|
Post by cdodders on Apr 1, 2020 14:10:35 GMT -6
I have just researched Early SSMs (I guess you mean AShM) but unfortunately they aren't implemented yet. Any idea on if and when they will?
|
|
|
Post by liam556 on Apr 1, 2020 14:39:18 GMT -6
They are supposed to be in the next update i think.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Apr 1, 2020 15:09:58 GMT -6
Missile launchers will be included in the 1.19 update which had a timeframe of 2 or 3 weeks on the third of March, bear in my what they say about estimates
|
|
|
Post by cdodders on Apr 1, 2020 15:47:57 GMT -6
Oh cool!
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Apr 2, 2020 0:36:12 GMT -6
1.19 will be some kind of "Aragorn gets Andúril for the first time" thing
I am excited how this will fit in the late games.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 2, 2020 1:00:12 GMT -6
1.19 will be some kind of "Aragorn gets Andúril for the first time" thing
I am excited how this will fit in the late games. smol fast doomsticccccc depending on how they are added everything beyond CL or CA become outdated
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 2, 2020 6:19:33 GMT -6
1.19 will be some kind of "Aragorn gets Andúril for the first time" thing
I am excited how this will fit in the late games. smol fast doomsticccccc depending on how they are added everything beyond CL or CA become outdated I don't know, early missile warheads could conceivably be stopped by battleship grade armour. Also, a guided-missile battleship would be awesome!
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Apr 2, 2020 10:16:21 GMT -6
smol fast doomsticccccc depending on how they are added everything beyond CL or CA become outdated I don't know, early missile warheads could conceivably be stopped by battleship grade armour. Also, a guided-missile battleship would be awesome!
Let´s see. Tech normally stops near 1955/60 and with a few German (they have the relevant tech advantage) playthroughs to 1975 I didn´t notice any "increasing damage" techs, only "increasing hit chance" or some "counter measures".
And I don´t think a BB-convertion makes any sense. It will (hopefully) be very expensive (as example, take the planned refits of the Iowas during Vietnam). For BBs I guess SSM will be a supporting weapon against lighter vessels (probably one-hits against DDs) with the opportunity to reduce the secondary guns, which become a bit more powerfull once proximity fuzes are invented (with the new stats at the end of a war you see your AA-performance- normally my AA kills about 3-5% of all enemy plane casualties; with proximity fuzes the percentage for the heavy AA increases from 1-2% to 3-5%- in total less than 10% of all killed planes- CAP still is the most effective). But imagine SAMs will add another ~10%. That reduces the amount of CAP capacity you have to take with your CV-TFs. Now CVL could become 2nd line damage dealers, instead of CAP-carriers.
At the end it will be important how heavy SSM/SAM starters (and their guiding systems) will be compared to guns and how much gun firepower you can replace by them.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 3, 2020 2:18:20 GMT -6
smol fast doomsticccccc depending on how they are added everything beyond CL or CA become outdated I don't know, early missile warheads could conceivably be stopped by battleship grade armour. Also, a guided-missile battleship would be awesome! until you realize things like the p-15 termit missile existed in 1958 with a 500 kg heat warhead which would not only smash any battleships armor in but also blow a giant hole and on top of this it had fuel in front of the warhead which meant that if not all the fuel would burn it would also act as an incendiary throwing unspent fuel all over the ship which was ignited by the warhead exploding also it weighed around 2.5 tons granted a very "limited" range of 40km or the spicy 1953s KSShch missile at 3.1 tons and 68nm range (no idea about warhead) or the super spicy 1959s 5 ton SS-N-3 Shaddock anti ship missile with a whopping 450km range (later versions 750) and a 1000 kg warhead or 300 kt warhead mach 0.9 speed these missile absolutely would be able to give carriers and battleships a giant run for their money especially since they could be mounted on sub 5k platforms (in fact 2 ss-n-3 missiles were mounted on a sub 1,4k ton submarine) in fact 4 p-15 termits were mounted on a 230 ton missile boat the osa classduring the indo pakistani war in 1971 11 p-15 termits were fired and 10 hit their target with only one malfunctioning which gives them a succes rate of 91% yes i know im listing alot of russian missiles but thats mainly because nobody but the russians had any good anti ship missiles from 1955-1960
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 3, 2020 2:52:22 GMT -6
I don't know, early missile warheads could conceivably be stopped by battleship grade armour. Also, a guided-missile battleship would be awesome!
