oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 2, 2020 16:03:39 GMT
I'm no pilot but I was an AIC (Air Intercept Controller) and ASAC (Antisub Air controller). Seems to me the Zeroes should have been able to turn well inside the F-14s making a gun kill very difficult
unless the F-14 was undetected which I would think would be very unlikely given the superb ability of the early war Japanese aviators.
The Sidewinder (AIM-9 H/E) of that period would be another matter and would make short work of the zeroes.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2020 16:17:33 GMT
The Sidewinder (AIM-9 H/E) of that period would be another matter and would make short work of the zeroes. So the F-14s use a air to air missile that cost around 500,000 dollars and more, cannot be build in 1941 in order to shoot down a a Zero that cost no more than 50,000 dollers in 1941. Would make more sense to hunt them down using 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, with 675 rounds. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 2, 2020 17:09:36 GMT
The Sidewinder (AIM-9 H/E) of that period would be another matter and would make short work of the zeroes. So the F-14s use a air to air missile that cost around 500,000 dollars and more, cannot be build in 1941 in order to shoot down a a Zero that cost no more than 50,000 dollers in 1941. Would make more sense to hunt them down using 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, with 675 rounds. My remark about the Zero turning inside the F-14 means the F-14 can not line up a gun shot. The F-14 might try a "Blow Through" attack in which the F-14 either dives out of the sun or comes up under the Zero and guns it down before the zero knows he's there.
Furthermore, by turning inside the F-14 the Zero is able to line up his own 20mm.
There were two cases of USN A-1 Skyraiders shooting down Vietnamese Migs with WWII Era 20mm guns that I know of. One by Naval aviators Lt. Charles W. Hartman III, and Lt. Clinton B. Johnson June 20, 1965 and the second on Oct. 9, 1966 by Lt. Patton VA-176.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2020 17:35:11 GMT
So the F-14s use a air to air missile that cost around 500,000 dollars and more, cannot be build in 1941 in order to shoot down a a Zero that cost no more than 50,000 dollers in 1941. Would make more sense to hunt them down using 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, with 675 rounds. My remark about the Zero turning inside the F-14 means the F-14 can not line up a gun shot. The F-14 might try a "Blow Through" attack in which the F-14 either dives out of the sun or comes up under the Zero and guns it down before the zero knows he's there.
Furthermore, by turning inside the F-14 the Zero is able to line up his own 20mm.
There were two cases of USN A-1 Skyraiders shooting down Vietnamese Migs with WWII Era 20mm guns that I know of. One by Naval aviators Lt. Charles W. Hartman III, and Lt. Clinton B. Johnson June 20, 1965 and the second on Oct. 9, 1966 by Lt. Patton VA-176.
Did they only have free falling bombs for the Vought A-7E Corsair IIs as seen when the Nimitz strike package is launched.  If you want to know more about the planes, check this out: The Final Countdown on IMPDbAlso congratulations oscssw for becoming a Petty Officer 2nd Class. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 2, 2020 17:53:56 GMT
RE:Also congratulations oscssw for becoming a Petty Officer 2nd Class.
Thank you, I really didn't want to do 3 months as Mess cook again
Last time I made PO2 was in 1970. Made it a lot faster this time. I guess I'm getting to be a real
RATE GRABBER! 
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2020 18:00:11 GMT
RE:Also congratulations oscssw for becoming a Petty Officer 2nd Class.
Thank you, I really didn't want to do 3 months as Mess cook again
Last time I made PO2 was in 1970. Made it a lot faster this time. I guess I'm getting to be a real
RATE GRABBER!
only 24 for another promotion, then it more posting will be needed to get a new rank. |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 2, 2020 19:32:07 GMT
First off the A-7 Corsair IIs was based on the airframe of the F-8U Crusader. The A-7E was the final fleet version of the A-7. It had Six wing pylons and two fuselage launch stations Pylons capable of carrying large single weapon, multiple racks capable of six weapons per rack, or triple racks with three weapons per rack.
