|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 18, 2019 4:18:46 GMT -6
This will surely be one of the most impactful design decisions that a player in RTW2 will be able to make, and it is certainly one of the more heavily debated design trade-offs in naval history. To pass the time while we wait to begin finding our own answers, I thought it would be fun to pre-emptively bring this hotly contested topic to the RTW community. Fire away!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 18, 2019 5:32:25 GMT -6
This will surely be one of the most impactful design decisions that a player in RTW2 will be able to make, and it is certainly one of the more heavily debated design trade-offs in naval history. To pass the time while we wait to begin finding our own answers, I thought it would be fun to pre-emptively bring this hotly contested topic to the RTW community. Fire away! You put into discussion quite dangerous topic as there are usually still a lot of people that has one of the extremes opinion. However in time period of RTW having armoured deck could be interesting especially in cases is no treaty limitation.
But question if the game has this 2 possibilities and how it evaluate damage that close deck operations and possible reopened them after some temporary repairs at sea.
Just some thought in case game allows it.
Hangar deck armour has same principles as armour for battleship, it can get quickly outdated. As bombs are going heavier and heavier and planes faster while diving on target you need more armour to protect the ship. And we even do not know yet how it works in RTW2. As you have bomb weight which affect piercing of horizontal protection and damage including damage from near misses. Than you have release height. If you release it from higher height your piercing pontential increases however your accuracy decreases. There are some calculation how much armour you need to deflect certain bombs release at certain altitude. I hope RTW2 will have some mechanismus to help player to design ship horizontal protection against such hits in similar way as piercing potential of different calibers at different distances.
But if you are at war and your carriers have right amount of horizontal armour it could be advantegous especially operating in range of land airfields.
Now we can look how all defence features British armoured carriers had (it was no only armoured hangar) they you can see that it gives you advantage at certain type of missions: - convoy defence in range of enemy air power - this was probably most advantegous as force is easily detected and attack from land airfields could rage whole day (in history mainly Mediterranean)
- if enemy air power has no bomb that can defeat your level of armour protection - again it could be advantegous as the enemy has mainly luck and torpedoes only, but torpedo bomber is usually easier to shoot down or distract if I am correct (historically British Pacific fleet against Japan)
Now we can look where your number of aicraft are more important: - hit and run - so anywhere where you can close distant to strike at target or both fleets position are unknown and you need to find your target and than strike fast and hard (in history Pacific USA vs. Japan, attack Tirpitz at Norway). It is when your detection is difficult and you do not need to hold position in reach of land air power for long time
However it was about end of 30s and beginning of 40s. What about earlier. At this time range of aiplanes was much shorter, their bomb ordnance much lower and generally planes were not so dangerous. However even no radar was available so only airbone fithers can fight enemy bombers back. At these time when you do not need long time operation in range of land air power the strike potential and number of aicrafts would me buch more important. And with knowledge that armour is defetead by technology progress or you need future proof armour which could be quite expensive, I would guest that armoured carriers could work best as historacally did, after half of 30s. till half of 40s. But it is really guess.
However I think it would be nice to have such a feature in game. However exactly knowledge how much aircraft capacity armoured deck take away is difficult to evaluate as you would need design same carrier with this and without that feature. I do not know if this was ever tested on WW2 type carrier. However some gross estimates is about 15-25 % less aicrafts as it depends on lot of factor. British armoured carriers has not only armoured deck but armoured vertical protection of their hangars with much more than splinter protection. And carriers were even in WW2 one of most complex weapon platform and everything has effect on everything - eg. safety measures on storing fuel for aircrafts.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 18, 2019 6:41:10 GMT -6
This will surely be one of the most impactful design decisions that a player in RTW2 will be able to make, and it is certainly one of the more heavily debated design trade-offs in naval history. To pass the time while we wait to begin finding our own answers, I thought it would be fun to pre-emptively bring this hotly contested topic to the RTW community. Fire away! You put into discussion quite dangerous topic as there are usually still a lot of people that has one of the extremes opinion. However in time period of RTW having armoured deck could be interesting especially in cases is no treaty limitation.
But question if the game has this 2 possibilities and how it evaluate damage that close deck operations and possible reopened them after some temporary repairs at sea.
Just some thought in case game allows it.
