Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
embeddeddear97

British aircraft carriers

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
303 posts
3,826 battles

So while not many the Royal Navy did make aircraft carriers and have imported US carriers. I think WG should add in a carrier line for the Royal Navy starting like this.

1. HMS Argus (1918) flattop tier 4. A concerted Italian ocean liner armed with 4 4 inch AA guns. Air arm of 4 sopwith camel fighters, 2 DH.9A dove bombers and fairy sword fish torpedo bombers. Upgrade to be  flycatchers and swordfish for fighter and bomber (no upgrade for torpedo)

2. HMS Ruler (ruler class escort carrier) based off of the bogue class flat top tier 5. An escort carrier similar to the bogue class with an AA armament of 2 4 inch guns upgrade to have 16 40mm guns and 20 20mm guns. Air arm of martlet (fighter) swordfish torpedo and bomber, (torpedo upgradable to SBD)

Premium bogue class carrier tier 5 with british aircraft

3. HMS Eagle (built in 1918 sunk 1942) famous carrier with extensive history tier 6

4. HMS Triumph (light fleet carrier) class of 15 tier 7

5. HMS Courageous (fleet carrier) class of 2, sunk by uboat tier 8

6. HMS Illustrious (heavy carrier) heavily armed carrier tier 9

7. HMS Implacable (heavy carrier) more deck room and armor than Illustrious tier 10

while this is a 99.99% chance of not happening it was fun researching and writing this, and I got to prove my british friend wrong when he said Britain didn’t use carriers 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[O_O]
Members
803 posts
5,277 battles

Great Britain, for all intents and purposes, invented carrier aviation. 

The line is often-discussed but hasn't (as far as I know) been confirmed yet.  Almost definitely will not be released until after the CV rework, whenever that may be.

In any case, new ships are always welcome in my book.  It's important to have a healthy variety of targets!

-R

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,099 posts
6,271 battles

The Royal Navy is only the third major aircraft carrier power. So I would enjoy them being in the game. One of the only "problems" I see with them being in the game is that most if not all of their planes will be US Models except for like a Seafire(?). This is based off of info from Wikipedia. Either way, I will still probably enjoy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
303 posts
3,826 battles
1 minute ago, Vangm94 said:

The Royal Navy is only the third major aircraft carrier power. So I would enjoy them being in the game. One of the only "problems" I see with them being in the game is that most if not all of their planes will be US Models except for like a Seafire(?). This is based off of info from Wikipedia. Either way, I will still probably enjoy them.

Yes seafire is a carrier adapted spitfire, little less speed for arrestor gear. And of course the Fairey Swordfish 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,099 posts
6,271 battles
Just now, embeddeddear97 said:

Yes seafire is a carrier adapted spitfire, little less speed for arrestor gear. And of course the Fairey Swordfish 

Though the Swordfish would have to be placed at low tier... unless we want to really see a wood(?) biplane get chewed up by either 20mm and 40mm AA guns from US or the all of the 25mm AA guns from IJN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[YAN]
Members
1,649 posts
8,051 battles

Do they come with superheals for half their HP, AP bombs with special fuse timers and ricochet angles and HE bombs that do half your HP in damage and consistently set 6 fires?

While you're at it, single firing torps and smoke. :cap_like:

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
303 posts
3,826 battles
9 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

Though the Swordfish would have to be placed at low tier... unless we want to really see a wood(?) biplane get chewed up by either 20mm and 40mm AA guns from US or the all of the 25mm AA guns from IJN.

