Will W23s be authorized? Probably not, but I'd like to see it happen. Preferably without the presence of anyone who was at Crossroads, but Prinz Eugen is in Lou's CruDiv, so there's a fat chance.
Ironically, W23s would be far better used in an anti-sub role. Just.....not as depth charges, as you'd probably snap your own keel from the enormous pressure wave going off so close to you.

A preset timed detonator inside a torpedo on the other hand.....
 
Just stick rocket engines to the back of them and rig up a launcher like the Russians do for systems like the RBU6000 anti sub/torpedo rocket propelled depth bombs.
 
honestly, and not trying to devalue Shinano, but I think they'd need more than 1 carrier this. On the plus side outside air combat the 262's aren't much of a threat, those things were absolute shit as bombers.
 
Having Akagi or Kaga along would really help and I am rather surprised Japan isn't committing a bit more to this operation. But I can think of a lot of reasons for it.

Ironically, W23s would be far better used in an anti-sub role. Just.....not as depth charges, as you'd probably snap your own keel from the enormous pressure wave going off so close to you.

A preset timed detonator inside a torpedo on the other hand.....
Nuclear antisubmarine torpedoes are actually a thing, and many Cold War torpedoes were designed to take nuclear warheads.
 
Having Akagi or Kaga along would really help and I am rather surprised Japan isn't committing a bit more to this operation. But I can think of a lot of reasons for it.

Nuclear antisubmarine torpedoes are actually a thing, and many Cold War torpedoes were designed to take nuclear warheads.
Well aware of that fact. Was more thinking about seeing if some of the shipgirls could use them in 'blindfire' salvos, using torpedo casings they already have, but with the warhead swapped out. So no sonar guidance, not even wire-guidance, but straight ahead dumbfire shots.
 
what about the truly flat top and miss drinks a lot
They are CVLs—light aircraft carriers. American CVLs would be the Independence class—built from the hulls of Cleveland-class light cruisers—or the Saipan class—built from the hulls of Baltimore-class heavy cruisers. But the Saipans were a postwar design, so they can't show up. The Independences, however, can. If only with CVEs showing up also to take the load off of convoys, thus freeing up more tonnage for important operations.
 
They are CVLs—light aircraft carriers. American CVLs would be the Independence class—built from the hulls of Cleveland-class light cruisers—or the Saipan class—built from the hulls of Baltimore-class heavy cruisers. But the Saipans were a postwar design, so they can't show up. The Independences, however, can. If only with CVEs showing up also to take the load off of convoys, thus freeing up more tonnage for important operations.

It's been stated that no more carriers, except for maybe a CVE or two, will be showing up.
 
They are CVLs—light aircraft carriers. American CVLs would be the Independence class—built from the hulls of Cleveland-class light cruisers—or the Saipan class—built from the hulls of Baltimore-class heavy cruisers. But the Saipans were a postwar design, so they can't show up. The Independences, however, can. If only with CVEs showing up also to take the load off of convoys, thus freeing up more tonnage for important operations.
aircraft in the air is still aircraft in the air...I never said fleet carriers in my original post.
 
It's been stated that no more carriers, except for maybe a CVE or two, will be showing up.
And this is a problem I have with this story—the lack of balance between carriers and battleships. Yes, I have heard both the Watsonian and Doylist reasons. Yes, I love the surface combat. No, I still don't like the reasoning. This imbalance can lead to Abyssal carrier spam, in which no matter what, the shipgirls WILL lose when they either sink or run out of ammo. Not even subs are safe—the Abyssals would likely bring destroyers an light carriers for ASW, and they would drown the subs in ash cans. Unless, there are enough carriers to balance out the battleships.

...Yeah, I've been thinking way too hard.
 
Well aware of that fact. Was more thinking about seeing if some of the shipgirls could use them in 'blindfire' salvos, using torpedo casings they already have, but with the warhead swapped out. So no sonar guidance, not even wire-guidance, but straight ahead dumbfire shots.
Shipgirls show no signs of being able to "swap out" their munitions for steel-hulled ship munitions or modified versions of same.