Hangar deck armour has same principles as armour for battleship, it can get quickly outdated. As bombs are going heavier and heavier and planes faster while diving on target you need more armour to protect the ship. And we even do not know yet how it works in RTW2. As you have bomb weight which affect piercing of horizontal protection and damage including damage from near misses. Than you have release height. If you release it from higher height your piercing pontential increases however your accuracy decreases. There are some calculation how much armour you need to deflect certain bombs release at certain altitude. I hope RTW2 will have some mechanismus to help player to design ship horizontal protection against such hits in similar way as piercing potential of different calibers at different distances.
But if you are at war and your carriers have right amount of horizontal armour it could be advantegous especially operating in range of land airfields.
Now we can look how all defence features British armoured carriers had (it was no only armoured hangar) they you can see that it gives you advantage at certain type of missions: - convoy defence in range of enemy air power - this was probably most advantegous as force is easily detected and attack from land airfields could rage whole day (in history mainly Mediterranean)
- if enemy air power has no bomb that can defeat your level of armour protection - again it could be advantegous as the enemy has mainly luck and torpedoes only, but torpedo bomber is usually easier to shoot down or distract if I am correct (historically British Pacific fleet against Japan)
Now we can look where your number of aicraft are more important: - hit and run - so anywhere where you can close distant to strike at target or both fleets position are unknown and you need to find your target and than strike fast and hard (in history Pacific USA vs. Japan, attack Tirpitz at Norway). It is when your detection is difficult and you do not need to hold position in reach of land air power for long time
However it was about end of 30s and beginning of 40s. What about earlier. At this time range of aiplanes was much shorter, their bomb ordnance much lower and generally planes were not so dangerous. However even no radar was available so only airbone fithers can fight enemy bombers back. At these time when you do not need long time operation in range of land air power the strike potential and number of aicrafts would me buch more important. And with knowledge that armour is defetead by technology progress or you need future proof armour which could be quite expensive, I would guest that armoured carriers could work best as historacally did, after half of 30s. till half of 40s. But it is really guess.
However I think it would be nice to have such a feature in game. However exactly knowledge how much aircraft capacity armoured deck take away is difficult to evaluate as you would need design same carrier with this and without that feature. I do not know if this was ever tested on WW2 type carrier. However some gross estimates is about 15-25 % less aicrafts as it depends on lot of factor. British armoured carriers has not only armoured deck but armoured vertical protection of their hangars with much more than splinter protection. And carriers were even in WW2 one of most complex weapon platform and everything has effect on everything - eg. safety measures on storing fuel for aircrafts.
I think that all of your points are reasonable, and you are certainly right to identify one of the major complicating factors in this debate: the continuing (dare I say it) march of technology. I agree with the general principle that armoured carriers will have a relative advantage over unarmoured carriers in areas of more extensive land based air cover, and visa versa. However, as for your theory that the circumstances of the early 1930s would diminish the advantages of armoured carriers; it seems to me that while the necessity for scouting and CAP due to the absence of radar, and the smaller range and therefore limited usefulness of land based aircraft do all lend themselves to the unarmoured carrier, I disagree on two counts. Firstly, and most importantly, the absence of radar probably means that the 'bomber will always get through' attitude was largely correct in this time period. Furthermore, while the lighter bomb load of enemy planes would decrease the need for armour, it would also increase its relative effectiveness. These two factors combined suggest to me that armoured carriers may actually be better suited to combat in the interwar era; they can expect to be hit more often, but can more easily mitigate the damage than later carriers in a more dangerous environment.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 18, 2019 6:58:51 GMT -6
It is true however range is the issue so more sea is "blue ocean" as you have not as good information because of range.
