I know history fairly well.   But not an expert on military weaponry.
In the Midway scenario, I have a load of cruisers (perhaps a little more than I should, but oh well, part of the fun is living with decisions).
Anyway, they were damn-near useless versus the incoming torpedo and dive bombers.   In most cases, I did 0 damage.    Perhaps 1/3 of the time (at most) would do 1 damage.    Doesn't that seem a little light?
One other question that I cannot seem to answer:  If A-A results in a 0,  is it doing any efficiency damage to the incoming planes?  (such as artillery does when firing for 0 damage).    I don't ever see the plane's number change color from white, so I assume the answer is No.... which of course means the Anti-Air is even More useless.
Appreciate any thoughts.
			
			
									
						
										
						Is Anti-Air accurate?
Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
Re: Is Anti-Air accurate?
It is somewhat light, yes, but in a certain way it has to be IMO. When ships could protect themselves using their own AA just fine the need for fighter cover would be gone, and air attacks rather ineffective. Ship-based AA provides a bit of defensive capacity, but alone it's not sufficient certainly. Best is to combine fighters and ship-bases AA IMO.
Also: not being a military expert myself either, but my impression has always been that ship's AA was constantly increased throughout the war peaking out in 44/45, so at Midway 42 it's lower.
			
			
									
						
										
						Also: not being a military expert myself either, but my impression has always been that ship's AA was constantly increased throughout the war peaking out in 44/45, so at Midway 42 it's lower.
Re: Is Anti-Air accurate?
There is a reason why the British and Americans made an AA Cruiser.
Massive AA to keep away the enemy.
			
			
									
						
										
						Massive AA to keep away the enemy.
Re: Is Anti-Air accurate?
Yes, and too bad the AA cruisers are not represented except as non-core units. And poorly at that.Razz1 wrote:There is a reason why the British and Americans made an AA Cruiser.
Massive AA to keep away the enemy.
That being said, the AA cruisers really were just an expedient means to put a lot of AA rounds into the air from a fairly inexpensive ship. The AA cruisers had very little armor and did not stand up well in ship-to-ship surface combat, perhaps being best described as heavily armed and very large destroyers. Some thought was given to describing them as Destroyer Leaders, or flotilla leaders. Their armament of mid-size DP guns left them outgunned by even most light cruisers, let alone heavies. And heaven forbid if they got within range of a battleship. The average AA cruiser had the equivalent AA armament and directors of a heavy cruiser or battleship, without the big guns or armor, so in that sense they were a stopgap that worked. The only other equivalent in terms of AA armament and effectiveness was two or three well armed destroyers working together, but they were busy being used as fleet perimeter screens, torpedo attackers and ASW platforms.
It is saying something that the late-war successor to the US AA cruisers was the Worcester class, armed with quick-firing, automated 6" DP guns. They were intended to replace both light cruisers and AA cruisers. The automation never worked well, however, and the advent of AA missiles eventually put the end to the need for gun-armed AA ships. But in their day, the AA cruisers were wonderful, beautiful and quick, if tragically, flawed ships. I'm sorry they are not available to us in the game.
Re: Is Anti-Air accurate?
Very interesting Responses.   Thanks guys.
I'm actually playing as the Japanese right now, but I suppose given the historic results, I should not be asking too much from my cruisers in support.....
I had just expected a little better.
			
			
									
						
										
						I'm actually playing as the Japanese right now, but I suppose given the historic results, I should not be asking too much from my cruisers in support.....
I had just expected a little better.
Re: Is Anti-Air accurate?
If you want see the extreme evolution US-Navy ships, especially destroyers made in Anti-Air armament, compare the Clemson-class destroyer with the Fletcher-class destroyer. Pearl Harbor and later the Kamikazes really scared the hell out of them.
The Clemson was a post WWI destroyer and most numerous destroyer in the US-Navy at the beginning of WWII. It often carried just a single AA 76mm gun. Useless against a small dive/torpedo bomber.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/l/Clemson_class.htm
The Fletcher-class destroyer was introduced '42 into the Navy, and the next two years they build almost 200 of those ships. At the end of the war '45 some carried more than 20 AA guns. Many in twin mount, some even in quadrupole mount configurations. These are 4 x 40mm cannons linked together.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/l/Fletcher_class.htm
Here you can see a quad 40mm Bofor from the musem battleship (BB-55) North Carolina, that is featured in the game too. She carried 15 of those quad A-40mm canons and over 40 x 20mm AA-cannons.

			
			
									
						
										
						The Clemson was a post WWI destroyer and most numerous destroyer in the US-Navy at the beginning of WWII. It often carried just a single AA 76mm gun. Useless against a small dive/torpedo bomber.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/l/Clemson_class.htm
The Fletcher-class destroyer was introduced '42 into the Navy, and the next two years they build almost 200 of those ships. At the end of the war '45 some carried more than 20 AA guns. Many in twin mount, some even in quadrupole mount configurations. These are 4 x 40mm cannons linked together.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/F/l/Fletcher_class.htm
Here you can see a quad 40mm Bofor from the musem battleship (BB-55) North Carolina, that is featured in the game too. She carried 15 of those quad A-40mm canons and over 40 x 20mm AA-cannons.

 
					 
					



