![]() ![]() I wouldn't say it's too out of bounds to give the GZ an optimistic air complement given a decent argument could be made to include deck park numbers and a more optimal use of GZs own hanger. They should, however, name it something else: Perhaps KM Brunstig EvaĪnd they should give us Graf Zeppelin at an appropriate tier in a configuration approaching her historical characteristics. ![]() I don't care if Wargaming put this 75 German aircraft carrier into game. HMS Unicorn could carry 80 aircraft, but could only operate 35 based on facilities for pilots and deck crews (the rest was for her primary role -maintenance) But she could only operate about 47 due to the available facilities (her primary role was to ferry and maintain aircraft). ![]() So their 'messy' hangar arrangements are correct - and delivered the extreme delays in preparing those aircraft that killed them at Midway.Īnd even if Graf Zeppelin could cram those aircraft ito place, where would they put the air crew, maintenance crew and deck crew? Pitch tents on the deck? Japan simply screwed things up by not placing high priority on folding aircraft. You can also see the maintenance personnel working in those 'lanes', with some wings loosened, wheels detached, trays and trolleys arrayed) (You can actually see in the photos you linked the standard three-line aircraft conveyor system. Not the North Atlantic - beyond a few one-shot missions. What the RN used were 'outriggers' (pylons so they could hang an aircraft over the side of the ship) and deck parks - but only in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Pacific. and you'll get an air group of over 200.Īnd I'm afraid your argument that the British crammed everything they could into hangars is simply not demonstrable. If you take photoshop, remove the wings from some aircraft, and apply the same principle the the USS Essex class. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |