Aircraft Carriers and France

[Liam]

I have very poor reaction VS Carriers. Regardless of readiness and supply. Especially the UK manuever to London SeaPort... Any suggestionss? At times that one carrier can knock down a HQed German fighter 8 points... Lately the Brits forget the Med and move all their carriers into the Channel for intercept missions for France Delaying anything for Germany for quite awhile. With a bid britian can also place an HQ down and another fighter by Fall of France and with all her carriers in the N.Sea hammering away at the Brest Port it's a killzone for German units...German air has poor abilities in that direction...

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

I've always found in PBEM games that carriers fare poorly against land based air units. Whenever possible I direct my air units agains opposing carriers in an attempt to sink them, and often it happens. They're too expensive to replace and I try to keep them away from coastal air range.

[ February 25, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Steve C]

Liam,

I agree, ships in port are tough nuts in SC. One thing you can do is attack some other target in Britain, forcing the carrier planes to fly interception and start attacking the carrier once it's knocked down. You can keep a sub or a cruiser lurking off the coast of Denmark to apply the coup de grace.

[Night]

The carrier's are hard to lure into a position where they can be hit really hard, mostly because of thier range compared to normal navel unit's. I think a combo of a quick sub suicide mission and land based air attack's could work though

[Comrade Trapp]

I think that the best chance you have of destroying Britian's carriers is when they are helping with air superiorty over France. After the Fall of France most allied players keep their carriers with the rest of their fleet which is usally kept out of range of Axis aircraft. Other than France the only way you can destroy the carriers is if you score a lucky shot in the Med or if the allied player makes a really stupied move like moving thier ships past Denmark in Germany's backyard.

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade

Great footnote about the Paris comment.

Usually I don't read the bottom entries as most are tedious but yours has a message and (in my humble opinion) a damn good and timely one!

Regarding Aircraft Carriers: In the European campaign they were pretty much used in sea-to-sea roles. The British used them twice in land strikes, against Genoa and Taranto because the Italians had left themselves so vulnerable and lacked radar, but both were against ships in port or naval targets.

In the game they're used unrealistically against land targets. Conditions were different from those in the Pacific, where large numbers of carriers concentrated against much smaller ground units assisting assault units. To my knowledge carrier aircraft never targeted corps sized units! It's a quirk of the game and -- unlike most other game quirks -- (usually)doesn't change things significantly.

[ March 01, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[nonsuch]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

[QB] Comrade

Our local newspaper ran it....a panoramic view of the city of Paris....under a hugh mushroom cloud, with utterings coming from the Efile Tower.

"all right, that does it, quadruple the inspectors immediately!"

Great footnote about Paris. Usually I don't read them as most are tedious but yours has a message and (in my humble opinion) a damn good one!

OK I know this was only a joke but am i alone in feeling just a bit concerned about what is happening. And yes, I know this forum is probably not the right place to air this subject but anyone who plays wargames for a hobby knows enough about how the real thing works. And it isn't the soldiers who start it - it's the politicians!

Doesn't the timing of the impending invasion of Iraq suggest something? Bush failed to mention it in his manifesto and he is so determined to go to war that Saddam has little incentive to disarm. In effect it amounts to "Drop your weapons, stick up your hands and I will shoot you anyway" The man has failed to be elected and he means to make sure that next time he is. I don't doubt that he reflects popular opinion in his country - all the leaders of major states currently do (with the exception of Blair) If I really felt that this war was about liberation rather than a fundamentalist redneck grabbing oil (and a second term) I would endorse it. And before you guys in the states, who make up the bulk of the contributions to this forum, accuse me of anti americanism let me just say that the people that I have talked to on the net over the years have made me the exact opposite. I am vigorously pro-america - and that's why you guys deserve better than Bush (and we deserve anyone but Blair)

[JerseyJohn]

Nonsuch

I have to appologize for going off topic in my post, but I immediately switched back to the issue being discussed, which is Aircraft Carriers in SC.

It's okay to go a little off topic, but when the postings become blatantly political the entire forum gets padlocked and moved to the General Area, where drawn out political discussions belong. Going a bit further, I don't post much in the General area myself because too many times responses are little more than half baked sarcastic responses by self-serving cretins who don't bother to read what they're attempting to put down.

We're all concerned and all have our opinions, but voicing them at legnth in these forums only kills it for people interested in game issues.

[ March 01, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[nonsuch]

OK. point taken. I'm still a newb so I didn't know (although I confess I didn't feel comfortable posting it) Hope I didn't cause offence. I enjoy your postings - they are invariably incisive, considered and frequently spot on.

Like you say, we all have a different perspective on things. Keep the faith!

[JerseyJohn]

Nonsuch

You always have responsible postings and I didn't mean to pontificate. The fact is I caused several forums to be locked up by becoming political and just wanted to mention it from experience. The trick is to combine political comments with game comments, preferably ending with the game issue.

Thanks for the nod, I enjoy your postings also and for the same reasons.

If we didn't have our different perspectives imagine how boring things would get!

[ March 01, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

To my knowledge carrier aircraft never targeted corps sized units!

The US did bomb Tokyo with AC based bombers.

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer76

The quote was in reference to the European Theater. The Pacific Theater has been referred to, at times, as "The Carrier War."

The U. S. also bombed Taiwan and the Phillipines using carrier based aircraft. These attacks took place very late in the war (mid 44 - summer 45) and were only possible because the United States had numerous very large aircraft carriers working in task forces which, by 1944, were sending out sorties of several hundred planes!

