"Naval Aviation" Collection Item Category

[Centurion_1711]

Spoiler

Hello everyone. I was flicking through the various collections this morning to look at all the stuff I had, when I came a cross the new collection added this update. I must say I like the look of it, as naval aviation and aircraft carriers really interest me (in real life and history, at least). Some of these items look really good, I can't wait to complete this collection!

 

However, refer to the screenshot above. Spotted what's wrong yet?

Yep, "British Royal Air Force". Eh? Weren't we just saying that the collection was about Naval Aviation, like the title says?

This could do with being changed WG, if you wouldn't mind. The RAF and Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm are most certainly not the same thing. Also, these planes in the collection were never operated by the RAF to the best of my knowledge. And while RAF pilots may have served in the FAA during the war, this did not make them the same organisation. In fact, there is a rivalry between the FAA and RAF, so it is probably best to not confuse them like this.

 

Please correct this so the collection reflects the history you are trying to show. Thanks!

[hgbn_dk]

ehhh RAF actually was the operator of the aircraft on UK CV's.  FAA was a part of RAF

[hgbn_dk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Air_Arm

[Juanx]

26 minutes ago, Centurion_1711 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Hello everyone. I was flicking through the various collections this morning to look at all the stuff I had, when I came a cross the new collection added this update. I must say I like the look of it, as naval aviation and aircraft carriers really interest me (in real life and history, at least). Some of these items look really good, I can't wait to complete this collection!

 

However, refer to the screenshot above. Spotted what's wrong yet?

Yep, "British Royal Air Force". Eh? Weren't we just saying that the collection was about Naval Aviation, like the title says?

This could do with being changed WG, if you wouldn't mind. The RAF and Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm are most certainly not the same thing. Also, these planes in the collection were never operated by the RAF to the best of my knowledge. And while RAF pilots may have served in the FAA during the war, this did not make them the same organisation. In fact, there is a rivalry between the FAA and RAF, so it is probably best to not confuse them like this.

 

Please correct this so the collection reflects the history you are trying to show. Thanks!

 

So you are a geek that lacks basic knowledge... millenials at its finest...

[Centurion_1711]

Quoting from that Wikipedia article:

"On 24 May 1939 the Fleet Air Arm was returned to Admiralty control^[7] under the "Inskip Award" (named after the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence overseeing the British re-armament programme) and renamed the Air Branch of the Royal Navy. At the onset of the Second World War, the Fleet Air Arm consisted of 20 squadrons with only 232 aircraft. By the end of the war the strength of the Fleet Air Arm was 59 aircraft carriers, 3,700 aircraft, 72,000 officers and men and 56 Naval air stations."

 

You are right, The FAA was under RAF control prior to WWII. This led to it being a bit under-funded and some, let's say questionable decisions were made. However, it was returned back to RN command on the eve of WWII, where it has remained ever since. A little out of our scope here, but this led to the friction between FAA and RAf over carriers and hence the creation of "through deck cruisers". But this is cold war stuff, not the time period we are concerned with. 

I guess if the collection refers to the 1930's, then yes it theoretically could be called the RAF. But the Wyvern in the collection is a post war design, when teh FAA was firmly RN.

 

Either way, my point still stands. Call it the British Fleet Air Arm rather than RAF. It matters not who was in control, it was called the FAA anyway.

10 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

So you are a geek that lacks basic knowledge... millenials at its finest...

So you are a condescending "adult" lacking basic manners. At least try offering some information to correct me. Believe it or not, I am actually willing to learn, and if I had got anything wrong, I'd be happy to have a proper discussion about it, I find it really interesting.

 

How's that for a millenial, eh?

[Juanx]

1 minute ago, Centurion_1711 said:

So you are a condescending "adult" lacking basic manners. At least try offering some information to correct me. Believe it or not, I am actually willing to learn, and if I had got anything wrong, I'd be happy to have a proper discussion about it, I find it really interesting.

 

And you have google to assist you and avoid looking like a dunce, but hey, why would you want to learn really. If you find it "really interesting", why did you not even read the basics?

 

1 minute ago, Centurion_1711 said:

How's that for a millenial, eh?

 

Normal MO...deflection, bickering, never admission.

[WynnZeroOne]

Not that simple.

