Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
dasCKD

Missiles on carriers

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,376 posts
17,664 battles

Before you ask: yes, I am completely insane. What of it? I'll keep publishing these until the psychiatric services catches up with me. I also noticed that I am not getting the reception I want, and so I made changes to the article title. Not only am I insane, I'm also a shameless Edited.

image.jpg

It is a common sentiment that USN carriers should be given better dive bombers in order to distinguish them from the IJN counterparts and to make them viable again. It is really not a controversial statement to say that the American carriers are outclassed by their Japanese counterparts. A certain YouTuber, (Notser I think it was, it could be any of them really) stated that the accuracy of USN bombers should be buffed. Yeah, it probably is Notser. Buffing the accuracy of the USN dive bombers to bring them in line with their IJN contemporaries, is after all about the worst thing you could possibly do to buff the USN carriers. This thread is about torpedo bombers, why they're such a good weapon system, and what missiles has to do with any of this.

 

Low tiers & the idiot trap

Some time ago, the lower tiered carriers had a gate that swung close unceremoniously, an echo which is felt even to this day. A new player to the carrier class wouldn't know about that though. Say you jumped into the carrier for the first time today without any knowledge of the game. You're an okay player with an odd 1000 game experience, and you just tried out carriers for the first time. You bought both the Hosho and the Langley and played through the carriers. It's not that dynamic, but it's kind of fun. It's like a new game mode in a game you love, so you keep going. It's a bit like playing with secondaries. You just steer your ships or in this case your planes over to the area and they attack the enemy ships. It gives you okay damage, but not great. You finally grind your way up to the Zuiho and the Bogue though. You play the Zuiho, but that doesn't really do it for you. You keep meeting this Cleveland ships see? Every time you go close to her, you just keep losing planes. You only get this dive bomber thing, but it barely ever hits anything and does almost no damage even when it does. It just doesn't feel the same, you know? The Bogue though? The Bogue is awesome! Two fighter squads on one carrier? You just wipe out enemy carrier after carrier like no one else. You're practically a god! This is awesome!

 

So comes the first problem with the USN and IJN balance. The idiot trap. The primary player performance rating for most players comes in the form of the ribbons. For a newer player, an action not rewarded with a ribbon might as well not have happened at all. The first problem with carriers is not just the ability to pick the wrong option, but also the fact that incorrect decisions are rewarded over correct ones. The removal of manual attacks on the lower tiers is tax evasion to the Valentine's day massacre if you catch the reference. Having no manual attacks on the lower tiers has always been a problem, even before its complete removal. Lower tiered battleships and cruisers do not have automatic turret compensation for good reason. Aiming in a ship is one of the basics, as is the manual drop in a carrier. Only one of these is mandated by the game however. The lack of manual attacks and the Bogue teaches CV players two bad habits: prioritization of battleships and eliminating enemy fighters. Battleships, even if a carrier has more than enough plane health to smother their AA, are bad targets for carriers. Carriers lack the ability to focus fire. They can only do so much damage then they have to leave the ship alone. Against destroyers and weaker cruisers, this makes them excellent ships as they can kill said ships with the first attack wave. The same can't be said about battleships, as they have the torpedo belt and the health pool to weather carrier attacks. The entirety of the USN carrier design discourages this however. Their slower but harder hitting torpedoes and their dive bombers with the gigantic bloom but lots of hard hitting bombs is far better than their Japanese counterparts at causing a lot of damage to battleships, but they trade this for their inability to cover their own planes. They could also trade their bombers for fighters. It vaguely works at tier 5, as strike carriers will either have less fighter squads and less fighters per squad or no fighters at all. The Langley forces players to focus on bombing battleships, whilst the Bogue more often than not either attracts players towards more fighters or punishes them by putting them up against the Bogue's fighter loadout. The Bogue doesn't win games in fighter configurations, but it could at least majorly hamper enemy carriers so AS Bogues are not completely useless all the time.

