|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 19, 2023 2:24:24 GMT -6
this mostly stems from rather weak armament of the aircraft in question, and the now nerfed aircraft Bombs have been massively nerfed and because they all carry AP bombs, that cannot penetrate more than 4" of deck armor, you wont do anything to most BBs A jet attacker carrying a single missile is also unlikely to do much, while a strike of 30 missiles with 20 escorts to defend them sounds impressive, you can fit that amount of missiles on a cruiser, and the likelihood of doing much damage is low The issue really stems from aircraft not having a way of dealing reliable consistent damage. the optimal way to fix this is to allow jet attackers to carry 2-4 MASMs single greatest tech in the game is capability for torpedo bombers to carry two torpedoes, before that aircraft really are quite meh alongside nerfs to early aircraft/torpedo bombers. TLDR nerf to biplanes/early aircraft, the early torpedo bombers now suck accuracy wise. Massive nerfs to dive bombers, they went from 6,5-7" pen with 1400 lb AP bombs in rtw-2 patch 1,25 to 3,5-4" pen in RTW-3 this is a downgrade of almost 3" penetration and means about 80% of battleships, and all new battleships, are immune to AP bombs and as a result they take no damage from them. Lack of ability to carry HE bombs Large bombs lack damage against all targets. Late game they lack the firepower necessary to kill a battleship as their missile armament is simply too weak. And notably of all A single carriers airgroup of 102 aircraft in active service including a 47k carrier to carry the 102 jet aircraft, costs a combined 3,410 per month. Or about equivalent to having three missile destroyers under construction at once at all times, or maintaining two newly built 70k ton SAM equipped battleships, or maintaining about 30 3800 ton missile destroyers. The effectiveness of aircraft in attacking ships really shouldn't rely on ASMs, because ASMs were not the main anti - surface weapon for aircraft of this time period. Large bombers - Badgers and Bears - did carry conventional ASMs. But the Exocet was not introduced until 1974, Harpoon wasn't introduced until 1977, and after that those missiles gradually became the ubiquitous anti - surface weapon of the Western navies. Emphasis on 'after that,' because new weapons never become the primary armament of a fleet as soon as they're introduced. In short, (as far as I'm aware,) for anything smaller than a heavy bomber, HE or nuclear iron bombs were the primary weapon until the 1980s, and they were effective. I don't know when AP bombs went out of fashion, but I assume it wasn't long after the introduction of effective naval SAMs, because SAMs necessitate pop - up attacks.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jun 19, 2023 4:31:25 GMT -6
I just finished my first run as Britain, and in my war with Germany in 1969, aircraft were brutal, both for and against me. SAMs definitely did a lot of damage, but in one engagement my last remaining strike carrier (60K-odd displacement, 100 aircraft - it had an armoured deck which I was testing to see if it helped with damage resistance*) hammered the opposition with repeated strikes. In the opening engagement of the war I'd lost my main cruisers and a number of destroyers (and one of my two large carriers - mostly to enemy aircraft), and had to lean heavily on my carriers (a second large carrier was commissioned a few months into the war, thankfully) to carry me through. Air damage is a bit random - some engagements aircraft are brutal, others they're less effective - but I feel this isn't implausible. I'm not suggesting there isn't room for improvement (and the tweaks to have battle start further apart will be most welcome) but I didn't feel there were any great issues with late-game aircraft in my playthrough. Noting it's just one playthrough so may not be representative. Also, given my experience with enemy aircraft, Heavy CAPs are good! * One missile from an aircraft on its sister started a fire that sank it - so that's the last post-1940s armoured carrier I'll build for a while! Can you say anything more about the aircraft that managed to do a lot of damage?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2023 6:35:09 GMT -6
