Armoured_Carriers

Warspite's not wearing her knickers! Looking in to this a little more, yeah: There could be problems with the armour accuracy for the Warspite model. I am not sure of the accuracy of the data at gamemodels3d. But, after almost 500 battles in Warspite, that certainly ‘feels’ about right. Expose the Grand Old Lady’s butt to anything CL and over and you’re going to get citadelled (I was going to say penetrated, but appropriateness) Sure: That could be because the historical amidships deck armour wasn’t great anyway (2.5 inch NC over 1inch HT). But 6mm (0.24in) on 38mm (1.5in) - as it appears from gamemodels3d – certainly seems considerably understated. British Battleships of World War II, Alan Raven & John Roberts: Page 229: Warspite, Protection: The fitting of non-cemented armour on the middle-deck, followed the pattern set in Malaya except that the 2.5 inch thickness was extended to cover the boiler rooms… The 6 inch armour on the main deck aft - originally provided to protect the after 6-inch guns – was retained as it gave additional protection to the after magazines. The embrasures, however, were plated over and only a small portion of this armour remained visible externally. Anatomy of the Ship: The Battleship Warspite, Ross Watton. Page 10: Particulars of protection Middle deck: After 1934 5in over magazines (4in NC over 1in HT), 3.5in over machinery (2.5in NC over 1in HT). Page 11: General arrangements and hull structure (rebuild) Horizontal protection was increased on the middle deck, which received 2.5in NC (non-cemented) armour over the main magazines, replacing the post-Jutland 1in HT steel plating. Pag62: B Hull Construction B9 Armour and protective plating. • Side diagram shows the deck spaces aft/amidships as “5e” over “9c on 4e” • The reference table lists “5” as 50lb plate and “e” categorising HT (High Tensile) steel • The reference table lists “9” as 100lb plate and “c” categorising NC (Non Cemented) armour • The reference table lists “4” as 40lb plate, and “e” as above. • Top-down drawings show some variance in the amidships deck armour: o 6e (60lb plate high tensile) and 7e (70lbs high tensile) closer to the edges than the central 5e plates. The British Battleships, 1906 – 1046, Norman Friedman Page 261: Modernising the fleet Once the savings in machinery weight and space was understood, much more was asked for … 2.5in armour over the boiler room as well as the engine room (350 tons); 4in armour over the high-angle magazines in the vacated No.1 boiler room (190 tons)… Page 267: Modernising the fleet As with Warspite, the additional deck armour (4in NC over magazines and 2.5in NC over machinery spaces) was all to be on the middle deck, between the torpedo bulkeads. That left gaps; for example, a plunging shell could pass throughthe gap between the deck and the belt on the outside of the hull. A bomb hitting ourboard of the deck armour would not be resisted by any other horizontal armour… Compared to Warspite, these ships did have additional deck armour over the soft area forward. The Grand Old Lady is also showing a bit more leg than she should. I know waterline has been a problem with all national lines before the Russian tree was introduced, and that some effort has been made to fix the worst examples - particularly in the German tree. But Warspite needs a bit of a look, also. As it stands, in-game Warpsite must be in a low fuel, low ammunition, low stores state. Ships in Standard to Heavy loads look as below: * For some reason the EU server won't allow me to link to Photobucket images, where the NA one does... I'll have to post this thread over there

For HMS Warspite to have the exposed waterline she has in game, she would have to be in 'light' condition - meaning she's used up most of her oil fuel and much of her ammunition. Here's a picture of Warspite, Queen Elizabeth and Valiant together. Note the waterline on all three of these ships...