 

The problem presented here is extremely important. The lack of fighter strafing has made the Bogue the most dominant AS carrier ever since the Hakuryu. The lack of this mechanic will mean that those who want to grind their way up the Japanese line will have a very large wall to clear. Once the wall is cleared however, the problem really starts. The way the game is set up now encourages playing the USN carriers in AS and punishes everything else, meaning that the future crop of carrier players will be those that depend on that tactic. Without massive overhauls to the game system, the problem is quite frankly obvious considering how easy it is for veterans of the game to exploit their own skills even with the fact that most new blood to the carrier class have grinded their way up the tree, learning manual drops on the way. The future crop will lack that distinction, making them even more vulnerable and leaving their teams at an even larger disadvantage,

 

Mid tiers & down time

The maps have gotten so big. The AA is really also troublesome, especially when you get downtiered. It's okay though, the Ranger still has two fighters. The Hiryu has two fighters as well though, and they keep locking you and blowing up friendly ships. You tried to switch to a bomber loadout once, but that gave the enemy carrier the clear skies badge so you're not doing that again. This is really becoming a problem. When you were up against the Zuiho, you could lock her fighter with one squad and then go for the bombers with the other squad. Now though, you can't do that and you can't seem to do nearly as much damage with your dive bombers as the Hiryu can do with her torpedo bombers and dive bombers. It really isn't fair.

 

The fighter locking system is another terrible offshoot of the lower tiered autodrop fatigue. Fighters are for shooting down enemy attack aircraft, and yet most players lock fighters just to get strikes through. This is a habit that is picked up from the lower tiers and carriers forwards to the higher tiers which leads to IJN carriers overtaking their USN counterparts as the IJN's fighters always outnumbers their USN counterparts in comparable wings. A USN in fighter configuration will always be ill prepared to handle an IJN in fighter configuration. In the middle tiers, the maps are wide enough that there is a lot of down time between the drop and the next one. In this time period, an IJN carrier can reposition, can use their fighters to scout enemy formations and screw with enemy drops, can find enemy ships and herd them, and can keep the skies clear so friendly ships can advance or flank with a blind enemy team. Beyond the fact that the USN carriers in their useful (strike) configuration can't fend of the machinations of the IJN carriers, they are also stuck with a fair bit of the game waiting for their strike wing to come back online. This effectively means that a stike IJN carrier is playing every minute of the game whilst the game is going, whilst a USN carrier is only playing about every 2 or 3 minutes for about a period of 1 minute whilst the strike loadout is online. A team with a player who is always there doing something is better than a team whose player only shows up to do something useful in short bursts. Fighter configurations are accepted as useless, which most people accept. At tier 5 and 6 it's somewhat viable however as a strike IJN carrier still only has 1 fighter squad, allowing 1 USN fighter free to engage the bombers. At the Hiryu, the cap gets bigger as a Hiryu can continue doing damage whilst locking down the Ranger's fighters. The threat that the Ranger's dive bombers presents is negligible at best to most tier 7 ships.

image.jpg

Figure 1, torpedo bombing

Competitive & dive bombers

Carrier play matures at around tier 8. Tiers 9 and 10 can't be comparable, considering how those carriers perform. The Lexington is a good carrier to present the main issue of the USN line and WG's attempts to make them competitive however. The Lexington strike package outclasses the Shokaku's strike potential by several orders of magnitude. This doesn't make her competitive however. Firstly, there is the issue with the lack of fighters that severely hampers her ability to fully exploit her superior strike group. Secondly, there is the fact that dive bombers are what they are. Torpedo bombers, whilst also being being extremely skill dependent, are slightly less sensitive to what is known as the perfect drop: a drop that lands the instant that the CV captain wants it to. Torpedo bombers allows for more of a margin of error with timing as the skill that does go into the drop comes from angling in such a way that it prevents escape as well as the multitasking ability of the CV player which lets them place drops closer to each other which results in a drop that is more difficult to avoid. Dive bombers requires impeccable timing, and allows for very little of a margin of error. With a small drop circle as those seen by the Japanese carriers, a perfect drop will result in every last bomb hitting. The ability to use dive bombers well is basically a purely mechanical skill of making two objects moving at separate speeds converge at the exact same time. The American dive bombers also have massive levels of spread that makes it nigh impossible for you to know whether or not a drop will instantly obliterate an enemy ship or if it will fall harmlessly into the water, incapacitating a module. Even with a USN dive bomber drop, every bomb could hit a destroyer or every bomb could miss with little left up to the player. The relative inaccuracy and the dependence on RNG makes it incredibly difficult to balance the massive USN dive bomber alpha damage. The fact that their performance now is balanced almost entirely around luck is not a good thing for the game. Torpedo bombers are very different. A ship or certain length will always get hit by a certain amount of torpedoes with a certain maneuvering pattern deployed against any specific drop. This makes it so that torpedo bomber drops are fixed, reliable, and easy to balance and play around. Dive bombers are, as they are now, completely broken.

 

Missiles

This is the point where I take a few sentences out of this post to gloat about how missiles are already in games in the form of ship artillery and how everyone is Englishing wrong. Everyone knows what I mean when I say missiles though: those things that release fires from one end and big explosions on the other. By replacing USN dive bombers with missile squads, I believe that it would allow for USN carriers to shine again. Missiles have to be handled extremely carefully however. Much like carriers themselves, the introduction of missiles has made large caliber ship artillery largely obsolete. Below is my detailing as to how missiles can be handled as plane squads, how it could be introduced in such a way that it emphasizes the skills of gameplay comprehension over raw mechanical prowess, and how to could be balanced in such a way that it won't entirely break the game.

image.jpg

Figure 2, missiles!

 

Missiles on ships

 A little bonus. I also wanted to talk about how missiles could be introduced as weapons for cruisers or destroyers designed to hunt large ships, but this article has likely gone on long enough. I might do a thread on surface to surface anti ship missiles later. For now, I'll complain about the AA on the Hood. What were those cretins thinking? Amplifying the AA firepower by 25 times? For context, the AA firepower of the Hood's missile system on defensive fire is identical to the Des Moines's AA, another ship with a completely broken AA suite in dire need of a nerf. Not just the Des Moines vanilla either. The Des Moines with her defensive fire active. On a tier 7 battleship. Completely balanced!

 

Seeing as how my ideas would not be likely to get implemented due to how pathologically averse WG seems to be to logical game design, I thought it might be fun to come up with an idea that almost certainly would not be implemented. Nevertheless, it was fun conceptualizing the missile and imagining how it could be balanced to fit in the game. I thought it would be a good idea at least. Not completely comically broken, but it would stop USN carriers from being completely annihilated by their Japanese counterparts. The speed of the missile might need addressing, but otherwise I am quite happy when it comes to how the missile system could fit inside of the game.

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing.

Edited by VMX
  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHATS]
WoWs Wiki Team
12,258 posts
8,678 battles

Before you ask: yes, I am completely insane. What of it? I'll keep publishing these until the psychiatric services catches up with me.

 

Ok, I'm calling them right now. :hiding:
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
849 posts
2,954 battles

I actually like the sound of this in some ways. You could say that the aircraft are using "Tiny Tim's" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_(rocket)) which were in fact designed by the USN but never produced so historically it makes sense to a degree. I would actually go so far as to say this...

 

Use Tiny Tim equipped "Missile Squadrons" as the main fire starters for the USN CV's, and give their dive bombers AP bombs capable of causing citadels. This would give them an entirely different play style to the IJN CVs who rely on their dive bomber squadron to provoke the use of Damage Control with their dive bombers (especially against BB's) and then follow up with a torpedo strike which hopefully will score at least one flood (I always run the +flood % flag on mine). Likewise with these changes the missiles would be the fire/DoT starters and their alpha ability will come from their bombs smashing through the deck armour. 

 

This would be balanced I feel since the rockets still have HE pen values to deal with, making them less of an alpha strike unit like the torpedo bombers and a ranged DoT  which could be pretty devastating if used correctly. AP bombs would in some ways fit in with historical events, like with the events at Midway where Dauntless dive bombers had their bombs smash through the flight deck of Akagi, Kaga, Hiyru and Soryu causing massive damage and explosions in the hanger.

