5, Hiyo at tier 6, Soryu or Unryu at tier 7, Akagi at tier 8, Shinano configured as a full CV at tier 9 and no tier 10. Guess they could be pretty standard strike loads, with the option of swapping torp bombers for 2200 lb AP bombs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
426
[-BRS-]
Members
1,606 posts
13,187 battles

Heck throw some French carriers in there they built more than Germans ever did and surprised to see the Graf Zeppelin show up before British

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,828 battles
1 hour ago, EJ_TANK said:

Do any of you know of any designs of the US that were not used (other than the United States, too late in the time frame) that we could put in the Midway line?

CV-19, Hancock, an EXTENDED BOW Essex class CV, should be just different enough to meet your needs. She was refurbished at least twice after decommissionings, in both February of 1954 and November of 1956, which would give WOW plenty of room for upgrades since she wasn't finally decommissioned till 1976.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[AK-47]
Members
153 posts
3,100 battles

I always thought that the fighters should also be able to strafe ships... no damage done but be able to take out aa/secondary mounts... cept when you strafe a ship you need to reload unlike planes where you can get a few in... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
540
Members
2,059 posts
5,097 battles

I heard the in game "Lexington" is actually the Saratoga. @Lert probably knows for sure.

But otherwise, I actually wouldn't be surprised if more variety in CVs helps with balance. 1v1 asymmetrical comparisons will always have something with a slight advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,452
[HINON]
Supertester
18,916 posts
12,446 battles
Just now, X15 said:

I heard the in game "Lexington" is actually the Saratoga. @Lert probably knows for sure.

Sorry, no I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[M_L]
[M_L]
Beta Testers
321 posts
8,831 battles

@X15 The in game Lexington is the upgraded AA version of the Lexington-class as given to USS Saratoga (CV-3) as USS Lexington (CV-2) was sunk before she could have her 8 inch gun turrets removed and replaced with the 5 inch gun turrets we see on the Lexington in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
87
[M_L]
[M_L]
Beta Testers
321 posts
8,831 battles

Here's an image of USS Lexington with her 8 inch turrets.

Spoiler

USS_Lexington_(CV-2)_at_anchor_1938.jpg

And USS Saratoga with the 5 inch replacements 

Spoiler

USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_during_last_Magic_Ca

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[-_W_-]
Members
32 posts
4,167 battles

Do any of you know if there is enough for CV's in the German plans for the naval expansion that was supposed to go to '45? This was the build plan that built the bismark, zeplin, and tirpitz, it was a massive build program. I know they were gonna build more CV's but Im not sure if they were all gonna be the zeplin class, or if there other options that could supply in-game tier 9 and 10 like the present 9 and 10s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
540
Members
2,059 posts
5,097 battles
12 hours ago, Grathew said:

@X15 The in game Lexington is the upgraded AA version of the Lexington-class as given to USS Saratoga (CV-3) as USS Lexington (CV-2) was sunk before she could have her 8 inch gun turrets removed and replaced with the 5 inch gun turrets we see on the Lexington in game. 

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
154 posts
3,206 battles
On 2/8/2018 at 10:33 PM, SgtBeltfed said:

Well, split off at tier 6, Wasp at tier 7, Yorktown at tier 8,  one of the early Essex configs at tier 9 (with the flight deck mounted guns), and Ticonderoga at 10 (AKA the long-hulled Essex variant). The real defining thing would have to be, how would the airwings be different? Give them rocket armed aircraft? Take a fighter, give it a one shot alt attack that would be like an HE dive bomber with a stand off range?

For the IJN,  split off at tier 5, Hiyo at tier 6, Soryu or Unryu at tier 7, Akagi at tier 8, Shinano configured as a full CV at tier 9 and no tier 10. Guess they could be pretty standard strike loads, with the option of swapping torp bombers for 2200 lb AP bombs?

Hiyo at tier 6, Soryu at tier 7, Akagi at tier 8, Unryu at tier 9 and Shinano at tier 10 would make it work.. On the other hand, Shinano, by the time she was anywhere close to being done at the end of the war, was pretty much going to be commissioned as a missile cruiser as opposed to an aircraft carrier, if I remember correctly.

