PDA

View Full Version : New Carrier



DVX_immortal
05-09-2007, 02:17 AM
hi.
this is italian carrier AQUILA the best of mediterrain.
NOTE: italian designe is class superior to illustrious you compare to Akagi or Enterprise class you note the difference.
http://digilander.libero.it/shinano/Italia/Aquila/Foto/aquila.jpg


the plants: http://digilander.libero.it/shinano/Italia/Aquila/Aquilascostr..jpg


3D prospect: http://digilander.libero.it/shinano/Italia/Aquila/Aquilaassonometria.JPG


airplane to Aquila is STUKA(Jumo 211J) and REGGIANE 2001.
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/ju87c/ju87c-1.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/ju87c/ju87c-4.jpg
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/ju87c/ju87c-2.jpg

Reggiane iviated to 1C and oleg maddox:http://img107.exs.cx/img107/9186/1347.jpg

URlNSTlNKT
05-09-2007, 03:06 AM
bellissimo!

Pollack2006
05-09-2007, 03:17 AM
More than a hint of P-47 in that design.

DVX_immortal
05-09-2007, 03:28 AM
yes the wings of p-47 is fac-simile of reggiane 2001 a suppose if anglo-american or english steal the italian and german project and aply in your project.
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/6681/1348.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/369/1350.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/5738/1352.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/8289/1353.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/7999/1349.jpg
http://img107.exs.cx/img107/7880/1355.jpg
http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20_103-0318.jpg

SUPERAEREO
05-09-2007, 04:45 AM
More likely the wing of the Reggianes came from Longhi reworking of the wings of the Seversky P-35...

P-35 (http://aerostories.free.fr/severskyP35/page10.html)

mynameisroland
05-09-2007, 05:53 AM
Yes give us an Italian carrier!

More cannon fodder for the Royal Navy to blow up in the Mediterranean - Taranto and Matapan anyone?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

joeap
05-09-2007, 07:14 AM
The best carrier that never saw action! The plane that got stolen when exactly? Oh and the OP sounds familiar n'est-ce pas? Deja vu, Ben?

269GA-Veltro
05-09-2007, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Yes give us an Italian carrier!

More cannon fodder for the Royal Navy to blow up in the Mediterranean - Taranto and Matapan anyone?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yes, and Alessandria too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

tigertalon
05-09-2007, 08:17 AM
Italy itself (like GB) due to geo-strategic position was an unsinkable giant aircraft carrier that had a potential of covering nearly entire mediteranean from it's land bases. However, IMHO this potential was not used to it's best.

mynameisroland
05-09-2007, 08:24 AM
On the original poster's claim I cant see how the converted passenger liner Aquila can be deemed superior to an armoured carrier of the Illustrious class.

The Aquila was a hodge podge design and included such advanced features such as concrete poured in to her bulge to try and give some protection to her machinery.

269GA-Veltro
05-09-2007, 08:38 AM
Without radar, carries whould have been only an easy target....as said above, look at Matapam.

A fantasy scenary with a Mediterranean battle between italian and british fleets with carries for both sides would be fun, but not historicall.

Personally i'd prefer SM-79, off course flyable.

joeap
05-09-2007, 09:49 AM
Well, given the poor record of cooperation between the Italian Navy and Air Force, I think the British possesion of carriers gave them a huge advantage. It was only partially nullified with reinforcment of the Luftwaffe.

Foxman2
05-09-2007, 10:05 PM
I think it as fully nulified by the Luft, British Carriers were minced meat when the Germans Stukas were around, at the time the british carrier fighter didn't really have the gun power to bring one down quickly

joeap
05-10-2007, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Foxman2:
I think it as fully nulified by the Luft, British Carriers were minced meat when the Germans Stukas were around, at the time the british carrier fighter didn't really have the gun power to bring one down quickly

Yea but the carriers were mobile ... and in 42 at least most of the LW was busy elsewhere. that's why the Brits started getting US planes (Martlets, then Corsairs and Hellcats) and even using the Seafire, less than ideal for carriers but with enough guns etc. Problem, is only the Germans after a point were a problem with the small number of u-boats and varying air assets. The RM just did not pose a challange later on...which is why this useless converted carrier is a bit of a joke. Come on, Akagi was far superior, let alone Illustrious or Enterprise.