Could carry 15,000 pounds of payload and was Compatible with practically all first line ordnance used by the U.S.N./USAF/NATO.
Most common load out would be AIM-9 Sidewinders, Iron Bombs, Laser glide Bombs, AGM-65 Maverick air to surface missiles, AGM-88 HARM, munition dispensing pods and of course jettisonable fuel tanks. 1 internal M-61 20mm Gatling gun.
This is by no means complete but the best I can do. Been a very long time since I was an AIC and had to study this stuff.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 2, 2020 19:40:08 GMT
First off the A-7 Corsair IIs was based on the airframe of the F-8U Crusader. The A-7E was the final fleet version of the A-7. It had Six wing pylons and two fuselage launch stations Pylons capable of carrying large single weapon, multiple racks capable of six weapons per rack, or triple racks with three weapons per rack.
Could carry 15,000 pounds of payload and was Compatible with practically all first line ordnance used by the U.S.N./USAF/NATO.
Most common load out would be AIM-9 Sidewinders, Iron Bombs, Laser glide Bombs, AGM-65 Maverick air to surface missiles, AGM-88 HARM, munition dispensing pods and of course jettisonable fuel tanks. 1 internal M-61 20mm Gatling gun.
This is by no means complete but the best I can do. Been a very long time since I was an AIC and had to study this stuff.
How much would a AGM-65 Maverick air to surface missile hurt a Japanese world War II carrier. This image of 1962 shows a Grumman A-6A Intruder (then designated A2F-1) with an array of possible ordnance. Outside ring: in front of the A-6 are five mock-ups of multiple ejector racks. To the right and left are 46 Mk 81 113 kg (250 lb) bombs. The circle is closed by 30 Mk 82 227 kg (500 lb) bombs. Second ring: In front of the plane are "five classified shapes" (napalm canisters and/or nuclear weapons?). To the right 13 LAU-10 rocket launchers with four 12.7 cm (5 in) Zuni rockets each are arrayed, on the opposite side 13 Aero 7D (LAU-3/A) rocket launchers with 19 7 cm (2.75 in) are displayed. To the right and left of the horizontal stabilizers are 15 Mk 83 454 kg (1.000 lb) bombs, and 12 Mk 79 fire bombs are displayed behind the aircraft. Inner ring: behind the left wing (with the national insignia) are three Aero 8A practice bomb containers, on the opposite side five Mk 84 907 kg (2.000 lb) bombs are displayed. In front of the left wing are five AGM-12A Bullpup air-to-ground missiles, in front of the right wing are four AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and a Douglas D-704 Buddy-Buddy refueling tank with extendable snorkel (a.k.a. Buddy Store).  |
|
oscssw
Senior chief petty officer
Posts: 967
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by oscssw on Jul 2, 2020 21:44:42 GMT
How much would a AGM-65 Maverick air to surface missile hurt a Japanese world War II carrier. Now that is a good question. Quite frankly I am no "Ordy" so I had to took this up. The AGM-65 Maverick precision guided missile had an operational range of roughly 22 nautical miles and a speed of 620 kts which means the attack bird does not have to worry about AA fire. It came in a number of variants A/B/C/D/H models had only a 125 lb shape charge which probably could not take out anything larger than a patrol boat with a single hit unless you hit the "sweet spot" like the Long Lance torpedo tubes. The fact you could put it anywhere you wanted and be able to guide it right into that spot meant multiple hits could probably disable anything smaller than a cruiser. Against a cruiser's armor I'd say you could certainly bother them but would have to hit another sweet spot to cripple one would be asking too much. Against a BB I would forget it. Against a carrier best bet would be to target any aircraft on deck, the bridge and multiple hits in the hangar bay and even then you got to pray for an AVGAS explosion. The E/F/G/J/K models used a 300 lb penetrating blast-fragmentation or a delayed impact fuze. As a PGM able to hit wherever you wanted this would be a real ship killer up to a cruiser. Multiple guided hits would ruin a carriers days. Against a BB, I'm not so sure even these would do more than damage the lightly armored above deck sections. Well usual caveat this is just my opinion. I'm pretty sure I'm right about the weapon models specs but the damage is just my opinion. mmm |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 3, 2020 10:32:05 GMT
So the F-14s use a air to air missile that cost around 500,000 dollars and more, cannot be build in 1941 in order to shoot down a a Zero that cost no more than 50,000 dollers in 1941. Would make more sense to hunt them down using 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barreled Gatling cannon, with 675 rounds. My remark about the Zero turning inside the F-14 means the F-14 can not line up a gun shot. The F-14 might try a "Blow Through" attack in which the F-14 either dives out of the sun or comes up under the Zero and guns it down before the zero knows he's there.
