How should CVs be armored from the 1940s onward?

[khorne8]

Torpedo Protection IV seems to do a fine job of saving large CVs from torpedo bombers, leaving dive bombers as the real threat to CV survival.

1. I'm interested in heavier CV armor because I am finding that even extremely heavy focus on CAP can't stop every bomb. Is this correct?
   
2. Do deck armor and flight deck armor provide layered protection, or is it best to concentrate all of a CVs armor weight into a single layer?
   
3. I can't find the penetrative power of bombs listed. Where should I look in game to work out how much armor is needed to protect against my rivals' DBs?
   
4. If anyone has an armor scheme that they find to be highly successful on a large late game CV, please let me know what that is.

[ulzgoroth]

1) CAP gets more effective over time, and dive bombing more and more risky. Also, it's pretty hard to armor against large bombs. If anything, I'd think armored carriers make the most sense in the earliest period when bomb loads are small and CAP and AA are less functional.

2) They might provide layered protection, but the main deck won't protect the hangar, and a hangar fire renders your carrier useless at best and has a significant risk of outright loss.

3) Google for uncertain RTW2 forum posts? AFAIK there's no official data.

4) Somewhere between no armor and a 2" frag-proof belt and deck, no armored deck. Note, late-game you're more likely to be hit by SSMs than bombs, which usually act like large HE rather than the SAP/AP anti-ship bombs.

[khorne8]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

4) Somewhere between no armor and a 2" frag-proof belt and deck, no armored deck. Note, late-game you're more likely to be hit by SSMs than bombs, which usually act like large HE rather than the SAP/AP anti-ship bombs.

Do you mean 2" deck armor and no flight deck armor?

[Kan]

mfw single dud 2000lbs AP bomb burned my CV to death

[khorne8]

Originally posted by Kan:

mfw single dud 2000lbs AP bomb burned my CV to death

If it cuts an avgas line on its way through and your boys don't control the spill and the fumes, doesn't matter how much of a dud it was. I really like how explosion prone CVs are in game. Quite realistic IMHO.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by khorne8:

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

4) Somewhere between no armor and a 2" frag-proof belt and deck, no armored deck. Note, late-game you're more likely to be hit by SSMs than bombs, which usually act like large HE rather than the SAP/AP anti-ship bombs.

Do you mean 2" deck armor and no flight deck armor?

Yes. Flight deck armor is heavy, carries a big penalty, and won't help if an SSM hits the side of your hangar anyway.

[Lanner]

Other than torpedo protection I think mobility (not necessarily speed) is the most important factor for keeping CVs alive. Unfortunately, no amount of armor can save your ship or its ability to conduct flight ops from a(n) (un)lucky hit! However, keeping the CV mobile allows it to conduct evasive maneuvers when attacked, gives it a chance to steer clear of enemy surface units and follow-up airstrikes, and with some good damage control it may even be possible to resume flight ops.

That's why I prioritize max torpedo protection, unit machinery, engine reliability, and speed over armor protection. Spacious quarters is also preferable to armor as improved crew quality should improve damage control (not to mention flight ops/aircraft handling!).

If I can get all of that plus 70-80 aircraft at 29+ knots with tonnage to spare, then I like to add 2" splinter protection to the main belt, main deck, conning tower, and main turrets (flat-deck armor scheme, no inclined belt or mag box), and for very large carriers maybe 2" BE/DE, but IMO more armor than that is a waste of tonnage

[khorne8]

Originally posted by Lanner:

Other than torpedo protection I think mobility (not necessarily speed) is the most important factor for keeping CVs alive. Unfortunately, no amount of armor can save your ship or its ability to conduct flight ops from a(n) (un)lucky hit! However, keeping the CV mobile allows it to conduct evasive maneuvers when attacked, gives it a chance to steer clear of enemy surface units and follow-up airstrikes, and with some good damage control it may even be possible to resume flight ops.

That's why I prioritize max torpedo protection, unit machinery, engine reliability, and speed over armor protection. Spacious quarters is also preferable to armor as improved crew quality should improve damage control (not to mention flight ops/aircraft handling!).