? well that wood biplane did the damage to the Bismarck through terrible weather and the Bismarck’s main guns firing at it. It would have to be low to mid tier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
549
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,099 posts
6,271 battles
3 minutes ago, embeddeddear97 said:

? well that wood biplane did the damage to the Bismarck through terrible weather and the Bismarck’s main guns firing at it. It would have to be low to mid tier

Mostly Tier IV because Bismarck was alone and she had not great AA. Full fleet engagement? :fish_boom::fish_viking::fish_viking: Basically the Swordfish is the Zuiho's Dive Bomber (I forget what they are called)

Edited by Vangm94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,522 posts
8,233 battles

I think its safe to assume that if CVs aren't outright removed from WoWs, a UK line of airplane toting shipixels will eventually find its way into the tech tree.  I'd start looking for the line right after release of the T-61.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[PROJX]
Members
1,013 posts
18,768 battles
18 minutes ago, embeddeddear97 said:

? well that wood biplane did the damage to the Bismarck through terrible weather and the Bismarck’s main guns firing at it. It would have to be low to mid tier

If you’re referring to the historical relevance, the Swordfish were able to succeed against the Bismarck w/ their drops because the Bismarck’s AA suite was designed w/ more modern aircraft threats in mind.   The guns weren’t able to effectively track obsolescent planes such as the swordfish because they were too slow.  This was a unique quirk of the Bismarck specifically at a point in time in history, but not indicative of the general AA capability of contemporary BBs to the Bismarck.

If the British CVs are introduced, their air wings would most likely have to be later war loadouts which included planes such as the Seafire and American designs that populated some CVs (from mid-tier on up). This would especially be true for mid-higher tiers British CVs for balance reasons.   The Swordfish would suffer heavily from fighter groups since it would be pitting bi-plane torp planes against planes like the F4F or Zeroes at mid-tier. The Ship AA also becomes quite a factor - CV players at T4/T5 even will think twice about dropping a Texas for example.

Edited by hangglide42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[POP]
Members
964 posts
11,357 battles
22 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Do they come with superheals for half their HP, AP bombs with special fuse timers and ricochet angles and HE bombs that do half your HP in damage and consistently set 6 fires?

While you're at it, single firing torps and smoke. :cap_like:

What the h*** is wrong with you Akeno017?!?!!


Of course this all has to be included (yes, all of it), don't be jinxing our Brit CV line you monster..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
368
[SEOP]
Members
1,522 posts
8,233 battles
27 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Do they come with superheals for half their HP, AP bombs with special fuse timers and ricochet angles and HE bombs that do half your HP in damage and consistently set 6 fires?

While you're at it, single firing torps and smoke. :cap_like:

i just want their secondaries to have a range of at least 12km.  I wanna be able to brawl and contest caps with my Ark Royal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,468
[WOLF3]
Members
19,757 posts
18,135 battles

RN Carriers will be a strange combination of things, very different yet similar to the existing IJN & USN CV Lines.

 

They eventually adopt Armored Carriers.  Remember people complaining about how their shells are getting bounced, non-pen hits against carrier flight decks?  Get used to it.

A consequence of the armored flight decks and the size of their Carriers however, is that hangar capacity takes a significant hit.  A very brief Wikipedia listing of RN CVs and their aircraft capacities.  Many are around 48, 54 being the highest of their WWII era Carriers.

 

The low hangar capacity is going to be an issue and will necessitate downtiering of the CV.  But then again, the planes can make up for it.  Or then again, WG could "Wave the Graf Zeppelin Magic Wand" and almost double their hangar capacity, to whatever extent they need to make the CV fit the desired tier.

 

Speaking of planes, the RN flew both Carrier aircraft of their design as well as those from Lend-Lease.  Supermarine Seafire, Grumman Wildcats were on RN CV flight decks.  So were Avengers, Hellcats, even Corsairs.

Seafires in the tail of the flight deck, Wildcats up front.

1024px-North_African_Operations,_Novembe

Anyways, the Royal Navy was the only Non-US / JP Navy that actually fielded carriers to see action in the war.  Not only that, they were there from start to finish.  How the Germans get one in game first with one that never saw completion is just comedic to see.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,801
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,639 posts
11,707 battles
38 minutes ago, embeddeddear97 said:

So while not many the Royal Navy did make aircraft carriers and have imported US carriers. I think WG should add in a carrier line for the Royal Navy starting like this.

