Carrier Armor AND Protection: Revised data posting

[el cid again]

EDIT: The durability was pretty inconsistent so I am reviewing that as well. See item below the data.

Turns out that CHS carrier armor was not generally reveiwed for RHS - and it should have been. It was approximately 100% wrong -
although it appears some real effort was made. That is - I can find why they gave Kaga a 10 inch belt (250 mm) - although she only had 150 mm: because that was the value of the original hull. My decision to review all the armor - based on the errors for Shinano and Taiho - was justified - all the data needed correcting - for essentially all classes. Larger Japanese carriers had 25 mm tower armor. No clue why? It is not so. But the convention for deck and side armor can be used - 5 mm of armor (= 3 for deck modifiation).

Carriers without any armor often were given 5 mm for the Allies - but 0 mm for the Japanese. In the interests of minimizing data entry - and becasue in some sense a steel structural deck is worth some small amount of armor - and becasue of the way the code works - I will use 5 mm for all - except this new system reduces it to 3mm.

My original seat of the pants estimate was "cut deck armor in half." This produced some theoetical objections - so I went with "cut it by a third" = multiply times .667. Every 2 mm in armor lost gives an increase of 1 for durability. These values work so well we don't need to worry about VP or production costs. This base system is for armor BELOW the fight deck.

Flight deck armor counts at full value. Ships with them ALSO have main deck armor - so the equation becomes 2/3 of main deck armor plus full flight deck armor.

The data is in spreadsheet form and will be sent to the distribution list when verified completely.

[el cid again]

