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

BF 110s on Carriers?

112 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

526
[Y0L0]
Members
594 posts
10,328 battles

If I leaned anything from playing What Thunder modified name because for some reason the name gets banned is that with a tail hook anything can be a carrier aircraft, you can land with jets going at almost Mach 1 and magically get accelerated in seconds without any visible catapult. 

 

Of course it's just a joke, as far as I know the Bf 110 could be used in naval fights but not deployed from carriers if Germany had completed the Graf Zeppelin. Also... Weren't Bf 110s responsible for sinking some German DDs confusing them for British DDs or am I mistaking them for He 111? Not sure, I'm very far from knowing anything more than the basics of the historical naval warfare of WW2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
879
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
7,033 battles

Excuse me.  Nanite repair bots, instantaneous and error-free detection and fleet sharing tactical systems, augmented reality aiming systems, aircraft fabrication and construction facilities, torpedo fabrication and autoloading systems, gun shell fabrication and autoloading systems, tachyon pulse radar, gravimetric dimensional scanning arrays.....all part of this game.  

 

And you are worried that a plane is too big to be flown off a carrier?  Even with gravity-assisted launch generators?  Really?

 

Okay.

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,240 posts
9,256 battles
Just now, Jakob_Knight said:

Excuse me.  Nanite repair bots, instantaneous and error-free detection and fleet sharing tactical systems, augmented reality aiming systems, aircraft fabrication and construction facilities, torpedo fabrication and autoloading systems, gun shell fabrication and autoloading systems, tachyon pulse radar, gravimetric dimensional scanning arrays.....all part of this game.  

 

And you are worried that a plane is too big to be flown off a carrier?  Even with gravity-assisted launch generators?  Really?

 

Okay.

:cap_look::Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
[RCNW3]
Beta Testers
3,062 posts
25,226 battles
16 minutes ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

Aren't they a tad too big to be used on CVs?  53 ft fixed wingspan. On a WW ll carrier.  Someone wasn't concentrating when the German CVs were being assigned these planes.

 

http://www.aviation-history.com/messerschmitt/bf110.html

 

 

 

 

 

Joey this is a fantasy's naval shoot them up game......................just play and enjoy               Joey.............................. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,932
[ARGSY]
Members
18,813 posts
13,108 battles
6 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

We launched B-25s from a carrier and those have a 68’ wingspan. 

Yeah, but that was a one-off, and they were never intended to be landed back on.

Come to think of it, I can't think of ANY twin-engined aircraft which regularly and successfully operated from a CV for the entirety of World War 2. The F7F Tigercat was supposed to, but my recollection is that it had serious issues, while the RN's Sea Hornets never made it to the fleet during the war. 

I will agree that of all the twin-engined aircraft to pick, the Bf 110 does not strike me as the most carrier-friendly or even naval-flavoured. Someone in the Dev team clearly likes the concept of twins on CVs, but I'd have chosen something else. Given that the Parseval is wavering on the edge between might-have-been and WG drug dream in the first place, it can't be too much of a stretch to find something a little more modern and more from the bomber/attack stable.

I can't recall off-hand what planes the Richthofen is supposed to use, though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
371 posts
18,085 battles
13 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

We launched B-25s from a carrier and those have a 68’ wingspan. 

We did that on one single mission only, with no way for the carrier to recover those planes.

Edit: Ensign_Cthulhu beat me to the post by a matter of seconds! Seconds, I say.

 

Edited by Ziggy_Sprague
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
123 posts
10,196 battles

So when do we get the 262's for rocket runs ? :cap_rambo:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,932
[ARGSY]
Members
18,813 posts
13,108 battles
1 minute ago, Gafwmn said:

So when do we get the 262's for rocket runs ? :cap_rambo:

Oh boy, you've put your foot in it now!

When the anti-CV crowd holds unholy rites to cast your soul into Hell for Satan to flame-grill, don't come crying to me!

  • Funny 2
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,884
[TARK]
Members
5,616 posts
2,260 battles
9 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

I can't recall off-hand what planes the Richthofen is supposed to use, though

FW 190 variants for first choice (all types)

Final choices:

Rockets: Me155G

All others: Ta152C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
123 posts
10,196 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Oh boy, you've put your foot in it now!