If I can get all of that plus 70-80 aircraft at 29+ knots with tonnage to spare, then I like to add 2" splinter protection to the main belt, main deck, conning tower, and main turrets (flat-deck armor scheme, no inclined belt or mag box), and for very large carriers maybe 2" BE/DE, but IMO more armor than that is a waste of tonnage

IMHO all this is right, but I'd add that I think the most important factor for keeping CVs alive during the 1930s and 1940s is actually the number of fighters you have on board. 50+ fighters per CV really cuts down on the number of hits you take.

In RTW2 I would put 60 fighters on a 100 plane capacity CV. However, I find the special squadron in RTW3 cuts into that. But it seems very useful, so I don't want to ditch it.

[ulzgoroth]

Yeah, the carrier's best defense is never getting hit, and it's plausible to build around that.

It'll hurt if your basically unarmored carrier eats a bomb. But two of your armored carriers eating a bomb because their CAP is insufficient will probably hurt more, not less.

[Lanner]

Originally posted by khorne8:

IMHO all this is right, but I'd add that I think the most important factor for keeping CVs alive during the 1930s and 1940s is actually the number of fighters you have on board. 50+ fighters per CV really cuts down on the number of hits you take.

In RTW2 I would put 60 fighters on a 100 plane capacity CV. However, I find the special squadron in RTW3 cuts into that. But it seems very useful, so I don't want to ditch it.

True, although I've experienced mixed results with early CAP interceptions. 30's fighters often seem to struggle to catch enemy attackers before they make their attack runs. I'm admittedly leaning on my RTW2 experience too here though and RTW3 CAP seems much improved so far

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Lanner:

Originally posted by khorne8:

IMHO all this is right, but I'd add that I think the most important factor for keeping CVs alive during the 1930s and 1940s is actually the number of fighters you have on board. 50+ fighters per CV really cuts down on the number of hits you take.

In RTW2 I would put 60 fighters on a 100 plane capacity CV. However, I find the special squadron in RTW3 cuts into that. But it seems very useful, so I don't want to ditch it.

True, although I've experienced mixed results with early CAP interceptions. 30's fighters often seem to struggle to catch enemy attackers before they make their attack runs. I'm admittedly leaning on my RTW2 experience too here though and RTW3 CAP seems much improved so far

Documentation specifically says earlier CAP is less reliable, and there are technologies that relate to improving it - which is why I suggested above that armor was more appropriate for early carriers than late ones.

[Lanner]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Documentation specifically says earlier CAP is less reliable, and there are technologies that relate to improving it - which is why I suggested above that armor was more appropriate for early carriers than late ones.

Sure but I'm saying In my experience 30's Fs often simply don't have enough of a speed advantage to intercept TBs before they make their attacks nor the firepower to prevent PB/MB attacks. They do eventually intercept and damage enemy attackers at least, unlike RtW2 lmao

Armor on early purpose-built CVs feels like a waste of potential air capacity due to displacement limits. I think a large, fast-ish, moderately-armored, heavily-gunned 1910s CA class intended for eventual conversion to armored CVLs might be viable as a fleet scout in the 20's and an armored fighter-carrier supporting the battle-line in the 30's. Improvements in surface unit speeds and armaments, as well as air wing sizes, aircraft payloads, air accuracy, not to mention improvements in fighter range and fleet tactics which allow CVs to operate in separate groups and provide CAP to BB/surface groups from a distance will all doom such a design for the scrapheap sooner than later, unfortunately.

I should clarify that it's not that I think armor is ineffective, but that the biggest strategic advantage of building large CVs is that the entire air-wing becomes much more capable over time as aircraft and tech develops. Even if you max out your intel efforts and determine that nobody drops bombs bigger than 500lbs and can figure out a way to armor your flight deck against those 500lb bombs, the next generation of aircraft will simply drop bigger bombs, more torpedoes, guided missiles, etc (and as you noted, and if the CV enjoys a long service life, SSMs will eventually overtake aircraft as the main threat), rendering that armored flight deck obsolete.

Max TP, good speed, extra insurance on the engines from UM + reliability, pile on as just about as much AA as deck space allows, then max air capacity. Add spacious accommodations and splinter protection for the machinery/magazine/command spaces when displacement limits allow. IMO this is the best balance between protection and offensive capability and future-proofing for CVs, especially considering the additional capacity required for light jets