this mostly stems from rather weak armament of the aircraft in question, and the now nerfed aircraft Bombs have been massively nerfed and because they all carry AP bombs, that cannot penetrate more than 4" of deck armor, you wont do anything to most BBs A jet attacker carrying a single missile is also unlikely to do much, while a strike of 30 missiles with 20 escorts to defend them sounds impressive, you can fit that amount of missiles on a cruiser, and the likelihood of doing much damage is low The issue really stems from aircraft not having a way of dealing reliable consistent damage. the optimal way to fix this is to allow jet attackers to carry 2-4 MASMs single greatest tech in the game is capability for torpedo bombers to carry two torpedoes, before that aircraft really are quite meh alongside nerfs to early aircraft/torpedo bombers. TLDR nerf to biplanes/early aircraft, the early torpedo bombers now suck accuracy wise. Massive nerfs to dive bombers, they went from 6,5-7" pen with 1400 lb AP bombs in rtw-2 patch 1,25 to 3,5-4" pen in RTW-3 this is a downgrade of almost 3" penetration and means about 80% of battleships, and all new battleships, are immune to AP bombs and as a result they take no damage from them. Lack of ability to carry HE bombs Large bombs lack damage against all targets. Late game they lack the firepower necessary to kill a battleship as their missile armament is simply too weak. And notably of all A single carriers airgroup of 102 aircraft in active service including a 47k carrier to carry the 102 jet aircraft, costs a combined 3,410 per month. Or about equivalent to having three missile destroyers under construction at once at all times, or maintaining two newly built 70k ton SAM equipped battleships, or maintaining about 30 3800 ton missile destroyers. The effectiveness of aircraft in attacking ships really shouldn't rely on ASMs, because ASMs were not the main anti - surface weapon for aircraft of this time period. Large bombers - Badgers and Bears - did carry conventional ASMs. But the Exocet was not introduced until 1974, Harpoon wasn't introduced until 1977, and after that those missiles gradually became the ubiquitous anti - surface weapon of the Western navies. Emphasis on 'after that,' because new weapons never become the primary armament of a fleet as soon as they're introduced. In short, (as far as I'm aware,) for anything smaller than a heavy bomber, HE or nuclear iron bombs were the primary weapon until the 1980s, and they were effective. I don't know when AP bombs went out of fashion, but I assume it wasn't long after the introduction of effective naval SAMs, because SAMs necessitate pop - up attacks. You are forgetting the countless ASM weapons used to attack ships, in your mind "ASM" means harpoon, when in reality ASM means 1960s AGM-12 bullpup, AS-30 nord, KS-1, RB-04 and so on, bullpup (250 lb warhead) came into service in 1959 on lexingtons A-4s and the larger 1000 lb warhead bullpup in 1964 Heavy ASMs were only on large aircraft yes (except agm-12C with 1000 lb warhead) but you are mistaken if you think no aircraft had ASMs in 1960, RB-04 was also in service from 1955 onwards, and two of these could be carried on swedish fighters. AP bombs being removed from inventory has nothing to do with ASMs it has everything to do with SAMs, the same goes for bomb use against ships, Sams make high altitude dive bomb attacks or level bomb attacks without standoff weapons impossible due to how close you need to get, as a result AP bombs have very low penetration, and HE bombs are better used, along with the main adversary mostly having destroyers and light cruisers, for which AP bombs were not that effective against. Many nations had MCLOS missiles which were to be used against surface targets of all kinds, ships, tanks, bridges, while the warhead could be argued to be small for ships, 100 kgs of explosives will still do large damage to a destroyer or frigate sized ships, as shown by 250 lb bomb damage in ww2. the 1000 lb warhead on later missiles such as the agm-12C would do massive damage to targets such as ships and tanks while outranging most defensive systems at the time, while having high precision for the time. Some nations had dedicated ASM missile development, of note here is sweden and the soviet union, but its also worth noting how these differed, the soviet program was only for large bombers such as the tu-4 and tu-16, however these totally replaced the standard anti ship strike loadout on all aircraft capable of carrying them. only very few tu-16Ts (torpedo bombers capable of also using mines/depth charges) however these were all converted to search and rescue aircraft, due to the fact that soviet anti ship missile programs for these aircraft were rapidly showing results, (KS-1 in service with tu-4 in 1955) later K-10 kipper in 1961. The swedish persued smaller ASMs that were rather unique, but these were to be used on their fighters and were rather light, and short ranged while having a decent warhead. America was not concerned about the lack of dedicated anti ship missiles because until the 60s most soviet ships did not have SAMs, and even when the soviets started to introduce sams on their ships, these were the S-125s which were rather short ranged at only 15 km, which against an aircraft firing an AGM-12C the aircraft will in most scenarios be in range to fire first, with walleyes and other guided bombs beginning to appear between 