At least they realized that the "Combat Ship" part of Littoral Combat Ship was the important part. ESSMs and Harpoons should help the situation, but they're still way too big to be corvettes.
Flattops and Flyboys: The Carrier War in the Pacific 1942-44
- Thread starter galveston bay
- Start date
Well, considering the 57mm main gun has issues, as far as I remember, it's more "send a bote"
And every time I look at the ships and they're touting their high speed and shallow draft and range issues (45 knots and 14 feet and 4300 nm at 18 knots) I think... where have I heard this before... Right! the Omahas (35 knots and 14.5 feet and 6000-8000 effective nm at 15/25/20 knots depending on the vessel).
At least the Freedom class LCS doesn't have the issue of... not fitting in some ports. *coughIndependencecough*
Maybe it's just me but whenever I hear the phrase Littoral Combat Ship I think of something along these lines.
Last edited:
Well... 414 aircraft involved in the OTL Pearl Harbor Attacks (can't remember if it's the same amount ITTL), and he stated that over half of the Japanese aircraft were lost. So, at least 200 aircraft were lost (and remind me, was the Kido Butai used at midway, or were there auxiliary carriers used there?)
This is consistent with Zuikaku's performance at Coral Sea. Of her 69 aircraft, only 34 were usable after the battle (46 managed to make it back, but 12 were deemed beyond recovery) She too took 2-3 months to recover her aircrews, the amount that OP says that it will take to recover the others. So, all in all, that sounds equitable.
The more important question is how many of those aircrews made it back.
Yes 4 carriers of Kids But also were the main striking force of OTL Midway. Destroyed with heavy crew and aircrew losses. Light carriers were assigned to other parts of the Japanese fleet during the Midway operation.
Sounds about right. So, roughly, probably about 250 aircraft lost. And, if we base the Zuikaku's rate of loss... somewhere between 65.7 to 100% of aircrews were lost. (Edit: Roughly 2.82% of Japan's total production for all of 1942. Or, if we go by the ratio of how many aircraft were made in 1941, that would be 4.91%. Basically, all of the remainder of December's production would have to make up for the aircraft loss.
And there is still the fact that all of these aircrews were basically the cream of the crop. Their loss is de facto permanent.
Sorry to divert the topic with another reply about Kuznetsov, just to say that again, what you believe Athelstane is simply the stereotypical image promoted in your side of the world (especially about the "falling apart navy", strange considering that modern new ships, even if not very large, are steadily added, older ones upgraded etc.). Kuznetsov is serving it's country well smoke or no smoke and will do so for the foreseeable future. As to the snide MSM propaganda, as the saying goes dogs bark, caravan passes. This also reminds me of another single carrier navy, France, i recall seeing some PR footage of CdG with an american CVN, but crikey the poor CdG was looking embarrassingly rusty and tatty in that footage. So yeah, not everyone affords to waste as many billions as it would take to buy another carrier in Russia or France, on some useless "littoral combat ships"!
Kuz at work:
current 1st Air Fleet ITTL
1st Air Fleet (Yamaguchi)
CV Akagi (18 Zero, 18 Val, 27 Kate), CV Hiryu (18 Zero, 18 Val, 18 Kate), CVL Ryujo (12 Zero, 12 Kate) CVL Shoho (9 Zero, 12 Val, 9 Kate), CVL Zuiho (6 Zero, 9 Claude, 15 Val) CA Chikuma, Myoko, Nachi, Haguro, Ashigara, CL Nagara, Isuzu, DD 20 Fubuki class
rebuilding airgroups in Japan and unavailable until May/June
CV Shokaku, Zuikaku
under construction and fitting out (including air groups)(ready September)
CV Hiyo, Junyo
sunk (Hawaiian battles)
CV Kaga, CV Soryu
meanwhile USN
Pacific
CV Enterprise, Yorktown (airgroups mix F4F/SBD)
CV Wasp (understrength airgroup, used as a transport for now)
CV Saratoga under repair until June
Atlantic
CV Hornet (en route to Pacific, same airgroup as CV Enterprise)
CV Ranger (full airgroup)
all TBDs
lost in Hawaiian battles
CV Lexington
they (LCS) strike me as gunboats by any other name and I wonder why we couldn't just have built an improved Perry class
To actually post something on topic here - even if i don't really agree with Kido Butai losing 200(!) aircraft even if the PH defences are fully alerted, hence i haven't commented in the other topic - i have to point out that CVL Shoho and Zuiho never operated D3A Vals (elevator limitation iirc), and never operated more than 12 (B5N Kate) attack planes, and finally never operated 12 B5N and 18 fighters (but Zuiho did operate 21 Zero and 9 B5N and B6N torpedo planes in 1944). On the other hand Ryujo did carried 12 A6M and 18 B5N in 1942.