We've reason to think that one shipgirl can share ammunition with another (since carriergirls can share planes). But that doesn't mean they can take shells or torpedo warheads from just anywhere.

Please don't start fixating on how to combine modern weapons and shipgirls to somehow make the shipgirls more effective. Please. That never ends well.

And this is a problem I have with this story—the lack of balance between carriers and battleships. Yes, I have heard both the Watsonian and Doylist reasons. Yes, I love the surface combat. No, I still don't like the reasoning. This imbalance can lead to Abyssal carrier spam...
Except it doesn't, because for some reason, the Abyssals don't actually have carriers to spam, any more than the Forces of Good (TM) do.

Deal with it.
 
You theoretically could take postwar 21" torpedoes. Hell, they fit them to Fletchers after the war, but the thing is after WW2 us torpedo doctrine changed.

Torpedoes became an ASW only weapon. Ranges and warhead size shrank to the point of them being next to useless against surface targets.

Now modern torps are another story. We moved to a 12.75" torp around the time of Vietnam. That hardware is not compatible at all.
 
They are CVLs—light aircraft carriers. American CVLs would be the Independence class—built from the hulls of Cleveland-class light cruisers—or the Saipan class—built from the hulls of Baltimore-class heavy cruisers. But the Saipans were a postwar design, so they can't show up. The Independences, however, can. If only with CVEs showing up also to take the load off of convoys, thus freeing up more tonnage for important operations.

Both Saipans were launched in 1945, actually, though they were commissioned in 1946.

Saipan-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

And yes, wikipedia, but other references not close enough to check show the same general years, at least.
 
honestly, and not trying to devalue Shinano, but I think they'd need more than 1 carrier this. On the plus side outside air combat the 262's aren't much of a threat, those things were absolute shit as bombers.

There's 2 big deck carriers on this- Shinano and Bonnie Dick- plus a bunch of ship AA, including the long range punch of the Burkes.

If something gets through that, another deck is the least of their concerns.
 
Everyone wanting nukes, ayy lmao. Come on, people. Shipgirl magic bullshit is a thing, but it's not so much of a thng that a girl with a 1945 fitout can reach a decade plus into the future and pull nuke shells out of her ass.

There's 2 big deck carriers on this- Shinano and Bonnie Dick- plus a bunch of ship AA, including the long range punch of the Burkes.

Bonhomme Richard's a Wasp-class amphib. While she can carry about 20-odd Harriers (actually @theJMPer shouldn't she have F-35s by now?), that's in pure Sea Control Ship configuration. In present amphibious assault config she'd be carrying much less, maybe around 4-6 Harriers at best, in order to have more space dedicated to MV-22s and CH-53Es to deploy Marines to the beach and Cobras to cover those Marines. And that's a problem, because while the Harrier is a great aircraft and all, levelling effect is going to work against it. It's basically got a similar kinematic profile to the old A-4 Skyhawk, except the A-4 is faster, has better range, and a ridiculously higher roll rate. This is why the F-35B was such a big deal for the USMC and everyone who wanted to upgrade from Harriers.
 
Bonhomme Richard's a Wasp-class amphib. While she can carry about 20-odd Harriers (actually @theJMPer shouldn't she have F-35s by now?), that's in pure Sea Control Ship configuration. In present amphibious assault config she'd be carrying much less, maybe around 4-6 Harriers at best, in order to have more space dedicated to MV-22s and CH-53Es to deploy Marines to the beach and Cobras to cover those Marines. And that's a problem, because while the Harrier is a great aircraft and all, levelling effect is going to work against it. It's basically got a similar kinematic profile to the old A-4 Skyhawk, except the A-4 is faster, has better range, and a ridiculously higher roll rate. This is why the F-35B was such a big deal for the USMC and everyone who wanted to upgrade from Harriers.


Except neither the -262 nor -234 was ever that manueverable. Fast yes, but turned like a pig. And AMRAAMs and Sidewinder-Xs don't care what platform is shooting them.

Edit: 40+ Shidens and 5-6 Harriers plus a dozen Vipers / Zulu Cobras, operating in conjunction with Burkes, Fletchers, and Jersey against 150 or so land based planes?