1960 and 1970 the ability for american aircraft to drop/launch guided weapons on targets outside of soviet SAM engagement range was quite good. Though these weapons were not designed to destroy ships, they were very capable of it, and as thus filled the role for the time being until a need arose for something more capable. Its worth noting that soviet sams in general were short ranged, the vast majority of their ships had a max range of 15 km, with two classes having the furthest range at 55km in 1966, S-300 system game them a SAM giving effective 60-70 km coverage but even then thats pretty poor compared to american systems easily capable of 40km + for medium sams in 1960 and heavy sams capable of 200 km in 1960 (TALOS) Between 1945 and 1960 AA was generally extremely effective due to wide proliferation of radar guidance and advanced MAA and HAA mounts. some standoff weapons existed like the HS293 and Bat radar guided glide bomb, and while these were common further development of these types of weapons stopping somewhat postwar outside of the soviet union (because nobody else had any major navy to fight) Missiles historically were not commonly used against ships from aircraft because the conflict aircraft were involved in generally did not have any naval combatants to be used against, let alone any with effective defences, and the weapons were used for other roles due to lack of naval targets. An exception could be made for the falklands war, but the ships involved in the falklands war were mostly incapable of effective air defence due to the inadequacy of british SAMs Likewise the aircraft involved at the falklands had extremely limited weapon options due to lack of inventories on both sides, neither side had any aircraft capable of carrying multiple anti ship missiles or the inventories of guided standard standoff weapons, like bullpups,
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 28, 2023 6:53:04 GMT -6
After the advent of surface-to-air missiles, many attack aircraft switched to low-altitude attacks, and the capability of pre-1970 radars/SAMs against low-altitude targets was very limited. In other words, a supersonic attack aircraft carrying bombs and attacking at low altitude should be very difficult to intercept with SAMs. To my knowledge, this aspect doesn't seem to be simulated in RTW3. Yes but it depends, some ships lacked close in weapon systems or weapons capable of low altitude engagement, Ships like the USS albany would not be able to engage low flying aircraft with the RIM-8 talos but the Rim-24 would be much more capable of doing so, although would still have issues with very low flying aircraft. However a ship like the Providence class would have much better capability of doing so due to the large amount of gun based AA present on the ship, and due to the inherently vulnerable profile against gun based AA that low flying attacks use they are very vulnerable radar guided guns firing VT fused shells and RMAA as they have trouble dodging or rapidly changing altitude without exposing themselves, or crashing into the sea at the low altitude. Its also worth noting that this was primarily an issue with british ships with the sea dart at the falklands islands, some nations (Like USA) had significantly better radar and SAM systems, with better capability, even the british had a missile capable of engaging low flying targets like sea skimming aircraft. The issue was that the sea cat was an absolutely terrible and horrible SAM system, and even if it tracked the target was extremely unlikely to hit it.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 30, 2023 1:34:55 GMT -6
After the advent of surface-to-air missiles, many attack aircraft switched to low-altitude attacks, and the capability of pre-1970 radars/SAMs against low-altitude targets was very limited. In other words, a supersonic attack aircraft carrying bombs and attacking at low altitude should be very difficult to intercept with SAMs. To my knowledge, this aspect doesn't seem to be simulated in RTW3. MMMmmmhmmmm Falklands nom nom
|
|
kevin
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by kevin on Jun 30, 2023 3:47:59 GMT -6
