Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I made the first choice, I feel that a light carrier is more to escort the raiding fleet then a striking force.
Scrap the 109, go with the 190. Better to have a radial over water anyway. Might even get around to folding the wings.
More fighter bombers, the better. It's a raiding carrier, not a fleet carrier. Shoot and scoot, no hanging around to slug it out. For that, to my mind, Fighter Bombers are the way to go.
IMHO.
Er, weren't these planes replaced ASAP when the British got enough Avengers? I think it was because they were underpowered and had bad stall characteristics off the top of my head....but oh well, your choice.6 Barracuda TB/DB's
Fighters would be the FM-2 series, or FM-1 depending on the time frame. Worse comes to worse, I'll even take F4F-3 models. Take the Dauntless as my bomber and recon platform, thereby doubling a strike force if necessary. Also, on more that one occassion the Dauntless proved adequate as an intern CAP plane, so that is a good point too. Finally, Avengers for ASW and torpedo work, which means I have 6 DBs, 6 TB, and 12 fighters. 12 fighters with some light bombs and plenty of ammo for the guns should be able to deal with lighter targets, and the dive bombers will handle the rest.
MacArther said:Er, weren't the Barracuda's replaced ASAP when the British got enough Avengers? I think it was because they were underpowered and had bad stall characteristics off the top of my head....but oh well, your choice.
I'll get back to you on my choices for other nations, because I need to think them over a bit more.
Alright freebird, you have my attention!I've been entertaining this idea for a while now, but I do need a few more parameters though. Perhaps you could clarify a few things for me:
As I know nothing about CVL elevator platforms, I'd like to know if those things were large enough to raise/lower aircraft with wings that were not folded/or capable of folding. Are such vessels able to accomodate for beneath-deck stowage of fixed wing aircraft (let alone 24 of them). Also, when you give us the choice of aircraft, I'm assuming you mean we can take any aircraft we want (1943 or before), provided they be modified for carrier landing (arrestor hooks), or must we pick only carrier capable aircraft up to 1943?
One last question: As for the CVL, are we to pick one which already existed, or must we "create" one from existing vessels of other types?
Ok, I think thats all for now!
Oh Good we have someone to pick aircraft for a French CVL!
I'm assuming that you would want a naval version of the VG-33?
Joffre was actually being built then cancelled after the 1940 Armistice,
As for attack/torpedo, I was thinking more along the lines of a Breguet 691 variant which could have modified for such purposes. I really don't like the idea of twin-engine aircraft on an aircraft carrier, but things like the Breguet 690 series, or the Potez 630 series seem to have been small enough they could work. Probably I'll take the 697, a more powerful and upgraded version of the Br. 691 aircraft. However, I'm not at all certain of it's dive capabilities, so I'm inclined for second choice for either a Stuka variant or the Dauntless.
I'll get back on the recon plane, haven't decided yet.
Joffre certainly would have been a welcome addition for the French navy. However it would probably have been kept closer to France, in Med or North Atlantic. I'm assuming that they also built a smaller CVL to help control the Indian Ocean S. Atlantic
An interesting plane, it isn't in my aircraft book.
It seems to have been fairly light, was it ever considered for use as a FB or NF? {like the Po 630 or Me 110}
Apart from the small French posessions in the South Pacific or the Mediterranean, I see no reason why the French fleet (or any French) fleet to stray too far from France's colonial territories. Had the Joffre been completed, paired with the Richelieu or the Jean Bart, and maybe accompanied by the Strasbourg and Montaclam, and say various destroyers from le Malin class and/or Chacal class, France was so very close to having at least ONE very effective battlegroup! It was not to be.
Yes, after thinking about it a little, the Br. 690 series was too light and too small for torpedoes. It could pack a punch, but I don't see it carrying a torpedo, either internally or externally. Perhaps fitted rockets it could have been an effective anti-shipping aircraft. So, I'm switching their roles on my ship to recon/FB.
So there it is, my fantasy CVL:
Joffre-class carrier
12 Arsenal VG-33 Fighters
6 Grumman TBF-1 Avenger TB
6 Br. 691-7 Recon/FB/Attack
Don't forget that France had colonies in Madegascar, Indo-China that required shipping traffic via the Indian Ocean or Pacific, and if the Med became too difficult for cargo ships {due to Axis air attacks from Sicily} then the alternate route to Syria is via South Africa.
Looks like the 12 fighter option has taken a big lead over the 12 recon/fb option. If the carrier is being used as a commerce raider, I would rather have more recon/fb. If the carrier is escorting a pocket Battleship, I would go with the 12 fighters. I was reading about a Bf 109T designed for carrier operations last night. It would be interesting to take them on a cruise.
DBII
If I knew then what I would have known at the end of the war, all AC on board would be one type. The F4U could fulfill all the missions(except torpedo attack and it could have been adapted for that) admirably. The Navy found out it was almost as accurate as a dive bomber as the SBD. It had plenty of range for recon or strike fighter and it could of course carry out the CAP role. Having only one type on board simplifies spare parts, maintenance, etc. Sort of like today when the majority of AC on an American carrier are one type(FA18 Hornets and Super Hornets)
Actually, no. Because the Wildcats were smaller and had a shorter take-off and landing length, they were continually used to the end of the war by escort and light carriers. Also, with the advent of the FM-2 model, the Wildcat becomes formidable in its own right, with the ability to carry two 250 lb bombs or rockets. As for the Helldiver, it may have been faster, and had a higher bomb carrying capacity, but from what I've read it was not really well liked. Part of the reason may have been that the Helldiver was a larger aircraft than the Dauntless, and thus was slower to respond to commands, but even with this in mind it was still sluggish on the controls (according to my sources). Also, I think I remember hearing that the Dauntless could still take more punishment than a Helldiver and bring the pilot home.I assume that in 1943 you would replace the Widcats with Hellcats and the Dauntless with Helldivers?