Why can't stealth bombers use aircraft carriers?

[Avatan]

Imho you should have two seperate unit types to make it more realistic:

Tactical Bomber - cheap, able to land on aircraft carrier, moderate range
(representing a WW2 dive bomber or a modern fighter-bomber)

Strategic Bomber - expensive, stronger, very long range, not being able to land on aircraft carrier
(representing Flying Fortress and Successors)

If you want you could make the great war bomber upgrade into Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bomber upgrading into Stealth Bomber.
Question is though if unit diversity for such a late game period is really needed in normal games.

But isn't it exactly the case already with bombers and stealth bombers?

 

[nokmirt]

How does it come that only ww1 and ww2 era bombers can be on aircraft carriers but not stealth bombers? Doesn't it make the aircraft carriers kind of useless once you are in the modern era?

I mean sure you can still use modern fighters on them but I like most players mostly just build bombers instead.

Is there some good reason for why this is the case?

How often were strategic bombers launched from a carrier? Once that I know of, the USS Hornet. In my mind they should add a tactical plane for WWII/Cold War/Information Era. A divebomber,A-6, and FA-18 type aircraft. Something like that which can be launched from aircraft carriers.

Also, a WWI bomber has no business being on an AC. They simply were too big, and it would be impossible for it too get up enough take off speed to launch from carriers.

Someone mentioned GDRs. I feel they should be removed. Unless they want to make an optional Future Era, for those who would like that kind of thing. If they did that, they could make the GDR fit into its own time period nicely. Where they have it now among modern known weapons is silly. Besides, this is not this is not Call to Power.

I love science fiction, but civ has never been a science fiction type game. I really would like to have it remain that way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not that they're too big, its Just that they only take off and land from tenesse, in real life

Missouri.

Come correct!

How often were strategic bombers launched from a carrier? Once that I know of, the USS Hornet. In my mind they should add a tactical plane for WWII/Cold War/Information Era. A divebomber,A-6, and FA-18 type aircraft. Something like that which can be launched from aircraft carriers.

Also, a WWI bomber has no business being on an AC. They simply were too big, and it would be impossible for it too get up enough take off speed to launch from carriers.

When it comes to bombers on aircraft carriers, I think we're all getting a little confused over what consititutes a bomber.

Yes, a B-29 (WW II era strategic bomber) will not fly off a carrier.

But the B-29 was huge because it had to carry all the fuel to get from an airbase to a target and back. It was also loaded with machine guns because it couldn't count on fighter escorts in all cases. Finally, an aircraft like the B-17 (basically a predecessor to the B-29, both were used in WWII, but the B-17 was used a lot more because it existed from the outset and the B-29 came very late) didn't actually carry as big of a bombload as you might think.

Why not? Because it was loaded with fuel and machine guns for reasons stated above.

When you consider that Carrier based bombers don't need all the fuel (the carrier can get them closer to the target than a fixed airbase) or all the machine guns (because escorts could fly with them all the way because again the carrier is closer), you will realize that carrier-based bombers can be much smaller than land based counterparts and still pack a bigger bombload.

Thus, it's not unrealistic to have a WWII bomber on a carrier. It would be a hassle to have to construct a seperate bomber type for use only on a carrier.

It's really not as crazy to have a WWII bomber on a carrier as you might think. They were (and are) a lot smaller than the B-29 or B-17's used by the airforce and still packed a huge punch.

In fact, most planes these days can carry bigger bombloads than the B-17 in a smaller airframe, but that's a whole other issue.

 

[adsin15]

Naval Bombers are usually designated A for Attack Aircraft. F for Fighter/Interceptors and B for Bombers.

the A6 Intruder comes to mind as the premire Naval light attack aircraft. It has no air to air weaponry. It is equipped with sophisticated radar tracking and electrionic jamming equipment and it's sole purpose is to locate enemy radar installations and bomb them into the stone age.

The Intruder is a nasty little bomber but like most naval aircraft it's designed for a specific purpose. Space on an Aircraft Carrier is hard to come by.

 

[Socratatus]

How often were strategic bombers launched from a carrier? Once that I know of, the USS Hornet. In my mind they should add a tactical plane for WWII/Cold War/Information Era. A divebomber,A-6, and FA-18 type aircraft. Something like that which can be launched from aircraft carriers.

Also, a WWI bomber has no business being on an AC. They simply were too big, and it would be impossible for it too get up enough take off speed to launch from carriers.