Let´s see. Tech normally stops near 1955/60 and with a few German (they have the relevant tech advantage) playthroughs to 1975 I didn´t notice any "increasing damage" techs, only "increasing hit chance" or some "counter measures".
And I don´t think a BB-convertion makes any sense. It will (hopefully) be very expensive (as example, take the planned refits of the Iowas during Vietnam). For BBs I guess SSM will be a supporting weapon against lighter vessels (probably one-hits against DDs) with the opportunity to reduce the secondary guns, which become a bit more powerfull once proximity fuzes are invented (with the new stats at the end of a war you see your AA-performance- normally my AA kills about 3-5% of all enemy plane casualties; with proximity fuzes the percentage for the heavy AA increases from 1-2% to 3-5%- in total less than 10% of all killed planes- CAP still is the most effective). But imagine SAMs will add another ~10%. That reduces the amount of CAP capacity you have to take with your CV-TFs. Now CVL could become 2nd line damage dealers, instead of CAP-carriers.
At the end it will be important how heavy SSM/SAM starters (and their guiding systems) will be compared to guns and how much gun firepower you can replace by them.
if its gonna be anything like real life a 10k ton light cruiser can replace a battleship or several with just its firepower in missiles as seen with the russian 1962 kynda class light cruiser using the 1959 missile (ss-n-3 shaddock) which had a 1k kg warhead 450km range and mach 0.9 speed all while the ship itself was 5.5k tons and carried eight of those missiles and space for a full reload too (so 16 ss-n-3) while also having room for 2 twin 76.3mm guns and a twin s-125 missile system with 16 missiles total (14 reloads 2 on launcher) this is also the system used to shoot down the f117 in yugoslavia though it was quite old but for 1960 quite a good system now if you take that to a larger ship (a 10k ton one) you could probably fit an extra launcher or more sam or something along those lines but the point is the amount of power a single small ship can carry with missiles IS DUMB then again it all depends on how far they are willing to take missile technology they could give us shitty sam systems (something way older than say the s-125) or they could give us stuff right up to 1960
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Apr 3, 2020 3:19:21 GMT -6
Let´s see. Tech normally stops near 1955/60 and with a few German (they have the relevant tech advantage) playthroughs to 1975 I didn´t notice any "increasing damage" techs, only "increasing hit chance" or some "counter measures".
And I don´t think a BB-convertion makes any sense. It will (hopefully) be very expensive (as example, take the planned refits of the Iowas during Vietnam). For BBs I guess SSM will be a supporting weapon against lighter vessels (probably one-hits against DDs) with the opportunity to reduce the secondary guns, which become a bit more powerfull once proximity fuzes are invented (with the new stats at the end of a war you see your AA-performance- normally my AA kills about 3-5% of all enemy plane casualties; with proximity fuzes the percentage for the heavy AA increases from 1-2% to 3-5%- in total less than 10% of all killed planes- CAP still is the most effective). But imagine SAMs will add another ~10%. That reduces the amount of CAP capacity you have to take with your CV-TFs. Now CVL could become 2nd line damage dealers, instead of CAP-carriers.