Section 1: Japan Deck Armor Durability
Ship Class/Name Type Slot Comissioned CVO & RAO BBO/RPO/PPO EEO & EBO EOS & AIO Capacity Historical Modified Base Modified Ship Class/Name Type
Kaga CV 27 31-Mar-26 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 72 38 25 90 96 Kaga: Belt 152 CV
Akagi CV 26 25-Mar-27 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 72 80 54 90 103 Akagi: Belt 152 CV
Soryu CV 28 29-Dec-37 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 63 66 44 49 60 Soryu: Belt 45 CV
Hiryu CV 29 5-Jul-39 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 64 66 44 54 65 Hiryu: Belt 150 CV
Shokaku CV 30 8-Aug-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 72 130 87 78 99 Shokaku: Belt 210 CV
Junyo CV 31 5-May-42 5-May-42 5-May-42 5-May-42 5-May-42 51 25 17 74 78 Junyo: Junyo CV
Taiho CV 32 7-Mar-44 7-Mar-44 7-Mar-44 NA 7-Mar-44 75 201 159 89 110 Taiho: CT 40 mm CV 76 mm on flight deck.
Unryu CV 34 6-Aug-44 6-Aug-44 6-Sep-43 6-Sep-43 6-Sep-43 57 30 20 52 57 Unryu: Belt 150 CV
Shinano CV 33 19-Nov-44 19-Nov-44 NA NA 19-Feb-43 96 260 199 185 216 Shinano: Belt 350 CV 80 mm on flight deck.
G15: [Job 801] CV 35 NA NA 1-Aug-45 NA NA 66 201 159 91 112 G15: [Job 801] CV 76 mm on flight deck.
Kongo Conversion CV 26 NA NA NA 7-Jan-44 11-Jan-44 60 120 80 95 115 Kongo Conversion: Belt 152 CV Post Midway historical plan.
Nagato Conversion CV 26 NA NA NA 7-Jan-44 11-Jan-44 60 178 119 120 149 Nagato Conversion: Belt 150 CV Post Midway historical plan.
Ise Conversion CV 26 NA NA NA 7-Jan-44 11-Jan-44 60 171 115 105 133 Ise Conversion: Belt 152 CV Post Midway historical plan.
Ryujo CVL 38 9-May-33 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 40 13 9 24 26 Ryujo: Belt 13 mm CVL
Zuiho CVL 39 27-Dec-40 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 30 5 3 34 35 Zuiho CVL
Ryuho CVL 40 28-Nov-42 28-Nov-42 28-Nov-42 28-Nov-42 28-Nov-42 30 13 9 41 43 Ryuho CVL
Chitose CVL 560 1-Jan-44 28-Jun-43 28-Jun-43 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 30 5 3 33 34 Chitose: Chitose CVL
Ibuki CVL 41 NA 1-Sep-43 NA NA NA 27 60 40 38 48 Ibuki: Belt 150 CVL
Nisshin CVL 814 NA 1-Mar-43 1-Mar-43 NA 1-Mar-43 30 5 3 45 46 Nisshin CVL Never implemented historical plan.
Hyuga: Hyuga BBS 515 8-Oct-43 26-Nov-43 26-Nov-43 26-Nov-43 26-Nov-43 22 171 115 105 133 Hyuga BBS As implemented. Note 1.
Chitose CVS 52 25-Jul-38 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 NA NA 24 5 3 33 34 Chitose: Chitose CVS First carrier form.
Muzuho CVS 53 25-Feb-39 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 NA 27-Feb-42 24 5 3 36 37 Mizuho CVS .
Nisshin Modified CVS 54 NA NA 15-Jul-44 NA NA 25 5 3 36 37 Izumi [Job No 863] CVS Never built design.
Nisshin CVS 53 27-Feb-42 27-Feb-42 27-Feb-42 NA 27-Feb-42 12 5 3 45 46 Nisshin CVS Also carries 12 midget submarines.
Hosho CVE 37 27-Dec-22 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 19 5 3 23 24 Hosho CVE
Taiyo CVE 44 15-Sep-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 15-Sep-41 15-Sep-41 27 5 3 54 55 Taiyo: Taiyo CVE
Kaiyo CVE 45 23-Nov-43 23-Nov-43 NA 23-Oct-42 23-Oct-42 24 5 3 41 42 Kaiyo CVE
Shinyo CVE 43 15-Dec-43 15-Dec-43 15-Dec-43 15-May-42 9-Sep-44 33 5 3 53 54 Shinyo CVE
Toyo [Conte Verde] CVE 44 NA NA NA 15-May-42 9-Sep-43 27 5 3 53 54 Toyo [Conte Verde] CVE NOT a historical plan.
Wayo [Aikoku Maru] CVE 42 NA NA NA 15-Jan-42 NA 27 5 3 33 34 Aikoku Maru CVE NOT a historical plan.
Kamakura Maru CVE 42 NA 15-Apr-44 15-Apr-44 15-Apr-43 15-Apr-43 34 5 3 53 54 Kamakura Maru CVE
Mizuho CVE 815 NA 1-May-43 NA NA NA 30 5 3 33 34 Mizuho CVE Never implemented historical plan.
Akitsu Maru CVE 36 15-Aug-44 1-Aug-44 1-Aug-44 NA NA 20 5 3 36 37 Akitsu Maru CVE
Kumano M CVE 48 31-Mar-45 31-Mar-45 31-Mar-45 NA NA 37 5 3 24 25 Kumano M CVE
Yamashiro Maru CVE 46 27-Jan-45 27-Jan-45 27-Jan-45 NA NA 8 5 3 62 63 Yamashiro Maru CVE
Shimane Maru CVE 46 NA 15-Sep-45 15-Sep-45 NA NA 8 5 3 70 71 Shimane Maru CVE

Note 1: There were historical plans for 1/3, 2/3 and full conversions of all battleships drawn up post Midway. Only the full conversions could land actual carrier planes - so semi-carriers embarked numbers of seaplane bombers which could land using a Hein Mat.

[el cid again]

Deck Armor Durability
Historical Modified Base Modified Ship Class/Name Type
38 25 90 96 Kaga: Belt 152 CV
80 54 90 103 Akagi: Belt 152 CV
66 44 49 60 Soryu: Belt 45 CV
66 44 54 65 Hiryu: Belt 150 CV
130 87 78 99 Shokaku: Belt 210 CV
25 17 74 78 Junyo: Junyo CV
201 159 89 110 Taiho: CT 40 mm CV
30 20 52 57 Unryu: Belt 150 CV
260 199 185 216 Shinano: Belt 350 CV
201 159 91 112 G15: [Job 801] CV
120 80 95 115 Kongo Conversion: Belt 152 CV
178 119 120 149 Nagato Conversion: Belt 150 CV
171 115 105 133 Ise Conversion: Belt 152 CV
13 9 24 26 Ryujo: Belt 13 mm CVL
5 3 34 35 Zuiho CVL
13 9 41 43 Ryuho CVL
5 3 33 34 Chitose: Chitose CVL
60 40 38 48 Ibuki: Belt 150 CVL
5 3 45 46 Nisshin CVL
171 115 105 133 Hyuga BBS
5 3 33 34 Chitose: Chitose CVS
5 3 36 37 Mizuho CVS
5 3 36 37 Izumi [Job No 863] CVS
5 3 45 46 Nisshin CVS
5 3 23 24 Hosho CVE
5 3 54 55 Taiyo: Taiyo CVE
5 3 41 42 Kaiyo CVE
5 3 53 54 Shinyo CVE
5 3 53 54 Toyo [Conte Verde] CVE
5 3 33 34 Aikoku Maru CVE
5 3 53 54 Kamakura Maru CVE
5 3 33 34 Mizuho CVE
5 3 36 37 Akitsu Maru CVE
5 3 24 25 Kumano M CVE
5 3 62 63 Yamashiro Maru CVE
5 3 70 71 Shimane Maru CVE

Column 1: Historical Deck Armor (total if more than one deck) at thickest point
Column 2: Modified Deck Armor (2/3 of hanger deck armor plus all of flight deck armor)
Column 3: Base Durability Rating (virtually only Akagi and Kaga stay as/was, but some are close to as/was)
Column 4: Modified Durability Rating (half the reduction in deck armor is added to durability)
Column 5: Class name - and if side armor changed - the historical side armor at the thickest point (usually magazines).
Column 6: Classification (CV, CVL, CVE)

[el cid again]

I tried heroically to preserve the durability - because it is a can of worms to change it all. It affects non-carrier classes for one thing - and all the upgrades - in all the scenarios. I could not ignore the horrible inconsistencies. Both durability per se and production cost (and one assumes VPs) should be proportional to the "stuff" needed to make a ship and the displacement of a ship = its size. Damage control school (of which I am a graduate with gold certificate = best in class and in my case perfect scores written and practical) teaches one to use displacement - and if that isn't size - I don't know what is. The standard displacement more or less = the stuff of a ship - also size.

I decided to use Kaga and Akagi (having already entered the data) and make everything else proportional. The give a base value of standard displacement divided by 333. This is modified by the armor protection variable defined above - giving somewhat more cost, value, durability to the better protected ships. The differences are significant in many cases - and following RHS standards - will be made consistent throughout the data set.

[el cid again]

There is an interesting data item re Saratoga - and presumably Lex if she had been converted to the same standard (if she had survived Coral Sea).

Seems 1100 tons of fuel could not be used - it was ballast to counterweight the island. In mid 1942 they bulged the side to compensate - and now the fuel could be used. So range went from 10,000 at 15 knots to 12,500 at 15 knots. The bunkers held 5400 tons - but until mid 1942 - only 4300 could be used. So our data should say 4300 tons, 10,000 nm and 15 knots in the early forms - and 5400 tons, 12,500 nm and 15 knots from mid 1942 versions onward.

[el cid again]

.Section 2: USN Deck Armor Durability Section 2: USN
Ship Class/Name Type Slot Comissioned CVO & RAO BBO/RPO/PPO EEO & EBO EOS & AIO Capacity Historical Modified Base Modified Ship Class/Name Type
Lexington CV 237 14-Dec-27 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 72 51 34 116 124 Lexington: Belt 178 CV
Ranger CV NA 4-Jul-34 NA NA NA NA 60 5 3 42 43 Ranger: Belt 5 CV
Yorktown CV 238 30-Sep-37 30-Dec-41 30-Dec-41 30-Dec-41 30-Dec-41 72 37 25 54 60 Yorktown: Belt 102 CV
Wasp CV 239 25-Apr-40 6-Jul-42 6-Jul-42 6-Jul-42 6-Jul-42 60 37 25 44 50 Wasp: Belt never added 89 CV
Essex CV 1379 31-Dec-42 21-May-43 21-May-43 21-May-43 21-May-43 81 113 101 82 88 Essex: Belt 102 CV
Midway CV 241 10-Sep-45 15-Sep-45 NA 28-Jul-45 28-Jul-45 96 191 128 142 174 Midway: Belt 203 CV
Independence CVL 243 1-Jan-43 25-Jun-43 25-Jun-43 25-Jun-43 25-Jun-43 30 51 34 32 40 Independence: Belt 89 CVL
Saipan CVL 1708 14-Jul-46 NA NA 7-Feb-44 NA 48 127 85 43 64 Saipan: Belt 102 CVL
Long Island CVE 245 2-Jun-41 5-Jun-42 5-Jun-42 5-Jun-42 5-Jun-42 16 5 3 24 25 Long Island CVE
Charger CVE NA 3-Mar-42 NA NA NA NA 36 5 3 35 36 Charger CVE
Bogue CVE NA 26-Sep-42 NA NA NA NA 33 5 3 25 26 Bogue CVE
Sangamon CVE 247 25-Aug-42 15-Dec-42 15-Dec-42 15-Dec-42 15-Dec-42 36 5 3 64 65 Sangamon CVE
Casablanca CVE 248 8-Jul-43 8-Sep-43 NA 8-Sep-43 8-Sep-43 28 5 3 24 25 Casablanca CVE
Commencement Bay CVE 249 27-Nov-44 NA NA NA NA 28 5 3 114 115 Commencement Bay CVE
Currituk CVS 260 26-Jun-44 NA 6-Dec-41 NA NA 28 5 3 42 43 Currituk CVS Historical pan implemented only in BBO family.
Tangier CVS 261 25-Aug-41 NA 6-Dec-41 NA NA 1 5 3 35 36 Tangier CVS Historical pan implemented only in BBO family.
Langley CVS 263 20-Mar-22 NA 6-Dec-41 NA NA 34 5 3 70 71 Langley CVS Originally commissioned as AO 7-APR-13.

[el cid again]

Deck Armor Durability Section 2: USN
Historical Modified Base Modified Ship Class/Name Type
51 34 116 124 Lexington: Belt 178 CV
5 3 42 43 Ranger: Belt 5 CV
37 25 54 60 Yorktown: Belt 102 CV
37 25 44 50 Wasp: Belt never added 89 CV
113 101 82 88 Essex: Belt 102 CV
191 128 142 174 Midway: Belt 203 CV
51 34 32 40 Independence: Belt 89 CVL
127 85 43 64 Saipan: Belt 102 CVL
5 3 24 25 Long Island CVE
5 3 35 36 Charger CVE
5 3 25 26 Bogue CVE
5 3 64 65 Sangamon CVE
5 3 24 25 Casablanca CVE
5 3 114 115 Commencement Bay CVE
5 3 42 43 Currituk CVS
5 3 35 36 Tangier CVS
5 3 70 71 Langley CVS

Column 1: Historical Deck Armor (total if more than one deck) at thickest point
Column 2: Modified Deck Armor (2/3 of hanger deck armor plus all of flight deck armor)
Column 3: Base Durability Rating (virtually only Akagi and Kaga stay as/was, but some are close to as/was)
Column 4: Modified Durability Rating (half the reduction in deck armor is added to durability)
Column 5: Class name - and if side armor changed - the historical side armor at the thickest point (usually magazines).
Column 6: Classification (CV, CVL, CVE)

[el cid again]

If the Sangamone and Commencement Bay classes seem to have excessive durability - this is related to their tanker hulls. These ships were STILL tankers - and had phenomenal range - with both bunkerage and the pumps associated with tanker design. In a damage control situation involving flooding - tankers and similar hulls have a great deal of resistence to damage - so in RHS tanker hulls have more durability for any given size. Shimane Maru and Yamashiro Maru are similarly tanker based CVE type carriers with apparently high durability.

Note that durability does not buy as much as you might think in game terms. The ships are excessively vulnerable to damage due to lack of armore - and will flood out or burn out - it just takes longer - during which time they might make port and have a better chance of survival.