When it comes to this game, the Illustrious 'block' of RN carriers (Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious) would need to take into account the way the air group was "upgraded" from about 32 machines (internal hangar only) in 1940 up to 57 aircraft (hangar overcrowd + deck park) in 1945. The "Block II/III" Indomitable and Implacables had an extra half-hangar, and were operating up to 81 Seafires, Fireflies and Avengers in 1945. The type had heavily over-engineered fire protection systems, so to maintain the "flavour" of the type it should be much harder to set alight. The armoured carriers - in compensation for their smaller air groups - should have greater survivability when encountering cruisers and destroyers. The Illustrious type had belt and hangar armour designed to resist 6in gunfire. The Indomitable and Implacables had belt armour to resist 6in, but the hangar protection was reduced to be resistant to destroyer gunfire. They should also probably have added protection against dive-bombers (carrying bombs of 550lbs). This would give them extra strength against the Japanese which mostly used that type, while the Germans generally used a mix of 550 and 1100lbs (though sometimes they specifically loaded 2200lbs to 'kill' armoured carriers). The 3in decks were intended to be immune from 550lbs and to resist 1100lbs from lower hights. Exactly how all this would be balanced in game is of course immensely difficult as it isn't as simplistic as the USN and IJN approach. But I can't exactly see an Illustrious charging through the islands with its 8 twin-4.5in pillbox turrets blasting away... The Illustrious and Implacable types traded off Pacific-size air groups in order to survive in the confines of the Mediterranean and North Sea. Thus the 3in armour covering 66pc of their deck area - but this was really the 'lid' to the 4.5in front and sides to the hangar: In these ships the entire hangar was protected as if it were a heavy cruiser's magazine. This was to give them the protection an air group couldn't while operating within the range of the whole Italian air force (supported by Fliegerkorps X) out of Sicily and Corsica. You can find out what that means by reading about the FAA's defence of Operation Pedestal (most books only every cover the Ohio part of the story). Whether or not deck parts were present is only part of the equation. Yes, these added to the intensity of fires and in some cases. But there are also dramatic differences in the penetration power of bombs strapped on kamikazes or dropped free-fall from dive bombers. So you need to compare like with like. You can see that the armoured carriers did have deck parks when hit by kamikaze's - the most notable occasion being HMS Formidable on May 4, 1945. You can see the evidence in this photo: Most of the carrier / kamikaze footage in the following video is of this attack. The impact of the kamikaze, the 550lbs bomb and the fires/explosions of the aircraft in the centre deck caused this dent in the deck armour: There were instances when free-fall bombs hit the carriers in the non-armoured bow and stern sections of the flight decks. In these instances, the heavily protected, enclosed hangars were able to keep the fire out and the ships were not in danger of out-of-control fire. Such as in Operation Pedestal, when HMS Indomitable was hit fore and aft (for details fo the damage follow this link). But the big factual error out there that distorts understanding of the strength of the class is that it was a 550lbs / 1100lbs bomb from a Stuka which penetrated HMS Illustrious' flight deck armour. It wasn't. Both USN engineers and the RN Controller's office reviewed the damage once the ship was in Norfolk. Forensic evidence showed the bomb to have been 2200lbs. While the Ju87B Stuka's could carry these bombs, there were also Ju88's taking part in the attack that may have been carrying them. Most of the damage done to Illustrious in this attack was due to the three bombs that went into the aft lift well. This space was not armoured, and the armoured doors to the hangar were still open as the attack unfolded. The biggest problem is the amount of distorted - and wildly inaccurate - material about these carriers posted on the web. So I've collected as many original reports, first person accounts etc to these ships that I can find (and links to the more widely available material on USN carriers) to debunk what is really just "my naval appendage is bigger than your naval appendage" web forum boasting [edited]. Read the material. Make your own comparisons Make your own conclusions. At least your opinions - whatever they are - will be well informed.

An assertion I regard as being correct for the Pacific, but not the Mediterranean or North Sea. I don't think a Yorktown would have done all that well in the escort role to Malta you so correctly point out as being the role the RN carriers needed to meet. But then Yorktown was never designed to do so - and nor should it have been. The US had no interests in the Med. HAVE I DRIVEN TAIHO? No, I have not attempted to go up the IJN carrier tree to level IX just to try out the Taiho. I'm happy to hear what those who have feel about the ship though. And again, I'm talking game flavor. Carriers in this game get shot at. I don't think there are any perfect carrier drivers in-game who have not. Just as the RN carriers were well suited to the close fighting of the Med, but no the open fighting of the Pacific, I would like to get some 'sense' of this difference in their design doctrine in-game. Exactly how is the question. AIRCRAFT: APPLES WITH APPLES The biggest problem with most debates about RN carriers in general is people almost always seem to get their dates wrong. The Skua and Gladiator were pretty much entirely withdrawn from service within nine months of the outbreak of the war (The September 1939 outbreak, not the December 1941 one). In the second half of 1940, the primary FAA fighter was the Fulmar. The primary USN fighter at this time (until mid 1941) was the F3F 'Flying Barrel' biplane. The IJN, however, was also at this time starting to introduce the Zero. The FAA was flying the Wildcat operationally (under the Martlet designation) three months before the USN. Once the USN went to war, that is when things became difficult as the USN so desperately needed to upgrade its own airwings and - of course - expand enormously. Which is why the Seafire was about so much in 1945. But the Barracuda was a serious problem. And the Swordfish came into its own as the precursor to the helicopter - an aircraft that could fly under almost any conditions, while carrying almost anything. Like the helicopter, it wasn't suited to going up against the best fighters the opposition had to offer... ARMOURED CV 'FLAVOR The flammability value may be the way to go, perhaps with some added 'bounce' for destroyer-level shells. This 'bounce' could be balanced by their airgroups being smaller than simlar-tiered carriers of other nations. But this is where the experience of testers would have to be called upon for opinion. Clearly fire remains contentious in-game at the moment - though I personally think it is fine.