At the end it will be important how heavy SSM/SAM starters (and their guiding systems) will be compared to guns and how much gun firepower you can replace by them.
if its gonna be anything like real life a 10k ton light cruiser can replace a battleship or several with just its firepower in missiles as seen with the russian 1962 kynda class light cruiser using the 1959 missile (ss-n-3 shaddock) which had a 1k kg warhead 450km range and mach 0.9 speed all while the ship itself was 5.5k tons and carried eight of those missiles and space for a full reload too (so 16 ss-n-3) while also having room for 2 twin 76.3mm guns and a twin s-125 missile system with 16 missiles total (14 reloads 2 on launcher) this is also the system used to shoot down the f117 in yugoslavia though it was quite old but for 1960 quite a good system now if you take that to a larger ship (a 10k ton one) you could probably fit an extra launcher or more sam or something along those lines but the point is the amount of power a single small ship can carry with missiles IS DUMB then again it all depends on how far they are willing to take missile technology they could give us shitty sam systems (something way older than say the s-125) or they could give us stuff right up to 1960
In the end we have to wait to see, what they give us. Hopefully BB-convertions become expensive as hell to prevent the AI to refit their WW2-crap-stuff with shitloads of SSM-starters. That would break the balance. Imo it would be better to build BBG (battleship guided missile) from scratch to have weight saving designs.
Cool would be, if they tell us to install energy plants (maybe nuclear powered) or connect that to the propulsion system to deliver energy to our radars and missile-starters, or better connect that with more weight intensive installations, so you have to drop your speed or change to another power plant/propulsion system.
There are enough possibilities to give us some fun about it. The main thing should be, that it feals a bit historical.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 3, 2020 4:06:32 GMT -6
if its gonna be anything like real life a 10k ton light cruiser can replace a battleship or several with just its firepower in missiles as seen with the russian 1962 kynda class light cruiser using the 1959 missile (ss-n-3 shaddock) which had a 1k kg warhead 450km range and mach 0.9 speed all while the ship itself was 5.5k tons and carried eight of those missiles and space for a full reload too (so 16 ss-n-3) while also having room for 2 twin 76.3mm guns and a twin s-125 missile system with 16 missiles total (14 reloads 2 on launcher) this is also the system used to shoot down the f117 in yugoslavia though it was quite old but for 1960 quite a good system now if you take that to a larger ship (a 10k ton one) you could probably fit an extra launcher or more sam or something along those lines but the point is the amount of power a single small ship can carry with missiles IS DUMB then again it all depends on how far they are willing to take missile technology they could give us shitty sam systems (something way older than say the s-125) or they could give us stuff right up to 1960
In the end we have to wait to see, what they give us. Hopefully BB-convertions become expensive as hell to prevent the AI to refit their WW2-crap-stuff with shitloads of SSM-starters. That would break the balance. Imo it would be better to build BBG (battleship guided missile) from scratch to have weight saving designs.
Cool would be, if they tell us to install energy plants (maybe nuclear powered) or connect that to the propulsion system to deliver energy to our radars and missile-starters, or better connect that with more weight intensive installations, so you have to drop your speed or change to another power plant/propulsion system.
There are enough possibilities to give us some fun about it. The main thing should be, that it feals a bit historical.
i think there will be a limit to the amount of ssm being able to be refit (in terms of deck space) since irl most bbs dont have nearly enough deckspace for any substancial amount of missiles to be refitted besides battleship missile carriers ARE NOT that efficient i think we might get one new class of ship (GMC guided missile cruiser or just MC missile cruiser) where things such as a kynda would be possible though this missile cruiser thing is probably late game but it would enable ships to have very small surface armament (3-4 inch) while still being a cruiser with alot of missiles i kinda hope they make missiles like with aircraft so that they slowly become bigger better and so on and speed and maneuverability change their hitrate while warhead determines the size and have the same kinda order a design thing aircraft have right now (plus itd be easy to program just make them bigger faster harder hitting kamikaze aircraft with easier and faster launch procedures)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 3, 2020 7:41:17 GMT -6
