Micronaut Only Thread

[pmskaar]

Hi Chris

Really excellent work on all your ships. I really like the highlighting, weathering, and the very realistic looking water effects on your bases. The carriers are especially attractive with the weathering on the flight decks and the intricate markings on each one which are hand painted?! Great stuff.
I really like the two tone scheme on the Yorktown - I believe it was measure 12, which had Sea Blue and Ocean Gray which was the precursor to measure 22 which had Navy Blue and Haze Gray if I recall correctly - (as he sits here at his bookstore without being able to check his references which are at home).
I hope you will get some time to do more stuff again soon - I always look forward to seeing your work.

Pete - Binpicker, Out!

[8ball]

Very, very nice work, especially on the carrier decks. You must be young with very steady hands.

[Mauser]

Great ships. I can really see the time and effort.

[Donald M. Scheef]

With respect to Protection vs. Air Group:
If all the aircraft you carry are Stringbags, your carrier needs armour and gun protection. Of course, this changes if you load some clip-wing Corsairs or even Martlets. Seafires have good performance as interceptors but are a real b*tch to land with thier long engines and narrow-track gear.

Although I would agree with your preference ot air group vs protection, the Brits did pretty well with what they had; refer to 1940-11-12.

Don S.

[Mk 1]

With respect to Protection vs. Air Group:
If all the aircraft you carry are Stringbags, your carrier needs armour and gun protection.

I dare say you won't find a single case of an RN carrier that shipped only Stringbags! I mean really!

Surely those Blackburn ROCs and Skuas count for something, eh?

"Remember, mate, a skua is a bird that folds its wings and dives into the ocean!"

[Donald M. Scheef]

Actually, I would like to have some Skuas to put on British aircraft carriers. They are on my wish list for Fleet Air Arm aircraft (along with Fulmar, Firefly, and Barracuda). Skuas were poor dive bombers and horrible fighters, but were good enough to sink the Königsberg. This was a significant accomplishment.

I agree that the Rocs should have gone directly into the dust bin.

Don S.

[cbovill]

Thanks for the great comments guys!

With respect to protection vs. air group, go ahead and replace British carriers with American and vice versa in the battles of WWII and imagine the results then. Might make for some intersting scenarios.

The British were lucky they did not have better opponents to fight, and were lucky again that they did not have to face the full furry of the IJN, we took care of that with large, well designed carriers operating large numbers of good and later great aircraft.

Chris

[Mk 1]

With respect to protection vs. air group, go ahead and replace British carriers with American and vice versa in the battles of WWII and imagine the results then. Might make for some intersting scenarios.

But that's what wargaming is for! Tell me when you're running the scenarios, Bill, and I may just hop a plane to join you!

The British were lucky they did not have better opponents to fight, and were lucky again that they did not have to face the full furry of the IJN ...

I would not be too dismissive of the Regia Aeronautica over the Med, nor the Luftwaffe over the North Sea.

And the RN did manage to face a few Japanese Kamikaze attacks. Their later designs of armored carriers proved to be reasonably resistant to damage that would typically put a USN carrier immediately out of the fight.

But still, I too would go for the larger air group. That is, after all, what you bought and paid for when you laid down the hull.

... we took care of that with large, well designed carriers operating large numbers of good and later great aircraft.

And don't forget the crew training and doctrines, too. USN carrier damage control and fire mitigation techniques clearly surpassed everyone else by mid-war. US carriers survived damage as much due to their damage control capabilities as to their design and construction. Stout ships, manned by stout crews.

[cbovill]

I can see it now, HMS Illustrious and HMS Victorious fight the Battle of the Coral Sea against the Shokaku and Zuikaku. ...or USS Yorktown attacks Toronto with not just a handful of Swordfish, but dozens of dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

I agree that the German and Italian forces both had good points (the Stuka, the SM.79, the u-boat, the Fw.200 Condor and so forth), but they never seemed to quite be able to pull it all together like the Japanese did. Sure the Japanese had some issues, but the capabilities of the Kido Butai were unparalleled in 1942. The Germans and Italians had nothing like it in capability or impact. There were lots of Stukas, but relatively few assigned to the war at sea. The Germans never developed an adequate torpedo plane, the Italians didn't have an adequate dive bomber until the Germans gave them the Stuka. The Americans and Japanese conducted some amazingly coordinated attacks using torpedo planes coming in low and then dive bombers coming in from high up. Stressed the CAP to its core, and the AA gunners couldn't keep up.