And as aircraft are slower it is not so faster to get to target area. Ship speed was limited more by decreasing efficiency as speed increased not so much by technology. So carriers in the beginning of 30s could sail about as much as carriers at 40s however planes were slower so in case you cannot find target at your location your chance to find him is lower.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 18, 2019 7:53:00 GMT -6
This will surely be one of the most impactful design decisions that a player in RTW2 will be able to make, and it is certainly one of the more heavily debated design trade-offs in naval history. To pass the time while we wait to begin finding our own answers, I thought it would be fun to pre-emptively bring this hotly contested topic to the RTW community. Fire away! ...Now we can look where your number of aicraft are more important:
I would say any mission where power projection is important. Covering invasions or sustained operations within range of enemy airfields. These are both situations where number of aircraft becomes important due to the ability to take losses and maintain the operational tempo. This was one area where the British Pacific Fleet had trouble. Their airgroups were depleted more quickly than the US carrier groups requiring them to withdraw for replenishment from mobile forces more often or return to base for aircraft and crews.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 18, 2019 8:15:35 GMT -6
If you are interested in the development of armoured carriers there is a website at armouredcarriers.com with a wealth of information about the development of the RN carriers. I was only recently made aware of it (thanks dorn) and have found it to be a fascinating read. One thing to bear in mind when reading it is that the author is obviously a big fan, and has a tendency to mix facts and opinions without clear citation. One thing that the author fails to correctly consider is the fact that the RN carriers did not have armoured flight decks, they had armoured hangers. This comes from pre-war consideration that fighters could not protect their carriers so must be struck below and protected from air attack - hence an armoured hanger to protect the aircraft. The roof of the armoured hanger did provide the same protection as an armoured flight deck however the armour only extended over the area between the two deck lifts (about 62% of the flight deck) and provided no protection to the two areas of the flight deck that are critical for flight operations, the forward and aft ends. What is clearly shown is that the thickness of armour applied to the hanger roof on all the RN armoured carriers was insufficient. When the ships were planned the RAF assured the Navy that no bomb bigger than 500 lbs would be dropped by a carrier born aircraft, and the RN provided protection against that threat. In the event RN armoured carriers were subject to hits from bombs up to 2200 lbs in size which were able to penetrate the hanger roof armour. This threat was appreciated from very early in the war, however no attempt was made to increase the armour thickness on the hanger roof of the existing ships; probably because there was no way to add significant weight that high up without making the ship dangerously unstable. Even the follow on class laid down in 1939 had no provision for additional armour on the hanger roof. These ships were delayed in construction for several years and were substantially modified to increase the airgroup size but not to increase armour. I believe this represents wartime experience that fighters could successfully defend their carriers. The RN armoured carriers did very well in the Pacific at the end of the war and their armoured hanger roofs were able to withstand kamikaze attacks much better than their USN contemporaries, however it should be noted that Kamikaze's lack the armour penetration that a bomb would have. True armoured flight decks did not appear until after WW2 and were found on significantly larger ships, but offered very little additional protection over the RN ships in WW2. From all of this my opinion is that it is not possible in the real world to put sufficient armour onto the flight deck to provide complete protection, and that the trade offs that would be required to attempt it (primarily reduced airgroup) would be unacceptable. History showed us that once radar exists the best defense for a carrier is its aircraft, and this defense has the added benefit of also increasing its offensive capability. History has also shown us that a certain amount of flight deck armour is necessary to keep that deck in operation. In RTW2 I don't think we will get any great changes to the armour model so our carriers will only have the options we are currently familiar with, and "Deck" and "Deck Extended" will probably be all we have to work with. "Enclosed Hangers" might be implemented as a technology unlock and offer an armour weight saving for "Belt" and "Deck" to represent the construction technique used by the RN carriers, but in my opinion it would be difficult to represent that technology with all of the benefits and limitations it entailed so I would rather see it omitted. With the simplicity of the armour model it won't be possible to create ships to accurately model the differences between RN and US designs, which is a shame but not unexpected. When I design my carriers I will prioritise Airgroup size, speed, torpedo protection, and then armour. With armour I will prioritise D and DE over B and BE. In WW2 the tonnage per aircraft (displacement of carrier / airgroup size) varied from about 340 to 640 so I will try to design my RTW carriers as close to the bottom end of that range as I can get. The really great news about carrier deck armour is that it won't date anywhere near as quickly as battleship armour. In the real world 3" of deck armour lasted all the way through WW2 and only went up to 3.5" after - the armour became steadily less effective but other defenses became more effective to compensate. I anticipate carriers having a far longer effective lifespan in RTW2 than battleships.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 18, 2019 8:31:21 GMT -6
...Now we can look where your number of aicraft are more important:
I would say any mission where power projection is important. Covering invasions or sustained operations within range of enemy airfields. These are both situations where number of aircraft becomes important due to the ability to take losses and maintain the operational tempo. This was one area where the British Pacific Fleet had trouble. Their airgroups were depleted more quickly than the US carrier groups requiring them to withdraw for replenishment from mobile forces more often or return to base for aircraft and crews.