Someone mentioned GDRs. I feel they should be removed. Unless they want to make an optional Future Era, for those who would like that kind of thing. If they did that, they could make the GDR fit into its own time period nicely. Where they have it now among modern known weapons is silly. Besides, this is not this is not Call to Power.

I love science fiction, but civ has never been a science fiction type game. I really would like to have it remain that way.

Totally agree. On all points. GDR has to be one of the dumbest face-palm idea for Civ5 ever. It`s just so out of place and time. It`s not even that well done with animations or sounds. It`s like a silly big toy.

 

[Smokeybear]

When it comes to bombers on aircraft carriers, I think we're all getting a little confused over what consititutes a bomber.

Yes, a B-29 (WW II era strategic bomber) will not fly off a carrier.

But the B-29 was huge because it had to carry all the fuel to get from an airbase to a target and back. It was also loaded with machine guns because it couldn't count on fighter escorts in all cases. Finally, an aircraft like the B-17 (basically a predecessor to the B-29, both were used in WWII, but the B-17 was used a lot more because it existed from the outset and the B-29 came very late) didn't actually carry as big of a bombload as you might think.

Why not? Because it was loaded with fuel and machine guns for reasons stated above.

When you consider that Carrier based bombers don't need all the fuel (the carrier can get them closer to the target than a fixed airbase) or all the machine guns (because escorts could fly with them all the way because again the carrier is closer), you will realize that carrier-based bombers can be much smaller than land based counterparts and still pack a bigger bombload.

Thus, it's not unrealistic to have a WWII bomber on a carrier. It would be a hassle to have to construct a seperate bomber type for use only on a carrier.

It's really not as crazy to have a WWII bomber on a carrier as you might think. They were (and are) a lot smaller than the B-29 or B-17's used by the airforce and still packed a huge punch.

In fact, most planes these days can carry bigger bombloads than the B-17 in a smaller airframe, but that's a whole other issue.

Most carrier-based multi-purpose aircraft (ie: fighter/bombers) today are jets with single or twin jet engines that pack way more thrust than a bunch of WWII-era propeller engines. So of course they can pack a larger bomb load on a much smaller aircraft. All aspects of aircraft technology have come a long way in the last 67+ years.

But the carrier-based bombers and torpedo planes of the 1940's were rather light on the bombload, and were never used for extensive city bombardment like the multi-engine land based bombers were. While they did participate in bombing specific military targets like individual ammo dumps, warehouses, docked ships and the like during fleet raids on coastal Japan and Formosa late in the war, their primary targets were usually enemy naval ships and amphibious landing air support. They were incapable of strategic carpet bombing or knocking out cities.

In the one instance where a larger twin-engine B-25 Mitchell bomber (and not a 4-engine bomber as depicted in CiV) was used off of the USS Hornet during the famous Doolittle raid on Japan, they literally had to strip everything but the airframe and the aluminum skin out of the planes to make them light enough to make the short takeoff from the deck, and they could never have landed on it again. It was truly a freak situation, never repeated during the war.

Regardless of these facts, I have no issue with them allowing a 4-engine bomber to use carriers in CiV, as it would have required a new and different unit to accurately depict the form and capabilities of the real carrier-based bombers of that era, and there really isn't any need- the game isn't 100% historically accurate, and was never intended to be. But by the same token, I also see no need to allow stealth bombers to be carrier-based, either. By the time you have stealth bombers, you already have nukes, and can launch them from carriers, subs, and cruisers if you really need long range sea-borne mass destruction. Redundancy.

And if you really must have carrier bombers late game, just save some of your WWII era bombers and don't convert them all to Stealth bombers. Problem resolved.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

​

Totally agree. On all points. GDR has to be one of the dumbest face-palm idea for Civ5 ever. It`s just so out of place and time. It`s not even that well done with animations or sounds. It`s like a silly big toy.

You are giving me acid reflux. Please let's not derail this into GDR SUX! thread

 

[aluelkdf]

Stealth bombers (or really any modern strategic bomber) are too big and heavy to use aircraft carriers. They need a full size runway to land and take off.

I think the WWII bombers in the game are representative of the B17, or something equivalent. These are considered "heavy bombers." There is no way a heavy bomber could ever use a carrier, so the game is not too accurate in that regards. But they did use medium bombers on carriers during WWII. The best example of this is the Doolittle raid against Japan.

As far as WWI bombers go, they would have no problem using a modern carrier. And you shouldn't even need a carrier for stealth bombers because they have such huge range. In real life, stealth bombers take off from the continental US, and can strike targets anyplace in the world.