I like their odds
 
Last edited:
Except neither the 262 nor 234 was ever that manueverable. Fast yes, but turned like a pig. And AMRAAMs and Sidewinder-Xs don't care what platform is shooting them.
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but I'm being conservative in my expectations because of the leveling effect. Which compares aircraft as they are today vs abyssal equivalents as they were then. F-22s would curbstomp abyssal air. F-35s likewise, because these aircraft are the tops today. The Harrier has never been tops even when it first came out - it was already badly outclassed kinematically by the Teen Fighters and the Fulcrums and Flankers back in the Cold War, and that's just gotten worse in the decades after.

On the other hand, you're right that the Harriers weapons are contemporary and modern... but it's also a question of how much of those weapons are being carried, and it's up to the ACE commander whether he wants his Harriers outfitted for air to air or as strike packages, because when you're trying to hit a target like Woody there's no such thing as too much AG ordnance.

Ah the Scooter. Probably the most damn useful and nimble little jet fighter bomber we ever came up with. And it didn't require a supercarrier to operate from, an Essex platform was just fine thank you very much.

Up in the Boeing Museum of Flight they have one of the A-4s the Blue Angels used to fly. It still has all four 20mm cannons too. :whistle:
As I recall the A-4 had two 20mm Colt Mk 12 cannons. Israeli Skyhawks IIRC were upgunned with 30mm DEFA guns.

The A-4 did everything the US Navy asked of it, except one: It could not completely replace the A-1 Skyraider.

Ed Heinemann OP, pls nerf.
 
There's 2 big deck carriers on this- Shinano and Bonnie Dick- plus a bunch of ship AA, including the long range punch of the Burkes.

If something gets through that, another deck is the least of their concerns.
Bonhomme Richard is the steel-hulled amphibious assault ship, there to provide a Marine contingent for seizing the island. Not one of the carriers of that name. Not going to be contributing much to the air defenses.

Except neither the 262 nor 234 was ever that manueverable. Fast yes, but turned like a pig. And AMRAAMs and Sidewinder-Xs don't care what platform is shooting them.
Levelling. Effect.

[sighs]

An Abyssal jet fighter from 1945 is competitive with the best modern fighter aircraft. It just is. Deal with it.

A Harrier, even armed with high-end air to air missiles, is not.

Do not expect the very small number of Harriers Bonhomme Richard could realistically be carrying to play much of a role in this action.
 
Bonhomme Richard is the steel-hulled amphibious assault ship, there to provide a Marine contingent for seizing the island. Not one of the carriers of that name. Not going to be contributing much to the air defenses.

Levelling. Effect.

[sighs]

An Abyssal jet fighter from 1945 is competitive with the best modern fighter aircraft. It just is. Deal with it.

A Harrier, even armed with high-end air to air missiles, is not.

Do not expect the very small number of Harriers Bonhomme Richard could realistically be carrying to play much of a role in this action.
The Burkes on the other hand are AA machines. Or will leveling effect nerf them too?
 
@Simon_Jester there's where there's a gray area, because while the Harrier has never been competitive with the main fighters of its day*, its missiles, on the other hand...

But then it's kinda coin toss as to whether the ACE commander decides to send 4 Harriers up to be a tiny CAP, or instead outfits them as strike packages and lets the Burkes kill whatever that flies. If I were him, I'd probably do the latter, and keep my Harriers away from going in the merge and accidentally eating a Standard.

*Yes, the Harriers gave a good showing in the Falklands, but they were fighting Mirages and Skyhawks, and the Skyhawks had a similar kinematic profile to the Harriers. More to the point, the Argentinians were flying at the edge of their range, with very little fuel and combat endurance, and had not trained for ACM at all, meaning they had no idea what to do with dogfighting happened.

The Burkes on the other hand are AA machines. Or will leveling effect nerf them too?
The way the leveling effect works, more or less, is that stuff from 1945 is competitive with present day stuff. So how badly the leveling effect works on something depends on how competitive it is with present day stuff.

The Burkes have been the best AAW destroyers in the world from the day USS Arleigh Burke was commissioned.
 
Back
Top