British CVs: Slow but tough?

[Carrier_Lexington]

When I imagine British CV aircraft, I imagine slow, tough little biplanes that get a survivability bonus against AAA partially due to their slowness throwing-off the flak predictors of enemy AAA guns, with very fast, good fighters as a support. I expect British fighters to significantly out-perform the current American and Japanese fighters, due to their widespread use of Hispano 20mm cannons, which were far better at taking down air targets quickly than .50 caliber machine guns. One downside I see of British fighters is the need to land and reload more commonly, as the Hispano cannons could not carry as much ammo as the .50 cal MGs could (due to the increased size of the projectile being fired).

 

British aircraft I would expect:

 

VTs (Torpedo Bombers):

Fairey Swordfish: Tough-as-nails, slow old biplane dive/torpedo bomber that was obsolete by the time the war began. Still went on to sink the Bismark, however.

Fairey Albacore: An updated version of the Swordfish that was faster and could still dual-purpose as a dive bomber or torpedo bomber.

Fairey Barracuda (Mk I, II, and V): The first successful full-metal monoplane design made by Fairey, the Barracuda was difficult to take-off due to its ungainly characteristics on the ground, and early versions had a poor climb rate. Later versions had an enhanced powerplant, increasing their speed and climb rate and their payload capacity to 2,000 lbs. Like the Albacore and Swordfish, the Barracuda was a TBR (Torpedo/Bomber/Reconnaissance) aircraft, so it dual-purposed as both dive bomber and torpedo bomber.

TBF Avenger: The British received several American TBF-1 Avenger aircraft later in the war, which were tougher, faster, and had better climbing characteristics than the Fairey Barracuda. Often carried better ordnance, but, interestingly, they often served cooperatively, that is, RN carriers that carried Avengers often also carried Barracudas.

Fairey Spearfish (Prototype): The Fairey Spearfish was a prototype torpedo/dive bomber designed to operate off of the planned Malta class carriers. It had a much better powerplant, an internal weapons bay (finally), and carried 4 .50 cals, 2 forward-firing in the wings and 2 in a remote-controlled barbette behind the cockpit. It was better than the Barracuda in almost all respects, despite being significantly larger. (This would go with a premium Malta-class carrier)

Blackburn Firebrand (produced, never saw combat)- The Blackburn Firebrand was a monoplane, single-engine strike aircraft capable of carrying both torpedoes and bombs.

Westland Wyvern- This was a turpo-prop multi-purpose strike aircraft capable of carrying and delivering torpedoes as well as bombs and rockets. Would make a suitable fighter as well.

 

VBs (Dive Bombers):

(see VTs)

Also, the USN F4U-D Corsair

 

VFs (Carrier-Fighters):

Fairey Firefly- A powerful full-metal monoplane fighter capable of carrying 4x 20mm Hispano autocannons

Fairy Flycatcher- A single seat biplane fighter suitable for tier IV

Hawker Sea Hurricane- A good tier V, the Sea Hurricane carried 20mm Hispanos, but limited ammunition

Supermarine Seafire (Mk I, II, V, XII, 24)- The Supermarine Seafire was the modification of the famous Supermarine Spitfire designed to fly off of carriers. The later modifications (XII and 24) became very powerful, as they were fitted with the more powerful Griffon powerplants.

Mustang Mk. 1A: Not sure where this would fit, but the Mustang Mk.1A took the climb rate and speed of the Mustang and buffed it with the power of the British 20mm Hispano autocannon. Powerful fighter.

Westland Wyvern: (see VTs)

Supermarine Attacker- A jet-powered rendition of the experimental Supermarine Spiteful. Very powerful, very fast.

 

 

[Skeem689]

I wonder if there will be American CVLs/CVEs on the British line/premium.  

[uller101]

Japanese A6M fighters had twin 20mm cannons and twin .30 cal MGs.  British Seafires had twin 20mm cannons and quad .303 cal MGs, so not that much gain in firepower as rifle caliber MGs took significantly more rounds to bring down aircraft.

 

Edit: Late war models did have quad 20mm cannons so later on they might have an advantage.

[Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao]

Doubt we'll see jet fighters again until the German tier 10 cv, that being said im extremely excited for another CV tree

[Carrier_Lexington]

Doubt we'll see jet fighters again until the German tier 10 cv, that being said im extremely excited for another CV tree

 

Well, it hasn't been announced, but you can't add a British line without adding the British carriers.