 

[Socratatus]

Most carrier-based multi-purpose aircraft (ie: fighter/bombers) today are jets with single or twin jet engines that pack way more thrust than a bunch of WWII-era propeller engines. So of course they can pack a larger bomb load on a much smaller aircraft. All aspects of aircraft technology have come a long way in the last 67+ years.

But the carrier-based bombers and torpedo planes of the 1940's were rather light on the bombload, and were never used for extensive city bombardment like the multi-engine land based bombers were. While they did participate in bombing specific military targets like individual ammo dumps, warehouses, docked ships and the like during fleet raids on coastal Japan and Formosa late in the war, their primary targets were usually enemy naval ships and amphibious landing air support. They were incapable of strategic carpet bombing or knocking out cities.

I agree with most of what you say (it would`ve been impossible for nearly all WW2 bombers to take off a Carrier), I will just be picky here and say that later WW2 bombing still leaves in question where it would have knocked out cities\installations or not. Historians and even some people of the time maintain that if the bombing had continued ball-bearing production could have seized completely. Of course there are the moral issues as well (such as Dresden). Of course these are later-war bombers where many more were used.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Most carrier-based multi-purpose aircraft (ie: fighter/bombers) today are jets with single or twin jet engines that pack way more thrust than a bunch of WWII-era propeller engines. So of course they can pack a larger bomb load on a much smaller aircraft. All aspects of aircraft technology have come a long way in the last 67+ years.

But the carrier-based bombers and torpedo planes of the 1940's were rather light on the bombload, and were never used for extensive city bombardment like the multi-engine land based bombers were. While they did participate in bombing specific military targets like individual ammo dumps, warehouses, docked ships and the like during fleet raids on coastal Japan and Formosa late in the war, their primary targets were usually enemy naval ships and amphibious landing air support. They were incapable of strategic carpet bombing or knocking out cities.

In the one instance where a larger twin-engine B-25 Mitchell bomber (and not a 4-engine bomber as depicted in CiV) was used off of the USS Hornet during the famous Doolittle raid on Japan, they literally had to strip everything but the airframe and the aluminum skin out of the planes to make them light enough to make the short takeoff from the deck, and they could never have landed on it again. It was truly a freak situation, never repeated during the war.

Regardless of these facts, I have no issue with them allowing a 4-engine bomber to use carriers in CiV, as it would have required a new and different unit to accurately depict the form and capabilities of the real carrier-based bombers of that era, and there really isn't any need- the game isn't 100% historically accurate, and was never intended to be. But by the same token, I also see no need to allow stealth bombers to be carrier-based, either. By the time you have stealth bombers, you already have nukes, and can launch them from carriers, subs, and cruisers if you really need long range sea-borne mass destruction. Redundancy.

And if you really must have carrier bombers late game, just save some of your WWII era bombers and don't convert them all to Stealth bombers. Problem resolved.

I didn't make thr comparison to RL modern jets for the reasons you outlined. I only mentioned them to remind people that in game the the carriers and bombers stick around for longer than their graphical representations did IRL.

It's useful to remember that although the representations are static and stuck in one breif instant of time, the actual unit itself spams a long time.

While carriers didn't carry stretegic bombers as we know them, it's because they didn't have to with land bases in range of targets. But they could have made them easily with WWII tech, no problem. This game is less about faithful representation of what did happen and more about what could happen.

And I can tell you as an aero engineering student that stategic bombers in WWII could have happened. And it could happen now (part of why I mentioned jets) current planes could do strategic bombing from a carrier. Remember the carrier lasts through the future era.

But I agree stealth bombers on carriers are silly.

 

[Smokeybear]

But they did use medium bombers on carriers during WWII. The best example of this is the Doolittle raid against Japan.

That would be "used medium bombers on A carrier during WWII", as in singular, one carrier only, one time only. At least in actual combat. If they dinked around with it in secret testing more than that, they kept pretty quiet about it. The B-25 Mitchell bomber that was used in that special situational raid on Japan (intended to boost US morale, and to lower Japanese morale when they thought their home islands completely safe and inviolate at the time) was stripped of all defensive armaments and every ounce of weight not needed to keep the plane airborne. And they could never have landed on the carrier again, even if it had stuck around and not sailed at flank speed for safer waters after launch. It was a one-shot deal, an incredible feat of training, engineering and planning, to get those planes to actually fly off of a carrier on a one-way mission into history. In reality, besides that extremely special case, no, medium bombers were not used as carrier-based attack planes in WWII.