 

The only issue I can see is against lightly armoured targets, Edited I wouldn't want to be in a Royal Navy CL with some of these coming at me. Would have to scale the alpha damage significantly between tiers.

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to swearing. 

Edited by VMX
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

I wouldn't mind trying unguided rockets.

I even advocated testing them out on USN CVs in the form of fighter-bomber squads, albeit in a more "fire and forget" role than what you outlined.

 

The interesting thing is that the USN did experiment with rockets, and even large ones. Tiny Tim was apparently quite the success (when it hit).

Additionally, they were carried by fighters, not dedicated light bombers, so that could justify quicker bomber squads ingame.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

I wouldn't mind trying unguided rockets.

I even advocated testing them out on USN CVs in the form of fighter-bomber squads, albeit in a more "fire and forget" role than what you outlined.

 

The interesting thing is that the USN did experiment with rockets, and even large ones. Tiny Tim was apparently quite the success (when it hit).

Additionally, they were carried by fighters, not dedicated light bombers, so that could justify quicker bomber squads ingame.

The British used rockets against naval targets, in fact it became a British "thing". Could be an idea for a Brit cv line to make them distinctive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,895 posts
19,717 battles

The interesting thing is that the USN did experiment with rockets, and even large ones.

 

They didn't just experiment with them, they deployed them on a wide scale in the last 2 years of the war. The latest developed High Velocity Aircraft Rockets (preceded by the 3.5 and 5 inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets) were extensively used by fighters and bombers alike.

 

Honestly, I thought for the longest time that giving HVARs to USN CVs could be one way to make them competitive. Instead of introducing dedicated missile squads however, I'd have introduced fighter-bombers. They should be able to engage enemy planes like normal fighters and attack ships with HVARs via alt attack, but lose the strafe ability. Squad size should be 3, upgradeable to 4, so that a single squad will always lose against an IJN fighter squad. Alternatively you could just give them worse stats and make the squad size 4(5).

Obviously this would require extensive rework and rebalancing of both loadouts and USN service times, but that's needed anyway.

Edited by El2aZeR
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,376 posts
17,664 battles

View PostEl2aZeR, on 07 May 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

Honestly, I thought for the longest time that giving HVARs to USN CVs could be one way to make them competitive. Instead of introducing dedicated missile squads however, I'd have introduced fighter-bombers. They should be able to engage enemy planes like normal fighters and attack ships with HVARs via alt attack, but lose the strafe ability. Squad size should be 3, upgradeable to 4, so that a single squad will always lose against an IJN fighter squad. Alternatively you could just give them worse stats and make the squad size 4(5).

 

That would be generally a bad idea IMO. The Aichis were also mixed armament aircraft IRL, but they don't have fighter capabilities in the game. It's probably better to keep the current system where all of the plane squads are designated a specific role that they serve.

 

View PostWebley_Mark, on 07 May 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:

Ok, I'm calling them right now. :hiding:

 

They'll never find me, and neither will you :P


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

 

They didn't just experiment with them, they deployed them on a wide scale in the last 2 years of the war. The latest developed High Velocity Aircraft Rockets (preceded by the 3.5 and 5 inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets) were extensively used by fighters and bombers alike.

 

Honestly, I thought for the longest time that giving HVARs to USN CVs could be one way to make them competitive. Instead of introducing dedicated missile squads however, I'd have introduced fighter-bombers. They should be able to engage enemy planes like normal fighters and attack ships with HVARs via alt attack, but lose the strafe ability. Squad size should be 3, upgradeable to 4, so that a single squad will always lose against an IJN fighter squad. Alternatively you could just give them worse stats and make the squad size 4(5).

Obviously this would require extensive rework and rebalancing of both loadouts and USN service times, but that's needed anyway.

