|
|
Post by doxsroxs on Nov 22, 2019 16:12:00 GMT -6
Do I need both or can I skip normal deck armor if I have a flight deck and armor it?
|
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Nov 22, 2019 16:24:50 GMT -6
Flight deck armor is assumed not to cover the entire length of the ship, so while it's an option to disregard standard deck armor you're taking a risk with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by doxsroxs on Nov 22, 2019 16:34:25 GMT -6
Flight deck armor is assumed not to cover the entire length of the ship, so while it's an option to disregard standard deck armor you're taking a risk with it. Well, I had a feeling I wouldnt like the answer... On a light carrier 2" deck for me is worth almost 10 aircraft in weight, so Ill keep the deck unarmored and risk it. Almost the same for the flight deck itself. 1,5" + 1" hangar side armor is almost 1700 weight. Question is, go with that and 32 aircraft or ditch the armor and have 42 aircraft? I have no idea if 1,5" top and 1" side is enough to stop anything. Just looking at light guns penetration I need substantially more to be effective, probably to the point where I can carry half the aircraft I could carry if I go unarmored  |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 22, 2019 17:06:49 GMT -6
Question is, go with that and 32 aircraft or ditch the armor and have 42 aircraft? CVLs are permitted at most 34 aircraft. If you want a larger air group than that, you'll have to build it as a CV. If I'm not mistaken, CVs have to be at least 14,100 tons whereas a fast CVL with a 34-plane air group could be built on about 10,000 tons and a slow CVL with a 34-plane air group could be built much smaller.
As to the question of whether 1.5" flight deck (FD) and 1" hangar side (HS) armor is worth the tonnage cost, I would say no - especially for a CVL. If you're only carrying an inch or two of armor, you're only protected against splinters, light artillery, and maybe very light bombs as might be carried by early fighter-bombers and seaplanes, or maybe lightly-loaded early dive bombers. Very light bombs are in my experience basically never used, and unless your carrier gets separated from the fleet group there'll be something nearby that can probably deal with anything that carries a gun light enough for an inch or two of armor to exclude before gunfire from such an attacker becomes a significant problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by doxsroxs on Nov 22, 2019 17:29:17 GMT -6
Question is, go with that and 32 aircraft or ditch the armor and have 42 aircraft? CVLs are permitted at most 34 aircraft. If you want a larger air group than that, you'll have to build it as a CV. If I'm not mistaken, CVs have to be at least 14,100 tons whereas a fast CVL with a 34-plane air group could be built on about 10,000 tons and a slow CVL with a 34-plane air group could be built much smaller.
As to the question of whether 1.5" flight deck (FD) and 1" hangar side (HS) armor is worth the tonnage cost, I would say no - especially for a CVL. If you're only carrying an inch or two of armor, you're only protected against splinters, light artillery, and maybe very light bombs as might be carried by early fighter-bombers and seaplanes, or maybe lightly-loaded early dive bombers. Very light bombs are in my experience basically never used, and unless your carrier gets separated from the fleet group there'll be something nearby that can probably deal with anything that carries a gun light enough for an inch or two of armor to exclude before gunfire from such an attacker becomes a significant problem.
Why the 34 aircraft limit? The British Colossus CVL had up to 52 aircraft during WW2 at 13 200 tons. In game I have CVL tech, but not CV tech, so Im thus limited to 34 aircraft despite having a design that could technically fit 42. I think it would improve game immersion and the experience if hardcoded rules like this are not used. Instead practical and economic rules could be used to impose soft limits on the player. Currently the game says my CVL design is illegal, turns it into a CV, tells me twice that my CV design is illegal and then tells me its identified as a CA, at which point it tells me my CA is not allowed to have a flight deck...  |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2019 17:52:30 GMT -6
CVLs are permitted at most 34 aircraft. If you want a larger air group than that, you'll have to build it as a CV. If I'm not mistaken, CVs have to be at least 14,100 tons whereas a fast CVL with a 34-plane air group could be built on about 10,000 tons and a slow CVL with a 34-plane air group could be built much smaller.
As to the question of whether 1.5" flight deck (FD) and 1" hangar side (HS) armor is worth the tonnage cost, I would say no - especially for a CVL. If you're only carrying an inch or two of armor, you're only protected against splinters, light artillery, and maybe very light bombs as might be carried by early fighter-bombers and seaplanes, or maybe lightly-loaded early dive bombers. Very light bombs are in my experience basically never used, and unless your carrier gets separated from the fleet group there'll be something nearby that can probably deal with anything that carries a gun light enough for an inch or two of armor to exclude before gunfire from such an attacker becomes a significant problem.
Why the 34 aircraft limit? The British Colossus CVL had up to 52 aircraft during WW2 at 13 200 tons. In game I have CVL tech, but not CV tech, so Im thus limited to 34 aircraft despite having a design that could technically fit 42. I think it would improve game immersion and the experience if hardcoded rules like this are not used. Instead practical and economic rules could be used to impose soft limits on the player. Currently the game says my CVL design is illegal, turns it into a CV, tells me twice that my CV design is illegal and then tells me its identified as a CA, at which point it tells me my CA is not allowed to have a flight deck... The Colossus class light aircraft carrier, was in fact only about 1000 tons lighter than the Yorktown class produced before the war. Both used deck park and hangar for storage of aircraft. The Yorktown class could carry 90 aircraft but the Colossus could only carry 52 aircraft. She was slower by seven knots and shorter also. I can only wonder if you have researched as far as deck park and that is why you can't store more than 34 aircraft. The 34 aircraft limit is similar to the HMS Eagle built in 1924. She could only carry about 25-30 aircraft. There is no reference to her using a deck park. A deck park does require more equipment and procedures must be developed to bring up the birds and park them astern. I don't know but I think you could look at that, the deck park. Just for reference: the Independence class light carriers could carry about 33 aircraft. The Saipan class were designed to carry about 42. This was their planned airwing size but they only lasted about six years so there is no way to know whether they could have actually conducted operations with that size. Jet's did away with the light carriers |
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Nov 22, 2019 21:17:48 GMT -6
Do I need both or can I skip normal deck armor if I have a flight deck and armor it? I've been told in other threads that flight deck armor protects the hangar, but not the engine room, magazines, etc. On the other hand, regular deck armor doesn't protect the hangar. I think RtW either makes flight deck armor too expensive, or it should combine it in with regular deck armor. After all, shortly after WW2, both the US and UK decided flight deck armor was indeed worth having. Both also decided that hangar side armor was not worth having. Yet as it is, if you add it at all, then it's just to reduce damage from HE shells/bombs, not for AP. IRL nobody had both what RtW calls deck armor and flight deck armor. The difference was a carrier without flight deck armor had the horizontal armor layer beneath the hangar and flight deck, while a carrier with flight deck armor had it built on top. It was about being too top heavy, not about tonnage. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2019 21:40:30 GMT -6
The real issue isn't the amount of armor, both US and British designs had about the same armor protection. The US considered the flight deck, hangar deck and the island as the superstructure. This means that the deck with the strength was the hangar deck as we all suppose. But either example has its good side and its bad. Our flight decks were easy to repair and the length made launching much easier. However, this made the hangar unprotected and the damage during the war to the carriers exemplifies this.
But the real key was not whether the flight deck was armored or the hangar deck. The key was that we based our carrier defense on having fighters. We began the war with 18 fighters on board, but that had already been ordered changed to 36. At Midway, we were able to have 27. Near the end of the war, we had 64 fighters on board or four fighter squadrons. The British had few fighters on board so they had to have the heavily armored decks. These decks failed in the actions off of Okinawa, the damage they took was very severe. formidable, Illustrious were both worthless. Two others survived. Even our Bon Homme Richard and Franklin survived and continued service.
So, the real answer isn't flight deck armor or hangar deck armor, it's fighter protection. Personally when I build carriers, I ensure that they have plenty of fighters and armor protection is not a priority. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Nov 22, 2019 21:49:54 GMT -6
The real issue isn't the amount of armor, both US and British designs had about the same armor protection. The US considered the flight deck, hangar deck and the island as the superstructure. This means that the deck with the strength was the hangar deck as we all suppose. But either example has its good side and its bad. Our flight decks were easy to repair and the length made launching much easier. However, this made the hangar unprotected and the damage during the war to the carriers exemplifies this. But the real key was not whether the flight deck was armored or the hangar deck. The key was that we based our carrier defense on having fighters. We began the war with 18 fighters on board, but that had already been ordered changed to 36. At Midway, we were able to have 27. Near the end of the war, we had 64 fighters on board or four fighter squadrons. The British had few fighters on board so they had to have the heavily armored decks. These decks failed in the actions off of Okinawa, the damage they took was very severe. formidable, Illustrious were both worthless. Two others survived. Even our Bon Homme Richard and Franklin survived and continued service. So, the real answer isn't flight deck armor or hangar deck armor, it's fighter protection. Personally when I build carriers, I ensure that they have plenty of fighters and armor protection is not a priority. Just my thoughts. Just small note. The armoured deck did not failed on Okinawa, just opposite. The reason that HMS Illustrious withdraw was cumulative damage through 5 years of war and near misses. But as you mentioned armour deck limits number of aircrafts in same displacement which is important especially in Pacific. Strike power and fighter protection is key with radar available. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2019 22:09:32 GMT -6