The Royal Navy arguably put more Fleet Carriers into service than the Imperial Japanese Navy, sure the USN just laughs and points to 24 Essex Class alone, but the RN was significantly in the 'game'.

 

As for your line, you fall into the common trap of spreading the well-known ships over too many tiers and over-tiering them. The Illustrious/Implacable are no better than T7-T8 at very very best. The Courageous doesn't have the air-group, armor, HP to be a T8. Triumph isn't up to T7. The Eagle's old and slow, not a T6.

The best and most likely line includes the Audacious class http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cv1_eagle51.htm at T9, and the unbuilt Malta class http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cv1_malta.htm at T10 to match the unbuilt Hakuryu.

 

As for aircraft, there is indeed likely to be a USN derived influence in the mid-high tiers, but there are certainly low tier options for indigenous British aircraft, and high tier ones as well with the Firebrand and Sea Hornet among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[EQRN]
Members
1,005 posts
11,219 battles

Notser’s post CC video mentions CVs being a small population, and that population is shrinking, then mentioned the economics f-word “unsustainable”.  Meaning BB mains generate enough revenue to continue R&D into new BB lines, BB premiums, etc.  Same with cruisers and destroyers.  CVs are a money pit for WG, and I believe this rework is a last gasp as reviving the line.  If that doesn’t work, WG surely must be pondering the nuclear option, either deleting all CVs or at least not spending one penny on further development of CVs.  Taking BB/cruiser/DD profits and putting it into CVs is throwing good money after bad in the eyes of bean counters, who at the end of the day are the real decision makers.  

“Year of the Carrier” has been sarcastically thrown around a lot.  But it’s a two bladed sword and also means the year for the player base to show WG that they care enough about CVs to keep continued development in them, to wit, several historically significant or interesting CV premiums yet no new line (maxing return on investment).   How successful that was we’ll never know and GZ clearly threw a wrench into those works.

So I’d say if this rework doesn’t turn the CV situation around significantly,  lack of new CV lines are going to be the least of CV players’ concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
263
[FGNE]
Members
609 posts
3,164 battles

I would like British CVs to have rockets instead of bombs for their planes, more accurate but less alfa.

Still I agree, this won’t happen until after the CV rework... if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[PROJX]
Members
1,013 posts
18,768 battles
8 minutes ago, FrodoFraggin said:

Notser’s post CC video mentions CVs being a small population, and that population is shrinking, then mentioned the economics f-word “unsustainable”.  Meaning BB mains generate enough revenue to continue R&D into new BB lines, BB premiums, etc.  Same with cruisers and destroyers.  CVs are a money pit for WG, and I believe this rework is a last gasp as reviving the line.  If that doesn’t work, WG surely must be pondering the nuclear option, either deleting all CVs or at least not spending one penny on further development of CVs.  Taking BB/cruiser/DD profits and putting it into CVs is throwing good money after bad in the eyes of bean counters, who at the end of the day are the real decision makers.  

“Year of the Carrier” has been sarcastically thrown around a lot.  But it’s a two bladed sword and also means the year for the player base to show WG that they care enough about CVs to keep continued development in them, to wit, several historically significant or interesting CV premiums yet no new line (maxing return on investment).   How successful that was we’ll never know and GZ clearly threw a wrench into those works.

So I’d say if this rework doesn’t turn the CV situation around significantly,  lack of new CV lines are going to be the least of CV players’ concerns.

I’m inclined to agree w/ the Business case from WG’s perspective that Frodo is presenting.   If the new CV rework doesn’t revitalize CV play, WG as a company should be evaluating its priorities wrt development investment in CVs.

