Carrier- vs Land-based Aircraft

[Snaggleooo]

I'm a extremely close watcher of the Dev Diaries and a reasonably close watcher of the WWW stream, but I am a little unsure about the differences between land-based and carrier-based aircraft.

Theoretically, if I was a country with a focus on carriers, why shouldn't I make all of my (light) aircraft the carrier variant? That way, any aircraft I lose on my carriers could be very easily replaced from across my nation. Or will there be a nerf to their stats compared to land-based planes or perhaps a greater production cost? I don't actually know if there is a historical precedent for carrier planes being weaker than their land counterparts or that they were more difficult or expensive to produce.

 

[steve213]

carrier aircraft are slightly more expensive than "normal" ones because modifications made for carrier life are unnecessary for land based aircraft. although an interesting phenomenon is that all countries that buy F/A-18's are buying aircraft capable of carrier landing and takeoff.

 

[BattleMoose]

You pay a premium for carrier capabilities. Especially landing gear has to be, substantially stronger. Carrier aircraft tend to be "slammed" into the deck so as to catch the wires in the correct place, land based aircraft have much gentler landings. There was also a huge emphasis on reducing the wingspan, folding wings, et cetera.

The classic interceptors of WWII were manifestly unsuited for carrier warfare due to their range. To be an effective carrier fighter, they have to have enough range to escort the bombers to the enemy fleet, without that capability, well, you might as well leave your carriers at home.

So, you pay a premium for characteristics that are needed for naval aviation that don't help in land combat, size, landing gear and range. (Yeah range helps, but not for an interceptor, me109, spitfire, et cetera)

 

[Midden]

BattleMoose, I think your summary is correct for the real world.... but I think the OP is about what the in - game differences are?

In this respect the OP's suggestion that just producing a carrier version, will possibly be the smart move, to keep your production lines simpler?

 

[CrasherZZ]

In this respect the OP's suggestion that just producing a carrier version, will possibly be the smart move, to keep your production lines simpler?

The Japanese were actually forced to do that in 1944 and 1945. They had started production of a lot of carrier aircraft in anticipation of new aircraft carriers being available. The new aircraft carriers ended up being sunk quickly or never finished or never started due to lack of raw materials and production capacity. So they continued production of those aircraft but they never saw the deck of an aircraft carrier.

 

[BattleMoose]

The OP specifically asked about historical precedent.

Also, in HOI3, carrier air groups were inferior to land based counterparts, not doing so would be a very stupid failure in game design.

The Japanese were actually forced to do that in 1944 and 1945. They had started production of a lot of carrier aircraft in anticipation of new aircraft carriers being available. The new aircraft carriers ended up being sunk quickly or never finished or never started due to lack of raw materials and production capacity. So they continued production of those aircraft but they never saw the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Everyone used carrier capable aircraft from land bases, it is a functionality of the asset that is just useful. But note, Japan did have specific land based interceptors that they built throughout the entirety of the war. "Tony" and "Frank" land interceptors cover the time period you specify.

 

[Midden]

Hmmm any Japanese land based interceptor as good as a F4U-4? This seems to be a naval design that is not inferior to a land based counterpart (even allies best land-based fighters), I suppose this is the exception to prove the rule?

Oh there is another one! In it's day the Zero was also a cut above it's land based counterparts.

 

[Axe99]

We haven't heard anything, and I haven't watched the WWW stream close enough to see if Johan was building any carrier aircraft (I'm pretty sure Da9l wasn't ), but I suspect the easiest way to handle it would be to make them more expensive, and perhaps a little less capable at the base variant level, but where using XP to variant it up would help (but, because they weren't as restricted by weight or size, land-based planes could 'peak' at a higher level than carrier based planes maybe?). How it's handled in-game we'll find out in due course, but I'd be surprised if it was a no-brainer just to build all carrier-capable planes, as the devs have explicitly tried to steer away from things like that.

Random thought - for carrier aircraft, should it be air or naval XP for the varianting?

 

[CrasherZZ]

IJN and USN carrier aircraft were definitely not inferior to land based planes, historically. If they were designed as variants of land-based planes then they should be more expensive simply because of the necessary modifications. Many carrier aircraft were, however, not variants of land based planes. It's an interesting idea to use carrier aircraft for both land and carrier operations instead of having too many variants and production lines. I may try that myself in HOI4.

I would be perfectly content to have Zeros, Hellcats or Corsairs as my only fighter and not have to devote production lines to other kinds of fighters, unless it's not possible to upgrade them to the highest tech level.

 

[KalZakath]

One thing that is definitely different is that you can design things into a land-based aircraft that you can't into a ship-based one. If you put the P-51 on the deck of a carrier, would the laminar flow wings take the pounding of carrier landings for one? But you take out some of the limitations that being a carrier based plane add, and suddenly you have probably the greatest long-range fighter of the war.

 

[BattleMoose]

Hmmm any Japanese land based interceptor as good as a F4U-4? This seems to be a naval design that is not inferior to a land based counterpart (even allies best land-based fighters), I suppose this is the exception to prove the rule?

The F4U-4 was an exceptional aircraft. But when it was first released, it was unsuitable for carrier decks, there were "issues" with its landing gear. It served the majority of the war as a land based fighter and was only modified for carrier use in late 44.

Oh there is another one! In it's day the Zero was also a cut above it's land based counterparts.

The zero was another remarkable aircraft for its time, but its priority for maneuverability came at the sacrifice of armor, it had none and no self sealing fuel tanks. It was very quickly outmatched by new tactics and newer models, particularly the p47.

 

[steve213]

The F4U-4 was an exceptional aircraft. But when it was first released, it was unsuitable for carrier decks, there were "issues" with its landing gear. It served the majority of the war as a land based fighter and was only modified for carrier use in late 44.



