Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Spearhawk1969

Historical errors with aircraft carrier

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
103 posts
1,298 battles

I don't know where to begin whats wrong with the air craft carriers, but my worst pet peeve is the 1 squadron at a time.

Has the developers not researched their air craft carriers? Is this not suppose to be as true to historical as possible?

Aircraft carrier did not send their airplanes in 1 squadron at a time, they send them in wave after wave and the way things

are currently when one wave is done, and returning to the ship the next wave gets to start taking 5 minutes or more to

get to the action. Please get with the game, historically what made aircraft carriers so deadly was not their tankiness or

their AA guns, it was and always is the ability to launch MANY aircrafts at same time. having waves of aircrafts in the air

and it is in the aircrafts that the major strength lied and should live with the AC, not with how much punishment they can take

it was never meant that AC should be off-tank or be able to take 45 torpedo hits and keep trucking, it is in the aircraft that

the key lies. So Please PLEASE get to put the strength back into the aircrafts and bring back the old UI and old way of doing

things and if you have to change something, then please change the aircrafts, not the ability to send one sqwuadron at a time

because it is mincemeat to any decent AA ship out there.

 

I personally do not like the way things done now, it is far to much first person or third person shooter feel to the AC

and I always felt that if you wanted that then go into heavy gunships or torpedo boats, while AC lies in strength to

be tactical, to use tactics of having 2 or 3 torpedo squadrons narrow down the escape or whatever of any ship, as it is 

now is it a mincemeat grinder for anyone trying to get close to a ship with 1 squadron.

 

also...one thing I notice is the cost of repairs, on a gunship sunk or survived a battle the cost of maintenance is far less

on my Bayern than on my Ranger, that is (I believe) cause the amount of aircraft being shot down attempting to get into range

for torpedo or dive bomber attempts. 

 

Either way, what is mainly wrong is the 1 squadron at a time thing, it was never so, and why they made it so is beyond the

scope of reality or historical value in any manner. Yes, 1 squadron at a time could get launched BUT then after 1st squadron 

is launched they could be added by 2nd, third, up to 6 squadons I believe...so why this 1 squadron at a time gameplay?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
34 minutes ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

 Is this not suppose to be as true to historical as possible?

No. Otherwise your ships would get sunk in port...

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
35 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

No. Otherwise your ships would get sunk in port...

or get to be rebuilt like after PH and kick Jap's butt, but yeah why not forget all about the pacific campaign, right?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
19 minutes ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

or get to be rebuilt like after PH and kick Jap's butt, but yeah why not forget all about the pacific campaign, right?

Right,  lets forget all the IJN and KM ships that got sunk in port and did not get rebuilt.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[G-S-W]
[G-S-W]
Players
1,213 posts
4,944 battles

I wonder why people mistake this game for a simulation all the time.....

When or where did WG state that it would be historicaly correct in every aspect?

Did i miss something or got it wrong?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
5 hours ago, DaMaGGo said:

I wonder why people mistake this game for a simulation all the time.....

When or where did WG state that it would be historicaly correct in every aspect?

Did i miss something or got it wrong?

In their legal mumbo jumbo at bottom of screen 
"References to specific designs, models, manufacturers, and/or modifications of ships and aircraft are used only for the purpose of historical consistency"

"Characteristics of all models are realistically reproduced on the basis of technical elements of warships and aircraft from the first half of the 20th century"

 

 

Opera Snapshot_2019-09-15_143924_worldofwarships.eu.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
15 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Right,  lets forget all the IJN and KM ships that got sunk in port and did not get rebuilt.

Exactly how many aircraft carriers was sunk?

USS Arizona and USS Oklahoma, battleships

The USS Nevada, battleship

USS California, battleship

USS Cassin and USS Downes, destroyers

USS Oglala, minelayer

 

No, can't find in ANY record that japanese navy sank ANY aircraft ships...

Shall we see how many C was lost from the japanese navy at battle of midway?

Casualties aboard the four carriers were: Akagi: 267; Kaga: 811; Hiryū: 392; Soryū: 711 (including Captain Yanagimoto, who chose to remain on board); a total of 2,181.

 

At the end of the battle, the U.S. lost the carrier Yorktown and a destroyer, Hammann. 307 Americans had been killed, including Major General Clarence L. Tinker, Commander, 7th Air Force, who personally led a bomber strike from Hawaii against the retreating Japanese forces on 7 June. He was killed when his aircraft crashed near Midway Island.

 

 

Or total in the pacific campaign and WW2 total of all AC?

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

 

fun reading...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SBF-]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,315 posts
6 minutes ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

 

Shall we see how many AC was lost from the japanese navy at battle of midway?

Or total in the pacific campaign?

Let’s see:

 

USS Hornet, USS Lexington, USS Langley, USS Wasp, USS Yorktown, USS Princeton, USS St. Lo, USS Liscome Bay, USS Gambier Bay, USS Ommaney Bay, USS Bismarck Sea.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
20 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

But you forget to READ WHAT WAS SAID....

