|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2022 12:56:59 GMT -6
I'll chip-in my two-bits here. I originally did not armor my carriers, but in some of my biggest carrier battles (usually as Japan) I would lose about a third of my carriers to sink about half of the enemy, which though positive is a rather painful exchange. Just 2" of deck armor (observed over many games) seemed to cut my carrier losses in half, but 2" of deck armor is (roughly) a full squadron. So which squadrons to lose was the question. Fighters are the squadron to lose. I always favor the range-range-range mantra in my carrier aircraft, so if it is a "classic" carrier battle I simply maneuver so as to be able to launch and then retire, and hopefully the only air attack I face are some land-based aircraft from somewhere far away. The cincher comes if the battle is in a more confined sea than I would prefer, or some other unpredictable randomness happens, and then sometimes you just need to look at the starting position and say, "the most points I will get from this will be the ones I don't lose by quitting the field post-haste." ...but now I have to see what an Essex looks like with a 7" slab of deck armor. (edit; it has 36 aircraft at 32k tons. ^.^) Here is a design I made a long time ago... If you use a flight deck armor of 7 inches, you will need a ship of 60000 tons to carry about 99 aircraft. Speed about 30 knots, no guns, 2 inch. conning tower and belt. A carrier has three missions: Scouting, fleet protection and offensive capability. It needs aircraft, not armor. Unfortunately, this is historical not gaming.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 15, 2022 15:20:00 GMT -6
If we look at the historical record we see that Britain built carriers with an armored flight deck, partly because they were a generation behind in naval aircraft development, and partly because they thought they would be fighting close to land airbases. Those carriers got the job done and worked as intended.
The US did not armor the flight deck as their doctrine supposed that carriers that were found, were sunk, and therefore the emphasis needed to be on damage control and a big offensive airgroup. This changed with the introduction of effective radar-assisted fighter-direction, and US doctrine then tilted more and more toward a heavy fighter complement. These carriers got the job done and worked as intended, especially so as the US was able to build enough flight-decks to carry a large number of aircraft (and had the damage-control and ship-repair capability to quickly recover from damage).
Post-war the US 'Midway' class moved toward the British armored scheme and the British 'Malta' class moved toward the American 'open hangar' scheme.
So - you can skin this cat a lot of different ways. I think research-emphasis on damage control is a good idea, but the armor thickness of the deck and complement of aircraft should come from how you intend to use your carriers. Strategy drives operational theory, tactics and equipment - you shouldn't build a 'Tiger' tank unless you really need one.
Personally, I'd rather have more flight-decks than one super-armored carrier - but, if it works for you and makes you happy, then slather on that steel.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2022 17:24:38 GMT -6
If we look at the historical record we see that Britain built carriers with an armored flight deck, partly because they were a generation behind in naval aircraft development, and partly because they thought they would be fighting close to land airbases. Those carriers got the job done and worked as intended. The US did not armor the flight deck as their doctrine supposed that carriers that were found, were sunk, and therefore the emphasis needed to be on damage control and a big offensive airgroup. This changed with the introduction of effective radar-assisted fighter-direction, and US doctrine then tilted more and more toward a heavy fighter complement. These carriers got the job done and worked as intended, especially so as the US was able to build enough flight-decks to carry a large number of aircraft (and had the damage-control and ship-repair capability to quickly recover from damage). Post-war the US 'Midway' class moved toward the British armored scheme and the British 'Malta' class moved toward the American 'open hangar' scheme. So - you can skin this cat a lot of different ways. I think research-emphasis on damage control is a good idea, but the armor thickness of the deck and complement of aircraft should come from how you intend to use your carriers. Strategy drives operational theory, tactics and equipment - you shouldn't build a 'Tiger' tank unless you really need one. Personally, I'd rather have more flight-decks than one super-armored carrier - but, if it works for you and makes you happy, then slather on that steel. Just a note: US carriers of the Midway class and later, had armored decks to carry the weight of heavier aircraft in both takeoff and landing, that's why they were armored. The F6F Hellcat weighed about 8000 lbs. but the F9F Panther weighed 18,721 lbs. See the difference. There were other aircraft like the F3D Skynight. There was the XFD-1 which was prototyped in 1944. As you can see, the two went together, jet aircraft and armored deck to support the heavier jets.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 15, 2022 19:46:42 GMT -6
Here is something to consider about armor on carriers. Two designs for you to consider. I've highlighted the difference. The Victorious now has 3.5 inches of deck armor and 90 aircraft. On British carriers with flight deck armor and hangar armor, the flight deck and hanger structure were part of the hull which raised the center of gravity. On US carriers, the hangar deck or main deck was the hull but the hangar and flight deck were considered part of the superstructure. You can delete deck armor, add extra flight deck armor and hangar armor but still manage 90 aircraft for a 40000 ton carrier. If you go for 33000 tons, you probably won't get more than 80 aircraft. Just some ideas.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 17, 2022 8:25:04 GMT -6
A good reference for the Midway's. Keep in mind, she was designed for WW2 action in Pacific, but was too late. She was much bigger but eventually as aircraft became bigger and heavier, the number of aircraft had to be reduced. naval-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us/midway-class-aircraft-carriers.phpwww.armouredcarriers.com/uss-midway-the-usn-armoured-flight-deck-aircraft-carrierIn the game, I have designed a CV with 7.5-inch flight deck armor and 2-inch deck armor which I think is the hangar deck. I've also provided 2 inch belt armor. The air wing size was 75 aircraft for a carrier of 50000 tons.... needless to say she was very expensive. Another point is that it was found that air wing control was difficult beyond about 80-90 aircraft in the '50's. As avionics improved along with CIC electronics, this changed. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 17, 2022 9:52:27 GMT -6
My 7.5-inch flight deck carrier
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 18, 2022 15:01:48 GMT -6
Here is a carrier I designed. Our discussion is centered around Carrier armor. It dawned on me, that a carrier's armor is like an onion. The flight deck is the outside peel, the hangar deck is the next peel. So, if I want to protect my internals then I can just design it with a 2.5-inch flight deck and a 2.5-inch deck or hangar deck. In total, the internals are now protected by five inches. Now this is still with an air wing of 75 aircraft and a total tonnage of 30000. Belt as you can see is 2 inches and TPD is 3. Speed is 30 knots with a deck park. No flight deck guns to save weight, but I did give it plenty of small and medium AA guns. So, the key is to ensure that you connect the two decks and their armor together mentally. If I could build a 40000-ton carrier, I can probably get 3-4 inches of deck and flight deck armor, which is over 6-8 inches, along with a larger air wing. Try this, it works.... in theory of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2022 15:35:37 GMT -6
Not a single millimeter of armor. Maximum size strike group at ~30,000 tons, or maximum size strike group at ~36,000 tons with as much AA as you can stack onto them.