The zero was another remarkable aircraft for its time, but its priority for maneuverability came at the sacrifice of armor, it had none and no self sealing fuel tanks. It was very quickly outmatched by new tactics and newer models, particularly the p47.

it also wasn't very fast

 

[BattleMoose]

IJN and USN carrier aircraft were definitely not inferior to land based planes, historically.

Yes, they were. The p47 was certainly superior to the wildcat and hellcat. And corsair too, but as I explained, that shouldn't really be counted as carrier capable for a WWII discussion.

The Frank and Tony were vastly superior to any carrier capable aircraft that the IJN used.

And any modification for a land based variant to perform on a carrier deck, by definition, makes it inferior and more expensive. A stronger landing gear makes it more expensive (bad) and heavier (bad). Larger fuel tanks, also bad for combat performance. And space saving modifications, folding wings et cetera, introduce strength weaknesses into the design.

 

[steve213]

Yes, they were. The p47 was certainly superior to the wildcat and hellcat. And corsair too, but as I explained, that shouldn't really be counted as carrier capable for a WWII discussion.

The Frank and Tony were vastly superior to any carrier capable aircraft that the IJN used.

And any modification for a land based variant to perform on a carrier deck, by definition, makes it inferior and more expensive. A stronger landing gear makes it more expensive (bad) and heavier (bad). Larger fuel tanks, also bad for combat performance. And space saving modifications, folding wings et cetera, introduce strength weaknesses into the design.

it's very hard to compare anything to the p 47 as it was the largest single engine plane of the war.
but as a whole you're wrong the f4f was just as good as the p40. the main thing is that a lot of the plains where very different because the navy had different needs.

 

[uther4117]

This is a really interesting point... They should take both longer time to produce and cost more materials..

Also I wonder how the attrition on carrier aviation will work?? Do you really need thousand in stock? Also since the nature of naval operations you always want the best aircraft available so it also makes it more interesting..

 

[BattleMoose]

it's very hard to compare anything to the p 47 as it was the largest single engine plane of the war.

I think you might just be getting to the nub of it point. Now I wonder why they couldn't make a carrier version of the p47....

but as a whole you're wrong the f4f was just as good as the p40

They are comparable aircraft. The P40 takes the advantage though, having a top speed of 580km/h compared to 515km/h for the wildcat. For a detailed discussion, see.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/f4f-wildcat-versus-p-40e-tomahawk.13281/page-5
And note that thread was comparing the tomahawk variant with the wildcat, and not the P40E.

 

[Denkt]

More expensive and need extra research but not better in any way but the ability to use carriers as air bases.

That is a good description of carrier based aircrafts compared to land based aircrafts.

 

[Snaggleooo]

The OP specifically asked about historical precedent.

Also, in HOI3, carrier air groups were inferior to land based counterparts, not doing so would be a very stupid failure in game design.



Everyone used carrier capable aircraft from land bases, it is a functionality of the asset that is just useful. But note, Japan did have specific land based interceptors that they built throughout the entirety of the war. "Tony" and "Frank" land interceptors cover the time period you specify.

Actually, I was most curious about the in-game mechanics, but if people didn't know, I was also interested in finding out what history says the game mechanic should be.

At the moment, we know that a carrier plane takes an extra couple of months to research (presumably to work out undercarriage and landing gear issues), but we don't know if it has different stats or takes more production time than the land-based variant. Should there be a production or stat difference between the two? From what I can gather from this thread, it seems like carrier aircraft should at least cost slightly more (due to a sturdier undercarriage).

 

[LordOfWar16]

They first of all need additional research of course and need to be built seperately, i.e. you have to start a new inefficient production line. Other than that they are basicly fighters/CAS/Naval Bombers which are capable to land and start from carriers. They are an variant of the regular fighters, so they wont differ that much. Range could probably one of the main differences. You cant put an bomber on an carrier of course, so those are limited by land airbases.

I dont see why you shouldnt be able to simply mass-produce carrier version of those planes. Sure, they are most likely more expensive and also need more time to ramp up production, but in the end i dont see why you shouldnt as Japan for example if you are at war with the USA in the pacific for example. Its not like they are limited to carriers (or atleast i hope that that is not the case).

You should keep in mind tho, that if you start producing an bf109 at 100% efficiency for example and an year later you research and start producing carrier versions of it, your efficiency will drop to 0% again, unless you have the mass production tech, which starts you at 50%.

 

[BattleMoose]

What differentiates a carrier fighter from a land based fighter:
1. Stronger undercarriage
2. Longer operating range
3. Small, space saving designs

1. A stronger undercarriage, means a heavier undercarriage. A heavier undercarriage, means, poorer maneuverability, poorer acceleration and a poorer rate of climb. This makes an aircraft's combat performance, worse.

2. A carrier variant aircraft needs a long range so as to be able to attack the enemy fleet and escort the bombers. This means, a larger and heavier fuel tank. Which means a heavier aircraft, which means, poorer maneuverability, poorer acceleration and poorer rate of climb. All the interceptors that we love and know, have short ranges, because that makes them better interceptors! The 109, hurricane, spitfire and fockwolfe have ranges of, 850, 965, 790 and 800 km.

Now for carrier aircraft, zero, wildcat, and hellcat have ranges of, 3100, 1300 and 1500 km respectively. You cannot that extra range without the compromise on combat performance, because, physics.

3. Size is a huge issue for carrier aircraft, for obvious reasons. And any space saving design, folding wings et cetera, introduces structural weakness into the design, weakness that land based aircraft do not have.

These are characteristics that carrier aircraft must have and by definition, reduce their combat performance.