 

Can't recall reading about any USN aircraft using rockets to the same extent as the British fleet air arm. USAAF loved the things, between the yank p47s and Brit Tiffies, Jerry couldn't move for the rocket strikes.

 

Yanks also equipped their maritime patrol B24's with rockets.

 

Now here is where it gets interesting, while USN bombers did not use rockets (to the best of my knowledge) most USN fighters could be equipped and I read that the USMC fighters used them allot to support the marines on the ground. It could be an interesting mechanic to load fighters with rockets to give those AS loadouts more mileage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,895 posts
19,717 battles

Can't recall reading about any USN aircraft using rockets to the same extent as the British fleet air arm.

 

During the last year of the war they slapped them on pretty much everything that could carry them. They're even specified by WG themselves here:

 

 

It's probably better to keep the current system where all of the plane squads are designated a specific role that they serve.

 

Imo fighter-bomber would be a pretty clear cut, fairly easy to understand role. While missile squads alone would solve the overreliance of USN CVs on prayers to RNGesus, they'd still be unable to contest air superiority in a meaningful way against an IJN CV. Fighter-bombers could (emphasis on COULD) solve both while preserving national flavor.

Since a rework of loadouts, thus balance, is desperately needed anyway it's imo at least an idea worth testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,376 posts
17,664 battles

Imo fighter-bomber would be a pretty clear cut, fairly easy to understand role. While missile squads alone would solve the overreliance of USN CVs on prayers to RNGesus, they'd still be unable to contest air superiority in a meaningful way against an IJN CV. Fighter-bombers could (emphasis on COULD) solve both while preserving national flavor.

 

The fact that USN attack aircraft are being combined with fighters raises its own balancing issue though. I'd prefer it if the issue of contesting air supremacy was instead left to a more universal fighter setup across the nations (i.e. 4x2 fighters on all carriers of tier V and above) then have the national flavor expressed in their strike components. All carriers, without exception, should run balanced setup with no other options in my ideal world.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

 

They didn't just experiment with them, they deployed them on a wide scale in the last 2 years of the war. The latest developed High Velocity Aircraft Rockets (preceded by the 3.5 and 5 inch Forward Firing Aircraft Rockets) were extensively used by fighters and bombers alike.

 

 

Fair enough, I should have spoken more accurately.

The USN specifically experimented with rockets to replace torpedoes and bombs separately from the rest of US armed forces (notably the USAAF).

I believe they even made a sort of bomb with rocket boosters made to be slingshot in the air via maneuvering while turning on a rocket booster to fling it forward.

EDIT: found it: BOAR , for all your slingshot nuclear rocket bomb needs.

 

 

To give the USN rockets would be nothing more than logical.

Even more so than the for RN planes, which might have used a lot of RP-3 rockets, but nothing else. And while those might work at lower tiers, would quickly fall short damage-wise even at mid tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

 

Fair enough, I should have spoken more accurately.

The USN specifically experimented with rockets to replace torpedoes and bombs separately from the rest of US armed forces (notably the USAAF).

I believe they even made a sort of bomb with rocket boosters made to be slingshot in the air via maneuvering while turning on a rocket booster to fling it forward.

 

To give the USN rockets would be nothing more than logical.

Even more so than the for RN planes, which might have used a lot of RP-3 rockets, but nothing else. And while those might work at lower tiers, would quickly fall short damage-wise even at mid tier.

 

Really?

 

Our rockets had a variety of warheads and would be pretty competitive even at later tiers.

 

Shot A.P. 25 lb. Mk I
Shot A.P. 25 lb. Mk II
Shot S.A.P. 25 lb. Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S.A.P. No. 1 Mk I & No. 2 Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. “F” No. 1 Mk I
Head Rocket Flare Mk 1
Phosphorous R/P
Shell 25 lb. Practice (Concrete) Mk I
Shell 60 lb. Practice (Concrete) Mk I

Head Solid A/S a/c 3 in. No. I Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S.A.P. No. 2 Mk 3 and Mk 4.
Shell H.E. 60 lb. G.P. (Hollow Charge) No. 1 Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S/H (Squash Head) No. 1 Mk I
Head H.E. 18 lb. G.P. No. 1 Mk I
Head H.E. 12 lb. G.P.
Head Rocket Flare Mk 2N
Head Practice 12 lb. No. 1 Mk 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GBF-]
Players
769 posts
3,620 battles

When I hear the word "missiles" I have an involuntary reaction........

