Jump to content

WWII Carrier War GB


Recommended Posts

The name is just a name, it doesnt define the scope of the GB, thats what the rules are for. This GB is for planes that took off from or landed on a carrier during WWII. The reason that no earlier time period is used is twofold. One, this is a tier 1 GB focussed on WWII exclusively. Two, while planes took off and landed on carriers before WWII, and a few planes even took off an landed on ships in WWI (though not really carriers by todays standards, see not below) actual Carrier Warfare did not exist until WWII. WWII was the first time that naval battles, especially in the Pacific, shifted from large capital ships being the dominant and most important part of a naval armada to carriers being the dominant and most important ships. So, this GB is for planes that took off or landed on a carrier during WWII. If Birth of Carrier War doesnt cut it for you, what would? Personally, it doesnt matter to be because the GB name doesnt have any weight with the rule and even if it did, WWII was the birth of carrier war. before that, naval warfare was completely different.

As a quick note on WWI carriers, none were carriers as we define them today. The HMS Argus was the first ship to be converted to have a full length flat deck completed in 1918. The first ship laid down as a purpose built carrier was the HMS Hermes, launched in 1919. The first purpose built carrier to be commissioned was the Japanese Hōshō which was commissioned in 1921. Any ships prior to these would not be considered carriers as we know them.

But Jay, the birth of carrier war didn't occur at the start of the carrier battles. The birth was with the development of the ships, aircraft, and the tactics that would be used in carrier war. These all happened prior to the start of WWII. Carrier warfare didn't spring forth fully developed at Taranto, the tactics, the capability, the mind set were all formed prior to WWII.

The earliest ships with aircraft platforms not being considered carriers by modern standards doesn't help your argument. These early attempts should be considered birthing pangs (or maybe false labor pains) and as such they were important in the development of carrier aviation. They were part of the birthing process.

The GB title may not have importance for you, but it is important. It's the first thing people see about the GB. It should accurately describe what the GB is about. "Birth of Carrier War GB" is misleading. It suggests the GB is about the early developmental years. "WWII Carrier War GB" would more accurately describe the intent of the GB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have learned the GB format doesn't fit my own building schedule, I do follow the prop related GBs. I am going to echo or second Matt Bittner and Johnsan here. Even though this is a so called 'tier 1' GB, I think this particular topic needs to go beyond, or to be more accurate, before WWII in its inclusions. The WWI community by itelf is too small to reach the critical mass to have its own GB; including the WWI 'platform' carriers and their frail aircraft seems like a good idea to me, and who knows, someone might actually enter one.

Edited by Chuck1945
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the GB name bothers you that much, then we can change it to WWII Carrier War GB, though personally I dont think that has as nice a ring to it as Birth of Carrier War GB. While it is true that all the pieces needed for carrier warfare were developed before WWII, it isnt carrier war until there is actual war. Before then it is just preparation and planning. Also, the Inter-War GB just ended. That GB covered all the pre-WWII carrier planes with the exclusion of the few WWI planes that were launched from semi-converted ships. Generally the ARC mods try to avoid overlap in GB themes with other GBs running at the same time or in close proximity. The Inter-War GB is in close proximity to this one, so anything prior to WWII was not included in this GB. Now, all that being said, how many of you really want to build a pre-WWII carrier based plane and would not participate in the GB unless it included pre-WWII planes? If there is interest in this, I can re-submit the GB to the ARC mods with the new criteria to see if they will forgo the no-overlap guideline. If there isnt a whole lot of interest, then it seems that this discussion is more academic. And if we keep the GB the way it was intended, we have to then change the GB name, yes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that 'Birth of Carrier War' is not a good or catchy name. It is. It just doesn't accurately describe this one. I think we both are focusing on different words. For you, the important work is war. For me it is birth. As birth is the first word of the phrase, I feel it carries more weight than war.

If you want a catchier name, how about 'The Flattop War GB'. WWII is the only war with carrier against carrier battles.