On 2/9/2018 at 7:10 AM, EJ_TANK said:

Do any of you know if there is enough for CV's in the German plans for the naval expansion that was supposed to go to '45? This was the build plan that built the bismark, zeplin, and tirpitz, it was a massive build program. I know they were gonna build more CV's but Im not sure if they were all gonna be the zeplin class, or if there other options that could supply in-game tier 9 and 10 like the present 9 and 10s.

As far as my research has gone, no. Carriers weren't of particular interest to Germany, relative to other surface ships, for a simple reason. The differences in environment. The Pacific and Indian oceans are huge, but are generally pretty peaceful (Pacific storms are usually bigger than their Atlantic counterparts, but far less frequent), warm and open, as far as large bodies of water go. These are conditions aircraft carriers excel in. Japan, the UK and the US fought here and their designs reflect that.

The Kreigsmarine was able to focus on the battlefields of the Atlantic and northern seas (North Sea, Baltic Sea, Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea). These waters are cold even at sea level (engine issues) and turbulent (makes takeoff/landing difficult) with lots of small, near-constant storms (poor visibility, not too mention what happens to single/double seat planes in an arctic hailstorm...). That's actually why, in game, the German BB's are good at brawling. It's not just arbitrary decisions by WG. The doctrine they were built under was, if I remember right, "Nordatlantik Schlägerei-Doktrin" or "North Atlantic Brawl Doctrine" or something similar. The German admiralty thought that any large-scale naval battles would be similar to Jutland, large (relatively) close range fight between capital gunships.

And if you look at Germany's 4 completed battleships, they weren't really wrong to think that. Bismark was sunk by persistent surface fire (Ark Royal hit Bismark's rudder, but didn't accomplish much else of note, not that it needed to). Scharnhorst was lost to surface fire as well, and with her sister Gneisenau, sunk the carrier HMS Glorious (the only fleet carrier lost to surface fire in WW2). Gneisenau herself would sunk as a blockship after drydock repairs proved too extensive. Tirpitz would be the only one sunk by air power, but she fell not to small torpedo planes or 1000-lbs bombs, but to 12,000-lbs "Tallboy" bombs carried by 4-engine Lancaster heavy bombers that could give the middle finger to a bit of rough weather.

In comparison, over in the Pacific:

Yamato - sunk by carrier based planes at Leyte Gulf

Musashi - sunk by carrier based planes at Leyte Gulf

Hiei - sunk by carrier based planes at Guadalcanal

Haruna - sunk by carrier based planes in port

Settsu - sunk by carrier based planes in port

Ise - sunk by carrier based planes in port

Hyuuga - sunk by carrier based planes in port

Edited by DaryaKonstantin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,399 battles
19 minutes ago, DaryaKonstantin said:

Hiyo at tier 6, Soryu at tier 7, Akagi at tier 8, Unryu at tier 9 and Shinano at tier 10 would make it work.. On the other hand, Shinano, by the time she was anywhere close to being done at the end of the war, was pretty much going to be commissioned as a missile cruiser as opposed to an aircraft carrier, if I remember correctly.

Soryu and Unryu are basically equivalent, being Hiryu's sorta sister and the mass produced version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
154 posts
3,206 battles
2 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Soryu and Unryu are basically equivalent, being Hiryu's sorta sister and the mass produced version. 

The Unryu-class carriers were slightly up-scaled Hiryuu's basically. Post Shokaku-class, which is why I placed them at tier 9. They weren't as advanced as Taiho or Shokaku in the name of attempted mass production, but that could easily be tweaked in game.

Once you get into high tiers, it gets hard to split a carrier line on either side as the number of designs by both sides slowed as they figured out what worked. To be honest though, I'd rather have a UK line first, as that would add more diversity. From personal experience, it's also easier to balance 3 things in accordance to each other than 2. Rock-Paper-Scissors and all that.

They could what they did with the Akiducky and stop the branch off at tier 8, going: (tier 5) CVL Chitose -- > (tier 6) CVL Hiyo --> (tier 7) CV Soryu ---> (tier 8) CV Akagi or CG Shinano.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,399 battles
4 hours ago, DaryaKonstantin said:

The Unryu-class carriers were slightly up-scaled Hiryuu's basically. Post Shokaku-class, which is why I placed them at tier 9. They weren't as advanced as Taiho or Shokaku in the name of attempted mass production, but that could easily be tweaked in game.

Once you get into high tiers, it gets hard to split a carrier line on either side as the number of designs by both sides slowed as they figured out what worked. To be honest though, I'd rather have a UK line first, as that would add more diversity. From personal experience, it's also easier to balance 3 things in accordance to each other than 2. Rock-Paper-Scissors and all that.