Having said this, however, there are alternate outcomes.  They rely on WG being already committed to the CV rework coupled w/ the release of a high interest British CV line.   As long as the rework is well received, the British CV line may be just the kick-start the new set of CV players need to revitalize CV play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,468
[WOLF3]
Members
19,757 posts
18,135 battles

We have obscure Premium Ships that still get made, sell poorly, and that pattern keeps repeating.  If people think RN Carriers aren't coming, that's contradicting past practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[YAN]
Members
1,649 posts
8,051 battles
35 minutes ago, Gerbertz said:

What the h*** is wrong with you Akeno017?!?!!


Of course this all has to be included (yes, all of it), don't be jinxing our Brit CV line you monster..

Naturally you should realise that no british ship can be introduced into the game without some massive gimmick.

I don't even know why anymore xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,233
[ARGSY]
Members
10,795 posts
7,044 battles
32 minutes ago, hangglide42 said:

The Swordfish would suffer heavily from fighter groups since it would be pitting bi-plane torp planes against planes like the F4F or Zeroes at mid-tier.

They would get a survival/evasion bonus through being so much SLOWER than the enemy fighters.

We need a third player in the field and the British CVs are it (the Graf on its own is not good enough, because it doesn't influence Tiers 3/4/5). 

Remember that we also have the Skua as a dive bomber (historic first carrier-launched dive-bomber destruction of an enemy combat ship during hostilities), so it's not just the Swordfish. Fighters are pretty lacklustre, though, until the Seafire arrives around Tier VI/VII, and then it gets really good when the Griffon Seafires and finally the Hawker Sea Fury come in at Tier IX/X. Jets on British carriers come in too late to be of interest in this time period, even if they operated off some of the ships we're likely to get in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,168
[RLGN]
Members
10,366 posts
19,664 battles
1 hour ago, Vangm94 said:

Though the Swordfish would have to be placed at low tier... unless we want to really see a wood(?) biplane get chewed up by either 20mm and 40mm AA guns from US or the all of the 25mm AA guns from IJN.

Don't worry... Special attack aircraft for tier 8, versus Bismarks only, can't be shot down, 100% chance of rudder hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[PROJX]
Members
1,013 posts
18,768 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

They would get a survival/evasion bonus through being so much SLOWER than the enemy fighters.

We need a third player in the field and the British CVs are it (the Graf on its own is not good enough, because it doesn't influence Tiers 3/4/5). 

Remember that we also have the Skua as a dive bomber (historic first carrier-launched dive-bomber destruction of an enemy combat ship during hostilities), so it's not just the Swordfish. Fighters are pretty lacklustre, though, until the Seafire arrives around Tier VI/VII, and then it gets really good when the Griffon Seafires and finally the Hawker Sea Fury come in at Tier IX/X. Jets on British carriers come in too late to be of interest in this time period, even if they operated off some of the ships we're likely to get in game.

Agree - if you read the earlier portion of my post, it mentioned planes such as the Seafire (the Skua also would be in this set of more modern aircraft).  The purpose of my response was to suggest the upgraded airwings for mid-tier and higher since the OP was suggesting the Swordfish’s success against the Bismarck was a reason for using this aircraft at mid tier which I didn’t feel was the right solution for game balance reasons.  The upgraded aircraft that you’re mentioning in greater detail is exactly what I was proposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,292
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,737 posts
15,946 battles
44 minutes ago, hangglide42 said:

If you’re referring to the historical relevance, the Swordfish were able to succeed against the Bismarck w/ their drops because the Bismarck’s AA suite was designed w/ more modern aircraft threats in mind.   The guns weren’t able to effectively track obsolescent planes such as the swordfish because they were too slow.

I would love to know where you dug this fact up from, as it honestly makes absolutely no sense to me; Torp planes "historically" needed to come straight in at about a 90 degree angle for the best possible chance of hitting their targets, which would make them almost stationary from the target's point of view. So are you saying that German AA couldn't hit planes coming straight at them because they were too good, as I see little difference in targeting an old plane or a new one when both are coming in at 90 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×