Furthermore, by turning inside the F-14 the Zero is able to line up his own 20mm.
There were two cases of USN A-1 Skyraiders shooting down Vietnamese Migs with WWII Era 20mm guns that I know of. One by Naval aviators Lt. Charles W. Hartman III, and Lt. Clinton B. Johnson June 20, 1965 and the second on Oct. 9, 1966 by Lt. Patton VA-176.
Definitely no air experience myself but it sounds like a problem. Think I have heard this mentioned a while back. The F-14's might have an edge in terms of surprise as they can come from directions the Zero pilot wouldn't expect because of their greater speed and power as the pilot will only really be looking out for practical attacks - i.e. those that would be possible for a ~1940 a/c. Or a combined attack with a 2nd F-14 hitting the Zero while its dodging the 1st? However those only really work against single a/c. Sounds like the F-14's could face real problems in terms of a dogfight with multiple a/c on each side. Only good thing is I assume that the F-14's are a lot better armoured than even western WWII a/c let alone Japanese versions which tended to skim on armour.
In terms of the Pearl attack there's not a great problem as the Nimitz knows pretty much where the Japanese force is and once the carriers are sunk then there is no air threat. However later operations, say in defence of the DEI would mean the potential for attack from land based a/c. Could see the AA fire of the carrier tested, albeit it is much superior to WWII CVs. [Assuming it still has gun AAs as well as missiles which will be in very limited supply and irreplaceable. ] I can't remember in the film if any escort vessels came through the time warp with it but even so they would again have shortages of munitions very quickly. Nimitz could well have to depend on the WWII USN for a lot of its defence, albeit helped by her radar and other electronic facilities.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 3, 2020 10:37:52 GMT
My remark about the Zero turning inside the F-14 means the F-14 can not line up a gun shot. The F-14 might try a "Blow Through" attack in which the F-14 either dives out of the sun or comes up under the Zero and guns it down before the zero knows he's there.
Furthermore, by turning inside the F-14 the Zero is able to line up his own 20mm.
There were two cases of USN A-1 Skyraiders shooting down Vietnamese Migs with WWII Era 20mm guns that I know of. One by Naval aviators Lt. Charles W. Hartman III, and Lt. Clinton B. Johnson June 20, 1965 and the second on Oct. 9, 1966 by Lt. Patton VA-176.
