|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 3, 2020 11:47:47 GMT -6
I want to clarify some issues with post WW2-era weapons. There was a profound change in naval tactics and missions after the war. It was a real change in philosophy due to the Cold War. The change was a philosophy of mission killing instead of sinking. It was found through post-WW2 documentation and testing, that is cheaper and easier to just mission kill a ship, than to attempt to sink it. This issue is complex but this is why we see technology move the direction it did. Bikini told us that the only way to use a nuclear weapon on a fleet is to drop the weapon and explode it underwater. The resulting pressure wave would snap the keel's and sink the ships. It wasn't just the nuclear weapon issue, it was also just chemical weapons like the regular explosives used in warheads. A follow on to this was the testing of surface to surface missiles against the USS America. Those results are not published but the carrier sank.
The best examples of post-WW2 naval engagements to study would be the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Indo-Pakistani War, the Falkland Islands war etc. Vietnam did not really show any examples that would be useful. The Yam Kippur war, Korea might also show some light on this subject.
Remember also, that missile technology in the area of propulsion and guidance was still in its infancy. They were not that accurate.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 3, 2020 11:50:23 GMT -6
To be honest I am hoping there is a "slow missile development" option like there is for aircraft. I always play till the hard coded end of game with slow development enabled.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 3, 2020 12:10:46 GMT -6
One last bit of information about missiles, missile technology and anti-ship missiles. Since WW2 naval warfare has returned to the enclosed seas, narrow seas and littoral zones. These are areas where naval warfare has traditionally been exercised. Due to this return to traditional arena's, the characteristics and tactics of ships have changed. Over 450 ships have been hit by ASCM's since the first ASCM's struck the Eilat in 1967. Don't expect much from ASCM's in the game since it stops around 1955. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 3, 2020 12:46:42 GMT -6
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 ? Termit would not do it to citadel armour. Explosion blast cannot do it so heavily armoured ship (you can compare to nuclear tests of USN). However against unarmoured or very lightly armoured targets, such missile is deadly. The reason why ship does not have battleship level armour is that you can design missile with ability to penetrate such armour. However as most ships are unarmoured or just have limited armour, you have no need for high penetration and you can use weight of missile for something else. I remember reading somewhere that Belgrano can be sunk only by torpedoes or bomb (from weapons available at that time). However it seems me quite strange as 2" of deck armour and 5.5" of belt armour does not seem to me too much to protect even against missiles without high penetration power. Relating to Stalingrad. It seems to me that 100 missiles cannot be true, but certainly if missiles is not designed to pierce heavy armour, you can demolish ship (similar to Bismarck damage), but ship can be still floating.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 3, 2020 13:09:43 GMT -6
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 ? Termit would not do it to citadel armour. Explosion blast cannot do it so heavily armoured ship (you can compare to nuclear tests of USN). However against unarmoured or very lightly armoured targets, such missile is deadly. The reason why ship does not have battleship level armour is that you can design missile with ability to penetrate such armour. However as most ships are unarmoured or just have limited armour, you have no need for high penetration and you can use weight of missile for something else. I remember reading somewhere that Belgrano can be sunk only by torpedoes or bomb (from weapons available at that time). However it seems me quite strange as 2" of deck armour and 5.5" of belt armour does not seem to me too much to protect even against missiles without high penetration power. Relating to Stalingrad. It seems to me that 100 missiles cannot be true, but certainly if missiles is not designed to pierce heavy armour, you can demolish ship (similar to Bismarck damage), but ship can be still floating. Here is some brief information about the Stalingrad issue - warisboring.com/soviet-admirals-shunned-stalins-favorite-battlecruiser/. Just something to consider. In my forty years of experience with the military, they don't like to publish, in detail, the test results from anything. Trust me, they don't. The Russian Navy would pigeon-hole any information in detail about the Styx tests. We did the same thing, and I can't tell you anything about them, but we did it, the Russian's did it and everyone else did it. Just goes with the territory.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 3, 2020 17:03:29 GMT -6