[GrandAdmiral_2016]

For fighters, give RN CVs the Gloster Gladiator (Fairey Fulmar as an upgrade)  at T4, the Hawker Sea Hurricane at T5, the F4F-3 Wildcat (Called the Martlet by the Brits) for T6,the Supermarine Seafire at T7, the F6F-Hellcat for T8, the Corsair for T9, the Hawker Sea Fury (the best piston-engined carrier figher ever-as good as the F8F Bearcat) at T10

 

For bombers, give them the Blackburn Skua at T5 (served as a fighter-dive bomber in Ark Royal in 1939/40), the Swordfish at T6, the Albacore at T7 (or as a T6 upgrade), the Barracuda at T7, the TBM-3 Avenger at T8, and (the best for the last) the Supermarine Firefly fighter/bomber at T9. Keep the Wyvern for T10 (I think the Firefly is a better all-around machine, but some folks differ)

[BladedPheonix]

I wonder if there will be American CVLs/CVEs on the British line/premium.  

 

We gave the Brits a few Bouge class cvs, so it could be possible!

[BladedPheonix]

Also, I think I speak for a lot of us when I say this but.....

 

 

Maybe WG should first focus on fixing the balancing issues with the current 2 lines of CVs before adding anymore?

[Carrier_Lexington]

Also, I think I speak for a lot of us when I say this but.....

 

 

Maybe WG should first focus on fixing the balancing issues with the current 2 lines of CVs before adding anymore?

 

I think that you speak for yourself. If WG always focuses on improving the current, then nothing new will ever get added. It's kinda presumptuous to assume that you speak for the group when there are 4 other people who support British CVs in this thread alone, is it not? Anyway, there will always be people whining about how CVs are overpowered, underpowered, a certain nation is underpowered, yada yada. It's natural: players want to blame the game, not their skill. I've done it. Everyone does it.

 

WG needs to add more diversity by adding another CV line to give players a break from their long and tiresome grinds up their respective nation (CV players seem to be split pretty much down the middle between IJN and USN players, and relatively few who are good with one nation are just as good with the other).

 

Finally, I have a poll that says that you are wrong, that you only speak for ~5% of the community. See the top question of the attached picture (Do you want more CV branches?)

 

[GXZero]

Well the RN CV's all had armoured decks and good damage control but this has the side effect of reducing the amount of aircraft carried. 

 

So I expect where they will have good armour, HP pools, and secondary's, But will have small number of aircraft per ship (better fighters and slower bombers)

I also expect to see corsair's as part of there fighter complements as it was the British that fixed the issues these planes had when working from carriers. 

[Hyyena]

Doubt we'll see jet fighters again until the German tier 10 cv, that being said im extremely excited for another CV tree

 

Or the RU CV line with migs and paper planes because MOTHER RUSSIA[?]

[HazeGrayUnderway]

I wonder if there will be American CVLs/CVEs on the British line/premium.  

 

It wouldn't surprise me, the US lent a lot of ships for Britain's war effort, and that included CVEs also.

 

The RN CV conundrum of armored CVs with smaller aircraft compliments, especially weaker fighter interception compared to less armored USN CVs with far larger aircraft compliments is worth an interesting read.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

[Carrier_Lexington]

 

It wouldn't surprise me, the US lent a lot of ships for Britain's war effort, and that included CVEs also.

 

The RN CV conundrum of armored CVs with smaller aircraft compliments, especially weaker fighter interception compared to less armored USN CVs with far larger aircraft compliments is worth an interesting read.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-030.htm

 

Will do once I have the time. Bookmarked it.

[AmurTiger]

Well the RN CV's all had armoured decks and good damage control but this has the side effect of reducing the amount of aircraft carried. 

 

So I expect where they will have good armour, HP pools, and secondary's, But will have small number of aircraft per ship (better fighters and slower bombers)

I also expect to see corsair's as part of there fighter complements as it was the British that fixed the issues these planes had when working from carriers. 

 

Not all of them. Only from the Illustrious on did they have armored decks.

 

Certainly the armored carriers were tough well-armed ships, notably better AA then their peers.

 

Also unique was the leveraging of radar. The swordfish had surface search radar, the carriers had air search radars with fighter directing rooms. Either/both if these could be turned into cooldown abilities that help reveal ships/planes.

 

I think the best model might be faster fighters but less if them but with better information gathering tools.

[SG_ONeill]

I think that you speak for yourself.

BladedPheonix may not speak for everyone but you can't deny the fact CVs are messed up at the moment. With the way WG hasn't changed it's stance on "national flavor " there's valid concerns about the future of CV gameplay in general, not just RN CVs.

[Carrier_Lexington]

BladedPheonix may not speak for everyone but you can't deny the fact CVs are messed up at the moment. With the way WG hasn't changed it's stance on "national flavor " there's valid concerns about the future of CV gameplay in general, not just RN CVs.

 

I understand that CV gameplay is, at the moment, sub-par, but I was merely pointing out that, according to other polls, he/she is wrong about "most people" wanting WG to devote all of its energy to fixing problems instead of developing another CV line.