 

[aluelkdf]

I think that WWII bombers where capable other taking out cities (assuming large enough numbers where used). Dresden is a good example of a city that was destroyed in just a couple days. Berlin was also completely destroyed, not by one raid, but many raids that lasted over the course of years. London took heavy damage, but it wasn't destroyed. In the early years of the war the Germans didn't have the heavy bombers, or the numbers that the Americans and British had by the end of the war. Another good example of bombers taking out cities is the firebombing of Tokyo. More people died in the raid against Tokyo than where killed by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

 

[Smokeybear]

And I can tell you as an aero engineering student that stategic bombers in WWII could have happened. And it could happen now (part of why I mentioned jets) current planes could do strategic bombing from a carrier. Remember the carrier lasts through the future era.

I'm sure if you wanted to throw enough money into a ship, you could build one big enough and long enough to launch and land larger strategic aircraft with larger bombloads (though nothing like a Stealth bomber, no matter how big the ship) than the current navy jets can. Of course, there are a lot of very good reasons this has never been done, and is not needed whatsoever But yeah, I'm sure it's technically possible.

 

[Smokeybear]

I think that WWII bombers where capable other taking out cities (assuming large enough numbers where used). Dresden is a good example of a city that was destroyed in just a couple days. Berlin was also completely destroyed, not by one raid, but many raids that lasted over the course of years. London took heavy damage, but it wasn't destroyed. In the early years of the war the Germans didn't have the heavy bombers, or the numbers that the Americans and British had by the end of the war. Another good example of bombers taking out cities is the firebombing of Tokyo. More people died in the raid against Tokyo than where killed by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

Yes, but those were all land-based multi-engine bombers, and not carrier-based bombers. I was only saying you didn't get that kind of strategic destruction from carrier-based bombing. For examples of US Navy WWII bombers, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SB2C_Helldiver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SBD_Dauntless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_TBF_Avenger

These were single-munition dive bombers and torpedo planes. Even equipped with aerial rockets and plain bombs, they weren't any good at all for strategic city carpet-bombing. Which is why the US Navy didn't do any of that during the war. Especially after the Japanese started using kamikaze attacks, which wreaked a heavy toll on US carrier groups that got within range of them by 1945. To be able to attack the Japanese islands with the shorter-ranged navy planes, they had to get close enough for the kamikazes to hit back.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Stealth bombers (or really any modern strategic bomber) are too big and heavy to use aircraft carriers. They need a full size runway to land and take off.

I think the WWII bombers in the game are representative of the B17, or something equivalent. These are considered "heavy bombers." There is no way a heavy bomber could ever use a carrier, so the game is not too accurate in that regards. But they did use medium bombers on carriers during WWII. The best example of this is the Doolittle raid against Japan.

As far as WWI bombers go, they would have no problem using a modern carrier. And you shouldn't even need a carrier for stealth bombers because they have such huge range. In real life, stealth bombers take off from the continental US, and can strike targets anyplace in the world.

The graphical reprensentation is a terrible thing to judge the realism of a unit on. For one, it's static, stuck in one instant of time. The unit itself isn't.

For another, it misleads people to believe the unit itself has the same drawbacks/capabilities as the thing it's modeled on.

Take the B-25 for instance. It carried roughly the same bombload as a B-17. It clearly could do stratefic bombing. It clearly could take off from a carrier. That it couldn't land is irrelevant, it was never designed to on a carrier to begin with.

But the fact that the doolittle raid happened is testament to the fact that carrier based strategic bombing was possible with WWII tech if it had been needed. That it wasn't needed and therefore not pursued is irrelevant.

This is the game about what if's.

And when you factor in the fact that the carrier stays in game till the end, you have to consider that those bombers would be upgraded to more powerful jets, despite thier graphical representation. I for one don't want more unit upgrades just to satisfy purists who want units to look like other units that did slightly different jobs IRL.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm sure if you wanted to throw enough money into a ship, you could build one big enough and long enough to launch and land larger strategic aircraft with larger bombloads (though nothing like a Stealth bomber, no matter how big the ship) than the current navy jets can. Of course, there are a lot of very good reasons this has never been done, and is not needed whatsoever But yeah, I'm sure it's technically possible.

You don't need bigger ships, you need smaller planes. I've already explained why a naval bomber can be smaller than a land based bomber and still deliver the same payload, do the same mission.

The fact is that land based bombers were much bigger with smaller payloads than desirable because of range and defensive armaments that a naval bomber wouldn't need.

