yamoto and other BB armor question

[edlu21]

Finally I saved enough to buy the Yamoto. She was leading a group of 3 CA and 3DD. She took on a group of USA 8DD group on a night battle the range was about 8000 yards.

in the end all 8 DD went under but had to chase them down for a bit. they all fired on the lead ship which is the Yamoto. She took some damages had fire, and damaged turrets which at the end were all repaired.

My question is with all the heavy armor on the Yamoto how is the 5" shall from the DD able to pen the armor and damage the inside? In my mind if the AP shall can't pen the armor there should be no damage.

[jfoytek]

HE causes Fires and fire burns stuff....

[edlu21]

so HE ammo will damage the turret (no fire in my case) regardless how much armor is on the turret?

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by edlu21:

so HE ammo will damage the turret (no fire in my case) regardless how much armor is on the turret?

What is a Turret besides the exterior armor you see?

Their is a Turret Ring a set of bearings that allow the turret to turn in what happens to bearing when they are heated up what happens to the lubricant the bearings are packed with?

What else do you have in a turret electronics or hydraulics what does hydraulic fluid pass thru rubber tubes... What does heat to to rubber what does heat do to hydraulic fluid...

Electric Wires are made of copper, copper for a metal has a very low melting point comparatively...

What happens to a cast iron skillet when you put it on your stove... Metal aka those plates of armor are not an insulator they conduct heat and fairly efficiently I might add...

You would be amazed how many things burn on a ship made out of Metal.... And the Yamato's entire Top Deck armor is just really thick wood that most definitely burns even with the treatment it has received to be resistant to burning it will still burn...

Basically a large enough and hot enough fire near at or around the turret can do major damage to the turret even if the shell never penetrates because metal is an easy conductor of heat and a ship is filled with things that burn....

However the most likely part of the turret that can be damaged with a 5 inch shell would be the actual barrels themselves.

[edlu21]

If that is the case would it not be better to buy more CA and CL instead of that much points on the Yamoto? If enough fire is on a ship it will blow up and sink no? so in theory you would be able to throw lots more HE shells down range for the same amount of command points.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by edlu21:

If that is the case would it not be better to buy more CA and CL instead of that much points on the Yamoto? If enough fire is on a ship it will blow up and sink no? so in theory you would be able to throw lots more HE shells down range for the same amount of command points.

Not going to argue that point at all..... BB's are a waist of command points at this stage of the game... Honestly BB's and CA's really only have one use, shore bombardment....

Personally I never spend a dime on BB's, I might get one in the course of a campaign typically because of pressure from those watching my lets plays...

This is the AGE of the Aircraft Carrier it reigns supreme and is far and away the most effective unit you can put on the field...

Personally I consider a Surface Engagement to be a tactic of absolutely last resort...

[Markus1987]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

Originally posted by edlu21:

If that is the case would it not be better to buy more CA and CL instead of that much points on the Yamoto? If enough fire is on a ship it will blow up and sink no? so in theory you would be able to throw lots more HE shells down range for the same amount of command points.

Not going to argue that point at all..... BB's are a waist of command points at this stage of the game... Honestly BB's and CA's really only have one use, shore bombardment....

Personally I never spend a dime on BB's, I might get one in the course of a campaign typically because of pressure from those watching my lets plays...

This is the AGE of the Aircraft Carrier it reigns supreme and is far and away the most effective unit you can put on the field...

Personally I consider a Surface Engagement to be a tactic of absolutely last resort...

But this is only true for the Pacific scenario.

The Atlantic and Mediterranean already had their surface battles, where carriers were mostly auxiliary units, at least until about 42

The British were also very lucky with the torpedo crisis...., Nelson or Rodney had I think in the fall of 39 several unexploded torpedoes stuck in the hull.... at that time Churchill was on board.... The Ark Royal would have found her end almost at the same time as the Couragous - The torpedoes of the attacking submarine would have sat, but detonated too early.

The carrier presence was weak and carriers were also very popular targets. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have caught the Glourius - although here the evacuation convoy of troops from Harstadt further north would have been the better target.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by Markus1987:

Originally posted by jfoytek:

Not going to argue that point at all..... BB's are a waist of command points at this stage of the game... Honestly BB's and CA's really only have one use, shore bombardment....

Personally I never spend a dime on BB's, I might get one in the course of a campaign typically because of pressure from those watching my lets plays...

This is the AGE of the Aircraft Carrier it reigns supreme and is far and away the most effective unit you can put on the field...

Personally I consider a Surface Engagement to be a tactic of absolutely last resort...

But this is only true for the Pacific scenario.

The Atlantic and Mediterranean already had their surface battles, where carriers were mostly auxiliary units, at least until about 42

The British were also very lucky with the torpedo crisis...., Nelson or Rodney had I think in the fall of 39 several unexploded torpedoes stuck in the hull.... at that time Churchill was on board.... The Ark Royal would have found her end almost at the same time as the Couragous - The torpedoes of the attacking submarine would have sat, but detonated too early.