No such concentration of aircraft carriers existed in the Atlantic. The Pacific and it's extensive use of fleet aircraft carriers has very little relevance to carrier tactics in the Atlantic War.

Unless, or course, your remark about bombers concerns the early 1942 Doolittle Raid. In that case it really has no relevance to anything! The medium bombers (I believe they were B-25s) that took from Halsey's two carriers (I believe it was Enterprise and Hornet) were sent on a one way trip to land in China after completing their raid. They couldn't have returned to the aircraft carriers as it would not have been possible for them to land on the flight deck. So I have to wonder what the entry has to do with anything involving SC or SC 2? :confused:

[ March 02, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Thanxs for some off the input but things are a little off what I asked originally. I meant when a Carrier locks itself in a port it's deadly! It's not only deadly but nearly impossible to attack. The way that England and France are arranged allows for direct strikes using the Carrier in the London Port usually not taking much of a loss on any strike it does!

It's unrealistic cause what's the difference between a carrier in a Port and outside a port? AA guns? Coastal Artillery, higher supply? Carriers are supposed to be massive Supply Launching ships for AirCraft anyways. Usually they pull everything from Egypt use their bid and and a premature invasion of Ireland to mass 4 fighters 1 bomber. 1 French fighter, HQ 3 Carriers on the coast with Germany making the War for Brest a very hard one indeed. It's a killzone you end up with that you can't survive unless you're very crafty! Especially if you're trying to pursue running Frogs

How do we defend against this. The high supply in the two Allied Ports bonus the Carriers and up in Norway similarly. You can't strike on the opposite Side without HEAVY losses it's redicilious

As far as Carriers in North Atlantic I'm not sure I heard much about it. Anything with size especially. I thought most of that would be moved to face the Japs anyways...If you're going to give the Brits these bonuses early Okay, but I think that something should be thrown in to balance things. I.E. a German Bomber... Represent their massive dive-bomber squadrons

Who was the 1 stuka pilot who independantly killed 500 Russian tanks? And that was an obsolete piece of junk!

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

His name was Rudell. I've copied some information about him specifically and the Ju87 in it's tank busting role. The Stuka was second to the Sturmovik as a tank buster and was also outstanding against ships.

I'm attaching after my own original Aircraft Carrier Rant.

The aircraft carriers the U. S. sent to sea in the Pacific the last two years of the war were much larger than anything that came earlier and much larger than anything in the Atlantic.

There was something like 20 or more new American Fleet Carriers operating in the Pacific by the Leyte Gulfe Campaign, which is why the Kammikazies targeted them specifically.

In that campaign, the U. S. was able to send hundreds of carrier aircraft to strike the Japanese Central (sank the 18" 70,000 ton Mussashi) and Southern Fleets (crippling that fleet) without touching the aircraft being used to support the landings!

Later, hundreds of carrier aircraft, something like twice as many as were used against Pearl Harbor, were sent to sink the giant Yamato during the Okinawa Campaign.

There was no equivalent of that in the European Theater.

-- As for those nasty Stuka Tank busters . . ..

The Ju87 Stuka dive-bomber was a screamer, devasting England. The ear splitting screech of its sirens served as the introduction of the Ju87 dive-bomber to France, Poland, the Balkans, Africa, England and Russia. The first version of this famous plane, the Ju87A-1 saw action in 1937 with the Condor Legion in Spain. Joined in 1938 and 1939 by the later Ju87B, the Junkers dive-bomber attained greater notoriety than any other weapon with which Germany launched the Second World War. Within the first nine months of the war, the Ju87 acquired an almost legendary reputation. This Junkers product became synonymous with the abbreviation "Stuka" - from Sturzkampfflugzeug, a term descriptive of all dive-bombers, The success of the Stuka lasted until August, 1940, when Germany launched its aerial offensive on the British Isles. III-armed and out maneuvered by the defending Spiffires and Hurricanes, the Stuka paid a fearful price for its role in the "Battle of Britain". By the end of August, the last of the Stuka Geschwader or dive-bomber wings were removed from action in Great Britain. As late as 1945 the Ju87 was a lethal weapon, which in the hands of an experienced, determined pilot such as Ulrich Rudel was capable of destroying 500 Russian tanks.

The JU87G-1 was the last version to see combat and is the subject of this Revell model. The Ju87G-1 and the installation of the two 37mm. BK (flak 36) cannon under the wings had been the result of masses of Russian tanks which plagued the German army. Major Rudel , already specialized in tank-killing, flew the first exper-imental foray's and was successful. The Ju87G-1 began the struggle of destroying Russian tanks before time ran out onGermany's Eastern Front. This version had also seen service in North Africa and on;the Western front. The Ju87G-1 was powered by a Junkers Jumo 211J-1, 12 cylinder, inverted vee, liquid cooled engine. With the direct fuel injection this engine was rated at 1,400 H.P. at 2,600 r.m.p. With the two man crew and armed with the two 37mm. cannons and the 1-MG 812 machine gun, the Ju87G-1 had a range of 1250 mites, a maximum speed of 250 m.p.h. and a ceiling of approximately 24,000 feet.

Type:two-seat dive bomber

Crew:2 Pilots

Armament: two 20mm MG 151/20 cannons in front, two 7.92mm MG 81 guns in rear cockpit; maximum bomb load one 3,968lb bomb with two 1,102 bombs under wings

Specifications

Wingspan 49 ft 2 in

Length 37 ft 8 in

Propulsion

No. of Engines: 1

Powerplant:one Junkers Jumo 211P inline piston engine

Horsepower:1,500hp

Performance

Range:410 miles

[ March 02, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]