Your fleet will be your armor.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 23, 2022 13:00:06 GMT -6
Just thought I would provide a good article on Military Innovation Carrier Aviation from the National Defense University. This is real history, not the game but I think if you read this, you will see that our discussions about carrier armor and others in the forum seem to mirror what transpired from 1919-1939 and including the Second World War. Anyway, enjoy it. Carrier Innovation.pdf (236.51 KB)
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 23, 2022 18:19:31 GMT -6
How much armor should a carrier carry if a carrier should carry armor?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 23, 2022 18:49:18 GMT -6
How much armor should a carrier carry if a carrier should carry armor? Well, how many aircraft do you want to carry? What range do you want? Speed? All these factors are important, and the extra armor will detract from those other specifications. Personally, 2-3 inches of flight deck armor and 2-3 inches of deck armor. This gives you about 4 to 6 inches of protection for the vitals of the ship. Again, this is a mobile airfield, aircraft are important. I would also put carrier on long range especially for the US, Japan and GB.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jun 24, 2022 5:45:28 GMT -6
i believe the answer is:
a carrier could carry as much armor as it could carry if a carrier should carry armor
lol
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 24, 2022 13:30:08 GMT -6
I've suggested that we be able to produce Flying Deck Cruisers, here is an example. I need to add more ordnance for the main gun and some other additions, but this would work. Here is another with armored hangar sides, more ammunition for the 8 inch guns. I am going to design another with an aft turret included, should be fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 18:55:15 GMT -6
I'll chip-in my two-bits here. I originally did not armor my carriers, but in some of my biggest carrier battles (usually as Japan) I would lose about a third of my carriers to sink about half of the enemy, which though positive is a rather painful exchange. Just 2" of deck armor (observed over many games) seemed to cut my carrier losses in half, but 2" of deck armor is (roughly) a full squadron. So which squadrons to lose was the question. Fighters are the squadron to lose. I always favor the range-range-range mantra in my carrier aircraft, so if it is a "classic" carrier battle I simply maneuver so as to be able to launch and then retire, and hopefully the only air attack I face are some land-based aircraft from somewhere far away. The cincher comes if the battle is in a more confined sea than I would prefer, or some other unpredictable randomness happens, and then sometimes you just need to look at the starting position and say, "the most points I will get from this will be the ones I don't lose by quitting the field post-haste." ...but now I have to see what an Essex looks like with a 7" slab of deck armor. (edit; it has 36 aircraft at 32k tons. ^.^) Mine had 95 aircraft, at about 70k tons... Well, I really liked my supercarriers. They are an endless source of bombers and since the AI has a constant advantage in dive-bomber research, they can lower the risk those planes pose to my ships. CAP never really worked for me. There were always enough enemy bombers to get through. Especially since the game throws out many battles that are just ridiculously close to enemy shore bases. So I prefered to build ships that could take 2 torpedoes, 3 bombs and still continue fighting like (almost) nothing happened.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 25, 2022 11:37:51 GMT -6
@pavelsvt - I routinely go the other way. My carriers are lightly armored (2-3" on sides and deck, usually none on hangar deck) and have max torpedo protection and very heavy AA batteries, but if I carry 4 squadrons I (usually) have two that are fighters. And in combat I always go with heavy or maximum CAP, even if it means I can't send fighters with my strikes.
In early years my fighters prioritize firepower and maneuverability, later firepower and speed.
Since bombing and torpedo attacks are statistical, anything I can do to whittle the numbers down pays dividends. Your carrier may survive that heavy damage - but if it isn't damaged it remains in service instead of being in repair for months.
There is a simple cure for battles where my forces spawn next to massive enemy air forces. I press CTRL, then ALT, then DEL and the silly deployment goes away.
|
|