Wouldn't this make flying near a Battle Group interesting

[Leayme]

I think that this little addition to a Battle Group would make things very interesting for attacking planes.



Now this: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/CL/CL-51_Atlanta.html  

CL-51 USS Atlanta
Atlanta class Anti-aircraft Cruiser:
Displacement: 8,200 tons
Length: 541'6"
Beam: 53'2"
Draft: 27'
Speed: 32 knots
.Armament: 16 5"/38DP, 3 X 2 40mm, 1 x 4 40 mm, 15 x 20mm 2 depth charge tracks, 2x4 21" torpedo tubes, 3 SC-1 aircraft
Complement: 820
Geared turbine engines, twin screws, 75,000 shaft hp
Built at Federal, Kearny, and commissioned 24 December 1941

would be a gunners dream and an attackers nightmare personified and would seriously upgrade the longevity of a Battle Group and require considerable forethought and planning before one would want to launch an attack against the battle group.

Attack Co ordination on the enemy airwings part would definitely be a must should this be added to the Battle Groups Heavy Cruiser, Carrier and Destroyer screen.

This would also better reflect the makeup of a Battle Group as seen in WWII

[XtrmeJ]

This ships in AH already have lazer guided Ack. We don't need a ship specifically designed for it shooting more of it. But I agree, it would make things more interesting, if not frusterating hehe.

On the other hand it is a bit unrealistic how some planes can fly through ship ack again and again and fly off into the sunset with his valiant 2 kills he got on the deck of the CV.

[Kev367th]

Yup XJ.
Having deacked in different planes, rule of thumb seems to be the faster you are going the less chance you have of being hit.

Of course theres one notable exception...the F6F. The first thing to go is always one of the guns 90% of the time. Try it out.

Which begs a question for HTC to answer - Why is it that certain planes lose certain parts 90% of the time to ack?
A limitation in the damage model/calculation I would guess.