Is naval AA worth it or not, trying to do some math?

[Cavalry]

Today I try some real game test vs 400 AI naval bombers. The anti air heavy cruiser is dangerous, too easy to get sink.

So I switch to a BC anti air (not max tech yet). It get wounded 25%, and kill 40 naval bombers and have to go repair in 3 month. The 40 bombers cost is only equal to 1200 Military IC or 600 Naval IC, a MIL factory has output 2 times a Naval factory. So not worth to build it to kill planes, but is useful if you want to use the anti air BC as escort for CVs. Avoid naval bombers.

 

[Diwtop]

Iam fine with the dmg output of naval bombers. They do a large amount of dmg as they should. My problem is that they do this without any cost of the attacker and the defender can nothing do. Cv fighters dont protect the fleet and AA dont shout back most of the Time. So maybe paradox should increase the wear off of planes.

 

[Ffire]

The value of naval AA should no be overestimated.
I think basing that on US kill reports is a big mistake. US had one of the best AA tech, while the japanese used very fragile planes. Their training wasn't good (except for those trained before war), so their evasive manoeuver shouldn't be very efficient while they try to aim for an US ship. Their tactics and spirit leads them to flight very close, and even to crash on ennemy ships. Finally US were used to much overestimate their kills, especially with anti-aircraft weapons. I don't have precise date about that for pacific front, but in Pierre Clostermann's famous book "the big show", there's an example of that : during one bombing raid, the machine gunners of US bombers claims 84 ennemy planes shooted down, while the Germans only ask their HQ 12 new planes (those 12 were loss from both bombers and escort fighters). Clostermann writed it's absolutely understandable, when hundreds of gunners are firing at the same plane, that all of them claim it.

A much better example of the AA value is the battle of Matapan between UK and Italia. The only, and decisive torpedoe hit on the italian BB, is possible because the attacking plane dare shooting at point blank range (900m, causing its destruction by AA and the death of its crew). All other planes attacks are neutralized by AA firing, that force them to shoot from afar, but the AA didn't shot down any of those planes.

Maybe AA mitigation could be a way to differenciate Torpedoes bombers from dive bombers. But the very first thing to fix is how naval fighters protect their fleets.

 

[Denkt]

The question was not really about if AA is historically accurate or not, but if it is actually even Worth using in the first place. The 40mm I think was considered one of the most important weapons during ww2 which may tell quite alot about the importance placed upon AA guns. Also US AA was not good in 1941 and early 1942 when they was still using stuff like 28mm which was considered absolute terrible for many reasons. Here you can see how Fletcher class armament improved over time: http://destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/armament/ as can be seen it took like to 1944 to reach peak level.

Producing the guns was not an easy task, but US still managed to produce like 40k 40mm guns in just a few years. Also to develop the 40mm took like 5 years or something but when it was maybe the best medium AA gun 10 years after it was developed.

 

[Riekopo]

This part of the simulation needs to be changed/fixed. It's completely illogical nonsense.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...fense-in-naval-battles.1402927/#post-26702512 new thread same topic

 

[Kryndude]

You forced my hand.

I was going to post this at a later point, but I've been testing CVs in LaR, and my conclusion is that CV NAVs are a waste against any competent player.

You may read this pdf I prepared for my MP group that discusses what happened when two of us tested various configurations of carriers and planes at various tech levels.

Short version: You don't shoot a lot of CV NAVs down with CV fighters, but you can shut down CV NAVs fairly well with a few CV fighters and tier 2 AA.

I think some of your data might be outdated. In my tests, CV fighters shredded any enemy CV planes and the side with fewer CV fighters ended up with no planes remaining. Here's a quick test to prove it.

 

[Secret Master]

I think some of your data might be outdated. In my tests, CV fighters shredded any enemy CV planes and the side with fewer CV fighters ended up with no planes remaining. Here's a quick test to prove it.

View attachment 595730

Well, there's been a heap of changes since March, so I don't doubt that my information is outdated.

But we also don't need to necro old threads to point it out. There's a perfectly good thread about that on the forum right now where we can tell me that the information is outdated.