Definitely no air experience myself but it sounds like a problem. Think I have heard this mentioned a while back. The F-14's might have an edge in terms of surprise as they can come from directions the Zero pilot wouldn't expect because of their greater speed and power as the pilot will only really be looking out for practical attacks - i.e. those that would be possible for a ~1940 a/c. Or a combined attack with a 2nd F-14 hitting the Zero while its dodging the 1st? However those only really work against single a/c. Sounds like the F-14's could face real problems in terms of a dogfight with multiple a/c on each side. Only good thing is I assume that the F-14's are a lot better armoured than even western WWII a/c let alone Japanese versions which tended to skim on armour. In terms of the Pearl attack there's not a great problem as the Nimitz knows pretty much where the Japanese force is and once the carriers are sunk then there is no air threat. However later operations, say in defence of the DEI would mean the potential for attack from land based a/c. Could see the AA fire of the carrier tested, albeit it is much superior to WWII CVs. [Assuming it still has gun AAs as well as missiles which will be in very limited supply and irreplaceable. ] I can't remember in the film if any escort vessels came through the time warp with it but even so they would again have shortages of munitions very quickly. Nimitz could well have to depend on the WWII USN for a lot of its defence, albeit helped by her radar and other electronic facilities. Steve
Even if the Nimitz has 10 Lockheed S-3A Vikings onboard, without here modern escorts who for some reason did not join here in the past, she might be a target for Japanese submarines armed with the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 3, 2020 11:03:40 GMT
Definitely no air experience myself but it sounds like a problem. Think I have heard this mentioned a while back. The F-14's might have an edge in terms of surprise as they can come from directions the Zero pilot wouldn't expect because of their greater speed and power as the pilot will only really be looking out for practical attacks - i.e. those that would be possible for a ~1940 a/c. Or a combined attack with a 2nd F-14 hitting the Zero while its dodging the 1st? However those only really work against single a/c. Sounds like the F-14's could face real problems in terms of a dogfight with multiple a/c on each side. Only good thing is I assume that the F-14's are a lot better armoured than even western WWII a/c let alone Japanese versions which tended to skim on armour. In terms of the Pearl attack there's not a great problem as the Nimitz knows pretty much where the Japanese force is and once the carriers are sunk then there is no air threat. However later operations, say in defence of the DEI would mean the potential for attack from land based a/c. Could see the AA fire of the carrier tested, albeit it is much superior to WWII CVs. [Assuming it still has gun AAs as well as missiles which will be in very limited supply and irreplaceable. ] I can't remember in the film if any escort vessels came through the time warp with it but even so they would again have shortages of munitions very quickly. Nimitz could well have to depend on the WWII USN for a lot of its defence, albeit helped by her radar and other electronic facilities. Steve
Even if the Nimitz has 10 Lockheed S-3A Vikings onboard, without here modern escorts who for some reason did not join here in the past, she might be a target for Japanese submarines armed with the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo.
Not sure if the Japanese subs had the long lance but they could well be a threat while the ship is alone. Doubt a single torpedo would seriously damage the ship but a multiple strike could cause a fair amount of damage and its not going to be something that would be easy to repair in 1941/42. There were a number in the region of Pearl, I think to try and hit any ships sortieing out after the attack.
Which brings up another issue, at ~100,000 tons displacement and roughly 1,100' x 252' x 37' is there any US facility in 1941 that the Nimitz can actually dock? She definitely can't use the Panama canal, which was limited to ~110' max width at the time and would be tight on Suez as according to wiki its max width is 254'.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 3, 2020 11:14:35 GMT
Even if the Nimitz has 10 Lockheed S-3A Vikings onboard, without here modern escorts who for some reason did not join here in the past, she might be a target for Japanese submarines armed with the Type 93 Long Lance torpedo. Not sure if the Japanese subs had the long lance but they could well be a threat while the ship is alone. Doubt a single torpedo would seriously damage the ship but a multiple strike could cause a fair amount of damage and its not going to be something that would be easy to repair in 1941/42. There were a number in the region of Pearl, I think to try and hit any ships sortieing out after the attack.
Which brings up another issue, at ~100,000 tons displacement and roughly 1,100' x 252' x 37' is there any US facility in 1941 that the Nimitz can actually dock? She definitely can't use the Panama canal, which was limited to ~110' max width at the time and would be tight on Suez as according to wiki its max width is 254'.
You talk about the Panama Canal Third Locks 1939-1942 that where meant for the 58,000-ton Montana-class battleships. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 3, 2020 12:06:37 GMT
Not sure if the Japanese subs had the long lance but they could well be a threat while the ship is alone. Doubt a single torpedo would seriously damage the ship but a multiple strike could cause a fair amount of damage and its not going to be something that would be easy to repair in 1941/42. There were a number in the region of Pearl, I think to try and hit any ships sortieing out after the attack.