I don't know, early missile warheads could conceivably be stopped by battleship grade armour. Also, a guided-missile battleship would be awesome! until you realize things like the p-15 termit missile existed in 1958 with a 500 kg heat warhead which would not only smash any battleships armor in but also blow a giant hole and on top of this it had fuel in front of the warhead which meant that if not all the fuel would burn it would also act as an incendiary throwing unspent fuel all over the ship which was ignited by the warhead exploding I do not think that P-15 termit has enough kinetic energy to go through battleship armour.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 3, 2020 8:59:15 GMT -6
until you realize things like the p-15 termit missile existed in 1958 with a 500 kg heat warhead which would not only smash any battleships armor in but also blow a giant hole and on top of this it had fuel in front of the warhead which meant that if not all the fuel would burn it would also act as an incendiary throwing unspent fuel all over the ship which was ignited by the warhead exploding I do not think that P-15 termit has enough kinetic energy to go through battleship armour. The SS-N-2 Styx missile (alias Termit) was tested against the Battle cruiser Stalingrad and after 100 hits, there was no significant damage to the ship. It did sink an Israeli destroyer Eilat during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, it sank the Indian destroyer Khaibar, cargo ship Venus Challenger and the minesweeper Muhafiz. It was a short range missile and the best defense was to sink the small missile boats it was deployed from. You might find this article in Air Power Australia interesting - www.ausairpower.net/Warship-Hits.html
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 3, 2020 10:31:15 GMT -6
until you realize things like the p-15 termit missile existed in 1958 with a 500 kg heat warhead which would not only smash any battleships armor in but also blow a giant hole and on top of this it had fuel in front of the warhead which meant that if not all the fuel would burn it would also act as an incendiary throwing unspent fuel all over the ship which was ignited by the warhead exploding I do not think that P-15 termit has enough kinetic energy to go through battleship armour. thats not the idea of the missile its designed to destroy the ship with the warhead not with kenetic energy its not an armor piercing missile like some later modern ones are where they have a penetrating cap the armored belt will almost certainly crack after being hit by a 500kg warhead (almost equivalent to a torpedo warhead though not so much since there is no water pressure to concentrate the blast so still a bit weaker) for comparison the harpoon with a 225kg warhead could do this www.ausairpower.net/USN/Harpoon-BDA-S.jpgbesides the warhead itself weights almost 500kg which is comparable to what a german 1000kg bomb had also while it might sound wierd missiles like the termit would most likely fair far better than bombs if they were designed to breach armor due to their much higher weight (termit is 2 tons + way less than most bombs) and having quite a high speed (we know most ww2 bombs barely passed above 300m/s on impact) with one of the fastest ww2 bombs being the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_bomb which was a rocket assisted bomb the disneybomb was rated against 4-5 meters of concrete question do you have any source of the termit being fired A HUNDRED times against the battle-cruiser Stalin ? because A she was never more than 70% finished (hull wise) so could not float and had to be modified when used for target practice as she missed both bow and stern and was basically a 150m long floating midsection and secondly spending 100 missiles on a singular test seems like an awfull lot and according to wiki (not a good source) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad-class_battlecruiser#cite_note-24"She was then moved to the Naval Firing Range between Yevpatoria and Sevastopol where it was used as a target for seven P-1 or KSS anti-ship missiles fired from the converted Sverdlov-class cruiser Admiral Nakhimov in December 1956. The missiles penetrated the upper and main decks and devastated the upper hull, but there was no appreciable change in the ship's draught. Details are not known about other tests, although she reportedly served as a target for P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) missiles and a wide variety of armor-piercing munitions. By the early 1960s her usefulness had come to an end and she was scrapped, possibly in 1962.[24]" also worth noting that by the time these tests happend she had grounded (drifted onto some rocks which penetrated her bottom hull and made her permanently stuck) which means that no matter how hard they tried she most likely would not sink considering the damage done to modern cruisers by missiles with sub 200kg warheads i doubt the stalingrad without bow nor stern could take over 45 thousand tons of explosive exploding on her and there would be "no significant damage to the ship" especially considering most ships of her size laid down around the same time as her could only hope to withstand 3-6 2000 lb bombs which usually had less than 800 kgs of explosives not to mention no incendiary aspect as the t-15 had this also raises an even bigger question if Stalingrads armor was so strong it could withstand so many missile hits why werent missile cruisers from 1960-1980 way more armored ?
|
|