They could what they did with the Akiducky and stop the branch off at tier 8, going: (tier 5) CVL Chitose -- > (tier 6) CVL Hiyo --> (tier 7) CV Soryu ---> (tier 8) CV Akagi or CG Shinano.

Not sure where you're getting Shinano as a CG (guided missile cruiser) Officially she was a "support carrier" AKA a mobile workshop and resupply base for other CV's with her other major role as aircraft transport to resupply island garrisons. She was converted to replace Kaga and had more than enough room for Kaga'a air wing. By the time the conversion was finished, it's likely her 27 to 28 knot top speed and low cruising speed made her less than attractive as a carrier. As a support carrier she was to carry 40ish aircraft using the back half her hanger, with the front half full of spare parts for other CV's and as a transport she was to carry 120ish land based aircraft of various types. The only reason she was sunk with a load of Ohka Kamikaze Bombs and Kamikaze boats was she was moving them between ports. She had no means of deploying the Ohka's, and the boats would have needed to be thrown over the side the hard way.

I'd rather have a UK CV line first as well, but at this point I'd take any CV's tier 6 and above with usable air wings for the sake of variety. 

Edited by SgtBeltfed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
154 posts
3,206 battles
9 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Not sure where you're getting Shinano as a CG (guided missile cruiser) Officially she was a "support carrier" AKA a mobile workshop and resupply base for other CV's with her other major role as aircraft transport to resupply island garrisons. She was converted to replace Kaga and had more than enough room for Kaga'a air wing. By the time the conversion was finished, it's likely her 27 to 28 knot top speed and low cruising speed made her less than attractive as a carrier. As a support carrier she was to carry 40ish aircraft using the back half her hanger, with the front half full of spare parts for other CV's and as a transport she was to carry 120ish land based aircraft of various types. The only reason she was sunk with a load of Ohka Kamikaze Bombs and Kamikaze boats was she was moving them between ports. She had no means of deploying the Ohka's, and the boats would have needed to be thrown over the side the hard way.

I'd rather have a UK CV line first as well, but at this point I'd take any CV's tier 6 and above with usable air wings for the sake of variety. 

As far as my research had showed, Shinano was deployed so late in the war that, while the Ohka's were being transported, her air wing would have been A7M's whose pilots weren't really trained to land on her, but instead kamikaze themselves into Allied ships after taking too much damage in dogfights or running out of fuel.

So really, calling Shinano a CG was me attempting to be tactful. I'll double check my information though. Still, even with a proper airwing, a carrier of Shinano's size with less than 50 planes would be hard to balance. It would either have to be given a larger-than-historical air complement, or have over-tiered planes like Saipan. Too many planes for tier six, too few planes for tier 7. It's also a Yamato-class hull...mostly, and so she'd be a real pain to quick by gunfire.

TL;DR; Shinano would be cool, but Akagi would be easier to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,399 battles
4 minutes ago, DaryaKonstantin said:

As far as my research had showed, Shinano was deployed so late in the war that, while the Ohka's were being transported, her air wing would have been A7M's whose pilots weren't really trained to land on her, but instead kamikaze themselves into Allied ships after taking too much damage in dogfights or running out of fuel.

So really, calling Shinano a CG was me attempting to be tactful. I'll double check my information though. Still, even with a proper airwing, a carrier of Shinano's size with less than 50 planes would be hard to balance. It would either have to be given a larger-than-historical air complement, or have over-tiered planes like Saipan. Too many planes for tier six, too few planes for tier 7. It's also a Yamato-class hull...mostly, and so she'd be a real pain to quick by gunfire.

TL;DR; Shinano would be cool, but Akagi would be easier to balance.

That's why it would be best for Shinano to just be configured as a fleet CV, using her whole hanger. Hanger space wise, she's got one of the largest hangers in WWII. I don't know where Wikipedia comes up with having a "small" hanger, maybe small compared to a Nimitz, but by WWII standards it's huge.  She could have easily carried 90-100 carrier based aircraft (A7M's and B7A's). The 47 planes people love to quote was for self defense and spares as a support CV using the aft part of the hanger. 