 

Those things ruined War Thunder for me :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,376 posts
17,664 battles

Even more so than the for RN planes, which might have used a lot of RP-3 rockets, but nothing else. And while those might work at lower tiers, would quickly fall short damage-wise even at mid tier.

 

Meh. Powered missiles are usually small. If they're weaksauce, just have the higher tiered planes launch a bigger barrage. Two or three per plane or something. It's not like the IJN gain torpedo alpha damage at the higher tiers, though maybe they should.

Edited by dasCKD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

 

Really?

 

Our rockets had a variety of warheads and would be pretty competitive even at later tiers.

 

Shot A.P. 25 lb. Mk I
Shot A.P. 25 lb. Mk II
Shot S.A.P. 25 lb. Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S.A.P. No. 1 Mk I & No. 2 Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. “F” No. 1 Mk I
Head Rocket Flare Mk 1
Phosphorous R/P
Shell 25 lb. Practice (Concrete) Mk I
Shell 60 lb. Practice (Concrete) Mk I

Head Solid A/S a/c 3 in. No. I Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S.A.P. No. 2 Mk 3 and Mk 4.
Shell H.E. 60 lb. G.P. (Hollow Charge) No. 1 Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S/H (Squash Head) No. 1 Mk I
Head H.E. 18 lb. G.P. No. 1 Mk I
Head H.E. 12 lb. G.P.
Head Rocket Flare Mk 2N
Head Practice 12 lb. No. 1 Mk 1.

 

Yes congrats, you listed all the the RP-3 variants, which is one rocket which had different heads, which all boiled down to:

Explosives, slightly more explosives, more explosives again, solid shot, heavier solid shot, and tons of variants which are for all intents and purposes pointless for the game.

 

 

Nothing compared that the USN rockets, with different sizes of rockets, from small 3.75" all the way to 30.5", with even the 2.75" rockets with would later be developped into the rockets still in use today being within the game's timeframe.

 

The RP-3 could only realistically be used until tier5, after which the lack of explosives (5kg at most compared to 20kg for the equivalent American rocket, not even the biggest) would make itself evident.

For reference, 5kg of explosives is less than what's in a 50lbs bomb, a bomb five times smaller than the smallest one currently ingame (Langley), and a STAGGERING 10 times smaller than the regular IJN bomb.

For more reference, the most common US rocket would have as much explosives as the Langley's DBs' bombs, and the Tiny Tim rockets could rival AP bombs in performance.

 

 

 

Trying to compare what the RAF and the RN had is a futile exercice.

 

 

 

 

Meh. Powered missiles are usually small. If they're weaksauce, just have the higher tiered planes launch a bigger barrage. Two or three per plane or something. It's not like the IJN gain torpedo alpha damage at the higher tiers, though maybe they should.

 

 

While that's absolutely not a problem for USN planes, as multiplying already hefty rockets would increase damage noticably, it just wouldn't work with British rockets, and their very modest payload. Even if you send 8 per planes, that's only the equivalent of 2 203mm HE shells hitting. That's if all 8 hit.

 

Edited by Exocet6951

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

 

Yes congrats, you listed all the the RP-3 variants, which is one rocket which had different heads, which all boiled down to:

Explosives, slightly more explosives, more explosives again, solid shot, heavier solid shot, and tons of variants which are for all intents and purposes pointless for the game.

 

 

Nothing compared that the USN rockets, with different sizes of rockets, from small 3.75" all the way to 30.5", with even the 2.75" rockets with would later be developped into the rockets still in use today being within the game's timeframe.

 

The RP-3 could only realistically be used until tier5, after which the lack of explosives (5kg at most compared to 20kg for the equivalent American rocket, not even the biggest) would make itself evident.

