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

Discussion: ARA Independencia, a Panamerican CV

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,102
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,030 posts
6,194 battles

"Independencia" 
 Discussion tread

 

Prolegomenon

This is not the usual post when the proposer present his/her suggestion and is weighted by the rest. I want it to be more like an open discussion. Here there are a lot of very experienced forumers (is that a word?). Personally I suck with carriers. So I'm appealing to your better judgement to draft these carrier. I will put the historical part and my idea. But feel free to add or suggest anything. I will add it.

 

The Historical Carrier

ARA-331.jpg

This carrier was born as the Colossus class HMS Warrior in 1946. She was immediately transferred to the Canadian navy. But she lacked heathers. A very important feature in the Canadian waters as you may imagine.  She was then returned to Britain. They used her for some time. Among the changes they made, the most important was to angle the deck 5º. She was present in the atomic test in Malden.

In 1959 they sold her to Argentina. Argentina remove some Bofors and then add another ones. With these changes the displacement climb to 19.900 tons and the speed drop to 23 knots.

The air component of the "Independencia" were

Corsairx55.jpg

1) Vought "Corsair II" F4U-5, F4U-5N, and F4U-5NT:

The corsair is already in game. In Lexington we have an inferior form. The "1D". The "5" is a even more capable aircraft. Is equipped with a much powerful engine witch translate in more heavy payload. In Midway we have a "corsair" but is not mentioned witch corsair it is.
 

 

 

 

2) North American SNJ-5 Texan: These were a small complement of training aircraft.

3) North American T-28P Trojan: An advanced trainer adapted for carrier operations.

 Truly nor the "Texan" or the "Trojan" are very interesting. On the other hand those F4U-5 looks far more appealing. 

So we could have a small aircraft loaded with F4U-5. These plane historically could carry rockects, or bombs. But there were no provision for torpedos. Neither the Texan or the Trojan could carry that. The Argentine Navy had used air-borne torpedoes but they never bought a torpedo bomber carrier based.

There were nevertheless a small experiment. The Pucara, a Co-in indigenous aircraft, was tested as torpedo bomber. He was never used in carriers, but with such a short take off and roughed construction they will probably be adaptable.

Implementation

IndepRuf2.jpg

My idea was to implement these carrier as a sort of Saipan. Tier VIII. A small carrier, with a  extremely small scuadron of planes (may be 4 or 5). But these aircraft will be faster, stronger and with more payload than the regular aircraft of the other ships. (As the F4U-5 are in comparison)
 Moreover the attack will be use all the aircraft of the squadron. (At least those that survive the AA). And they will launch their entire payload in a single attack and return to the carrier. (This is Kakaroto proposal)
7nR2WVq.jpgThe "F4U-5s" tally this idea perfectly. They could work pretty fine with the rockets and also good with the bombs. But they are not torpedo- bombers.
 So, quoting admiral Farragut, "Damn the torpedoes!". I thought less dispense that weapon and  focus in bombs. it will be more historical and really something different
The load out I was thinking is 1 attack scuadron with rockets, 1 bomb scuadron with HE bombs and 1 bomb scuadron with AP bombs. These way we have an interesting and distinctive carrier. 

 More over the ARA and the FAA were (still are) kinda famous by very low flying to make bombs attacks. So these detail could be implemented. Instead of the usual "dive" of the bombers. These Latinamerican aircraft will fly low and fast. Droping the bombs in a more horizontal style. These could make the bombs easier to hit but also prone to overpen. I understand that implement these mechanic may require some extra work from the developers, but I think is quite possible. If not possible, then just using the german style of attack will be sufficient.

The next video is about an a4, a jet, but illustrate a bit of the style of attack I propose for Panam aircraft       

 

The torpedo alternative:image009.jpg

If you don't want to dispense the torpedo there is a historical alternative. The Pucaras were Co-In aircraft develope in the 60s and used extensively by Argentina and Uruguay. And in small numbers by Colombia and Sry Lanka. They are turboprop and relative modern, so I'm reluctant to add them. But there performance is not spectacular for the game and they were tested to fire ww2 torpedoes. The mk XIII

 

 

Another Aircraft:

@COLDOWN propose to use non-naval indigenous aircraft. At first I was not really into the idea, but in my port there is a Graf Zeppelin with the deck fill with Focke Wulf ta-152. So, as far as I know, WG already took that step.

