Bgile wrote:OK, I give up. No amount of logic is going to get through here. You guys obviously think two "BCV"s are going to be functionally equivalent to 1 CV and 1 BB and nothing is going to dissuade you.
neil hilton wrote:Bgile wrote:OK, I give up. No amount of logic is going to get through here. You guys obviously think two "BCV"s are going to be functionally equivalent to 1 CV and 1 BB and nothing is going to dissuade you.
My opinions here are impartial. Your arguments are very valid. I'm just playing devils advocate, and just seeing what the consesus is. Which so far is not good for BCVs.
alecsandros wrote:Steve, don't get mad please :)
What I'm trying to say is that this is an interesting concept, that might be of good use on a tactical level, although having setbacks at a strategic level.
Certainly the people on Courageos or Gambier Bay would have liked some fully armored decks and heavy guns, don't you think?
alecsandros wrote:@ Steve
My point is that CVs are much better only if the enemy can be discovered and tracked at a considerable distance.
IN more enclosed bodies of water, and in regions with unpredicatable changes in the weather, such a tracking would be very difficult to perform.
The proximity to the enemy air bases is another factor of concern for a normal carrier: enemy planes can come in big numbers, that can overwhelm the ship; also, the damage inflicted on the ship is considerable.
For instance, in the Mediteranean, a BCV may have been a great asset to have, IMO. Better than a normal carrier and better than a battleship in convoy escort from Gibraltar to Malta...
I see a good scenario there :) Very plausible, especialy considering the fact that a single carrier is VERY unlikely to sink a battleship on it's own. LEt alone TWO heavily armored ships (Both the RN and the USN came to this conclusion late war. If you need reference for this - I can provide them)
The question is - why would the BCVs carry only fighters on board? I mean, it certainly serves them well in this engagement, but I don't know if it's a realistic air wing to consider...
neil hilton wrote:I have been thinking about the tactics a BCV may use.
Scenario: Side 1 = 2 BCVs vs side 2 = 1BB and 1CV.
The CV has an airgroup of around 90 (30 fighters, 30 dive bombers and 30 torpedo bombers).
Each BCV has around one third this (30 fighters for example) totalling 60 fighters all alocated to CAP.
BVR the CV sends its airgroup (maybe as 1 strike or more) 60 strike aircraft escorted by 15 fighters (the rest slated as CAP).
This runs into the 60 fighter CAP. The fighters tangle 1 on 1 and each side shoot down half the other and damage some of the rest. This leaves 60 dive/torpedo bombers vs 45 fighters. I envisage a 60 to 75% loss rate for the bombers and around 5 to 10% loss rate for the fighters. The remaining bombers RTB damaged. With such a huge CAP its entirely possible that none of the strike force even get close to the BCVs, but if they do it will be very few and maybe score a hit on each BCV causing little real damage due to their BB like construction.
Bgile wrote:I realize now that I've been playing at a disadvantage here. If you are going to build two 45,000 ton BCVs, I'm going to build two 45,000 ton carriers. I will have 200 or more aircraft.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest