I want anti-ship rocket‼︎

[yousyokumarimo]

I want anti-ship rocket. It's carried by fightier and DB and TB. Big rocket (ex Tiny Tim) have an effect on ship. It hardry affected by AA.

[mycophobia]

Tiny Tim seems like it is going to be of limited use against well armored enemy ships, though it can probably be decent as a safer if less deadly alternative than bombing to attack lighter surface targets. Also while it can be fired outside of smaller caliber AA range, I dont know how accurate they'd be against a moving warship at those range compared to a slow tanker.

If the game plan to eventually add aircraft carried anti-ship missiles (which I feel might be a bit outside of the time frame, but I could be wrong), rockets like tiny tim can possibly be treated like an early and far less accurate version of those missiles? I feel smaller rockets are not really worth representing as they are not effective in dealing with most targets that appears in game. (Unless you really want your fighter to kill DDs, I suppose?)

[intolight]

Yeah, as of right now, the balance of power late game swings hard from carriers back to surface forces. Battleships with maxed out autoloading secondary and tertiary DP batteries, with SAM escorts and a few squadrons of fighters overhead are practically immune to carrier based aviation. Medium bombers with ASMs can get through and score a few hits, but they'll take heavy losses. I feel like there should definitely be a few more techs for carrier aviation, like OP's antiship rockets, upgrades for airdropped torpedoes(larger drop windows, larger warheads, maybe basic acoustic homing?, so torpedo bombers can be more survivable), (dive) toss bombing(so dive bombers can attack from further away), and maybe ASMs on carrier planes as the end of the tech tree. It would definitely reduce the dominance of late game superbattleships and make things a bit more historically accurate. Right now, the AI builds a lot of carriers late game, which just means player battleships can just stomp whatever leftover battleships the AI has lying around, then sink the AI's carriers basically at their leisure.
Basically, it would just be nice to have a couple more Naval Aviation, Heavier than Air techs after 1944.

[aeson]

Oct 15, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

If the game plan to eventually add aircraft carried anti-ship missiles

ASMs (air-to-surface missiles, or if you prefer aircraft-launched AShMs) are already in the game, they're just an uncommon ordnance restricted to medium bombers and available from c.1943.

[mycophobia]

Oct 15, 2020 14:05:01 GMT -6 aeson said:

Oct 15, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

If the game plan to eventually add aircraft carried anti-ship missiles

ASMs (air-to-surface missiles, or if you prefer aircraft-launched AShMs) are already in the game, they're just an uncommon ordnance restricted to medium bombers and available from c.1943.

If you mean fritz-X and similar radio guided munitions, yes. But I don’t believe missiles with their own thrust are in. (I understand that radio guided bomb can be argued as a form of ASM as well, but don’t want to get into the semantics of it)

[akosjaccik]

Oct 15, 2020 14:17:04 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

Oct 15, 2020 14:05:01 GMT -6 aeson said:

ASMs (air-to-surface missiles, or if you prefer aircraft-launched AShMs) are already in the game, they're just an uncommon ordnance restricted to medium bombers and available from c.1943.

If you mean fritz-X and similar radio guided munitions, yes. But I don’t believe missiles with their own thrust are in. (I understand that radio guided bomb can be argued as a form of ASM as well, but don’t want to get into the semantics of it)

I do believe they are. In the Mediterranean late-game the "hehe, here's 1200 land-based a/c for you" I can't recall a whole lot of guided bomb hits, but from a point on explicitely ASM hits mounted up at such an alarming rate from the usual AI 20-MB stacks, that I never truly recovered from mentally. I did not thoroughly examine the occurences though.

[janxol]

Both guided bombs and ASM's are in in the game. I'm not sure if that's what the OP is asking about, as he's bringing up Tiny Tim and the word rocket. Rocket=/=missile and Tiny Tim was not an ASM. These are not in the game and I'm not sure how relevant they could be if they were.

[akd]

Rockets are perfectly valid as an anti-ship weapon, certainly no less valid than mast-height bombing with iron bombs.

The Tiny Tim's diameter of 11.75 in (29.8 cm) was the first Allied aerial rocket to have a larger calibre than the Luftwaffe-deployed bomber destroyer aerial rocket ordnance, the Nebelwerfer-based BR 21 of 21 cm (8-1/4 in) calibre. The Tiny Tim's large diameter allowed a sizable 148.5 lb (67.4 kg) semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead, some 60 lbs (27 kg) heavier than the BR 21's 40.8 kg (90 lb) warhead. The Tiny Tim had a maximum range of 1,500 meters (1,640 yards), some 200 meters greater than the BR 21's time-fuze limited 1.2 km detonation range from launch.

They were used by the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps near the end of the war during the battle of Okinawa, and during the Korean War. A problem with the sheer power of the rocket motor causing damage to the firing aircraft was resolved by having the Tiny Tim drop like a bomb, and a lanyard attached to the rocket would snap, causing the rocket to ignite.[3] Common targets included coastal defense guns, bridges, pillboxes, tanks, and shipping.[4] An ambitious operation to use the Tiny Tim against German V-1 sites as part of Operation Crossbow, code-named Project Danny, was planned but cancelled before the squadrons assigned could be deployed to Europe.

Common Tiny Tim delivery aircraft during World War II included the PBJ-1 Mitchell,[5] F4U Corsair, F6F Hellcat, TBM Avenger, and the SB2C Helldiver.[1]

After World War II, the United States Navy's rocket laboratory at Inyokern, California developed an even larger version of the Tiny Tim, called "Richard", which was 14 inches in diameter and one of the largest air-to-surface unguided rocket ever developed for the US military. While tested, it was never placed in production. The United States Navy also experimented with a version of the Tiny Tim which was a two-stage rocket, with another Tiny Tim rocket motor mounted behind a complete Tiny Tim. Like the Richard, it never moved beyond the research and development stage.[6]

[zedfifty]

Oct 19, 2020 7:38:02 GMT -6 akd said:

Rockets are perfectly valid as an anti-ship weapon, certainly no less valid than skip-bombing with iron bombs.

<Snip>

You missed the really interesting part of the Wikipedia article.

"It was built in response to a United States Navy requirement for an anti-ship rocket capable of hitting ships outside of their anti-aircraft range, with a payload capable of sinking heavy shipping." The linked reference notes that the warhead was a 500 lb SAP bomb, which was a viable anti-ship weapon against anything less than a battleship.


www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/tiny-tim.html

[oldpop2000]

The range of the Tiny Tim Rocket was 1600 yards. But the range of the standard Japanese 25 mm Type 96 was about 7439 yards at 45 degrees. It would seem that you have no advantage over a torpedo since one of the US torpedoes had a range of over 5000 yards so what is the advantage of an unguided rocket that might not work if the lanyard fails.... and they did. Lanyards failed on AIM-7 Sparrow's all the time.

[dohboy]

Oct 20, 2020 7:46:21 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

The range of the Tiny Tim Rocket was 1600 yards. But the range of the standard Japanese 25 mm Type 96 was about 7439 yards at 45 degrees. It would seem that you have no advantage over a torpedo since one of the US torpedoes had a range of over 5000 yards so what is the advantage of an unguided rocket that might not work if the lanyard fails.... and they did. Lanyards failed on AIM-7 Sparrow's all the time.

Speed is a major advantage for the rocket over a torpedo. The Tiny Tim can cover 1600 yards in about 6.5 seconds, the Type 93 takes about a minute to cover the same distance. A minute gives the target a whole lot more time to maneuver.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 20, 2020 14:32:22 GMT -6 dohboy said:

Oct 20, 2020 7:46:21 GMT -6 oldpop2000 said:

Speed is a major advantage for the rocket over a torpedo. The Tiny Tim can cover 1600 yards in about 6.5 seconds, the Type 93 takes about a minute to cover the same distance. A minute gives the target a whole lot more time to maneuver.

The Tiny Tim warhead was 148.5 Lbs. The Type 93 torpedo warhead was 1080.27 lbs. The Tiny Tim was unguided, but the torpedo had a gyroscopic guidance system and it was underwater. Not much of a comparison, IMHO.

Personally, I would prefer the Bomb MK 57 SWOD or BAT. This was a low angle of glide weapon with a radar bombsight and a warhead of 1000 lbs. It had a glide range of 30,000 to 40000 yards. It wasn't that effective but it did give rise to other more accurate missiles. So it was the father of the modern anti-ship missile.l


nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-bat-the-father-americas-ship-killer-missiles-21088

www.ausairpower.net/WW2-PGMs.html

[wlbjork]

It's tricky to comment. After all, even the British RP-3 with 60lb warhead was used successfully against enemy shipping, as these two videos show:

Mosquitos attacking a convoy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiPdpfGGqa0

Beaufighters attacking a mine warfare ship: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4_z3kWa3s

Note that the Beaufighter video is a combination of an interview with the pilot at the age of 95, actual footage and a CGI reconstruction.

[oldpop2000]

Oct 21, 2020 1:43:39 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

It's tricky to comment. After all, even the British RP-3 with 60lb warhead was used successfully against enemy shipping, as these two videos show:

Mosquitos attacking a convoy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiPdpfGGqa0

Beaufighters attacking a mine warfare ship: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4_z3kWa3s

Note that the Beaufighter video is a combination of an interview with the pilot at the age of 95, actual footage and a CGI reconstruction.

In the first video, the Mossies are attacking a convoy in a harbor. No defenses that I can see and the ships are stationary. I see no results of ships sunk. Nice attack, and damage was done, but they were not sunk.

I can't speak to the second other than mine warfare ships tend to be undefended and very slow due to their requirements. They make good targets.

The key is that you don't have to sink a ship to be effective in your mission. You just have to mission kill the ship, take it out of the operation to be effective. We did not sink all the carriers in the Coral Sea operation, just one. But we did mission kill two of the fleet carriers and they were not available to the Japanese for Midway. Now, this was more due to the failure of Japanese planning and repair facilities but it did not matter. All navies have found that mission killing is an effective, cheaper and simpler way to succeeding in your operation.