|
Post by avimimus on Apr 13, 2024 14:16:24 GMT -6
What is the best strategy for increasing survivability against dive bombers? Any recommendations regarding armour thickness and layout?
|
|
|
Post by larcrivereagle on Apr 13, 2024 21:01:35 GMT -6
I don't think you need anywhere near as much right now as you'd think, given IRL values. Somewhere between 3-4 inches should be sufficient to stop dive bomber and missile (you will still take decently large structure damage from missile attacks even if they don't pen though) attacks right up to the end of the game. It's not sufficient to stand against plunging fire, with around 9 inches being needed to withstand max AP tech 16" shells out to max range. The main issue is the weight of deck armor is way to high, so good luck fitting a 9 inch deck. Mag boxing also requires doubling the armor to get the same effect, while also taking more than double the weight.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Apr 13, 2024 23:42:55 GMT -6
Eh, I recon that 5-6 inch is sufficient to survive against dive bombers. 5 inches is a WW1 refit and 6 inches is a WW2 build, 9 inches is freaking Yamato and that didn't end well. Face it, it's the torpedo bombers ya gotta worry about, not dive bombers. 5-6 inches will even protect against plunging fire from 14-15 inch guns.
|
|
|
Post by pratapon51 on Apr 14, 2024 4:23:21 GMT -6
I tend to feel deck armor over 5" is wasteful. It's not great protection against plunging fire, but fighting at that range tends to turn out indecisive. However, even 2000 lbs SAP bombs from DBs while they're relevant will struggle to penetrate such a deck and will sometimes bounce off 2-3" decks.
I like to close in to range where I can frequently hit and pen enemy B. Since most AI templates have 13" (or fewer) B and significantly lesser BE, my own battleships with 15"+ B&BE and enormous 18"-20" guns have a tremendous advantage. I wouldn't necessarily object to putting on more D but D is ridiculously heavy in RTW3 and a real Yamato is impossible to design in-game. The main fear of BXs from air attack prior to the missile age is torpedoes, not bombs.
I have never seen a missile top attack and hit D in RTW3, so it's not useful for that purpose either.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Apr 14, 2024 9:16:01 GMT -6
Context: I'm looking at light cruisers with three 3" belt and 3" deck (and TPS3 or TPS4)! My battleships are built around a 3" deck already - and I'd increase that to 4" but the game won't let me remove a turret during refit (to free up the required tonnage and increase the space available for AA guns).
|
|
|
Post by larcrivereagle on Apr 14, 2024 11:24:49 GMT -6
I like to close in to range where I can frequently hit and pen enemy B. Since most AI templates have 13" (or fewer) B and significantly lesser BE, my own battleships with 15"+ B&BE and enormous 18"-20" guns have a tremendous advantage. I wouldn't necessarily object to putting on more D but D is ridiculously heavy in RTW3 and a real Yamato is impossible to design in-game. The main fear of BXs from air attack prior to the missile age is torpedoes, not bombs. You need more main guns to hit more often at those ranges. Hit chance is highest with 16x guns. s76748767's mass testing of game mechanicsI haven't noticed big gun battleships actually use the range advantage they have past 35ish km, and before radar blind fire even 16"-17" guns get to be a bit dubious. I'd rather more shells to find the holes in the AI's armor scheme, and more turrets to draw fire away from things that actually cause damage. Hm. Have you experimented with hangar armor in carriers?
|
|
|
Post by larcrivereagle on Apr 14, 2024 11:26:11 GMT -6
Context: I'm looking at light cruisers with three 3" belt and 3" deck (and TPS3 or TPS4)! My battleships are built around a 3" deck already - and I'd increase that to 4" but the game won't let me remove a turret during refit (to free up the required tonnage and increase the space available for AA guns). That's weird, I've definitely done those refits before. Is the game trying to reclassify the ship if you do so? I assume then it only has 2 or 3 turrets already.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Apr 14, 2024 11:29:30 GMT -6
Context: I'm looking at light cruisers with three 3" belt and 3" deck (and TPS3 or TPS4)! My battleships are built around a 3" deck already - and I'd increase that to 4" but the game won't let me remove a turret during refit (to free up the required tonnage and increase the space available for AA guns). That's weird, I've definitely done those refits before. Is the game trying to reclassify the ship if you do so? I assume then it only has 2 or 3 turrets already. It says the ship can't be classified. Yes, it is a three turret ship - so basically it is ending up a with a pre-dreadnought (1 fwd 1 aft) turret configuration but the speed and size of a post-dreadnought battleship.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Apr 14, 2024 11:43:08 GMT -6
Context: I'm looking at light cruisers with three 3" belt and 3" deck (and TPS3 or TPS4)! My battleships are built around a 3" deck already - and I'd increase that to 4" but the game won't let me remove a turret during refit (to free up the required tonnage and increase the space available for AA guns). Oh, then 2-2.5 inches should give a well balanced design. Juggling a 3 inch belt and deck, especially on a light cruiser, can be difficult, although I run with 6 inch gunned CLs. If aircraft are your main priority, then a DP main armament is your friend, even though putting together Atlanta and Dido class cruisers are impossible right now. No three superimposed turrets for guns up to 5 inches yet, if ever.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2024 13:42:51 GMT -6
Here is some realistic data:
Source: Volume III Terminal Ballistics September 1945 Office of the Chief of Ordnance
1000 lb. AP Bomb
Generally, its the altitude at which the bomb is dropped, the type of fuse, the angle of the dive and aircraft speed. During WW2, the dive angle was 60 degrees and the bomb was released at 2000 feet unless the pilot was a dare devil and went down to 1500 feet and scared the dickens out of the rear gunner. That is what my dad always told me. Later the angle was changed to 30 degrees for more safety against AAA, this was glide bombing. It was safer.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 14, 2024 14:33:29 GMT -6
Here is one more chart for bombing penetration:
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Apr 14, 2024 16:25:35 GMT -6
Ah, so at least 4"-5" if I want to be realistic... but I can be over optimistic with 3" deck armour for a CL if I want.
Interesting to hear that they reduced dive angles! I know some aircraft could do 80 degree dives. I suppose the major issue is that there is very little apparent movement of the plane across the sky from the gunner's perspective if it is diving steeply - so any error in lead matters little.
I suppose a shallower dive might also have the benefit that one can dive at a higher speed and still pull up in time (which provides more protection from fighters etc.)
Anyway, with increases in release altitude the probability of scoring a hit goes down - so it looks like 4" should be enough (at least if the enemy isn't deploying BRAPs or their equivalents).
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Apr 14, 2024 16:34:14 GMT -6
If aircraft are your main priority, then a DP main armament is your friend, even though putting together Atlanta and Dido class cruisers are impossible right now. No three superimposed turrets for guns up to 5 inches yet, if ever. Ah, yes. I'm working out a design which has two non-superfiring turrets (so still 12x5in guns - but only four forward or aft). It occurred to me that it should be possible to combine turrets in a monolithic battery: In other words, have quad turrets forward and aft - with the other turrets being dual purpose twin mounts. That way one benefits from common ballistics and can increase forward or after firepower, while still having a dual purpose battery. So, 8x5in anti-surface guns forward firing and 12x5in dual purpose guns elsewhere should be possible. However, adding another type of turret causes the 'DP' box to become unchecked. The simple solution is to have secondaries of a different calibre... then such an armament is possible... (but with the need for a secondary director that is less accurate). It'd be neat if the devs kept expanding the rules to have specific cases like that (or gave us a 'relaxed rules' difficulty option)... but I'd rather see the 1880s added (or 1890s improved)... getting pretty off-topic if we start talking about central-battery ships though...
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Apr 14, 2024 22:40:01 GMT -6
That's weird, I've definitely done those refits before. Is the game trying to reclassify the ship if you do so? I assume then it only has 2 or 3 turrets already. It says the ship can't be classified. Yes, it is a three turret ship - so basically it is ending up a with a pre-dreadnought (1 fwd 1 aft) turret configuration but the speed and size of a post-dreadnought battleship. Yeah, BBs must have a minimum of 3 turrets or 7(?) guns in 2 turrets.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 15, 2024 12:06:30 GMT -6
Here is an official document on the principles of glide bombing.
|
|