7 rows upwards from that, let me remind you, it said "Exactly how many aircraft carriers was sunk?"

and that was in regards to the attack on Pearl Harbor, as you would have perhaps understood if you read

the posts before that. There was NO aircraft carriers sunk at PH. NONE.

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
27 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Here, let me help you....

Your comment was to the WHOLE of pacific campaing, but my comment that NO AC was sunk, was to the comment that 

there was sunk ships at Pearl Harbor. So yet....I posted the link of all AC that was sunk in total, some LONG after the WW2 was over

so while your right, there was a lot of AC sunk, the point discussed was how many was sunk during the PH attack and attack on 

Midway. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
7 minutes ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

...

and that was in regards to the attack on Pearl Harbor, as you would have perhaps understood if you read

the posts before that. There was NO aircraft carriers sunk at PH. NONE.

 

You did not say that.

And I never claimed that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

You did not say that.

And I never claimed that.

seriously, you got something wrong with your scroll wheel on your mouse, or can't read the posts leading up to this???

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles

 

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You did not say that.

And I never claimed that.

18 hours ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

 Is this not suppose to be as true to historical as possible?

No. Otherwise your ships would get sunk in port...

 

led to this...

 

17 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

No. Otherwise your ships would get sunk in port...

or get to be rebuilt like after PH and kick Jap's butt, but yeah why not forget all about the pacific campaign, right?

 

STILL discussing PH

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Then show me where you were talking about CV getting sunk in port or quote me where I said that...

Posted 17 hours ago

  18 hours ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

 Is this not suppose to be as true to historical as possible?

No. Otherwise your ships would get sunk in port...

 

I assume you mean the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there was NO AC in PH at that time.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
2 minutes ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

STILL discussing PH

I did not specify PH. PH was not the only port during WW2.

Many IJN and KM ships (as I posted!!!!) were sunk in port, which were OBVIOUSLY not in PH!

16 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Right,  lets forget all the IJN and KM ships that got sunk in port and did not get rebuilt.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles

But none of these comments at all reflect the lack of historical accuracy regarding AC, there was none that used the tactic of having 1 squadron at a time

let alone such ships as the Ranger, they had multiple squadrons and they used them in groups, so of Wargaming claims to build as realistic as possible then

why this? why one squadron at a time? Its like taking a battleship and letting it shoot only one gun and wait for the hits before letting next gun fire.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I did not specify PH. PH was not the only port during WW2.

Many IJN and KM ships (as I posted!!!!) were sunk in port, which were OBVIOUSLY not in PH!

 

Yes, and to the ORIGINAL post...what does your comment do to the historical aspects of the AC?
Did IJN send only one squadron at a time to PH? Or did they send them in waves , groups?

which is it? One squadron at a time, or several?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
1 minute ago, Spearhawk1969 said:

Yes, and to the ORIGINAL post...what does your comment do to the historical aspects of the AC?

That the game is not historical, obviously...:fish_palm:

Normal people see this with a glance and do not need to discuss it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That the game is not historical, obviously...:fish_palm:

Normal people see this with a glance and do not need to discuss it.

Normal people also read the claims of the game developer, right?

 

Please tell me what it says there about historical accuracy?

 

References to specific designs, models, manufacturers, and/or modifications of ships and aircraft are used only for the purpose of historical consistency

Characteristics of all models are realistically reproduced on the basis of technical elements of warships and aircraft from the first half of the 20th century

 

that plainly tells me that all characteristics, that also means by how and when an AC acts, and by all means tell me.... did an AC only send bombers squadrons

without escort to attack carriers etc that was known to have AA? No, HELL NO, they send several squadrons with dive bombers and torpedo bombers together with

air cover, not one squadron at a time.

 

Opera Snapshot_2019-09-15_143924_worldofwarships.eu.png

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
Just now, Spearhawk1969 said:

Normal people also read the claims of the game developer, right?

 

Please tell me what it says there about historical accuracy?

 

 

Opera Snapshot_2019-09-15_143924_worldofwarships.eu.png

No, normal people do not read the small lettering at the bottom of a game webpage. Sounds more like a desperate person would do that, who wants to justify his strange view.

 

And it reads that the models are supposed to be accurate, which they are not, and not the gameplay.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
Just now, ColonelPete said:

No, normal people do not read the small lettering at the bottom of a game webpage. Sounds more like a desperate person would do that, who wants to justify his strange view.

 

And it reads that the models are supposed to be accurate, which they are not, and not the gameplay.

strange views? since when has the truth become a "strange view"?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
103 posts
1,298 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

No, normal people do not read the small lettering at the bottom of a game webpage. Sounds more like a desperate person would do that, who wants to justify his strange view.

 

And it reads that the models are supposed to be accurate, which they are not, and not the gameplay.

this sounds like a Trump american, that when he does not like the truth calls it "fake news"

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
26,156 posts
14,106 battles
Just now, Spearhawk1969 said:

strange views? since when has the truth become a "strange view"?

The game is not realistic and that is the truth.

Just now, Spearhawk1969 said:

this sounds like a Trump american, that when he does not like the truth calls it "fake news"

It reads models, not gameplay.

You are the one seeing stuff that is not there.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×