The real issue isn't the amount of armor, both US and British designs had about the same armor protection. The US considered the flight deck, hangar deck and the island as the superstructure. This means that the deck with the strength was the hangar deck as we all suppose. But either example has its good side and its bad. Our flight decks were easy to repair and the length made launching much easier. However, this made the hangar unprotected and the damage during the war to the carriers exemplifies this. But the real key was not whether the flight deck was armored or the hangar deck. The key was that we based our carrier defense on having fighters. We began the war with 18 fighters on board, but that had already been ordered changed to 36. At Midway, we were able to have 27. Near the end of the war, we had 64 fighters on board or four fighter squadrons. The British had few fighters on board so they had to have the heavily armored decks. These decks failed in the actions off of Okinawa, the damage they took was very severe. formidable, Illustrious were both worthless. Two others survived. Even our Bon Homme Richard and Franklin survived and continued service. So, the real answer isn't flight deck armor or hangar deck armor, it's fighter protection. Personally when I build carriers, I ensure that they have plenty of fighters and armor protection is not a priority. Just my thoughts. Just small note. The armoured deck did not failed on Okinawa, just opposite. The reason that HMS Illustrious withdraw was cumulative damage through 5 years of war and near misses. But as you mentioned armour deck limits number of aircrafts in same displacement which is important especially in Pacific. Strike power and fighter protection is key with radar available. While that is certainly true that those armored decks did allow the British carriers to continue to operate and if ours had been hit that bad, they would have been non-operational, our carriers were repairable, even the Franklin and the Bon Homme Richard were repaired and continued to serve. The Formidable was found to be beyond economical repair and scrapped. I agree that the armored deck provided protection, but fighters provided cost per performance. But we are both on the same tack, striking power and fighter protection are the real keys to the success of carrier warfare. |
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Nov 22, 2019 23:44:05 GMT -6
Just small note. The armoured deck did not failed on Okinawa, just opposite. The reason that HMS Illustrious withdraw was cumulative damage through 5 years of war and near misses. But as you mentioned armour deck limits number of aircrafts in same displacement which is important especially in Pacific. Strike power and fighter protection is key with radar available. While that is certainly true that those armored decks did allow the British carriers to continue to operate and if ours had been hit that bad, they would have been non-operational, our carriers were repairable, even the Franklin and the Bon Homme Richard were repaired and continued to serve. The Formidable was found to be beyond economical repair and scrapped. I agree that the armored deck provided protection, but fighters provided cost per performance. But we are both on the same tack, striking power and fighter protection are the real keys to the success of carrier warfare. I find claims that the damage to the UK carriers was so severe they were unrepairable spurious. Britain could not afford their repair- but Britain was unable to afford hardly any sorts of major military expenditures after the war. Had Franklin or Bon Homme Richard been UK ships, they would have been written off in exactly the same way, regardless of their unarmored decks. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 22, 2019 23:44:17 GMT -6
I've been examining the drawing in Springstyles #3 which was a preliminary design in 1941 for a 45,000 ton, 900 foot carrier. The Midway class was based on this scheme. According to the drawing, she had a 2 inch STS deck armor which stopped 50 feet from the bow and a 3.5 inch STS hangar deck armor which ran from the middle of Hangar #3 to the same location at the bow for the 2 inch. I am going to my Norman Friedman book to see if this was followed in the actual building.
Update: According to Friedman, Midway was built with a flight deck/gallery deck that was 3.5 inches and a hangar deck armor that was 80 lbs. One inch is 40 lbs of armor. This confirms that the flight deck was increased to 3.5 inches but she still has a 2 inch hangar deck armor. So, in fact, in 1941 we had already designed a carrier with both a flight deck armor and hangar deck armor scheme. The Essex only had a hangar deck, no flight deck.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2019 0:19:39 GMT -6
While that is certainly true that those armored decks did allow the British carriers to continue to operate and if ours had been hit that bad, they would have been non-operational, our carriers were repairable, even the Franklin and the Bon Homme Richard were repaired and continued to serve. The Formidable was found to be beyond economical repair and scrapped. I agree that the armored deck provided protection, but fighters provided cost per performance. But we are both on the same tack, striking power and fighter protection are the real keys to the success of carrier warfare. I find claims that the damage to the UK carriers was so severe they were unrepairable spurious. Britain could not afford their repair- but Britain was unable to afford hardly any sorts of major military expenditures after the war. Had Franklin or Bon Homme Richard been UK ships, they would have been written off in exactly the same way, regardless of their unarmored decks. The hangars and the deck were not superstructure in British carriers, they were part of the hull structure. When they were hit by the Kamikaze, it tended to send shock waves through the hull which of course bent many of the main bulkheads the possibly the keel. This was the problem with their designs. On our carriers, as I stated, the hangar and flight deck were superstructure. The damage did not create the shock waves into the hull. Hard to understand but it was true. I agree that the British did not have the funding, but we were cutting back also, but it is true that those two US carriers might not have survived had they been British. Mere speculation, of course. The Franklin was decommissioned in 1947 and scrapped in 1966. Another carrier, The Bunker Hill, was damaged and was repaired. She eventually became an electronics test platform. She was docked on the north side of North Island. I used to pass by her on the way to the test line to work on the aircraft. She disappeared and was scrapped in 1973. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 23, 2019 0:27:54 GMT -6
I am curious. I went to build a light carrier but I now see that you can install flight deck armor, but there is no ability to put hangar deck armor, just side armor. Did I miss this or is it somewhere else. Please educate the old guy. We should have the ability to install flight deck and hangar deck armor by at least 1940.
|
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Nov 23, 2019 2:44:11 GMT -6
I am curious. I went to build a light carrier but I now see that you can install flight deck armor, but there is no ability to put hangar deck armor, just side armor. Did I miss this or is it somewhere else. Please educate the old guy. We should have the ability to install flight deck and hangar deck armor by at least 1940. In RtW, flight deck armor is what protects the top of the hangar. |
|