Actually I think a GB on carrier aviation from earliest days to the present would be interesting. No Spitfires, B-25s, C-130s, U-2s, or use as ferries. Only operational planes designed to be flown from and landed on carrier decks. Lots of subject matter, lots of differing paint schemes, lots of different nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Johnsan said ;)

Since I will probably not participate in this one anyway, I was hesitant to add my previous comments. However, since you mention overlap, there have been and will be many more GBs that naturally include P-47s, B-25s (Reich Raiders which is winding up for example) and Spitfires, allowing them to also sneak into this one but excluding genuine prop driven, carrier based aircraft seems somewhat a travesty. Change the name to make it WWII specific, that is what tier I is about is it not, and make it a requirement that the aircraft not only took off, but also landed on a carrier. Almost anyone who flies can manage the takeoff, it the landing part that makes a naval aviator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we're going to call it "Birth of Carrier War" then we could also call it "Death of Carrier War", 'cause there was none afterwards ....

Myself, I tend to think of the "birth" of carrier war really being the 1930's. All before then was experiment and learning, it isn't until the 30's that folks started to put things together and not only develop but demonstrate the concept, whether shots were fired or not.

Edited by jRatz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments. Just for clarification, I am not focusing on the word war, I am taking all the words in conjunction. The GB is for the Birth of Carrier War, not the Birth of Carrier Flight, or Birth of Carrier Tactics or even the Birth of Carriers. It is also not just focusing on the war part becasue that would just be Carrier War and that has occurred since WWII and continues to this day. On the overlap issue, Im pretty sure that a Doolittle raider and a Malta Spitfire would not qualify for the Reich Raiders GB. I commented on the overlap because we just had a GB that covered many of the subjects that have been talked about here prior to WWII and because overlap has been an issue in the past with getting GBs approved. However, even though I think that the GB name fits the GB rules just fine, because several of you seem to have real issue with the name of the GB, it will be changed. The intent of this GB was to let people build planes that took off or landed on a carrier during WWII. That intent will not change, and the rules, despite the name of the GB change, will also not change. Now, if there continue to be issues, please let me know so we can hash them out. Better now than when the GB starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you all for your comments. Just for clarification, I am not focusing on the word war, I am taking all the words in conjunction. The GB is for the Birth of Carrier War, not the Birth of Carrier Flight, or Birth of Carrier Tactics or even the Birth of Carriers. It is also not just focusing on the war part becasue that would just be Carrier War and that has occurred since WWII and continues to this day. On the overlap issue, Im pretty sure that a Doolittle raider and a Malta Spitfire would not qualify for the Reich Raiders GB. I commented on the overlap because we just had a GB that covered many of the subjects that have been talked about here prior to WWII and because overlap has been an issue in the past with getting GBs approved. However, even though I think that the GB name fits the GB rules just fine, because several of you seem to have real issue with the name of the GB, it will be changed. The intent of this GB was to let people build planes that took off or landed on a carrier during WWII. That intent will not change, and the rules, despite the name of the GB change, will also not change. Now, if there continue to be issues, please let me know so we can hash them out. Better now than when the GB starts.

Jay (boss!) - I admire your composure :thumbsup:

Others - anyone know what the aircraft was that Capt Brown mentions, that had no undercarriage and was meant to land on a rubbery carrier deck? I will probably do hackneyed old Mimsi III (if I can bestir the effort), but the exotica interests my brain...

Patrick

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay (boss!) - I admire your composure :lol:

Others - anyone know what the aircraft was that Capt Brown mentions, that had no undercarriage and was meant to land on a rubbery carrier deck? I will probably do hackneyed old Mimsi III (if I can bestir the effort), but the exotica interests my brain...

Patrick

Capt Brown landed a modified Sea Vampire on HMS Warrior's rubber deck in 1949. While it was technically feasible, there were severe operational limitations that resulted in its abandonment. The Supermarine Type 508 was orignally designed without landing gear but had landing gear by the time it became the Scimitar.

:tumble:

Edited by Cadfael
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is (was?) the name thing for me as well. From the very begining of the concept of carriers, the primary role has been to project airpower where land based aircraft would not or could not operate.

The USAF developed a bare base concept where a complete airbase could be deployed in airmobile form, however, it still required a runway(s) and a water source. Naval forces with aircraft carriers however took their runway with them. I recall still a TAC mobility conference at Langley AFB I attended in 1973 where some BG was raving about TAC's ability to deploy a F-4 wing to SEA and fly a combat mission before the USN could get a carrier on station - this was shortly after one of the bombing resumptions during the on again, off again Paris peace talks.

Anyway, 'birth' to me included the earliest use of this power projection, which predates WWII and goes back to the earliest efforts during WWI. If 'birth' is not part of the name, problem solved :pray:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...