Displacement 13,200 tons (standard) 18,000 tons (full load) Length 690 ft (210 m) (flight deck) 695 ft (212 m) overall Beam 80 ft (24 m) Draught 18 ft 6 in (5.64 m) (standard) 23 ft 3 in (7.09 m) (full load)
Speed 25 knots Range 12,000 nautical miles Complement 1,050 Armament 6 × 4-barrelled 2 pounder anti-aircraft guns 16 × twin 20 mm Oerlikon mountings
Carrier - 1945 (Class limit 1) Speed 2 Capacity 2
MG 0/-/-/- AA 6/-/-/-
A 2 V8 H3 (Stats per Colossus)
Build time, laid down to commissioning Colossus june 42 > dec 44 Glory aug 42 > april 45 Ocean nov 42 > aug 45 Venerable dec 42 > jan 45 Vengence nov 42 > jan 45 Majestic/Melbourne april 43 (launched feb45) comissioned 56 Terrible/Sydney april 43 (launched sept44) comissioned 49
1. Proposal Naming; HMAS Melbourne. -No active ship named Melbourne served in ww2 -The historical HMAS Melbourne wasnt delivered until 1956 and was significantly modified from ww2 era colossus/majestic class ships. -Assumption is that this ship is one of the completed RN Colossus class. A speculative name prevents overlap with those historical ships.
this has been accepted by the public development process
2 Decision; Air Groups -Royal Navy Colossus class carriers had 2 distinct airgroup compositions. -It can be reasonably assumed that the embarked aircraft would be transferred with the ship. Therefore, a decision is required to determine which pair of 'Operational Squadron' abilities the ship should have.
Corsair* and Barracuda Of Firefly and Seafire
*if Corsair, Navy Corsair and Marine corsair of explicitly the USN version.
Card Development will close 16 march (28 days)
Last Edit: Jul 27, 2024 22:33:57 GMT by weedsrock2
I support the spitfire/firefly option personally. Seafire III is anagolous to the Spitfire Vs the RAAF had, and fireflies equipped HMAS Sydney (iii)
That said, a possibility is Fighter Operations: Fighters without the land fighter, or land fighter bomber ability may base on this unit.
It is true that the Firefly F.Mk I is classified in W@S as a Fighter with a Mission Selection SA, and similarly the F4U-1D Corsair (14pts) is a Fighter with a Fighter-Bomber SA. However, the Barracuda Mk.II, which you pointed out is also appropriate for this carrier, is classified in W@S as a Dive Bomber, so your SA is not quite appropriate. And are we really going to say that the Swordfish Mk.II Torpedo Bomber cannot base on this ship even though most 1/1800 collections would have copious numbers of these. The Barracuda and Swordfish(es) are the only exception in the mostly Fighter designated UK carrier planes, though. But, what about other US carrier aircraft? It seems far simpler to just have an SA like this:
UK Carrier Ops: Treat this unit as a UK carrier for aircraft allocation. Once the two aircraft for this carrier are allocated before the start of the game, these aircraft are subsequently treated as Australian if in an Australian force, and can also base at their land base.
Also, I think the class limits are definitely TWO, as in "2", as the alternate history of Australia we are trying to weave clearly shows. Seriously, mate, "T" "W" "O". :-D
I'll second HMAS Melbourne. I think UK Carrier Ops (the variant where you pick two units at the beginning of the game) is good, though I wouldn't mind simply allowing to UK/US units to base on her, to keep things simpler and avoid the case where you have spare capacity because on of the Australian aircraft is destroyed.
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
Thats a bit of slap in the face to germany, italy and france with the more restrictive xxx operations. Not sure what existing SA format we'd follow either. The SA would need to specify both UK and US and probably the specific classifications of the aircraft to match the syntax used
Sticking with the provided options what about FU4-1A Operations (USMC corsair only) Barracuda Operations
Gives a better fighter option than the kittyhawk. Rocket attack synergises with the DAP Beaufort. Barracuda gives asw, bomb and torpedo options.
Agree there is some issue with the Joffre class carrier wording that is less than ideal. The Germans always had that issue with the timing of the Graf Zepelin release. That was due to the wording on JU87B a reference to the aircraft being land-based only.
We're not talking that for the Aussies. To say it's a slap in the face of the French and Germans is saying the UK carriers are as well. It's just showing the reality of the war situation. Depending on the build you may want to use Martlets or F4F's just for the economy. I think the UK Carrier Ops suggested by admiralwoodside sounds like the easiest way to move forward.
The point is that colossus class ship werent operating martlets. Which begs the wuestion why would one in the aussie service. To me, service in the ran should be restricted or else its no different to just a RN ship from the outset. Restrictions also preserve the general chatacter of the RAN
The original card for HMS Collossus doesn't restrict aircraft in the least. Why would we impose that on the RAN? Just because they didn't carry other aircraft types doesn't mean they didn't have the capability. It was a choice of the admiralty or the player in this case. You are also assuming everyone has a complete collection and has the afore mentioned aircraft.