A few good candidates to become "naval":

I.Ae. 24 Calquín: iae24-c1.jpg?crc=360458436
WW2 cut the access to strategic material for Argentina. So they developed a sort of "Mosquito" with argentine woods. 100 aircraft produced.

Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in) Wingspan: 16.3 m (53 ft 6 in) Height: 3.4 m (11 ft 2 in)
Gross weight: 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 7,200 kg (15,873 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC-G Twin Wasp  780 kW (1,050 hp) each
Maximum speed: 440 km/h (270 mph, 240 kn)afjidecember2002casimperative4.jpg?crc=23446859
Guns:
4× 12.7 mm browning ML or DL or 20 mm Hispano-Suiza 804 cannon (later variant)
12 x 75 mm 60 lb (27 kg) rockets (Mk VI) on the later variant
800 kg (1,800 lb) bombs on both early and late variant

 

 

 

 

I.Ae. 30 Ñancú: 91_1.jpg
This is more like a "heavy fighter". Full metal. It was only tested. Argentina could not develop simultaneously a jet and a piston fighter. Yet it was a very interesting design. 1 prototipe produced. Similat to the "Hornet"
Ia30-1.jpg

 Length: 11.52 m (37 ft 10 in) Wingspan: 15 m (49 ft 3 in) Height: 5.16 m (16 ft 11 in)
Gross weight: 7,600 kg (16,755 lb)
    
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Merlin 604 V-12, 1,342 kW (1,800 hp) each 

Armament
6 × 20 mm cannons
1 × 250 kg bomb (under fuselage)

10 × rockets (under wings)

 

  There are also jets ("IAE 37", "Pulqui 1" and "2") and imported aircraft (Fiat G-55, Spitfire mk IX, etc). 

 

So with out no more ideas for now I expect you feedback. Thank you.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,308
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,218 posts
12,128 battles
36 minutes ago, Talleyrand said:

Droping the bombs in a more horizontal style. These could make the bombs easier to hit but also prone to overpen.

An interesting idea and would certainly make them unique, and we both know I'm all for more historical accuracy. As is the ship can more or less use existing resources that are at most modified and given we have rockets shouldn't be too hard to replicate, I think the bigger question would be on how to have players aim it. Assuming it's the same type of bomb in the video and not a standard one it's a bit more like using a shell, impacting either the side or a shallow angle. AP least against heavier ships I feel would bounce a fair amount unless it's near square in the side to pen/shatter. Though against CL/CA could make AP particularly effective against them citadeling from the side like a CL or CA (assuming 500 or 1000 lb bombs respectively). HE is always useful and the attack angle could actually make it great at trying to disable secondaries/torpedoes on enemy ships to keep teammates from getting wrecked by them a it could, with practice, be easier to target a specific spot on the side. 

After that rocket are pretty much rockets, I know last we talked 5 inch ones seem to be the main stay. If done right torpedoes are unnecessary,  the key being Wargaming doing it right. Indomitable being a perfect example of how not to do it. 

1 hour ago, Talleyrand said:

My idea was to implement these carrier as a sort of Saipan. Tier VIII. A small carrier, with a  extremely small scuadron of planes (may be 4 or 5). But these aircraft will be faster, stronger and with more payload than the regular aircraft of the other ships. (As the F4U-5 are in comparison)