Akagi should have been opposite of Lexington in the tech tree anyway, both being Washington Naval Treaty conversions, similar capacity, ect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
154 posts
3,206 battles
11 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

That's why it would be best for Shinano to just be configured as a fleet CV, using her whole hanger. Hanger space wise, she's got one of the largest hangers in WWII. I don't know where Wikipedia comes up with having a "small" hanger, maybe small compared to a Nimitz, but by WWII standards it's huge.  She could have easily carried 90-100 carrier based aircraft (A7M's and B7A's). The 47 planes people love to quote was for self defense and spares as a support CV using the aft part of the hanger. 

Akagi should have been opposite of Lexington in the tech tree anyway, both being Washington Naval Treaty conversions, similar capacity, ect...

Perhaps, but that would put Shokaku against Essex, which would require even more stat-tweaking to balance. I think the small number comes from her intended airwing, as opposed to how many she could actually field. After all, if she wasn't the only carrier, they'd provide the planes and she'd carry repair facilities, extra av gas, munition resupply and stuff like that.

Now, since that's irrelevant in-game, Shinano could use her full capacity of...yeah, about 100 aircraft, which would give her parity with Hak, and WG why did you not just make Shinano the tier 10 in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,312 posts
9,399 battles
12 minutes ago, DaryaKonstantin said:

Perhaps, but that would put Shokaku against Essex, which would require even more stat-tweaking to balance. I think the small number comes from her intended airwing, as opposed to how many she could actually field. After all, if she wasn't the only carrier, they'd provide the planes and she'd carry repair facilities, extra av gas, munition resupply and stuff like that.

Now, since that's irrelevant in-game, Shinano could use her full capacity of...yeah, about 100 aircraft, which would give her parity with Hak, and WG why did you not just make Shinano the tier 10 in the first place?

Puts Shokaku against Yorktown in whatever tech tree they end up in. Problem is, there's almost a complete tech tree worth of CV's left over for both fleets.

As far as Hak v/s Shinano, it's down to speed and defensive armorment, Hak is an enlarged Taiho, Shinano basically has an enlarged top half of the Taiho with Hiryu's defensive armorment, on top of a modified Yamato hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
655 posts
6,060 battles

I like idea for US split line if IJN get same idea. my line idea's:

US tier: VI: ACV55 Casablanca or ACV26 Sangamon, VII: CVE105 Block Island & VIII: CV7 Wasp 

IJN tier: VI: Ryuho VII: Hiyo VIII: Unryu IX: Shinano 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
60 posts
365 battles
On 2/25/2018 at 9:05 AM, TheHunter2_EAD said:

I like idea for US split line if IJN get same idea. my line idea's:

US tier: VI: ACV55 Casablanca or ACV26 Sangamon, VII: CVE105 Block Island & VIII: CV7 Wasp 

IJN tier: VI: Ryuho VII: Hiyo VIII: Unryu IX: Shinano 

at tier 9? Shinano? do you realize that that's an auxiliary carrier? If it were the point to get it to operate its own air wing, it'd have a hanger capacity of almost 200 and may have like 12 or so squadrons airborne.  Unless the midway or Essex is buffed, I'd have a hard time figuring out what the heck to do when there are 12 squadrons airborne to your six, to the point that the only way to kill them is to strafe, which is by its nature is inaccurate. The Midway would need a buff, with maybe squadrons of eight, wait, that a good idea isn't it? Has one line put up like 8 six plane squadrons and the other put up six 8 plane squadrons? Wouldn't that give wargaming an excuse to put up another line? as for the American ships leading up to it, I think that was, and maybe Yorktown would make it look like this: 

T4: Langley, 

T5: commencement bay

T6: bouge 

T7: independence 

T8: (premium) saipan

T8: wasp 

T9( split) (Squadron size large:  ranger) (squadron size small but many: Yorktown) Premium: Enterprise

T10: Essex      T10: midway     T10 premium? Saratoga?

 

I'm not quite sure about Saratoga, and how to implement the Shinano, or even if we should, but I actually think that we have enough existing Japanese carriers to make a carrier line full of ships that actually exist, which would sort of look like this: 

t4: Hosio

T5:  Zuhio

T6:  Ryjuno Premium: Juno

T7: Hyru    Premium: Kaga

T8: Akagi

 

T9: Shoakaku 

 

T10: Tahio

Looks all right? I hope it does, Wargaming? you up for a carrier line modernazation? plenty of new, cool ships that actually exist and are pretty decent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×