For reference, 5kg of explosives is less than what's in a 50lbs bomb, a bomb five times smaller than the smallest one currently ingame (Langley), and a STAGGERING 10 times smaller than the regular IJN bomb.

For more reference, the most common US rocket would have as much explosives as the Langley's DBs' bombs, and the Tiny Tim rockets could rival AP bombs in performance.

 

 

 

Trying to compare what the RAF and the RN had is a futile exercice.

 

Considering the RAF never fought from aircraft carriers......

 

I do love your anti-RN bias, it's fascinating.

 

Completely ignoring the hollow charge and HESH warheads.

Edited by fallenkezef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

 

Considering the RAF never fought from aircraft carriers......

 

I do love your anti-RN bias, it's fascinating.

 

Completely ignoring the hollow charge and HESH warheads.

 

Oh ffs, what's wrong with you?

 

Why do you have to try 1-UP everything using the RN, bringing up in every single topic like you NEEDED the attention?

HESH is pointless against ships because ships are very large with compound armor. Same with shaped charge. There's a reason no warship ever made the switch to shaped charge warheads; not even on modern missiles.

 

 

It's not anti RN bias to point out that a rocket with AT MOST 5kg of explosives pales in comparison to the 20 kg of explosives on an average sized USN rocket, of which they had bigger and more types, making the USN a much more likely candidate to have fighter-bomber squads using bombers.

it's not ****ing bias to point out that 5<20

Edited by Exocet6951
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

The most commonly used American rocket (HVAR) had LESS explosive than the British RP-3

 

RP-3, standard load, had 27kg of explosive, HVAR had 3.4kg, the larger American  5 inch had 20kg and the 3.7inch actualy had NO warhead (they added the 20kg warhead to create the 5inch).

 

Now these famous tiny tims had a warhead of 67.4kg, however only two could be carried by most aircraft which was a significant downgrade in the firepower.

 

British naval aircraft not only had a rocket MORE powerful than anything the Americans had except the Tiny Tim, they generaly carried MORE per aircraft.



You may want to do your homework before making a fool of yourself Exorcet, only the early SAP warheads had 5.4kg of explosive.......
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

You may want to do your homework before making a fool of yourself Exorcet, only the early SAP warheads had 5.4kg of explosive.......

 

You will HAVE to give me a link showing which RP-3 variant had 27kg of explosives, which is interestingly enough roughly equal to 60lbs, the total weight of the warhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,376 posts
17,664 battles

Use Tiny Tim equipped "Missile Squadrons" as the main fire starters for the USN CV's, and give their dive bombers AP bombs capable of causing citadels

 

Here's where I'd have to object. My opinion on the matter is that dive bombers as anything but a DoT weapon is completely unbalancable. It's one of the reasons I object to the Lexington's current setup so much. If AP bombs were introduced, I would give them low alpha values (5000 maximum) and a flooding chance with only one squad of dive bombers. If I was given the option to redesign the carriers from the ground up, I would build it as such:

 

For tier VIII (competitive) carriers

Shokaku

Fighter 4 x 2

Torpedo bombers 4 x 3

Lexington

Fighter 4 x 2

Missile bomber 4 x 2

AP dive bomber 5 x 1

Brit carrier #6

Fighter 4 x 2

Missile bomber 3 x 2

Torpedo bomber 3 x 2

 

This topic deserves its own thread though, so consider this a spoiler if you would.

Edited by dasCKD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

View PostExocet6951, on 07 May 2017 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

You will HAVE to give me a link showing which RP-3 variant had 27kg of explosives, which is interestingly enough roughly equal to 60lbs, the total weight of the warhead.

 

Hate to use Wiki but I'll need to dig out some books for other references.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-3

 

"The rocket body was a steel tube 3 inches (76 mm) in diameter filled with 11 pounds (5 kg) of cordite propellant, fired electrically. The warhead was screwed into the forward end, and was initially a solid 25 pounds (11 kg), 3.44-inch (87 mm) armor-piercing shell which was quickly supplemented by a 6-inch-diameter (152mm), 60 pounds (27 kg) high-explosive head. Another type of head was a 25 lb (11 kg) mild steel (later concrete) practice head. Once the rocket had been mounted on the rails, an electrical lead (or "pigtail") was plugged into the exhaust of the rocket."