To answer something you have before this, because it ties in - The F4U on board Midway is the former top plane of Essex - the F4U-4. The F4U-5 is a modification of that with a little more power and speed (about 20 mph), retracted tail wheel, cowling lowered 2 degrees for pilot visibility and a host of other changes that really don't apply for the game. If the F4U-4 is tier 9, or at least rounded up to it, than the F4U-5 is basically tier 9.1-9.25. There's nowhere near enough to justify it a a tier 10, least to me but Wargaming has tiered a lot of planes wrong in my opinion. Some too low, others too high. Which is where that tie in to what I quoted - it in that configuration isn't very Saipan like, unless it's dropped to tier 6 wit tier 8/9 planes a it currently can't be tier 7. While the F4U-5 is superior, least in my opinion, to the over tiered F8F Saipan has actual tier 10 planes and those Bearcat's pack 3x Tiny Tim's - even though it's not a load out they'd use off a CV and there were more capable planes. And given the ship has some number of 40 mm guns only for AA it could it at 6 in that regard because it has at most 30 from what I can piece together though ships of the class normally would in their WW II outfitting are more tier 8 range. 

There is however, an overlooked option that would absolutely warrant tier 8 and at least one squadron being smaller - the F9F Panther (unsure if it had a different name/designation in Argentina). I'm still 100% of the opinion Jet's should comeback - at least early Sub-Sonic ones. As is most aircraft aren't using full speed, they wouldn't anyway cause fuel. Bit higher speed than say the Sea Hornet Indomitable has, but drawback in lower HP (given speed and it being a bit easier to critically damage a jet engine vs something like a radial) and that it only carries 6 rockets per plane. In some way the speed as well would be a drawback in that you come up on a target that much faster, a little trickier to nail DD's the same. 

That would definitely warrant at least smaller groups of rocket armed planes, the bombers would be up for debate. Possibly total of 8x F9F's (3 planes x 1 strike), 18 AP F4U-5's (possibly 4x2, 5x1, or 4x1 depending on preference and/or armament), and 18x F4U-5's with HE bombs (same deal as AP pretty much). Though number of bombers could be drawn down based on setup taken to 12-15. It would till have some Saipan like elements, but still be closer to normal carrier (it was closer to a fleet CV than an Escort like Saipan) but more over addressees some of the issues Saipan has. As is Saipan requires some changes as she has a real issue of her reserves being too low with too long a regen time. Despite higher tier planes her groups in points have less HP than same tier tech tree ships, and while obviously great against tier 6 and 7 ships that frankly need better AA as it is has some isues when against the real AA monsters. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,877
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,948 posts
15,779 battles

As someone who dislikes carriers, I don't like the small numbers of very fast, difficult to shoot down aircraft. 

At least with large squadrons of weak aircraft you can occasionally shoot one down and feel like you're doing something.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
482
[FALCO]
Alpha Tester
1,048 posts
9,519 battles

A well  proposal, my fellow friend.

Like I said the last time, I will prefer the ship coming into the game with national aircrafts, and in this case I will choose the Calquín and Ñancú, both in this configuration: Calquín with the rocket load, and two variants in the same way you want it for the Ñancú, one with AP bombs and the other with HE bombs. Also, I love the idea of droping they load in a horizontal style.

I believe there could be a chance to add the Pucaras and the Pulquis at some point, if both are delivered with some changes to make both work in the game (I dont really care what type of changes, if they make these aircrafts have a spot in the game and be "balanced", it will be good to me).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,102
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,030 posts
6,194 battles
14 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

I think the bigger question would be on how to have players aim it.

I think the aim should change to somthing more triangular  or more oblong. 

 

15 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

The F4U-5 is a modification of that with a little more power and speed (about 20 mph), retracted tail wheel, cowling lowered 2 degrees for pilot visibility and a host of other changes that really don't apply for the game. If the F4U-4 is tier 9, or at least rounded up to it, than the F4U-5 is basically tier 9.1-9.25.

Acording to wikipedia (I know is not a very good source) the 5 : " It featured a more powerful Pratt and Whitney R-2800-32(E) engine with a two-stage supercharger rated at a maximum of 2,760 hp (2,060 kW)".    While the "4" had a  " the 2,100 hp (1,600 kW) dual-stage-supercharged -18W engine. When the cylinders were injected with the water/alcohol mixture, power was boosted to 2,450 hp".   I think is probably enought to buff it to level 10.
Yet if not. We can use the Panther as you suggested. I know a panther landed in the Independencia, but I'm not sure th catapult was strong enought to launch them. Anyway we can "Refit her" with the 25deMayo catapult.  