American carriers may not have had armored decks, but they were built so well, and the crews trained in damage control so well, and with the proper attention to the importance of damage control, that it made up for lack of armor. Also, most carriers were sunk by the torpedo, our carriers were protected just like British carriers from the torpedo.

Then you take American tactics of centralization of the carrier with a layered defense of escorting ships, copiously equipped with well designed AA guns and radar directed fire, and proximity fuzes and radar directed CAP, armor would have been wasted steel for these carriers.

By the end of the war we were operating air groups with incredible numbers of fighters on board: USS Hornet - 61 Hellcats assigned to VF-17, USS Ticonderoga - 68 Hellcats assigned to VF-80, USS Lexington - 69 Hellcats assigned to VF-20, it goes on and on. And then they still had their strike squadrons aboard.

Designing USN carriers with armored decks would have made them more expensive, taken longer to build them and thus, there would have been fewer of them, which means fewer aircraft on CAP, fewer aircraft doing searches, and fewer aircraft doing strike missions. It might have given the Japanese the breathing space they needed to rebuild. We still would have wooped them though, even with a smaller number of armored carriers. Our economic base was just too powerful, it would have taken a bit longer, but we would still have won.

Does make for some interesting new scenarios to game out, so this crazy talk is good for something.

[tstockton]

cbovill said...

...or USS Yorktown attacks Toronto with not just a handful of Swordfish, but dozens of dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

Ummm, Chris... I think the Canadians were on our side in World War II...

I know you meant Taranto -- but I just couldn't resist!

Regards,
Tom

[Donald M. Scheef]

“… or USS Yorktown attacks Toronto with not just a handful of Swordfish, but dozens of dive bombers and torpedo bombers.â€￾

I just have to address the two diverse concepts this suggestion brings up.

The attack on Taranto occurred in November of 1940. I doubt that the USN had the training or experience to conduct a night attack at this time as the British did. If the attack had occurred in daylight, the outcome would probably have been much different. Also note that in 1940 the “dozens of dive bombers and torpedo bombersâ€￾ would probably have been SB2U Vindicators (or even SBC Helldivers) and TBD Devastators. These are theoretically better than the Swordfish, but not all that great.

As for an attack on Toronto, the Yorktown could not have transited the St. Lawrence to approach Toronto. However, let us consider the USS Sable and USS Wolverine. OK, they couldn’t have reached Lake Ontario either, but attacks Leamington, Sarnia, Owen Sound, and Thunder Bay could have been conducted.

Don S.

[Mk 1]

Well now, it may not be exactly on track for a "Show Us Yer Stuff" or "Micronaughts Only" thread, but isn't this an interesting "what-if"?

The attack on Taranto occurred in November of 1940. I doubt that the USN had the training or experience to conduct a night attack at this time as the British did. If the attack had occurred in daylight, the outcome would probably have been much different.

I am imagining notably more alert Italians, who, able to see the attackers are so also able to manage their response more cogently.

Not that we should assume some remarkable reply that was beyond normal Italian capabilities in 1940. But still, somewhat less likely to be "caught napping", and more likely to wake up effectively if they were.

So we expect a bunch more flak, and perhaps some fighters eventually rising in reply? But as with the USN at Pearl, it will take time to wake up the defenses, so if the attack can be completed within 20 or 30 minutes, I don't expect much of an effective response.

Also note that in 1940 the “dozens of dive bombers and torpedo bombersâ€￾ would probably have been SB2U Vindicators (or even SBC Helldivers) and TBD Devastators. These are theoretically better than the Swordfish, but not all that great.

The Devestator faired reasonably well (in the Central Pacific island raids and Coral Sea)when it was not faced with determined air opposition (as at Midway). For a harbor attack it was perhaps reasonably well suited, as the ol' low-and-slow was the order of the day, and that is EXACTLY what the Devestator did best.