My recommendation for Shoho/Zuiho is either 12 VF and 12 VT, or 18 VF and 9 VT or 24 VF and 6 VT.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
Without wanting to derail this thread further but what is the issue with the Littorals - aside from the cost overruns and QC issues of course?
The idea of a "small crew multi mission corvette" (crew of 43) designed for the type of war we see in the world today and makes a lot of sense to me - also dare I say it these ships can be placed into situations where the Navy might balk at placing a 2 billion Dollar Arleigh Burke DDG (I didn't want to use the term expendable) or using such an expensive vessel for escort work where the enemy might be small boats ie coast of East Africa/Horn area where the smaller vessel with a small marine Det, a Helo and some UAVs would totally serve.
The idea of a "small crew multi mission corvette" (crew of 43) designed for the type of war we see in the world today and makes a lot of sense to me - also dare I say it these ships can be placed into situations where the Navy might balk at placing a 2 billion Dollar Arleigh Burke DDG (I didn't want to use the term expendable) or using such an expensive vessel for escort work where the enemy might be small boats ie coast of East Africa/Horn area where the smaller vessel with a small marine Det, a Helo and some UAVs would totally serve.
hmm, didn't know about the elevator limits on the two CVLs
some of those losses were Midway (3 days later), and a substantial number were lost with the Kaga and Soryu
Hm, it's possible i may be wrong about the elevator limitations, although i cannot find any info regarding the span of a D3A with wings folded. Regardless, indeed they did not use the D3A on the CVLs, i recall now that someone very informed on j-aircraft.com explained that the B5N was prefered because it was more flexible (could carry bombs OR torpedoes), carried more ordnance, and had better range compared to the D3A.
TTL went with the Val's as a temporary measure as Kate losses were particularly high in the Hawaiian campaign and there is a shortage of aircraft and immediately available trained aircrew while there were some Val aircrew and crews available after juggling to fill out the fleet carriers for the operation in the south
I will see what I can find about the elevators on the 2 CVL, but if you have a source it would be useful
Last edited:
For the CVL elevators i only used wiki, finding the folded wing span of D3A is more difficult, thought i'm pretty sure i must have that detail somewhere in my files.
As for the CVL airgroups, it's your TL but imo for realism it's better to stay closer to OTL organization. Note that at PH Kido Butai were using the newest B5N2 model, while the CVLs were still using the older B5N1. Going by your TL it may well be that there is a shortage of B5N2s, but whereas only 237 B5N2 were built in 1939-1941, there were at least twice that number of B5N1s built 1937-40, so there would be plenty of older B5N1s, which were equiping the CVLs anyway. There were also a few units operating B5N, B5M and D3As from land bases, but unfortunately i don't recall exact details now. But that could be a source for aircrew replacements.
As for the CVL airgroups, it's your TL but imo for realism it's better to stay closer to OTL organization. Note that at PH Kido Butai were using the newest B5N2 model, while the CVLs were still using the older B5N1. Going by your TL it may well be that there is a shortage of B5N2s, but whereas only 237 B5N2 were built in 1939-1941, there were at least twice that number of B5N1s built 1937-40, so there would be plenty of older B5N1s, which were equiping the CVLs anyway. There were also a few units operating B5N, B5M and D3As from land bases, but unfortunately i don't recall exact details now. But that could be a source for aircrew replacements.
juggling activities today but I will take a good look at the issue (Fathers Day, plans have been made for me)