The carrier presence was weak and carriers were also very popular targets. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have caught the Glourius - although here the evacuation convoy of troops from Harstadt further north would have been the better target.

So I would rather not split hairs over US Carrier vs British Carrier effectiveness and use... Nor the fact that the Brits were often not willing to put a Carrier into the Med since it would be in range of shore Bombers pretty much everywhere it went... Honestly the Med was not what I would call a Naval Theater as it was dominated bye planes launched from inland.... Absolutely the med is a very different beast but I don't think its a good example to use to point to how an effective navy should be used... If they ever put a med campaign into the game I would probally change tactics to only small contingents of DD's and utilize my shore planes to do all the work....

Which is pretty much what happened in real life the DD's were the work horse of the med...

As for the Atlantic Italy never left the med and germany really only ever entered the proper atlantic with sub's their was no need for a carrier in the atlantic and then the brits still didn't utilize the Carrier correctly at that point as they were still in the mind set of Many big ships with big guns rules supreme and of course it made sense no navy could match their Big Ship fire power in the atlantic once the primary german capital ships were chased to port they had free reign in the atlantic un-checked... And thus really had no reason to even attempt to use the carrier the way the US "HAD TOO" The attack on Pearl Harbor required the US to make the Carrier the Focus of its naval doctrine.... And while many admiral's believed the Carrier was the future it wasn't until the USA AND Japan showed the rest of the world how effective carriers were....

Imagine if Germany had focused on Building two Giant Carriers instead of the Tirpitz and the Bismark the naval war may have gone very differently....

[Markus1987]

Originally posted by jfoytek:

Originally posted by Markus1987:

But this is only true for the Pacific scenario.

The Atlantic and Mediterranean already had their surface battles, where carriers were mostly auxiliary units, at least until about 42

The British were also very lucky with the torpedo crisis...., Nelson or Rodney had I think in the fall of 39 several unexploded torpedoes stuck in the hull.... at that time Churchill was on board.... The Ark Royal would have found her end almost at the same time as the Couragous - The torpedoes of the attacking submarine would have sat, but detonated too early.

The carrier presence was weak and carriers were also very popular targets. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau have caught the Glourius - although here the evacuation convoy of troops from Harstadt further north would have been the better target.

So I would rather not split hairs over US Carrier vs British Carrier effectiveness and use... Nor the fact that the Brits were often not willing to put a Carrier into the Med since it would be in range of shore Bombers pretty much everywhere it went... Honestly the Med was not what I would call a Naval Theater as it was dominated bye planes launched from inland.... Absolutely the med is a very different beast but I don't think its a good example to use to point to how an effective navy should be used... If they ever put a med campaign into the game I would probally change tactics to only small contingents of DD's and utilize my shore planes to do all the work....

Which is pretty much what happened in real life the DD's were the work horse of the med...

As for the Atlantic Italy never left the med and germany really only ever entered the proper atlantic with sub's their was no need for a carrier in the atlantic and then the brits still didn't utilize the Carrier correctly at that point as they were still in the mind set of Many big ships with big guns rules supreme and of course it made sense no navy could match their Big Ship fire power in the atlantic once the primary german capital ships were chased to port they had free reign in the atlantic un-checked... And thus really had no reason to even attempt to use the carrier the way the US "HAD TOO" The attack on Pearl Harbor required the US to make the Carrier the Focus of its naval doctrine.... And while many admiral's believed the Carrier was the future it wasn't until the USA AND Japan showed the rest of the world how effective carriers were....

Imagine if Germany had focused on Building two Giant Carriers instead of the Tirpitz and the Bismark the naval war may have gone very differently....

Yes, but there you can also ask the question, what would have happened if the Japanese had launched the 3rd wave..... The Enterprise would then no longer exist, with high probability, possibly long-range reconnaissance of the Japanese battle group would then also have discovered the Lexington....

From the destroyed shipyards and Treibstoiffdepots as well as the U boat base, which all 3 the main goals of the 3ten wave wren I will not begin to speak.

An effective alternative would have been to wait for the U.S. fleet to leave for the Phillipines and then let the large U-boats and carrier aircraft attack them in combination.


Yes, Bismarck, + Prinz Eugen, Admiral Scheer, Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin would have been a good Task Force


One must not forget that the Great Ships were quite successful in the Atlantic, here e.g. Prinz Eugen, Admiral Hipper and Admiral Scheer as well as gneisenau and Scharnhorst.

Personally I think that GN and SH could have attacked one of the sighted convoys, one was secured by Resolution, the other by the Malaya... both obsolete ships

[Markus1987]

To answer the original question about buying clunkier ships....

Small comparison... In SW Empire at War many like to build the super star destroyer Exekutor, depending on the mod costs SIe sometimes 50000, sometimes 200000 credits. A normal star destroyer costs only a fraction of that. There you are also faced with the problem, do I build a well-armed giant ship, which in battle flattens 80% of the enemy bases and ships, but also costs a multiple, with which I could build in the same time on 2-3 shipyards 4-5 destroyers of the types ISD 1 or ISD 2, and in the end I can do the same task by the smaller ships.