Nimits
05-10-2007, 05:38 PM
this is italian carrier AQUILA the best of mediterrain.
NOTE: italian designe is class superior to illustrious you compare to Akagi or Enterprise class you note the difference.

The only thing the Aquila shared in common with the Illustrious was an armored flight deck and decent AA armament. Otherwise, she was slower, had minimal waterline protection, and above all was not orginally designed as a warship meaning (given the IJN experiances with the Hiyo/Junyo) it is quite probably she would not have withstood battledamage very well.

And certainly the superior speed, aircraft complements, and overall internal design of the Akagi and especially Enterprise would give either of those classes an advantage in a showdown.

For a conversion, the Aquila would not have been too bad, but certainly she was not in the same class as the British and American purpose-built carriers.

Foxman2
05-10-2007, 10:17 PM
And plus, the Italians really didn't have the approiate planes to make carrier planes that would have posed much of a threat

Imagine G-50's landing on the carrier after escorting the torpedo bombers

I believe that the only plane the italians really could have used as a carrier fighter would have been the g-50 with it's compact design, but what torpedo bomber or German License Dive Bomber would they have used

WOLFMondo
05-11-2007, 01:30 AM
Not really sure you can compare a purpose built fleet carrier with a converted liner. Proof is in the pudding though, just look at the records and battle honours of any of the Illustrious class ships.

DVX_immortal
05-11-2007, 02:20 AM
Fiat g-50? hahahahahahahaha.
No man no loock my photo this carrier embark
Reggiane 2001 and JU-87C-1 pay attenction.

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by DVX_immortal:
Fiat g-50? hahahahahahahaha.
No man no loock my photo this carrier embark
Reggiane 2001 and JU-87C-1 pay attenction.

No You pay attention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

How can a converted Liner with a torpedo defence system consisting of poured concrete be superior to an armoured carrier purpose built to be a warship? The Illustrious class pound for pound were the toughest carriers afloat yet they were still faster and carried as big a air complement and had a twice the range of the Aquila lol. The Aquila's secondaries werent that good iirc as they had mixed secondaries, it would have been better if they had some dual purpose guns although I guess the Italians were right if they were worried about bumping in to Royal Navy Surface units.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/cv_hms_victorious_1945.jpg

Nimits
05-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by DVX_immortal:
Fiat g-50? hahahahahahahaha.
No man no loock my photo this carrier embark
Reggiane 2001 and JU-87C-1 pay attenction.

Re-2001 was a decent fighter and would have been competative aginst Seafires, Seahurricanes, and Martletts. The Ju-87, though? The Stuka had been withdrawn from combat against the RAF in 1940; I hardly think it would have faired any better against modern Royal Navy fighters in 1943. The Aquila would have been a decent carrier had it beenc completed, but certainly no Illustrious-killing super-carrier.

csThor
05-11-2007, 12:15 PM
There's a lot of mythical disdain for the Stuka and there's an equally big load of nonsense written about it. Ask a defender of Tobruk what he thought of that aircraft, or a sailor aboard the Illustrious. Read up what Stukas did to the RN at Crete in 1941 and again in 1943 during the Dodecanese episode.

You're certainly right that the Allied fighters of 1943 were a deadly danger for a Stuka, but it's not like every square meter of space was controlled by an Allied fighter all the time. And about that 1940 BoB episode - losses were there, losses were not incosiderable but british history has always had the tendency to blow up what happened in the BoB to epic proportions - be it the scope of the battle itself, british successes or german losses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 01:08 PM
Lets face it - no WW2 dive bomber fared very well when caught by single seat fighters, not the Dauntless, not the Val, not the Skua , teh Albacore, the Avenger, even the mighty IL2 was a target drone when caught by fighters.