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 ? Termit would not do it to citadel armour. Explosion blast cannot do it so heavily armoured ship (you can compare to nuclear tests of USN). However against unarmoured or very lightly armoured targets, such missile is deadly. The reason why ship does not have battleship level armour is that you can design missile with ability to penetrate such armour. However as most ships are unarmoured or just have limited armour, you have no need for high penetration and you can use weight of missile for something else. I remember reading somewhere that Belgrano can be sunk only by torpedoes or bomb (from weapons available at that time). However it seems me quite strange as 2" of deck armour and 5.5" of belt armour does not seem to me too much to protect even against missiles without high penetration power. Relating to Stalingrad. It seems to me that 100 missiles cannot be true, but certainly if missiles is not designed to pierce heavy armour, you can demolish ship (similar to Bismarck damage), but ship can be still floating. true though unlike real life structure damage cant straight up sink a ship unlike in game currently unlike in real life where the structure does not just collapse unless in some very very rare cases. in real life only reason a ship would sink is either flooding or uncontrollable fires burning the intire ship in game a 50k ton ship dosent need more than 4-6 1500 lbs of bombs while high explosive or SAP bombs quite literally cant sink any capital ships directly in real life (unless you either get close misses which flood or a dumb lucky funnel hit) such as an iowa or the like because they will remain floating as long as the citadel is unbreached which neither the HE or SAP bombs are able to penetrate (AON power) which means if we go purely by penetration power an iowa was essentially immune to all Japanese bombs in widespread use and service in terms of fatal damage. but this is not the entire story of course since bombs can start fires and so on what killed carriers and battleships (bomb wise) was mostly fires magazine explosions (as seen with franklin, japanese carriers, roma and yamato) or torpedoes (flooding) missiles are alot better at causing fires than bombs as they usually have left over fuel remaining especially in the p-15s case (which had the fuel in front of the warhead) on top of that most missiles either had a SAP warhead or in the p-15s case a hollow charge warhead which gave them quite substantial penetrative performance and considering a hollow charge warhead of 454kg i dont think it would have any problem with most armor it would face also worth noting that even the early and comparatively "slow" missiles still had more penetration than most super heavy AP bombs (such as the american 1600 lbs AP bomb which when dropped from 1300 meters in a 30 knot 60 degree dive could pen 5 inches of deck armor pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/o/Bombs.htm)while a p-15 termit likely hits at a similair speed (as the bomb does on impact) while being more than twice as heavy (though that specific missile has a very big hollow charge warhead compared to most other missiles which had SAP warheads) this is most likely also why basically all ships post the development of anti ship missiles had the belt armor and citadel armor equivalent to wet toilet paper most likely yeah especially since china (and i believe some other nations) still use variants of the termit
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 4, 2020 8:15:25 GMT -6
Well let's consider the weapons available to GB at this time: Harpoons were carried by the surface fleet, whilst HMS Conqueror *should* have been carrying some Sub-Harpoons. However, these have a light HE warhead, and are considered unsuitable to kill an armoured vessel. The Sea Harriers could carry Sea Eagle missiles, with a heavier warhead and are designed to be semi-armour piercing. However, the Belgrano at the time was towards the outer edge of the Harriers' range - meaning a minimum 30 min flight to bring the missiles into deployment range. Nor do I know the penetration data for this weapon, so am unable to comment on that capability. Iron bombs were even worse with regards to weapon range, plus had the disadvantage of bringing the Harriers into Sea Cat (SAM) range. That therefore left torpedoes as the weapons of choice. The Mar-24 had a relatively light warhead considered inadequate for dealing with a heavy warship like Belgrano, so the decision was made to use the MkVIII**, a WW2 era weapon.
|
|
|
Post by cdodders on Apr 6, 2020 10:16:41 GMT -6
That therefore left torpedoes as the weapons of choice. The Mar-24 had a relatively light warhead considered inadequate for dealing with a heavy warship like Belgrano, so the decision was made to use the MkVIII**, a WW2 era weapon. That and Tigerfish was proven to be unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Apr 7, 2020 10:31:33 GMT -6
I wonder if there will be differentiation between launcher types. Box launchers being the cheapest and lightest option with the quickest readying time, but only having one shot and requiring the ship to be pointed the right way. Arm and twin arm launchers being much more expensive and heavy and only being able to ready one or two missiles at a time but having access to a full magazine and can fire in a broad arc. And VLS being way outside the scope of this game.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 7, 2020 12:13:33 GMT -6
Initial missiles release (v1.19) in RTW2 will be a somewhat simplified/limited implementation - later on we will offer a more detailed/comprehensive system for those who desire such complexity/detail.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Apr 7, 2020 15:40:47 GMT -6
Initial missiles release (v1.19) in RTW2 will be a somewhat simplified/limited implementation - later on we will offer a more detailed/comprehensive system for those who desire such complexity/detail. That's understandable, get the mechanics and basics down first before expanding it to be a more major system. I hope it won't be *too* simple though.
|
|
|
Post by ryan201 on Apr 7, 2020 23:31:47 GMT -6
Just a random thought I had - since we have an aircraft procurement system, would it be possible to have a missile procurement system in the future, so as to give the missile duels a bit more variety in the future? So rather than (for example) anti ship missiles having the same speed and punch across the board, they would have different ranges, warheads, etc. just like the varied models of aircraft? Just wondering, really hyped for early Cold War ship combat!
|
|