[edlu21]

so the suggestion is to buy as many CV follow up by CL and forget the BB and CA all together unless towards the end game where command points is burning a hole in my pocket.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by edlu21:

so the suggestion is to buy as many CV follow up by CL and forget the BB and CA all together unless towards the end game where command points is burning a hole in my pocket.

Not exactly no....

What you want are fleets that perform Roles...

Most important and primary fleet is the

Carrier Task Force which job is to sink the enemy ships, provide air support to other Task Forces...

Then you will want a Surface Action Group its job is to deliver ordanance to your enemys shore installations, destroy the enemy ports and airfields...

An Effect Surface Action Group would be something like:
3 CA's
3 CL's
4 DD's

or

4 CA's
2 CL's
4 DD's

This surface action group will be escorted to target bye the CTF providing CAS over the top of it....

Once the SAG is out of ammo and does its bombardment of the facility's then it pulls out and sail back home to reload ammo...

The CTF stays on station and then waits for the
Amphibous Invasion group to come in and drop troops and supply and the CTF is their to provide Air Support...

Then the USNS Fleet arrive with Logistical Materials, Engineering, Fuel and Supply to build an airfield...

So How do you invest your starting cash.

1) Carrier Task Force
2) SAG
3) Amphibious Invasion Force (6 Merchants to Carry Troops and Supply, 4 DD's to escort)
*slow speed is fine with this group*
4) USNS Fleet (1 Tanker, 3 FAST Merchants, 4 DD's to escort)
*Best Merchant speeds here*

Of course in the vanilla version of the game you don't have much choice in merchant ships but if you expand the arsenal and get some mods up then what I just said would make more sense...

The above is what you would need to have a cohesive unit where each fleet is able to do its job and role....

This game is about more then just sinking ships...
If that was the only thing that mattered then you would just get..
CTF, CTF, CTF, CTF, CTF lol you get the point....

And also you will want to maybe invest in a few subs for recon / offense or defensive purposes... I prefer to use my subs in a defensive role....

And you will also want to get a Few ASW squadrons (3DD's) to patrol your shipping lanes and keep them free on enemy DD's....

[Scarfaxe]

Originally posted by Markus1987:

The British were also very lucky with the torpedo crisis...., Nelson or Rodney had I think in the fall of 39 several unexploded torpedoes stuck in the hull.... at that time Churchill was on board.... The Ark Royal would have found her end almost at the same time as the Couragous - The torpedoes of the attacking submarine would have sat, but detonated too early.

I know that this rumour is circulating, but it is not true based on the data.

The incident you speak of, U-56 fired 3x torpedoes at HMS Nelson, 2x torpedoes hit but did not detonate. That was on 30.10.1939, west of Orkneys.

The convoy of HMS Nelson, Rodney, Hood and some destroyers left harbour on 22.10.1939. Churchill gave a speech in the House of Commons on 26.10.1939. He could not have been on board. Very unlikely.

Churchill was only once on HMS Nelson, that was on 17.09.1939 in Scapa Flow to inspect the harbour facilities.

[Markus1987]

Originally posted by Scarfaxe:

Originally posted by Markus1987:

The British were also very lucky with the torpedo crisis...., Nelson or Rodney had I think in the fall of 39 several unexploded torpedoes stuck in the hull.... at that time Churchill was on board.... The Ark Royal would have found her end almost at the same time as the Couragous - The torpedoes of the attacking submarine would have sat, but detonated too early.

I know that this rumour is circulating, but it is not true based on the data.

The incident you speak of, U-56 fired 3x torpedoes at HMS Nelson, 2x torpedoes hit but did not detonate. That was on 30.10.1939, west of Orkneys.

The convoy of HMS Nelson, Rodney, Hood and some destroyers left harbour on 22.10.1939. Churchill gave a speech in the House of Commons on 26.10.1939. He could not have been on board. Very unlikely.

Churchill was only once on HMS Nelson, that was on 17.09.1939 in Scapa Flow to inspect the harbour facilities.

But there are enough pages, even official ones, which state that he was on board. Who knows what is true.....


Anyway, I was mainly concerned with the factor that without the torpedo crisis, the outnumbered German Navy 39-40 could have inflicted some serious losses on the English fleet.... Ark Royal and Nelson would have had the same effect , not to mention the failures during Operation Weserübung.

That is exactly why I would find an Atlantic campaign interesting, you do not have air superiority everywhere and must also consider how and where to deploy units.

Here, by the way, I find the submarine AI very good

[IspartaPratapon]

Beyond air power becoming supreme, the battleships and heavy cruisers in the base game tend to have atrocious accuracy, esp. because auto fire control is ass.

[jfoytek]

Originally posted by IspartaPratapon:

Beyond air power becoming supreme, the battleships and heavy cruisers in the base game tend to have atrocious accuracy, esp. because auto fire control is ass.

No the games auto fire is pretty good in fact really good... Game does a great job of not falling into the typical video game trap of magical shells that hit every time..... This is far more like reality then other games...