The Stuka was an exceptionally accurate and capable weapons platform. One or two things counting against it in the Carrier role however are its relatively short range and liquid cooled engine. Still as an improvised carrier bomber it would do the trick.

SUPERAEREO
05-11-2007, 03:16 PM
Have to agree with CS Thor and Mynameisroland: the Ju.87 was a rather formidable anti-ship weapon when it could be protected from enemy fighters.

Said that the C version was never built in series (and certainly it would not have been resurrected on behalf of the Italian Navy.

stanford-ukded
05-11-2007, 04:05 PM
The Stuka won the war, eh Thor?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On to ships, if any of you guys want a text-booked sized debate on the merits of British and German warships head to http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=13791 ... Roland and JtD are beating the hell out of each other at 25000 yards! (Although JtD has weak deck armour).

HayateAce
05-11-2007, 04:24 PM
http://www.allenscreations.com/images/ssls7t.jpg

Flying the P-38, Leverette broke into the scoring column in a most spectacular manner when he managed to splash seven Ju-87s on a single mission on October 9, 1943. Leverette�s flight of six aircraft rushed to the defense of a British Cruiser and several destroyers that were under attack by a large group of enemy Ju-87s and Ju-88s. In an exciting 15-minute air battle, the P-38s managed to down sixteen Stukas and one Ju-88. Leverette received credit for seven. Later during his combat tour he would down two Bf-109s and two Me-110s. Leverette remained with the Air Force after the War, rising to the rank of Colonel prior to his retirement to Florida in 1965. Col. Leverette passed away in April 2003 at the age of 89.

Nimits
05-12-2007, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
There's a lot of mythical disdain for the Stuka and there's an equally big load of nonsense written about it. Ask a defender of Tobruk what he thought of that aircraft, or a sailor aboard the Illustrious. Read up what Stukas did to the RN at Crete in 1941 and again in 1943 during the Dodecanese episode.



Crete or the the historical Illustrious scenario are both instances of the Stukas being able to bomb with little fighter interferance (against the Illustrious, SM-79s drew of the airborn CAP, allowing 40 Stukas to bomb with little resistance; the Aquila was not going to be throwing 40 Stukas at anybody, and the RN in 1943 would be using Martletts and Seafires, much more effective than the Fulmers used in the historical fight). Against decent figher opposition (which would be expected in a 1943 Illustrious vs Aquila battle), the Aquila's small force of Stukas would have been very vulnerable and most probably been unable to significantly damage the Illustrious with the latter armored flight deck. On the other hand, though, just 1 or 2 torpedo hits would have rendered the Aquila combat ineffective, if they did not turn her into a submersible carrier outright.

csThor
05-12-2007, 02:18 AM
@ Nimits

I did not say a word on the Aquila as I'm not really familiar with its design specifications. All I said was not to dismiss the effectiveness of the Stuka at all - in spite of the very real vulnerability to enemy fighters. But then every non-fighter aircraft was vulnerable to enemy fighters by 1943.

KG66_Gog
05-12-2007, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
http://www.allenscreations.com/images/ssls7t.jpg

Flying the P-38, Leverette broke into the scoring column in a most spectacular manner when he managed to splash seven Ju-87s on a single mission on October 9, 1943. Leverette�s flight of six aircraft rushed to the defense of a British Cruiser and several destroyers that were under attack by a large group of enemy Ju-87s and Ju-88s. In an exciting 15-minute air battle, the P-38s managed to down sixteen Stukas and one Ju-88. Leverette received credit for seven. Later during his combat tour he would down two Bf-109s and two Me-110s. Leverette remained with the Air Force after the War, rising to the rank of Colonel prior to his retirement to Florida in 1965. Col. Leverette passed away in April 2003 at the age of 89.

http://users.tpg.com.au/narsil/stukakill.JPG
Flying the Ju87, Gunther Guntherson broke into a formation of 367 P-38 Lightnings, shooting down 295 of them in 15 minutes. He accredited his feat to 'closing his eyes and pulling the trigger when he heard any noise'.