This is very true. Not only did they have smaller airgroups than their US contemporaries, they had a significantly smaller capacity for storing aviation fuel, meaning that the aircraft they had could not fly as many sorties before the carrier had to withdraw for replenishment. Does RTW2 include avgas storage? Perhaps abstracted with airborne munitions to replace the ammunition storage on other ships?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 18, 2019 9:08:15 GMT -6
I think this is the link that you want to use at Armored carriers. www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/5/30/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essaysThe points made in the article are true except, that a carrier is a system. That simply means that in designing it, you have much more to consider than what size bomb do I want to resist. It is speed to launch aircraft which is vital in a carrier, ordnance and fuel capacity, work space for repairs of the aircraft, personal space for the crew, storage space for spare parts and aircraft and much more. There are no simple answers here and hindsight is the clearest vision in the world. As Stuart Slade comments in the article, the lifts were smaller which meant all aircraft had to have folding wings which increases their complexity and weight. The US carrier had steel plates supporting the teak decks. The key for both carrier designs was a deck park and the US adopted that before the war. Personally I believe that both designs had their advantages and after the war, armored flight decks were the norm but that was due to better and more powerful engines which could allow the carrier to maintain speed and the advent of the jet along with improved steam catapults. I say again, a carrier is a system and all of its parts contribute to its success including naval doctrine, aircraft design, everything. You cannot just focus on whether a deck is armored or not.
|
|
|
Post by sleventyfive on Mar 18, 2019 9:10:20 GMT -6
If you are interested in the development of armoured carriers there is a website at armouredcarriers.com with a wealth of information about the development of the RN carriers. I was only recently made aware of it (thanks dorn ) and have found it to be a fascinating read. One thing to bear in mind when reading it is that the author is obviously a big fan, and has a tendency to mix facts and opinions without clear citation. One thing that the author fails to correctly consider is the fact that the RN carriers did not have armoured flight decks, they had armoured hangers. This comes from pre-war consideration that fighters could not protect their carriers so must be struck below and protected from air attack - hence an armoured hanger to protect the aircraft. The roof of the armoured hanger did provide the same protection as an armoured flight deck however the armour only extended over the area between the two deck lifts (about 62% of the flight deck) and provided no protection to the two areas of the flight deck that are critical for flight operations, the forward and aft ends. What is clearly shown is that the thickness of armour applied to the hanger roof on all the RN armoured carriers was insufficient. When the ships were planned the RAF assured the Navy that no bomb bigger than 500 lbs would be dropped by a carrier born aircraft, and the RN provided protection against that threat. In the event RN armoured carriers were subject to hits from bombs up to 2200 lbs in size which were able to penetrate the hanger roof armour. This threat was appreciated from very early in the war, however no attempt was made to increase the armour thickness on the hanger roof of the existing ships; probably because there was no way to add significant weight that high up without making the ship dangerously unstable. Even the follow on class laid down in 1939 had no provision for additional armour on the hanger roof. These ships were delayed in construction for several years and were substantially modified to increase the airgroup size but not to increase armour. I believe this represents wartime experience that fighters could successfully defend their carriers. The RN armoured carriers did very well in the Pacific at the end of the war and their armoured hanger roofs were able to withstand kamikaze attacks much better than their USN contemporaries, however it should be noted that Kamikaze's lack the armour penetration that a bomb would have. True armoured flight decks did not appear until after WW2 and were found on significantly larger ships, but offered very little additional protection over the RN ships in WW2. From all of this my opinion is that it is not possible in the real world to put sufficient armour onto the flight deck to provide complete protection, and that the trade offs that would be required to attempt it (primarily reduced airgroup) would be unacceptable. History showed us that once radar exists the best defense for a carrier is its aircraft, and this defense has the added benefit of also increasing its offensive capability. History has also shown us that a certain amount of flight deck armour is necessary to keep that deck in operation. In RTW2 I don't think we will get any great changes to the armour model so our carriers will only have the options we are currently familiar with, and "Deck" and "Deck Extended" will probably be all we have to work with. "Enclosed Hangers" might be implemented as a technology unlock and offer an armour weight saving for "Belt" and "Deck" to represent the construction technique used by the RN carriers, but in my opinion it would be difficult to represent that technology with all of the benefits and limitations it entailed so I would rather see it omitted. With the simplicity of the armour model it won't be possible to create ships to accurately model the differences between RN and US designs, which is a shame but not unexpected. When I design my carriers I will prioritise Airgroup