However the Italians may have seen some benefit when it comes to the torpedos that came from USN planes vs. RN plans. The USN air-launched torps in the early war were known for all the flaws of the sub-launched bretheren (poor depth-keeping and malfunctioning detonators), but when dropped from the air the poor depth-keeping could not only mean a pass-under, but as easily a torpedo that ran straight down to the bottom of a harbor and stuck in the mud. Oh, and they sometimes broke in half when they hit the water.

All that means that the USN would be more reliant on its bomb-dropping abilities, just as it was in 1942 in real life. USN loved its dive-bombers, and with good reason. Dive-bombing was a USN specialty, and a well-practiced art it was.

The SB2U Vindicator ("Wind Indicator" or "Vibrator") was a bit of a wash-out, and only served in a few USN squadrons before being handed off to the USMC. The Helldivers were a different case, with an excellent reputation for accuracy. They gave good service in several squadrons for a few years. The problem, by 1940, is that the airframes (and particularly the wings) were a bit tired. The USN practiced more actively than almost any air arm in the world, and dive-bombing is not easy on planes. But I imagine they could have managed a mission or two without too many planes falling apart.

However, all of that said, I can't think of any historical occasion of the USN sinking a battlship by dive-bombing alone.

Perhaps more interesting is the fighters that would have accompanied the bombers. Mostly F3Fs, and maybe even some F4Bs I would expect. Maybe OK if the Italians muster CR.32s and CR.42s, but a bit out-matched if they wind up facing G.50s or C.200s.

Hmmmmmm. Sure would be fun to game!

[cbovill]

Well, for now we're going to have to make it an attack on Toronto as I don't have an Italian fleet. So we'll have to postpone the attack at least a month while the secretary of the Navy petition's all the good little school children for their ice skates. These will then be fastened to the bottom of the Yorktown, and she will be heaved up onto the ice of the seaway and sent out to attack those dasterdly Canadians, capture all the Molson's and Labatt's they can get their hands on and stagger back to the Atlantic.

[Xveers]

That is of course assuming that they can:
A) Read the signs that suddenly all become french as soon as they go past Quebec and
B) Correctly realize that the distances on their charts are NOT off by about two and a bit times when they come across road signs in kilometers

(To say nothing if they suddenly get forced to add French to ALL their onboard signage. Double the font size of your english lettering si vou'plait! )

[Donald M. Scheef]

I just received my GWB26 (CV Furious) and, as expected, this is the version as completed with a single 18" gun mount aft and a flying-off deck forward.
Good points: It is a very nice molding. It accurately represents the ship in this version. It includes a second 18" gun mount, which makes kit-bashing of the all-gun version more convenient. Seven Sopwith Camels are provided - the first WWI-era aircraft to be modeled in 1/2400 scale by GHQ.
The selection of seven Camels was almost certainly based on the fact that this number of Camels participated in the bombing attack launched from the Furious on the Zeppelin facilities in Tondern. Some interesting sidelights I read on this attack: The aircraft were initially to be 1 1/2 strutters, but these aircraft were highly valued for their capability in reconnaissance. Therefore, the less-valuable fighter aircraft were substituted (despite being less capable in terms of bomb load and range). Also, there were initially to have been eight aircraft in the raid but one of the pilots was transferred to another assignment shortly before the raid. Why would a highly-trained pilot be transferred just before a highly-secret operation?
Bad points: This version of the ship did not see combat. Before the Tondern raid, Furious had the aft gun mount removed and a flying-on deck installed aft of the superstructure. To model the ship as it was at this time, build up the after section with putty and/or card stock. Several available sources give the applicable profile and deck plan.
Personally, I like surface engagements, so I am going to modify my GWB26 by cutting the hull forward of the bridge, grafting on the bow of a GWB27 (HMS Courageous), and using the second 18" mount to create the version as initially designed. BTW, don't just drop the two turrets onto the GWB27 hull. This, like the original Courageous, has six triple 4" gun mounts. The Furious had eleven 5.5" single gun mounts. GWB26 has the correct secondary armament for Furious.

Don S.