Can I Load My Planes on the Carrier?

[Nefarious Edge]

I can't seem to figure out how to load fighter planes onto the carriers with the US. Can someone help. Thanks.

[Retributar]

Unfortunately, that feature is not a working option yet!.

I too am tending toward's being able to have Carrier's & Aircraft as separate, yet symbiotic with each other!.

It would make the Carrier-Feature more realistic!.

[AZGungHo]

I agree, that way when carrier's strike the airwings would suffer damage, NOT the ship itself. It would be much more realistic, but how difficult it would be to put into the code I have no idea.

Still, I'd like to see it.

You could ferry planes that way too - as was done in the war many times.

[JerseyJohn]

But pilots don't receive the training given to naval aviators. They wouldn't be able to land on an aircraft carrier.

It takes more time to train aviators, which would be reflected by only allowing specialized air units to use carriers.

[Bromley]

There's no real need to ferry planes - operational movement covers that. Whilst I'd like to see carriers get some development attention, I personally don't like the idea of stacking on them.

I guess my ideal would be if carriers had two strength scores, 5 for hull and 5 for air. Even then, that might be complicating the situation too much.

[Minty]

My understanding is that in Pre Jet days it was a lot easier. The royal navy had RAF units operating off them in Norway at short notice in 1940. There was a lot less specialised equipment on the carriers ( no steam catapults or catch wires in wide use). These only came in when Jets starting to try and land on Carriers in the 1950s. The speeds were much faster and the RN had a whole squadron killed in peactime over a year or so before it got perfected.

[JerseyJohn]

Minty,

But it might also be that in 1940 the Royal Navy was using biplanes on the carriers. Were the Royal Air Force pilots using Hurricanes and Spitfires, or something smaller and slower?

Still, that's an interesting detail. Thanks for mentioning it, I've never heard this before, but it's an interesting thing to know about.

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn , the only knowledge i have of this subject is from War-Movies & Documentaries.

But!,...yes, the British Aircraft were not the latest Hurricanes or Spitfires, instead they were the Bi-Planes and older Models.

However, later on as the war progressed, they built ramp's of sorts and mounted airplane's such as the Hurricane on it, but now, im not sure if it was rocket assisted to help it launch or not!.

Anyway, when the airplane had run it's reconnaisance course or interception, i believe that it was then ditched!.

[JerseyJohn]

Retributar

It took a while for jets to be adapted to aircraft carriers -- or the other way around, I guess they had to make them a lot longer and also come up with a good catching system for landings and catapults for takeoffs, like you were saying.

Early in the war, I think the Japanese and Americans were the only ones who were putting frontline aircraft on their carriers, the Brits had Swordfish till around 1942.

In that system you were mentioning, I think that was an early anti-submarine measure. Hurricane's catapulted from a merchantman if a submarine were spotted and, after it finished flying it was ditched. I don't think they were outfitted as seaplanes, so they just sank. It was desperation till the escort carriers were put into action.

But I don't think any nation actually had regular pilots operating at sea off aircraft carriers. In the Doolittle raid, for example, the bomber pilots were trained to take off from a shorter runway than normal, but they couldn't land on the carrier again; it was a one way trip.

My knowledge of this is from the same sources as yours, documentaries. But there's bound to be a naval aviation enthusiast who will enter the picture -- right about now. :cool:

[Fubarno]

I'd like to see carriers have an intercept option to add their weight to the defence of nearby surface vessel combat. Anybody out there remeber the game The Lost Admiral? In that game the carriers that were near to surface engagements would add a modifier to the battle.

[Retributar]

Interesting idea Fubarno !, it seem's realistic and practical to me.

Let's see what input come's from some of the other's!.

[Guest Mike]

There's nothing particularly realistic about carriers aiding battles between surface units AFAIK - the best known example is probably Leyte Gulf, where the Japs turned around due to mistaken intelligence.

Other than that I'm not actually aware of any otehr engagement between surface ships that actually involved carriers interfering?

[Lars]

Originally posted by Minty:

My understanding is that in Pre Jet days it was a lot easier. The royal navy had RAF units operating off them in Norway at short notice in 1940. There was a lot less specialised equipment on the carriers ( no steam catapults or catch wires in wide use). These only came in when Jets starting to try and land on Carriers in the 1950s. The speeds were much faster and the RN had a whole squadron killed in peactime over a year or so before it got perfected.

Development of arresting gear and catapults on carriers was started in WWI.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-hist1.html

Catapults weren't used so much, mostly because the planes of the era didn't really require them. But they certainly use arresting gear.

[Fubarno]

From Stalin's Organ... "There's nothing particularly realistic about carriers aiding battles between surface units AFAIK - the best known example is probably Leyte Gulf, where the Japs turned around due to mistaken intelligence."

Remember that there is some abstraction to the equation in grand strategic games like this. I would argue that the mere presence of aircraft carriers in an area of sea would probably result in surface fleets without air cover falling back. Another point, no surface fleets ever directly engaged carriers directly except at the Battle of Leyte Gulf were American jeep carriers contributed to the defence of the beachhead, as you mention. In the game of SC surface fleets engage carrier fleets very frequently.

Though there was little combined surface/carrier combat in WW2, there was plenty of sparring in the Med and the North Sea around Norway and the Murmansk convoys, as well as the pacific. One could argue that the presence of allied carriers in the area 'modified' the advantage that the allied surface fleets had.

[Guest Mike]

Certainly the presence of a swordfish "modified" the outcome of the Bismark vs the Home Fleet, and you are certainly correct in strategic terms.

But IMO the way to correct a strategic problem is with a strategic solution - not with a tactical one like modifying the combat result. Eg I'd rather see fleets easier to find or avoid if you have carriers than giving any combat advantage.

Personally I think the naval war is a major shortcoming in SC2 - it's a grafted on afterthought using mechanisms for land combat that are unsuitable, and it needs throwing out and redoing from scratch

[n0kn0k]

I'd like to see the strike range of fleets increased for gameplay reasons. I know it ain't right compared to the tile scale. But imho it would be more fun.