size, speed, torpedo protection, and then armour. With armour I will prioritise D and DE over B and BE. In WW2 the tonnage per aircraft (displacement of carrier / airgroup size) varied from about 340 to 640 so I will try to design my RTW carriers as close to the bottom end of that range as I can get. The really great news about carrier deck armour is that it won't date anywhere near as quickly as battleship armour. In the real world 3" of deck armour lasted all the way through WW2 and only went up to 3.5" after - the armour became steadily less effective but other defenses became more effective to compensate. I anticipate carriers having a far longer effective lifespan in RTW2 than battleships. I think that there are two important points you bring up here. 1) The armor was insufficient against heavier bombs. While certainly true, I would say that this is something of a false conclusion. As designed, they were proof against the assumed firepower of the enemy. That the enemy's firepower increased is as irrelevant to the concept of armored carriers as it would be to say the Essex was a bad design because it couldn't operate F-4's. 2)Radar made fighter interception preeminent. Again, this is an excellent point, but one that misses in understanding the thought process at the time. Before the advent of air search radars, the only way for a ship to detect incoming fighters would be visually. No air group size would be sufficient to screen the carrier entirely 24/7 so the idea of passive defense makes sense. I would also add that very few ships had their armor increased after construction, and I don't know of any that had it done during the conflict, as it was exceptionally expensive and time-consuming. Basically, I think that we're looking at this with too much hindsight. With the development of higher-weight bombs and ship-borne radar, as well as increased funding for the FAA, having a larger air group does become more important. But it's important to remember that people don't make poor decisions intentionally. They make decisions that make sense at the time, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. (see the Midway's designed 8" battery. Humorously, removed in exchange for an armored flight deck in light of the British carriers' effectiveness against Kamikaze attacks)
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 18, 2019 9:55:11 GMT -6
I think that there are two important points you bring up here. 1) The armor was insufficient against heavier bombs. While certainly true, I would say that this is something of a false conclusion. As designed, they were proof against the assumed firepower of the enemy. That the enemy's firepower increased is as irrelevant to the concept of armored carriers as it would be to say the Essex was a bad design because it couldn't operate F-4's. 2)Radar made fighter interception preeminent. Again, this is an excellent point, but one that misses in understanding the thought process at the time. Before the advent of air search radars, the only way for a ship to detect incoming fighters would be visually. No air group size would be sufficient to screen the carrier entirely 24/7 so the idea of passive defense makes sense. I would also add that very few ships had their armor increased after construction, and I don't know of any that had it done during the conflict, as it was exceptionally expensive and time-consuming. Basically, I think that we're looking at this with too much hindsight. With the development of higher-weight bombs and ship-borne radar, as well as increased funding for the FAA, having a larger air group does become more important. But it's important to remember that people don't make poor decisions intentionally. They make decisions that make sense at the time, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. (see the Midway's designed 8" battery. Humorously, removed in exchange for an armored flight deck in light of the British carriers' effectiveness against Kamikaze attacks) I am using a lot of hindsight, I admit, but having not played RTW2 yet all I have is history to inform my opinions so hindsight is inevitable. My point wasn't that the RN carriers should have had more armour, my point was that they couldn't have been given more armour. Even though the RN knew that the armour they had on the hanger roof was insufficient they could not increase it in the follow on ships laid down in 1939. Those ships underwent a massive redesign but didn't get more armour - in fact they ended up compromising hanger height to keep top weight down. If you wanted to build a carrier with sufficient deck armour to protect against bombs up to 2200 lbs you have to give it 4 x the armour the Illustrious class had - 12" That's absurd and if you had a significant hanger below it it would capsize in a light breeze. If you eliminate the hanger you have a ship that looks like a big raft, but at least it won't capsize. Its silly, but that's my point - you can't put enough armour that high above the waterline. I agree about radar, and said that. We know that radar is coming (unless we have turned it off somehow) so we can't ignore it. I understand the thought processes when they designed Illustrious, and they were right at the time, but proved wrong in the longer term. Again, I know whats coming so can't ignore it. I didn't mean any of my comments to be critical of decisions made at the time - they were made by people acting in good faith and making the best, most informed decisions they could. With hindsight some of those decisions were bad, but that's just life. By the way, I see your Midway Designed 8" battery and raise you Lexington and Saratoga's built 8" battery - not removed until 1942.
|
|
|
Post by sleventyfive on Mar 18, 2019 10:09:10 GMT -6
All very reasonable. (Off topic, but I do appreciate the fact that the US skipped the half and half Battlestar-style Cruiser-Carrier only to strap a cruiser's guns to a full-fledged carrier.)
