Should CV's be adjusted?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Should CV's be adjusted?

      Hi. I believe carriers should have an adjustment made to them. Except, not to the stats, like other posts have been made about.



      Say you are in this scenario:

      You go to war with a country, which is on the other side of the map. For example, on the "Europe: Clash of Nations" map, you are South America, and you go to war with Russia. You already own a bunch of strategical bombers, but you have no land close enough to get them to Russia.


      You see the problem, right? You don't want to go to war with any nations, and you rather not risk making any landings onto the enemy's land, when they have troops there. An aircraft carrier may help to get you to their cost, and send up bombers, without landing on their coast, yet. Sadly, the only aircraft that can be sent up are Naval bombers, which do practically nothing to land targets (Buildings, or soldiers), and the same for Interceptors. I believe that, if not Strategical bombers, Tactical bombers should at least be able to launch from carriers.

      Also, please don't get mad, salty, or anything else towards this idea. Just give me your honest thoughts.

    • The short answer is "no," strategic bombers should not be able to operate from aircraft carriers.

      There was no four-engine bomber that could safely land on a WW2-era carrier, given the beam and width of the flight decks of the carriers, the wingspan of a four-engine bomber, the placement of the island on the carrier deck, and the physics problem of stopping a 20-ton aircraft in 250 to 300 feet with an arrestor-cable flight deck system. Furthermore, there was no way to launch an empty 20-ton aircraft from the flight deck with WW2 era technology, let alone a bomber fully loaded with an additional 5 to 10 tons of bombs and avgas.

      The U.S. Navy experimented with landing C-130 Hercules 4-engine cargo planes on super carriers (2.5x the size of WW2 fleet carriers) in the early 1960s, and although landings and take-offs were successfully accomplished, the additional wear and tear on the carrier decks and aircraft made any operational use impractical.

      To my knowledge, the biggest aircraft to fly operationally from a WW2 aircraft carrier were the 16 B-25 Mitchell twin-engine tactical bombers of the Doolittle raid on Tokyo in 1942. That feat was never duplicated. The Doolittle bombers were hoisted aboard the USS Hornet prior to the mission, because they could not safely land on the carrier's flight deck, and the actual mission was one way, with none of the aircraft returning to the carrier.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • You mentioned the C-130 Hercules? That plane is my speciality! Yeah, The Navy did try that, they succeeded, and uh, they decided they would just get a smaller transport plane that is essentially a C-130, but smaller, and made for carrier operations. But, back to the point, I do see the advantage to using tactical bombers on Carriers, but why not have something better.

      Carrier Specific Aircraft?
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"