 

It was the way British designated weapons, the whole thing was 82 pounds (37kg) in weight

 

View PostdasCKD, on 07 May 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

 

Here's where I'd have to object. My opinion on the matter is that dive bombers as anything but a DoT weapon is completely unbalancable. It's one of the reasons I object to the Lexington's current setup so much. If AP bombs were introduced, I would give them low alpha values (5000 maximum) and a flooding chance with only one squad of dive bombers. If I was given the option to redesign the carriers from the ground up, I would build it as such:

 

For tier VIII (competitive) carriers

Shokaku

Fighter 4 x 2

Torpedo bombers 4 x 3

Lexington

Fighter 4 x 2

Missile bomber 4 x 2

AP dive bomber 5 x 1

Brit carrier #6

Fighter 4 x 2

Missile bomber 3 x 2

Torpedo bomber 3 x 2

 

This topic deserves its own thread though, so consider this a spoiler if you would.

 

Considering that the British never really went in for dive bombers, rocket attackers would be a good choice.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GBF-]
Players
769 posts
3,620 battles

 

Considering the RAF never fought from aircraft carriers......

 

I do love your anti-RN bias, it's fascinating.

 

Completely ignoring the hollow charge and HESH warheads.

 

The RAF's No. 1 Squadron was deployed with the Royal Navy, operating from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes during the Falklands War. Think RAF air crew also operated from the old Ark Royal in the 1970's as well not sure though.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,788 posts
1,673 battles

 

The RAF's No. 1 Squadron was deployed with the Royal Navy, operating from the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes during the Falklands War. Think RAF air crew also operated from the old Ark Royal in the 1970's as well not sure though.

 

 

 

Ok smart arse :trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,074 posts
11,087 battles

 

Hate to use Wiki but I'll need to dig out some books for other references.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-3

 

"The rocket body was a steel tube 3 inches (76 mm) in diameter filled with 11 pounds (5 kg) of cordite propellant, fired electrically. The warhead was screwed into the forward end, and was initially a solid 25 pounds (11 kg), 3.44-inch (87 mm) armor-piercing shell which was quickly supplemented by a 6-inch-diameter (152mm), 60 pounds (27 kg) high-explosive head. Another type of head was a 25 lb (11 kg) mild steel (later concrete) practice head. Once the rocket had been mounted on the rails, an electrical lead (or "pigtail") was plugged into the exhaust of the rocket."

 

It was the way British designated weapons, the whole thing was 82 pounds (37kg) in weight

 

 

The head isn't only explosives....It's like when they say a 100kg bomb, it's not 100kg of explosives. Only part of the weight of the bomb/warhead is explosives.

60lbs is the weight of the head, and considering it's getting shot at almost 500m/s, it needs to be heavily reinforced (like all rockets), so it has even less filling percentage than bombs.

 

That 60lbs warhead had 5kg of explosives.

 

 

What you are wrongly implying is that an RP-3 rocket had almost as much explosives than a 100kg bomb.

yeah...how likely would that be?

 

EDIT: even better, what you're telling me is that you think a rocket, of all things, can have 72% of its total weight be explosives, absolutely shattering the filling percentage of even general purpose bombs and their 40% filling to weight ratio.

And I'm the one making the fool of himself, needing to do homework.

 

I'll be over here, waiting for you to tell me how saying that makes me a Brit basher somehow.

Edited by Exocet6951

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
849 posts
2,954 battles

 

Considering that the British never really went in for dive bombers, rocket attackers would be a good choice.

 

The Blackburn Firebrand, Fairey Albacore/Barracuda etc would disagree. The Fleet Air Arm had numerous examples of dive bombers, it's just the most famous engagement ironically was by the Fairey Swordfish against the Bismarck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×