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 18, 2019 10:41:12 GMT -6
Admittedly this is fairly tangential, but reading your arguments made me realize that we could read a fair bit about the automatic cap system of the carriers in RtW2 in the dev journal, but it is a very good question, that how interception actually happens, and - even better question - how much influence does air search radars have on that, if any, in RtW2. So while you gents are discussing deck armor, it dawned upon me: "Hold on, how effective will be cap in RtW2 in the first place, how much influence does the player have in that and how it will be affected by the techs?"
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 18, 2019 12:40:41 GMT -6
I will point one thing, carriers are complex weapon platform and need to be considered like that. Just look at Essex class, their become excellent weapon platform how they were used with excellent logistics, aircrafts etc. This was half of their success. On opposite British carries always suffer with barely adequate logistics, support etc.
There were difference with phiposophy of carriers. I will take one example. All US carriers have large hangar with spares to replenish losses. British carriers does not have space for that however they developed different approach that for 3 fleets carrier they will be one maintenace and repair carrier. However they did not have time to put it in motion before war start and that happered their possibilities.
I find out that there is a lot of citation on that pages but not directly. As I understand he get them from archives reading orignal reports I do not think he is falsificating them. He put a lot of description of actions, behind scenes etc., showing good and bad sides of British armoured carriers. Frankly speaking I do not know what is not correct, if you can tell me I would be happy. He did write about armouring hangar he described how much armour and where it is and it is correctly noted that it is armoured hangar not only deck itself on his pages - see here. There is even written how and why the carriers has such thickness of armour and that RAF understimate evolution of bombers and bombload they would carry. But there is another point the "armoured carriers" are named for one of their features however it was quite complex system and that was only one of many features (eg. hangar sectionalization, fuel storage much safer but bulky etc, heavy AA armament etc.). Relating to Implacable class I think the situation of RN knowing the war is imminent they just choose some redesigning over complex new design. 23.000 tons was just to limitation to build really good armoured carrier and some other sacrifices need to be done.
Relating to article which oldpop2000 give us link, I think it is the main expression of the author however the original essey of Slade and Worth are shortsighted. The autor just show which is wrong without taking whole picture. I understand this as he did not try do any conclusion on these pages and let reader do it themselves.
And as oldpop2000 notice both principles has advantages and disadvantages and it is needed to put them in context.
Deck armour was unsufficient against the heaviest bomb used by luftwaffe however these bombs need to be AP or SAP to pierce that armour and their explosives were much less than in GP bombs. Japanese did not used heavier bombs that the armoured carriers were designed.
Relating to needed thickness of deck armour the increase of bomb weight is not linear to needed protection - see here, however I expect that calculation was done by expecting speed of dive bombing which was probably understimated. However it is likely that more protection at that displacement was not possible. As you can see even 2000 lb bomb released from bellow 1000 feet will not probably pierce deck armour of these carriers.
akosjaccik I am quite interested about it but I do not want to put these questions as it would be quite complex and would take developers time and we can see and have exact questions after release. What is important to have some feedback to player to have some information that could be used for decision not only about designs but operations. For that RTW was quite good so I am not worried so much. But as I pointed ealier it depends how divebombing, intercepting, torpedo runs are done, how player can influence defences. How all attributes of planes have effect on this and a lot of more. We can start with manual as soon as it is available and I am sure we will have a lot of questions.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Mar 18, 2019 15:17:37 GMT -6
If you have the industrial capacity to build a lot of unarmored carriers quickly and keep them supplied with trained air groups and suitable escorts then the unarmored carrier would have to be the best choice. Even the most heavily armored ships are no match for very large massed aerial torpedo strikes. The British armored carriers never had to face such an attack. The mightiest battleships did twice and in both cases were destroyed.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 19, 2019 2:54:00 GMT -6
I had a stunning thought last night
RTW doesn't calculate stability
It calculates weight but doesn't even look at stability. You can put the thickest armoured deck you want 50' above the water and the ship design AI won't even blink! Its on! We can build the armoured carriers the RN only dreamed of - 12" deck armour, 17'6" hangers on 2 levels, huge airgroups, the works, because RTW doesn't calculate stability
Ok, i might need to take a deep breath, but I think this is gonna be fun (and horrifically ahistorical)
|
|