After the advent of surface-to-air missiles, many attack aircraft switched to low-altitude attacks, and the capability of pre-1970 radars/SAMs against low-altitude targets was very limited. In other words, a supersonic attack aircraft carrying bombs and attacking at low altitude should be very difficult to intercept with SAMs. To my knowledge, this aspect doesn't seem to be simulated in RTW3. Yes but it depends, some ships lacked close in weapon systems or weapons capable of low altitude engagement, Ships like the USS albany would not be able to engage low flying aircraft with the RIM-8 talos but the Rim-24 would be much more capable of doing so, although would still have issues with very low flying aircraft. However a ship like the Providence class would have much better capability of doing so due to the large amount of gun based AA present on the ship, and due to the inherently vulnerable profile against gun based AA that low flying attacks use they are very vulnerable radar guided guns firing VT fused shells and RMAA as they have trouble dodging or rapidly changing altitude without exposing themselves, or crashing into the sea at the low altitude. Its also worth noting that this was primarily an issue with british ships with the sea dart at the falklands islands, some nations (Like USA) had significantly better radar and SAM systems, with better capability, even the british had a missile capable of engaging low flying targets like sea skimming aircraft. The issue was that the sea cat was an absolutely terrible and horrible SAM system, and even if it tracked the target was extremely unlikely to hit it. The early radar had a big issue with low-altitude high-speed targets - it struggled to differentiate them from ground/sea clutter. By the time it detected an enemy aircraft and confirmed it wasn't a false signal, there wasn't enough time to react. Sure, with early warning, RMAA could indeed take down enemy aircraft. But in reality, low-altitude targets were often mistaken for false signals and overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 30, 2023 12:03:39 GMT -6
Its also worth noting that this was primarily an issue with british ships with the sea dart at the falklands islands, some nations (Like USA) had significantly better radar and SAM systems, with better capability, even the british had a missile capable of engaging low flying targets like sea skimming aircraft. The issue was that the sea cat was an absolutely terrible and horrible SAM system, and even if it tracked the target was extremely unlikely to hit it. I rather suspect it was down to the processing rather than the quality of the Radar, especially considering all the fun Buccaneer pilots had with attacking the US Fleet in various exercises. An approach that somewhat backfired when a Phalanx CIWS on board USS Jarrett decided that a slow moving chaff cloud was in fact an attacking aircraft or missile and put a burst into USS Missouri. Meanwhile, HMS Gloucester - with the same equipment her sisters' had had in the Falklands - destroyed the inbound Silkworm missile with her Sea Dart missiles.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 30, 2023 17:37:51 GMT -6
I just finished my first run as Britain, and in my war with Germany in 1969, aircraft were brutal, both for and against me. SAMs definitely did a lot of damage, but in one engagement my last remaining strike carrier (60K-odd displacement, 100 aircraft - it had an armoured deck which I was testing to see if it helped with damage resistance*) hammered the opposition with repeated strikes. In the opening engagement of the war I'd lost my main cruisers and a number of destroyers (and one of my two large carriers - mostly to enemy aircraft), and had to lean heavily on my carriers (a second large carrier was commissioned a few months into the war, thankfully) to carry me through. Air damage is a bit random - some engagements aircraft are brutal, others they're less effective - but I feel this isn't implausible. I'm not suggesting there isn't room for improvement (and the tweaks to have battle start further apart will be most welcome) but I didn't feel there were any great issues with late-game aircraft in my playthrough. Noting it's just one playthrough so may not be representative. Also, given my experience with enemy aircraft, Heavy CAPs are good! * One missile from an aircraft on its sister started a fire that sank it - so that's the last post-1940s armoured carrier I'll build for a while! Can you say anything more about the aircraft that managed to do a lot of damage? Sorry for the delay in replying, had a crazy run with work and a bit off with the pixies. Afraid I can't say too much beyond both missiles and bombs could be be very effective (but could also have very limited effect - again the relatively wide statistical distribution of possible outcomes from air attacks). Once I started getting hammered by aircraft I switched to heavy CAPs, and I almost always escorted my bombers/attack aircraft to increase their chance of getting through (and the AI seemed to generally do the same.
|
|
|
Post by barbarus on Jul 1, 2023 11:14:24 GMT -6
And why the hell LJFs can't be night capable?
|
|
kevin
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by kevin on Jul 1, 2023 18:51:15 GMT -6
In the RTW3 timeframe (before 1970), radar operation was quite complex. Pilots would have a tough time handling both the aircraft and radar simultaneously. So, even though some light fighters were equipped with radar, it was challenging to practically use them as night fighters.
|
|
|
Post by barbarus on Jul 1, 2023 22:22:53 GMT -6
In the RTW3 timeframe (before 1970), radar operation was quite complex. Pilots would have a tough time handling both the aircraft and radar simultaneously. So, even though some light fighters were equipped with radar, it was challenging to practically use them as night fighters. Air combat penalties? Ok, no problem. But what about landing procedures?
|
|
kevin
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by kevin on Jul 2, 2023 1:37:01 GMT -6
[Shipboard aircraft operation 18] ... Mirror landing aids;1955;Y;80;8;1824;Reduces landing accidents ... Improved instrument landing systems;1962;Y;80;8;1826;Allows air operations in low cloud and drizzle
There are technologies that reduce the accident rate. Theoretically, the Automatic Carrier Landing System in 1962 should significantly decrease the accident rate during night landings.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jul 2, 2023 15:45:36 GMT -6
Yes but it depends, some ships lacked close in weapon systems or weapons capable of low altitude engagement, Ships like the USS albany would not be able to engage low flying aircraft with the RIM-8 talos but the Rim-24 would be much more capable of doing so, although would still have issues with very low flying aircraft. However a ship like the Providence class would have much better capability of doing so due to the large amount of gun based AA present on the ship, and due to the inherently vulnerable profile against gun based AA that low flying attacks use they are very vulnerable radar guided guns firing VT fused shells and RMAA as they have trouble dodging or rapidly changing altitude without exposing themselves, or crashing into the sea at the low altitude. Its also worth noting that this was primarily an issue with british ships with the sea dart at the falklands islands, some nations (Like USA) had significantly better radar and SAM systems, with better capability, even the british had a missile capable of engaging low flying targets like sea skimming aircraft. The issue was that the sea cat was an absolutely terrible and horrible SAM system, and even if it tracked the target was extremely unlikely to hit it. The early radar had a big issue with low-altitude high-speed targets - it struggled to differentiate them from ground/sea clutter. By the time it detected an enemy aircraft and confirmed it wasn't a false signal, there wasn't enough time to react. Sure, with early warning, RMAA could indeed take down enemy aircraft. But in reality, low-altitude targets were often mistaken for false signals and overlooked. the altitude in question here is sub 40-50 meters, these altitudes are suicidal against any gun based AA due to how close you need to get to drop weapons on the target, you are basically flying right over, against a 1950s electrical rapid training mount with a firecontrol director, even without radar tracking its going to absolutely remove your aircraft from existence. You also run into issues with minimum arming distance when dropping bombs that low, and you run into risk of destroying your own aircraft if the bombs have impact fuses.
|
|
|
Post by bthom37 on Jul 13, 2023 21:13:33 GMT -6
Having played multiple nations through the 1970s, AC are incredibly weak and SAMs are incredibly OP starting around the mid 60s. AC are essentially free VPs against a strong SAM defense, which seems most likely ahistorical. Looking at the Falklands, 35% of losses were due to SAMs, with (almost) all the remainder being A2A. SAMs regularly exceed 50% in RTW3. While there's peculiarities around Falklands, it was also fought with more modern missiles than RTW3 supposedly represents.
|
|
|
Post by expendable on Jul 17, 2023 20:53:48 GMT -6
Christian, its the limit of guidance. The actual ballistic range is much greater. The reserve kinematics for intercept are far superior to what is implied by figures.
For instance, the M-11 has burn out velocity north of mach 3.
As for accuracy of air attack, Friedmans mentions the accuracy of air strikes during Pacific war around 5%. In 1944 it increased to 33% for the United States, how did this happen? Well a tidbit from the US Naval Mission to Japan mentions that the Japanese ran out of 25mm ammunition and were counting bullet by bullet the number of rounds they could shoot at every attack.
Personal observations place the in game hit rate between 20%-40%.
This is compensated for by extremely high maintenance fees in the classic NWS style; not fixing the problem but surely the increased maintenance fees [/nerfed countermeasures] will balance it out.
|
|