When the anti-CV crowd holds unholy rites to cast your soul into Hell for Satan to flame-grill, don't come crying to me!

Somebody had to say it......besides , as a shinyhorse main , I would enjoy the challenge taking on the carrier .:cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,912
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,181 posts
5,940 battles

They are so cute when they are this age......   stressing about real planes that were not used on any carrier IRL,  completely ignoring that they are operating from a carrier that never existed,  by a nation that never used an aircraft carrier?  

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,952
[WOLFG]
Members
27,386 posts
7,350 battles

OP, where have you been?

Hak's J5Ns are also twins, and not only that, they were an interceptor, (thus the "J") and the most they could carry was 1 500-lb bomb, certainly not a torpedo.

At least the later Bf110 variants could carry the weight of a torp, having the ability to carry a pair of 1000lb bombs.

Germany's problem is that most of the wartime designs for new planes were for fighters and fighter-bombers. (also medium bombers)

The only potential candidate for a more advanced single-engine bomber between the Stuka (no idea why that isn't present somewhere) and the Focke-Wulf fighter-bombers, was a Junkers design, basically a more streamlined Stuka (the canopy looks exactly the same as the later model Ju87s) with retractable gear and a more powerful engine. (it also had a weird "rotating tail", to give the rear gunner a better field of fire, but that could be ignored)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
879
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,665 posts
7,033 battles
18 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

They are so cute when they are this age......   stressing about real planes that were not used on any carrier IRL,  completely ignoring that they are operating from a carrier that never existed,  by a nation that never used an aircraft carrier?  

 

Germany at least developed a Carrier program, and was trying to build Carriers.  Now, when we get Soviet CVs, when Russia not only did not build or operate CVs until 1975 but deliberately scuttled the one they acquired from Germany at the end of WWII, you will be completely correct.

Edited by Jakob_Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,639
[5D2]
[5D2]
Supertester
2,318 posts
22,882 battles

This argument sort of falls in line with the amount of paper ships we have but how real navies and ships havent been fleshed out yet. 

There is a valid point to be made, but at the same time it just is what it is and we have to deal with it. I do believe you can change your planes through modding though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,932
[ARGSY]
Members
18,813 posts
13,108 battles
3 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

They are so cute when they are this age......   stressing about real planes that were not used on any carrier, completely ignoring that they are operating from a carrier that never existed,  by a nation that never used an aircraft carrier?  

Let's be fair - WG entered the realms of what-if the moment they chose the Montana for the US Tier 10 BB and gave the Amagi the place in history she would've had if the Washington Treaty hadn't got in the way (she might still have been wrecked in the Kanto Earthquake, but that's a matter for debate). 

However, accepting for the moment the what-if of Germany being a CV nation and WG's choice of hulls at the relevant tiers, I'd still be inclined not to make the Bf110 the Tier 8 torpedo and dive bomber. The only other tech-tree CV which has twins is at Tier 10, and the other Tier 8 CV that has twins, the premium Indomitable, carries the much more modern Sea Hornet. I'd have been inclined to choose Me 210's or 410's, washing away all the problems these aircraft had with the same magic that (rightly and necessarily, IMHO) ignores how utterly garbage the Minotaur's turrets were in real life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31,404
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
23,566 posts
17,903 battles
27 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

and they were never intended to be landed back on.

Nor are any of the catapult planes on any non carrier ship in this game, but they get a pass.

*shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,553 posts

Just assume that the navalized BFs have modified folding wings, and move on to bigger issues. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,639
[5D2]
[5D2]
Supertester
2,318 posts
22,882 battles
9 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

The only potential candidate for a more advanced single-engine bomber between the Stuka (no idea why that isn't present somewhere)

The German Tier 6 premium CV, cant remember the name, has Stukas as its torpedo and dive bombers.

Edited by Skuggsja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,391
[RKLES]
Members
12,439 posts
14,145 battles
2 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Let's be fair - WG entered the realms of what-if the moment they chose the Montana for the US Tier 10 BB and gave the Amagi the place in history she would've had if the Washington Treaty hadn't got in the way (she might still have been wrecked in the Kanto Earthquake, but that's a matter for debate). 