 

[Smokeybear]

You don't need bigger ships, you need smaller planes. I've already explained why a naval bomber can be smaller than a land based bomber and still deliver the same payload, do the same mission.

The fact is that land based bombers were much bigger with smaller payloads than desirable because of range and defensive armaments that a naval bomber wouldn't need.

Are you talking modern era, or WWII era? They wouldn't be needed now, for obvious reasons, so I'll assume you mean the WWII era. Yes, with what we know now, I'm sure we could go back to 1945 and build a better carrier-based semi-strategic bomber- although I'm also sure it would have required larger carriers to base enough of them on to be worth the bother. If they were the same handy size as the avenger and helldiver aircraft of the time, there's no way they could have carried any bombload big enough to matter for that purpose. So yes, the planes would have had to be bigger than what were used at the time. Hence, bigger carriers, bigger flight decks, more extensive hangar space below decks. Not as big of an aircraft as a land-based medium bomber, but definitely bigger than anything the navy used back then.

And you have to remember, all of this was brand spanking new to our best engineers and planners and military minds of the time- we broke in the theory of how to build and use carriers and naval aircraft during that war, as well as the the theory of strategic bombing. Carriers were platforms for naval warfare, as per the planning and theorycrafting of the time. They carried small planes intended to sink enemy ships and down enemy planes. They were never intended or built to be platforms for strategic bombing. I doubt the thought of it ever crossed any admiral's mind, during the pre-war period.

And there was a natural turf rift between the navy and the army air force, anyway. Once large multi-engine strategic city bombing was being planned for with the newfangled B-17 heavy bombers, it was just assumed that kind of warfare would have to be a land-based, long range affair. Nobody looked at the secretary of the navy and said "hey, bro... how bout you start making carriers that can do long range strategic bombing?". He would have laughed at them, anyway, and rather rightfully so. Until a much more advanced jet era, it would truly not have been worth the bother.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They would not have required bigger carriers. The bombers wouldn't have been that big.

I've already adressed that it's largly irrevlevant that no one built them in WWII. This is a game of what if, not what happened. And on that note it's especially irrelevant what thw admiraty thought or the rivalry between the AAC and naval air wing was. They don't exist in the game, nor are they modeled in it.

I don't mean to be flippant or a jerk, I just feel like no one is actually reading my posts. They just post over me to reiterate things i've already addressed.

 

[Smokeybear]

They would not have required bigger carriers. The bombers wouldn't have been that big.

I've already adressed that it's largly irrevlevant that no one built them in WWII. This is a game of what if, not what happened. And on that note it's especially irrelevant what thw admiraty thought or the rivalry between the AAC and naval air wing was. They don't exist in the game, nor are they modeled in it.

I don't mean to be flippant or a jerk, I just feel like no one is actually reading my posts. They just post over me to reiterate things i've already addressed.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be flip or insulting. Just didn't realize we were leaving reality and history out entirely. If that's the case, then yeah, you can base flying GDR's off of a submarine, for all I care. And if you don't think a carrier based strategic bomber built in the 1940's wouldn't have had to be at least somewhat bigger than the existing one-bomb carrier aircraft of the time, then I highly suspect your credentials as an engineer. Sorry, but I'm not taking just your word for it.

 

[aluelkdf]

Yes, but those were all land-based multi-engine bombers, and not carrier-based bombers. I was only saying you didn't get that kind of strategic destruction from carrier-based bombing. For examples of US Navy WWII bombers, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_SB2C_Helldiver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_SBD_Dauntless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_TBF_Avenger

These were single-munition dive bombers and torpedo planes. Even equipped with aerial rockets and plain bombs, they weren't any good at all for strategic city carpet-bombing. Which is why the US Navy didn't do any of that during the war. Especially after the Japanese started using kamikaze attacks, which wreaked a heavy toll on US carrier groups that got within range of them by 1945. To be able to attack the Japanese islands with the shorter-ranged navy planes, they had to get close enough for the kamikazes to hit back.

I agree completely. I only brought up the Doolittle raid to show that hypothetically, it was possible for some WWII bombers to use an aircraft carrier. But in reality very little damage was done, and this strategy was in no way a strategy to win the war. The Doolittle raid was basically a suicide mission, with a small chance of survival. Carrier based aircraft where mostly used to attack enemy ships, provide close air support to marines, and stuff like that. 100% of the heavy bombing was done by land based aircraft. So even though the Doolittle raid happened, I think it's fair to say that for all intents and purposes, it is not possible for a WWII bomber to use a carrier.