Discussion is a good start point. If one leaves it to Google, our Russian friends my simply rely on the 'essays' of Slade and Worth. And of course there are pros and cons to armour and enclosed protected hangars. Clearly a big pro in terms of kamikaze and fire protection, as well as weather. Only one of these is modelled in-game. Clearly a con is the smaller air wing (at least in the first three ships), and this is modelled in-game. But the design of these ships had something the Pacific carrier's didn't: A design that offered a level of protection in close-combat. This is what World of Warships is. Exactly what level of protection that would be in-game is up for debate. I'm trying for it to be an informed debate, over and above the usual opinionated debate. If it becomes a flame-war, well I've an armoured hangar

When it comes to this game, the Illustrious 'block' of RN carriers (Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious) would need to take into account the way the air group was "upgraded" from about 32 machines (internal hangar only) in 1940 up to 57 aircraft (hangar overcrowd + deck park) in 1945. The "Block II/III" Indomitable and Implacables had an extra half-hangar, and were operating up to 81 Seafires, Fireflies and Avengers in 1945. The type had heavily over-engineered fire protection systems, so to maintain the "flavour" of the type it should be much harder to set alight. The armoured carriers - in compensation for their smaller air groups - should have greater survivability when encountering cruisers and destroyers. The Illustrious type had belt and hangar armour designed to resist 6in gunfire. The Indomitable and Implacables had belt armour to resist 6in, but the hangar protection was reduced to be resistant to destroyer gunfire. They should also probably have added protection against dive-bombers (carrying bombs of 550lbs). This would give them extra protection against the Japanese which mostly used that type, while the Germans generally used 550 and 1100lbs. The 3in decks were intended to be immune from 550lbs and to resist 1100lbs from lower hights. Exactly how all this would be balanced in game is of course immensely difficult as it isn't as simplistic as the USN and IJN approach. But I can't exactly see an Illustrious charging through the islands with its 8 twin-4.5in pillbox turrets blasting away...

The Illustrious and Implacable types traded off Pacific-size air groups in order to survive in the confines of the Mediterranean and North Sea. Thus the 3in armour covering 66pc of their deck area - but this was really the 'lid' to the 4.5in front and sides to the hangar: In these ships the entire hangar was protected as if it were a heavy cruiser's magazine. This was to give them the protection an air group couldn't while operating within the range of the whole Italian air force (supported by Fliegerkorps X) out of Sicily and Corsica. You can find out what that means by reading about the FAA's defence of Operation Pedestal (most books only every cover the Ohio part of the story). Whether or not deck parts were present is only part of the equation. Yes, these added to the intensity of fires and in some cases. But there are also dramatic differences in the penetration power of bombs strapped on kamikazes or dropped free-fall from dive bombers. So you need to compare like with like. You can see that the armoured carriers did have deck parks when hit by kamikaze's - the most notable occasion being HMS Formidable on May 4, 1945. You can see the evidence in this photo: Most of the carrier / kamikaze footage in the following video is of this attack. The impact of the kamikaze, the 550lbs bomb and the fires/explosions of the aircraft in the centre deck caused this dent in the deck armour: There were instances when free-fall bombs hit the carriers in the non-armoured bow and stern sections of the flight decks. In these instances, the heavily protected, enclosed hangars were able to keep the fire out and the ships were not in danger of out-of-control fire. Such as in Operation Pedestal, when HMS Indomitable was hit fore and aft (for details fo the damage follow this link). But the big factual error out there that distorts understanding of the strength of the class is that it was a 550lbs / 1100lbs bomb from a Stuka which penetrated HMS Illustrious' flight deck armour. It wasn't. Both USN engineers and the RN Controller's office reviewed the damage once the ship was in Norfolk. Forensic evidence showed the bomb to have been 2200lbs. While the Ju87B Stuka's could carry these bombs, there were also Ju88's taking part in the attack that may have been carrying them. Most of the damage done to Illustrious in this attack was due to the three bombs that went into the aft lift well. This space was not armoured, and the armoured doors to the hangar were still open as the attack unfolded. The biggest problem is the amount of distorted - and wildly inaccurate - material about these carriers posted on the web. So I've collected as many original reports, first person accounts etc to these ships that I can find (and links to the more widely available material on USN carriers) to debunk what is really just "my naval appendage is bigger than your naval appendage" web forum boasting [edited]. Read the material. Make your own comparisons Make your own conclusions. At least your opinions - whatever they are - will be well informed.

The Fleet Air Arm was the first to use the Corsair at sea regularly as they overcame the early model's wing-droop, undercarriage bounce and forward visibility problems by using the same curved approach landing system they had developed for the Seafire.