berg417448
05-12-2007, 08:26 PM
...and he was later executed by firing squad when it turned out that the planes he shot down were actually Fw-189s.

alert_1
05-15-2007, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:


Flying the P-38, Leverette broke into the scoring column in a most spectacular manner when he managed to splash seven Ju-87s on a single mission on October 9, 1943. Leverette�s flight of six aircraft rushed to the defense of a British Cruiser and several destroyers that were under attack by a large group of enemy Ju-87s and Ju-88s. In an exciting 15-minute air battle, the P-38s managed to down sixteen Stukas and one Ju-88. Leverette received credit for seven. Later during his combat tour he would down two Bf-109s and two Me-110s. Leverette remained with the Air Force after the War, rising to the rank of Colonel prior to his retirement to Florida in 1965. Col. Leverette passed away in April 2003 at the age
Originally posted by HayateAce:


Flying the P-38, Leverette broke into the scoring column in a most spectacular manner when he managed to splash seven Ju-87s on a single mission on October 9, 1943. Leverette�s flight of six aircraft rushed to the defense of a British Cruiser and several destroyers that were under attack by a large group of enemy Ju-87s and Ju-88s. In an exciting 15-minute air battle, the P-38s managed to down sixteen Stukas and one Ju-88. Leverette received credit for seven. Later during his combat tour he would down two Bf-109s and two Me-110s. Leverette remained with the Air Force after the War, rising to the rank of Colonel prior to his retirement to Florida in 1965. Col. Leverette passed away in April 2003 at the age

I wonder what would had happen if 16 Daunlesses met a Fw190A6...

tragentsmith
05-15-2007, 05:51 AM
Yeah, Marseille was better with 14 enemy fighter in a day.

You can also say : 1 Bf 110 with R3M1 attacking 40 C43... Of course the result would have been the same, even better.

A french fighter called Le Gloan also got 4 italian fighters and 1 italian bomber with his Dewoitine in June 1940 in one sortie. At least he was not inflated and told while congratulated : "But I didn´t do so much, it was easy"....

1 F15 destroyed 200 P11 aircraft while passing them away at mach 2 and destroyed them with the turbulences of the reactors....

Tater-SW-
05-15-2007, 08:00 AM
Hopefully a navalized Stuka would never take the slightest engine damage. There is a reason that radial engines were prefered by nations that knew what they were doing WRT naval airpower.

As for Aquila, didn't she only embark something like 36 aircraft?

That makes her a CVL in my book.

GerritJ9
05-15-2007, 01:41 PM
Tater........ The FAA flew a significant number of planes with liquid-cooled engines: Fairey Fulmar, Barracuda and Firefly; Hawker Sea Hurricane; Supermarine Seafire, and did quite well with them. Surely you are not suggesting the RN did not know what it was doing WRT to naval air power????? If you ARE suggesting that the RN didn't have a clue, may I mention a few firsts chalked up by the RN:
first to commission an aircraft carrier (HMS Argus in 1918)
first to plan an attack with torpedo planes on an enemy fleet in port (not carried out due to the Armistice on Nov. 11th 1918)
first to carry out a large-scale attack from carriers on an enemy fleet in port (Taranto 1940)
invented the steam catapult
invented the angle-deck carrier
I could go on, but this list should suffice.

mynameisroland
05-16-2007, 08:08 AM
I dont think anyone except for Mussolini is disparaging the Royal Navy gerrit.

The point stands that radial engines were superior in reliability for carrier operations especially in the pacific theatre imo. British carrier aircraft were mainly powered by Merlins as a short temr measure ie Hurrcanes and Spitfires were land based fighters converted.

The Griffon however was designed as a naval engine

Tater-SW-
05-16-2007, 04:55 PM
The RN was smart enough to dump them in favor of proper naval aircraft F6Fs, F4Us, Sea Fury, etc.

Water cooled engines are fragile, and in general poor choices for naval aviation.

The FAA used a bunch of liquid cooled engined aircraft, but I'd have to do more research to which were used on CVs vs land based FAA units.

