R/C Naval Combat

Hello all,
Just got done looking at the nice ice storm we got last night.
I would like to start a discussion on carriers and the way we alot their units. We, I believe do it by the ships weight. How do the other formats do it? I think Big Gun gives carriers their units by looking at the carriers air arm, and that they give X number of units for X number of planes?
Thanks,

Per the new WWCC rules the small carriers get 12 1/4 barrels 3 per quadrant large get 16 4 per quadrant MBG has adopted this rule we were tired of the carriers getting blown away because of no side defence

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gettysburg114th

Hello all,
Just got done looking at the nice ice storm we got last night.
I would like to start a discussion on carriers and the way we alot their units. We, I believe do it by the ships weight. How do the other formats do it? I think Big Gun gives carriers their units by looking at the carriers air arm, and that they give X number of units for X number of planes?
Thanks,

---

I think I will try to come up with a formula for carrier units based on the amount of aircraft the carrier carried.
Who would benefit, who would be hurt by this type of allotment?

I look forward this season to see how Mike's Belleau Wood does for herself.

I think the carrier allotments are fine as is, it is the dispersment that is a problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gettysburg114th

I think I will try to come up with a formula for carrier units based on the amount of aircraft the carrier carried.
Who would benefit, who would be hurt by this type of allotment?

---

14 planes per unit, hey Mike DeM how would that work out?

Frog,
What do you base that on?

Units based on Aircraft carried was mentioned during a carrier discussion in the NATCF section.Biggest problem with that are carriers like Shinano and the Brit carriers which carried quite a few less aircraft then most US/Jap ones.

Good point HMCS but,
Is that not how the carriers strengths were looked at during the war? The question during a sea battle by the Admiral would be "How many planes can we get in the air?" Not "What carriers do we have and how heavy are they?"

The same could be said for any type of ship. No admiral asked how heavy his cruisers or battleships were but he would want to know what types he had. I don't think there is a easy answer to this question. The british carriers had much more armor at the expense of there airwings, while the Japs and US had lightly armored ships with much larger airwings. No matter which way you go somee ships are going to loose out.

Bob-

I like 12 planes per unit as a starting point a little bit better. Most ships SEEMED to carry their aircraft in multiples of 12. I think that using airgroup size to determine units is a good way to break down the carriers as it's a more accurate representation of the true fighting power of the ships then the tonnage was.

As for the comment by the previous poster RE cruisers and battleships, armor and gunpower were both very weight expensive, so looking at tonnage is a fair representation of the fighting power of the surface ship. Since the airgroup is both the main striking power AND the best defense of the ship against air attack, looking at airgroup size might be the best way to measure their true worth to the fleet.

Hey all, I'm just getting started building up my two ships for both IRCWCC and Treaty combat and thought I'd toss in something if you are working on tweaking the carrier rules a bit.

I have to completely agree that carrier's unit (cannon) allotment should be based on number of aircraft carried historically, with maybe some additional thought to the carriers based on converted battlecruisers or such that retained abnormally heavy secondary batteries.

The only other thing I'd like to add, is maybe allow the armored carriers more pump capacity or the addition of a stringer to represent their heavier armor than most carriers? I'm not really sure whether more pump or a stringer best reflects that or which would be easiest to fit into the present rules?

If combat units are determined by number of planes carried some aircraft carriers will lose combat units. If we use 12 planes per unit Ibuki (27) goes from 3 units to 2, and Shinano (47) goes from 8 units to 4.

Most of the carriers in the Pearl Harbor strike force would have 6 units with up to 73 planes aboard. I think 4 were 34 knot ships. Maybe I see a Soryu in my future. (Rob Clarke has the plans.)

Bob

There are certainly some ships that would not benefit from the change, while others definitely would benefit. Right now, I'd say it's only a discussion so all of us who battle to treaty rules can make the best informed decisions possible. When we were originally setting up Treaty, we had talked about this, but the discussion was shelved (there were a lot of things being discussed back then) and we decided to just run with tons for now as we didnt really expect much interest in carriers.

All of the new interest in carriers has kind of brought this back into people's thoughts I guess.

EDIT:

Mackster, we already account for ships converted from BBs and BCs with our pump rules: A ship converted from a battleship hull (ie Kaga, Shinano, Eagle) get to use battleship pumps. Ships converted from BC hulls (Lexington, Akagi, Furious) get to use battlecruiser pumps.

I think that you have a good idea RE the armored deck carriers. I'd recommend bumping them from a standard .75 gpm pump to a 1.0 gpm pump like the converted battlecruisers.

I am not sure that concerning ourselves with how many units the carriers will have in the 2010 battling season, will benefit us in the 2009 battling season.
We know how many units the aircraft-carriers have for 2009. Let's keep our eye on the ball, and get some of them out there, and have some fun with them, so that we can see how the system works.
We can think about 2010 in a year.
Mikey

It's too late to change the rules for the 2009 battling season, but I think that discussions are healthy and allow people to think about ideas, and debate the merits and debits of the ideas.

Well. I would have to agree with you for the most part. But maybe not when it comes to discussions about rules.
As often as not, discussions concerning rule changes can cause frustration, tension, personal conflict, and perhaps cause someone to shelve a current project, and change directions, thinking that a rule will change, and when it doesn't change they can be frustrated.
In Treaty, we decided to do our rules discussions at the end of the battling season, just to avoid having anyone get flustered to the point of not participating in the battles during the year.
Mikey

That's certainly true.

Bob-

Soryu would be nasty even under the current rules. Eric Noble recently got a book on Japanese carriers which shows a picture of the Soryu in dry dock, and shows that it had two rudders. She's presently a 5 unit ship IIRC, and 34 or 35 knots. She's about the same size as a Des Moines, but with dual class 5 rudders, should easily out turn her. What's not to like?

quote:

---

Originally posted by crzyhawk


Mackster, we already account for ships converted from BBs and BCs with our pump rules: A ship converted from a battleship hull (ie Kaga, Shinano, Eagle) get to use battleship pumps. Ships converted from BC hulls (Lexington, Akagi, Furious) get to use battlecruiser pumps.

I think that you have a good idea RE the armored deck carriers. I'd recommend bumping them from a standard .75 gpm pump to a 1.0 gpm pump like the converted battlecruisers.

---

Thanks! I just re-read that part about carrier pumps having missed the rule on BC/BB conversions before. I think I'll go online and see what a small "St. Lo" CVE would look like under Treaty rules.