Which brings up another issue, at ~100,000 tons displacement and roughly 1,100' x 252' x 37' is there any US facility in 1941 that the Nimitz can actually dock? She definitely can't use the Panama canal, which was limited to ~110' max width at the time and would be tight on Suez as according to wiki its max width is 254'.
You talk about the Panama Canal Third Locks 1939-1942 that where meant for the 58,000-ton Montana-class battleships.
Can't see that, I think because I'm using Firefox according to the message.
Checking on Wiki it reports that the canal can support 1,200' x 160' x ~45' so length and depth would be OK but beam would still be a serious problem. I had forgotten about the plan for upgrading for the Montana's and was thinking of the original design so a good point.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,369
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 3, 2020 14:22:23 GMT
Can't see that, I think because I'm using Firefox according to the message. A my bad, here is is the part about the lock: Work was begun on 01 July 1940, when the dredge Cascades started excavating at the Pacific end of the channel leading to the New Miraflores lock site. Construction and planning were placed in the hands of the Canal administration, not of the Army, although the War Department controlled the purse strings. The plans called for a series of single locks paralleling, but at some distance from, the existing double chambers.In order to accommodate the 58,000-ton Montana-class battleships that the Navy placed on order in September 1940, the new locks were to be two hundred feet longer and thirty feet wider than the old. This feature soon began to override the security consideration as the principal reason for the project.On 05 March 1941, the President of the Republic of Panama issued a manifesto making available for use by the United States certain defense sites in the territory of that Republic. Pending the conclusions of final arrangements regarding the terms on which these sites are to be used, the Panamanian Government permitted US armed forces to occupy and develop them.Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and other American facilities on December 7th, 1941. Immediately following the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Panama declared war on the three major Axis powers, and subsequently took numerous protective steps to cooperate with the other American republics in the interest and security of the Panama Canal and the defense of the hemisphere.The entry of the United States into the war brought into question the future of the third locks project; the Navy's interest in it gave it high priority. On 23 December 1941 the Governor of the Panama Canal reported by letter to the Secretary of War that the schedule, which called for completing the project by 30 June 1946, could be met only by assigning high priority to, and by vigorously prosecuting, the construction. Dredging works in the channel that is close to Miraflores locks initiated on 01 July 1940. Dry excavation of the third set of locks began in Gatun sector on 19 February 1941.With the first of the new super-battleships was scheduled to be completed late in 1945, it would appear essential that the locks program be completed as soon as possible. Discussing the question at a War Council meeting on 5 January 1942, Maj. Gen. Richard C. Moore, Deputy Chief of Staff, took a somewhat different view. "The only necessity for this lock [sic]," the minutes read, "is to permit larger battleships, now under construction, to pass through the canal. General Moore felt that there was some question as to whether or not, with shipping and material so short at this time, the construction of this lock should have such a high priority."Since the matter was of primary interest to the Navy, the War Department accepted the opinion of the Chief of Naval Operations, who recommended "that every effort be made" to complete the project "at the earliest date practicable, and not later than Jan 1, 1946." The Army and Navy Munitions Board agreed to assign the priorities necessary for completing the work on the schedule the Navy desired, and the governor of the Canal was instructed to push construction as rapidly as he could.Also you are right, toughed the Canal could handle a Nimitz class, even in this day of age, but it seems that according to what i have found, you stevep are 100 % right: No, a Nimitz Class Carrier will not fit. The length may seem like it with the new locks, but everything else won't fit. The beam of the USS Ronald Reagan is 252 ft (76.8 m), with 1,092 ft (317 m) it sounds like it would fit into the 1,400 ft locks. The Reagan’s draft is at 37 ft (11.3 m) for maximum navigational, and the new canal area has an allowance for a draft of 43 ft (13.11 m). Last but not least, it won't clear the Bridge of Americas.Seems the last carrier that could fit the canal was the USS Enterprise CVN-65, after that, they are all to big. This will limit the USS Nimitz to the Pacific, unless they want to spend a long time getting here to Norfolk. |
|