Panther%20119%20en%20Independencia%20x7.

 

14 hours ago, mofton said:

I don't like the small numbers of very fast, difficult to shoot down aircraft. 

At least with large squadrons of weak aircraft you can occasionally shoot one down and feel like you're doing something.

You have good point. This may be overwhelming a bit. But Saipan is not cosidered overwhelming at all now. 
And also the CV would probably have to be changing targets. if you are in a Battleship the AP bomb, coming so low won't be dangerous. Neither for the DD because they are void inside.So you probably recieve one attack very now and them. I think the CV will be attacking DDs with the 2 first wave and Cruisers with the last

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,102
[FURIA]
WoWS Community Contributors
2,030 posts
6,194 battles
1 hour ago, BrunoSchezer said:

Like I said the last time, I will prefer the ship coming into the game with national aircrafts, and in this case I will choose the Calquín and Ñancú, both in this configuration: Calquín with the rocket load, and two variants in the same way you want it for the Ñancú, one with AP bombs and the other with HE bombs. Also, I love the idea of droping they load in a horizontal style.

I'm not sure about the Calquin. i f we go for the  "low quantity- high tier aircraft" the sped of palavecino Ñancu is more appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,308
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,218 posts
12,128 battles
4 hours ago, Talleyrand said:

Acording to wikipedia (I know is not a very good source) the 5 : " It featured a more powerful Pratt and Whitney R-2800-32(E) engine with a two-stage supercharger rated at a maximum of 2,760 hp (2,060 kW)".    While the "4" had a  " the 2,100 hp (1,600 kW) dual-stage-supercharged -18W engine. When the cylinders were injected with the water/alcohol mixture, power was boosted to 2,450 hp".   I think is probably enought to buff it to level 10.

This is true - however I'm looking beyond just the power increase to other capabilities such as ordnance carrying capability. Speed/power alone for me does not necessarily warrant higher tier. While yes, the F9F has fewer rockets historically - your talking a fairly significant speed boost as well as more modern tech, about 120 MPH more than the tier 9 F4U-4 in the case of the F9F. Even a slower jet like the FH Phantom has about 50 MPH and carries 8 rockets as well (the in game 10 on the F4U-4 is so many types of wrong especially the mounting). The F4U-5 overall adds really only 20 MPH more and the other tweaks - but has the carry limitations of it's predecessor. Unlike the F4U-4 vs the F4U-1 used in game in (Earlier model, A or B I think i's been a while) which the F4U-4 is both faster by about 30 MPH and can carry more ordnance all at once. It's part of why I'm heavily against the F8F as a tier 10 - it's marginally faster and is actual not setup to carry ordnance really and why I would substitute the AD-1 - while it is slower, it was actually armoured a bit for the attack role (more HP/damage reduction) and had 15 hardpoints for up to 8000 lbs of ordnance, about double what the F4U could carry in best circumstances according to some sources, quadruple to others. It could not only carry the 10 rockets they have forced and improperly mounted on the F8F - but 2-4 more (I know at least 6 of the hard points are mounted where 6x HVAR's can be mounted safely per wing).

But that's my logic.

5 hours ago, Talleyrand said:

Yet if not. We can use the Panther as you suggested. I know a panther landed in the Independencia, but I'm not sure th catapult was strong enought to launch them. Anyway we can "Refit her" with the 25deMayo catapult.  

Unless the Royal Navy ripped out the catapults before sending her - the catapults were rated to 20,000 pounds and a loaded F9F clocks in at under 19,000 lbs so yeah, it could launch them. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[TROYA]
Members
54 posts
14,447 battles

An excellent idea, I would like to have a Pan-American carrier and especially these histories of Argentina, its history is very excellent, I like any of the variant, but I would like to see torpedo planes, For such a carrier I would like to pay as a premium. But I also want it to be well balanced if it would be level vIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×