However, accepting for the moment the what-if of Germany being a CV nation and WG's choice of hulls at the relevant tiers, I'd still be inclined not to make the Bf110 the Tier 8 torpedo and dive bomber. The only other tech-tree CV which has twins is at Tier 10, and the other Tier 8 CV that has twins, the premium Indomitable, carries the much more modern Sea Hornet. I'd have been inclined to choose Me 210's or 410's, washing away all the problems these aircraft had with the same magic that (rightly and necessarily, IMHO) ignores how utterly garbage the Minotaur's turrets were in real life. 

Well some of the what if’s can easily slide by if they are ones that would have been built and used. Like the H Class BBs Germany was serious about building those. Japan had been building Amagi and Kii. Yoshino and Azuma are named versions of the B-65 class ships that were designed to counter Alaska class. Montana is logically progression if history had been a little different to the point they needed a better BB counter to Yamato class than Iowa.

Now what does bother me a little is a simply proposed design with no plans drawn up or outright made up ships. And Fantasy ships are a major difference than planned to be built ships that would have been built had resources shortages or what ever intervened.

And for the most part WOWs has been a delightful way to see some what an alternative history where WWII was fought with surface ships rather than air power. ( if you look at the total numbers of non CV games played in the history of WOWs vs CV games played.) Which was how Naval Planners had long planned for until Pearl Harbor more than settled the debate about just how useful CVs could be followed by Midway which were both live combat examples.

And Germany had greatly enlarged their drydocks capacity and other infrastructure that would have enabled them to build H Class BBs if Hitler had not decided to take Germany into war sooner than he had promised his Naval planners so they were stuck with a fleet far smaller than anticipated. Hence the reason I have no problem with Kurfurst style ships in the game as H Class plans were fully drawn up, and work had started proceeding towards getting them built, so they would have existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,808
[TDRB]
Members
4,551 posts
12,779 battles
2 minutes ago, XurMP said:

If I leaned anything from playing What Thunder modified name because for some reason the name gets banned is that with a tail hook anything can be a carrier aircraft, you can land with jets going at almost Mach 1 and magically get accelerated in seconds without any visible catapult. 

 

Of course it's just a joke, as far as I know the Bf 110 could be used in naval fights but not deployed from carriers if Germany had completed the Graf Zeppelin. Also... Weren't Bf 110s responsible for sinking some German DDs confusing them for British DDs or am I mistaking them for He 111? Not sure, I'm very far from knowing anything more than the basics of the historical naval warfare of WW2

Near mach 1 is a joke but considering this game is far more fantasy than real life............

The US deployed larger B-25's from a carrier for the Doolittle Raid. They were larger than a Bf-110. But neither plane could be recoverable on a WW2 era CV.  A KC-130 did land & take off from the USS Forrestal several times in the 1960's & still hold the record for the largest plane to land/takeoff from a CV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,391
[RKLES]
Members
12,439 posts
14,145 battles
9 minutes ago, Lert said:

Nor are any of the catapult planes on any non carrier ship in this game, but they get a pass.

*shrugs*

Small correction here Lert, if the catapult planes were of the sea plane variety they would be retrievable by landing, then pulling up next to the ship and hoisted aboard via crane. Granted the seas could not be too rough have this happen, and weather had to be some what decent.

So it is wrong to say any catapult planes could not be landed again. But it would be true to say that some catapult planes could not be landed again. Like the Spitfires sometimes used on Convoy transports during emergencies would be launched then have to ditch when fuel ran out.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
612
[TFK]
[TFK]
Alpha Tester
1,526 posts
18,798 battles
1 hour ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

Aren't they a tad too big to be used on CVs?  53 ft fixed wingspan. On a WW ll carrier.  Someone wasn't concentrating when the German CVs were being assigned these planes.

http://www.aiation-history.com/messerschmitt/bf110.html

 

I calculated that the tier 10 Hakuryū  (Japanese Tier X aircraft сarrier) needed 135 feet of more deck space in a 25kts wind in order to launch the aircraft. I got to say amazing WoWS performance without a catapult. 

 

56 minutes ago, Tachnechdorus said:

Joey this is a fantasy's naval shoot them up game......................just play and enjoy               Joey.............................. 

 

No not Fantasy. It's arcade game. Although at times I do wonder if WG wants to have fantasy for such events as Rogue Wave, ARP, and Warhammer. The question is does WG want plausible good arcade or poor arcade

Edited by Tpaktop2_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×