HellToupee
05-17-2007, 01:36 AM
planes are fragile, zero was fragile, it had a radial http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the RN never dumped its seafires etc, seafires were still used even in korea. They used f6fs f4us etc simply because they needed every plane they could get raf had the priority on hurris and spits. Seafires weakness's for example were not its engine but its landing gear arrangement and tail hook placement.

So it seems they never did sea the light on radials.

Philipscdrw
05-17-2007, 08:25 AM
Remember the Sea Hornet, with two water-cooled engines, entered service after the war. The Shackleton maritime patrol aircraft had four Griffons also.

mynameisroland
05-17-2007, 08:53 AM
A Pacific orientated navy has a different set of priorities and requirments.

hkg36sd
05-19-2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
...and he was later executed by firing squad when it turned out that the planes he shot down were actually Fw-189s.

Heeh, heeh!!

Like 'em both. The drawing (which is actually quite good..) and the 'punchline' lol!!

HellToupee
05-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
A Pacific orientated navy has a different set of priorities and requirments.

hornet was designed for the far east, seafires were used in the pacific to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
05-20-2007, 06:27 AM
Oh yeah, it was only after Suez that the Royal Navy abdicated power in the Far Eastern oceans...

Anyway, how does the ocean you're sailing on affect the engines of your fleet's aircraft? How can inline engines be more appropriate for the Atlantic and less for the Pacific?

I was under the impression the USN used radials simply because the US had some quite good raaaidial engines available and it didn't matter that it made the fuselages massive because the aircraft needed to be filled with fuel anyway. And if radials are less complex than inline engines then that's less parts to carry around in the carriers. You can say that radial engines take more damage without breaking but did the US designers know that before the war, when these aircraft were being specified? The damage resistance might just be a fortunate coincidence.

mynameisroland
05-20-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Oh yeah, it was only after Suez that the Royal Navy abdicated power in the Far Eastern oceans...

Anyway, how does the ocean you're sailing on affect the engines of your fleet's aircraft? How can inline engines be more appropriate for the Atlantic and less for the Pacific?

I was under the impression the USN used radials simply because the US had some quite good raaaidial engines available and it didn't matter that it made the fuselages massive because the aircraft needed to be filled with fuel anyway. And if radials are less complex than inline engines then that's less parts to carry around in the carriers. You can say that radial engines take more damage without breaking but did the US designers know that before the war, when these aircraft were being specified? The damage resistance might just be a fortunate coincidence.

Ambient temperature of the area of operations, reliability and survivability of an air cooled engine over an liquid cooled engine when the shooting starts.

mynameisroland
05-20-2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
A Pacific orientated navy has a different set of priorities and requirments.

hornet was designed for the far east, seafires were used in the pacific to http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wer eboth the Hornet and Seafire designed from scratch as carrier born fighters to fight in the Pacific?

I guess I could say that the Hawker Fury was designed as a PTO fighter too.

Tater-SW-
05-21-2007, 09:24 AM
2 liquid-cooled engines is fine. The whole reason for the 2d engine in that case is redundancy.

Air-cooled is not just a pacific thing, it has to do with survivability of the pilots/aircrews. If anything it is more an issue in the cold Atlantic since the survival time in the water would be very short indeed compared to the tropics---so it's more important to get the pilot to some waiting ship/sub.

Oddly radials don't seem terribly robust in this game.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 10:26 AM
In fighters like the P38 and Hornets case 2 engines were for performance, reliability was an added bonus.

I would have thought that an aircrew bailing out in any ocean had a rather short life expectancy regardless of the particular ocean especially if their little inflatable raft has a hole in it.

Philipscdrw
05-21-2007, 12:31 PM
I always feel sorry for the Wildcat pilots; when their fuselage is damaged the cover comes off their inflatable raft so it's probably been punctured...

Tater-SW-
05-26-2007, 09:03 PM
Sorry, I meant in a carrier fighter. Performance is great, but only if it gets you home.

Just my opinion (and BuAer's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )