Are CVs too soft??

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by mars01
...
There is a balance here though, we dont want to make a huge ack hugging circle for enemy planes and we don't want to make carriers invincible.  Currently though they go down so fast, it would get Hugh Grahm off.

Agreed ... the only way I can see adding AAA would be via more escort ships. But even then a CV fleet becomes more of a mobile uber-flak which can positioned off the coast of bases.


I still think it's more the way CV's and CA's can be killed that's the problem. Just make a couple of abstract changes and the whole situation could change. For instance:

- CV's and CA's can't be damaged by cannon fire (except for killing AAA positions)

- CV's and CA's cannot be sunk without at least one torpedo hit. Maybe have the ship trail "oil" in the water once it's been torpedoed.

With these two changes you can bring your Me110's and P51 lawn darts and the best you can do is de-ack and soften up a CV for the final coup de grace from a torpedo bomber. Someone will still need to drive that bird in on the deck and do the job. And *that* is something you can defend against.

[mars01]

Yeah Gonzo I could go with that.

I think hardening carriers but adding support ships to make the carriers job more difficult to do would be interesting.

If they incorporated the oil leak thing you could also have a supply tanker that would reduce the ability of the carrier if killed.

I think there is alot of room for improvements and gameplay with the current CV set.  I think the basic CV group we have now has outlived it's effectiveness to create and sustain good fights and that is a bummer since some maps rely on the carriers for any decent fights.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by mars01

My personal beef is with the lame-o dweebies who insist on taking carrier up to base and ORBIT THROUGH THE FREAKING PT SPAWN POINTS!!!!!!!

Yeah, this is exasperating..... Clueless too.

Prospective CV admirals take note: Those purple arrows are to be avoided.......

Unless the CV admiral is one of those knuckleheads who likes killing PTs with a 5" gun more than anything else.

I believe that some people fail to understand that a CV group is a TEAM asset, and that disregard for their fellow players is bad form.

CVs are not LSTs, they don't need to be within hailing distance of the beach. Being in close means that defending fighters have an extremely limited time to shoot down the suicide buff drivers. It also means that failure to knock out shore batteries will result in fast destruction of the CV.

My suggestion made years ago was to armor warships so that only armor-piercing bombs can sink it at the minimum total bomb tonnage. High explosive bombs would have their effectiveness cut by 2/3rds against ships (tripling the weight required to sink the vessel). Only Naval type aircraft would have access to armor-piercing bombs (D3a, B5n, SBD, TBM, F6F, F4U, etc)... Thus somewhat limiting the effectiveness of Suicide buffs.

My regards,

Widewing

[mars01]

CVs are not LSTs, they don't need to be within hailing distance of the beach. Being in close means that defending fighters have an extremely limited time to shoot down the suicide buff drivers. It also means that failure to knock out shore batteries will result in fast destruction of the CV.

My suggestion made years ago was to armor warships so that only armor-piercing bombs can sink it at the minimum total bomb tonnage. High explosive bombs would have their effectiveness cut by 2/3rds against ships (tripling the weight required to sink the vessel). Only Naval type aircraft would have access to armor-piercing bombs (D3a, B5n, SBD, TBD, F6F, F4U, etc)... Thus somewhat limiting the effectiveness of Suicide buffs.

Yep and great suggestion.  That is a great way to limit the Dive Bombing Level Bombers:aok

[DoKGonZo]

I'd still like to see some requirement for a torpedo hit to finally sink the CV. Mainly so the torpedo planes get used.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Halo
From what I've read about WWII aircraft carriers, most were so thin-skinned and volatile (full of fuel and bombs) that it didn't take much to put them out of action, and sinking often followed.  One or two bombs on flight deck and the airfield was out of action.

They were not extensively armored. Typical Essex class armor was 2-3" on the hull, 1.5" on the flight deck, 1.5" on the 01 level (immediately below the flight deck) and 3" on the hanger deck. So, a typical bomb would not generally get through the hanger deck. However, if the hanger deck was filled with fully fueled aircraft, serious fires would result. We must not forget that ready ordnance was usually stored on the hanger deck while re-arming aircraft. The magazines themselves were well protected.

You may find it interesting that the Lexington pre-war class carriers carried more than double the armor of the Essex class. Largely due to being converted from Battlecruisers (early in the construction process). Unfortunately for the Lexington, the avgas system was badly designed. It was later reworked on Saratoga during one of her post-damage refits.

My regards,

Widewing

[flakbait]

Widewing, they had less armor than that. No Essex flight deck was armored, unless you want to count 2" teak planks and a thin sheet of steel used under them. The hangar deck had a 2.5" plate of STS steel flooring for armor. This was the reason why a single bomb hit could utterly destroy any Essex carrier. The bomb would go through the flight deck and hit the 2.5" floor of the hangar deck, detonating almost instantly. What runs through the hangar deck? 2" diameter pipes that carry aviation fuel. So even if the hangar deck was empty, the resulting fire would eliminate flight ops entirely. The armor "belt" tapered from 4" thick down to 2.5" thick; meager defence against any torpedo. The interior was just as well protected as the hull, with 4" thick bulkheads.

As I stated in the other thread, the fleets need more AA protection and tougher guns. None of our fleet ships, save the Baltimore cruiser, were designed to be all that tough. Destroyer Escorts? They were called "tin cans" for a reason, and put up a miserable AA barrage. Dump the DEs and stick in actual destroyers. Aside from being tougher, the Fletcher-class destroyer could really pack a wallop. To compare a Rudderow-class DE to the Fletcher DD...

Rudderow DE:
Weapons:
2x 5"/38 guns (single mount)
10x20mm single
2x40mm
2x triple-rack 21" torpedo launchers

Length: 306'
Speed: 24 knots

Fletcher DD
Weapons:
5x5"/38 guns (single mount)
5x40mm twin mounts
2x 6-rack 21" torpedo launchers

Length: 376'
Speed: 35.2 knots

Then again, we could try to bag an Allen M Sumner class DD. It was bigger and much more heavily armed than the Fletcher. Simply by changing the escort ships we can increase the amount of firepower available to protect a fleet, increase the number of player-manned guns, and throw up a more effective defence. All that's left is for HT to give the 5" turrets armor so they aren't killed so quickly.


-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School

[FiLtH]

Too soft and too bland.  It needs much more to it that what it is.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Widewing

My suggestion made years ago was to armor warships so that only armor-piercing bombs can sink it at the minimum total bomb tonnage. High explosive bombs would have their effectiveness cut by 2/3rds against ships (tripling the weight required to sink the vessel). Only Naval type aircraft would have access to armor-piercing bombs (D3a, B5n, SBD, TBM, F6F, F4U, etc)... Thus somewhat limiting the effectiveness of Suicide buffs.

My regards,

Widewing

I like this idea a LOT. Could make defense more fun, though all guys would have to do is up a hellcat instead of a pony.

Puffy ack is lovely background effect, but isnt too scary to me as a pilot right now. I've raked over a strat in a thunderbolt all by myself for 10-15 minutes, ignoring the ack and never getting touched. I know that's not universal, but I strongly believe high planes IB to carrier ought to feel very nervous -- adn that's just not the case right now.

I's ask for increased lethality of the high altitude puffy ack, and no change to the lower 40mm and 1.1".  That would keep the TG form being an ack hider's haven, but would also force the combat ot lower -- and more engagable -- alts.

In the end, the main reason to leave ack light is to discourage ack hiders -- but realistically, they're the only ones to suffer. Gotta be pretty boring after a while hugging the ack ...... and the next step is to never leave the tower. Let 'em play that way if they want, but countering that yellow-bellied behaviour shouldnt require everyone else to compormise gameplay.