 

Only in 1939 was the RN given control of its own Naval aviation, and the RAF handover to the Fleet Air Arm was only 232 aircraft, in total all of them obsolete or, at best, obsolescent, hence images of gallant FAA air crew in their 'Stringbag' SwordfishTB's in WWII.

British Carrier aircraft were out of date for much of WWII, mostly due to RAF control right up until the start of WWII, so only by 1945, back under RN control were good British designs for Carrier aircraft starting to come through.

The game covers a wider time period that 39-45 and so RAF seems sensible.

 

That or WG has to start being much more detailed with it's in game information and frankly, with so many paper ships, we are way past that.

[fallenkezef]

RAF and FAA aside, JU87C is a naval aircraft? Since when?

 

 

Graf Zep was never built and the C didn't make it past prototypes. 

 

 

 

[T0byJug]

8 minutes ago, fallenkezef said:

RAF and FAA aside, JU87C is a naval aircraft? Since when?

 

 

 was never built and the C didn't make it past prototypes. 

 

 

 

 

Ow she was built and launched.. Just never completed

[Estaca_de_Bares]

5 minutes ago, fallenkezef said:

RAF and FAA aside, JU87C is a naval aircraft? Since when?

 

 

Graf Zep was never built and the C didn't make it past prototypes.

True, it can be argued it never progressed beyond two prototypes, but it was the intended dive bomber for the Graf Zeppelin (which was launched but not completed). It's the same issue with the Bf 109T and the Fi 167 up to a certain point (these were actually put into production, although in small batches). About not being/supposed to be a naval aircraft, it comes down to you understanding of what a naval aircraft is: it would have been operated from a vessel to supply a role in favour of naval-related activities and that, at least for me, qualifies.

 

It links in some way to the initial complaint from @Centurion_1711, which was an actual fierce debate during that period about whom the planes were assigned to: some nations (Germany, Italy, the UK initially as shown) considered that if it takes off to the sky then it belongs to the air force, while others (US, Japan) took the approach that different branches would have varying needs and thus have a say on which aircrafts they wanted, operated and integrated in their doctrine. When the former option is preferred anything considered "superfluous" or "foreign"  to the official doctrine is neglected if not dismissed altogether (FAA in Britain, strategic and torpedo bombers for the Luftwaffe -Ernst Udet advocated so hard in favour of dive bombing that even the He 177, the closest thing to a strategic bomber they fully developed, had to be equipped with dive brakes!-). OTOH, extreme zealotry in the latter can provoke lots of duplicities (the Japanese Navy and Army asking for similarly specced airframes but not accepting designs proposed for the other).

 

Salute.

 

P.S.: I'd also like if it was changed to British Fleet Air Arm, but it's not such a worrisome matter.

[fallenkezef]

4 hours ago, Estaca_de_Bares said:

True, it can be argued it never progressed beyond two prototypes, but it was the intended dive bomber for the Graf Zeppelin (which was launched but not completed). It's the same issue with the Bf 109T and the Fi 167 up to a certain point (these were actually put into production, although in small batches). About not being/supposed to be a naval aircraft, it comes down to you understanding of what a naval aircraft is: it would have been operated from a vessel to supply a role in favour of naval-related activities and that, at least for me, qualifies.

 

It links in some way to the initial complaint from @Centurion_1711, which was an actual fierce debate during that period about whom the planes were assigned to: some nations (Germany, Italy, the UK initially as shown) considered that if it takes off to the sky then it belongs to the air force, while others (US, Japan) took the approach that different branches would have varying needs and thus have a say on which aircrafts they wanted, operated and integrated in their doctrine. When the former option is preferred anything considered "superfluous" or "foreign"  to the official doctrine is neglected if not dismissed altogether (FAA in Britain, strategic and torpedo bombers for the Luftwaffe -Ernst Udet advocated so hard in favour of dive bombing that even the He 177, the closest thing to a strategic bomber they fully developed, had to be equipped with dive brakes!-). OTOH, extreme zealotry in the latter can provoke lots of duplicities (the Japanese Navy and Army asking for similarly specced airframes but not accepting designs proposed for the other).

 

Salute.

 

P.S.: I'd also like if it was changed to British Fleet Air Arm, but it's not such a worrisome matter.

 

The JU87 was ok for bombing undefended targets, not sure how it'd of done against serious naval aaa. I honestly think, had the GZ progressed, Blohm und Voss would of ended up getting a contract to build proper naval aviation.