[el cid again]

Section 3: RN Deck Armor Durability Section 3: RN
Ship Class/Name Type Slot Comissioned RHSCVO Date RHSBBO Date EEO & EBO EOS & AIO Capacity Historical Modified Base Modified Ship Class/Name Type
Argus CVE NA 2-Dec-17 NA NA NA NA 12 5 3 44 45 Argus CVE
Hermes CVL 255 19-Feb-24 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 6-Dec-41 12 25 17 33 37 Hermes: Belt 76 CVL
Furious CV NA 31-Aug-25 NA NA NA NA 36 76 51 57 70 Furious: Belt 76 CV
Courageous CV NA 5-May-28 NA NA NA NA 33 76 51 66 79 Courageous CV
Arc Royal CV NA 16-Nov-36 NA NA NA NA 54 89 60 66 81 Arc Royal: Belt 114 CV
Illustrious CV 251 25-May-40 15-Apr-42 15-Apr-42 15-Apr-42 15-Apr-42 36 142 118 69 81 Illustrious: Belt 114 CV
Indomitable CV 252 10-Oct-41 10-Dec-41 10-Dec-41 10-Dec-41 10-Dec-41 45 142 118 74 86 Indomitable: Belt 114 CV
Implacable CV 1392 3-May-44 15-May-44 15-May-44 15-May-43 15-May-44 60 142 118 70 82 Implacable: Belt 114 CV
Audacious CV 1392 1-Oct-51 NA NA 24-Apr-44 NA 72 184 163 111 122 Audacious: Belt 102 CV Sisters: Eagle, Africa, Arc Royal
Unicorn CVL 259 12-Mar-43 15-Jul-44 15-Jul-44 15-Jul-44 15-Jul-44 35 51 34 50 58 Unicorn: Belt 76 CVL
Colossus CVL 254 16-Dec-44 1-Aug-45 NA 1-Aug-45 1-Aug-45 37 3 2 40 40 Colossus CVL
Audacity CVE NA 6/?/1941 NA NA NA NA 6 5 3 31 32 Audacity CVE
Archer CVE NA 17-Nov-41 NA NA NA NA 16 5 3 31 32 Archer CVE
Dasher CVE NA 1-Jul-42 NA NA NA NA 15 5 3 31 32 Dasher CVE
Activity CVE 242 29-Sep-42 15-Jan-45 15-Jan-45 15-Jan-45 15-Jan-45 10 5 3 35 36 Activity CVE
Attacker CVE 257 10-Oct-42 1-Oct-44 1-Oct-44 1-Oct-44 1-Oct-44 33 5 3 31 32 Attacker CVE
Nairana CVE 256 3-Dec-43 NA NA NA NA 21 5 3 42 43 Nairana CVE
Ameer CVE 258 1-Aug-43 15-Jul-44 15-Jul-44 15-Jul-44 15-Jul-44 20 5 3 34 35 Ameer CVE
Albatross CVS 1696 23-Jan-29 NA NA NA NA 9 5 3 19 20 Albatross CVS Formerly RAN, RN with RAF air unit in 1941.

[el cid again]

Deck Armor Durability Section 3: RN
Historical Modified Base Modified Ship Class/Name Type
5 3 44 45 Argus CVE
25 17 33 37 Hermes: Belt 76 CVL
76 51 57 70 Furious: Belt 76 CV
76 51 66 79 Courageous CV
89 60 66 81 Arc Royal: Belt 114 CV
142 118 69 81 Illustrious: Belt 114 CV
142 118 74 86 Indomitable: Belt 114 CV
142 118 70 82 Implacable: Belt 114 CV
184 163 111 122 Audacious: Belt 102 CV
51 34 50 58 Unicorn: Belt 76 CVL
3 2 40 40 Colossus CVL
5 3 31 32 Audacity CVE
5 3 31 32 Archer CVE
5 3 31 32 Dasher CVE
5 3 35 36 Activity CVE
5 3 31 32 Attacker CVE
5 3 42 43 Nairana CVE
5 3 34 35 Ameer CVE
5 3 19 20 Albatross CVS

Column 1: Historical Deck Armor (total if more than one deck) at thickest point
Column 2: Modified Deck Armor (2/3 of hanger deck armor plus all of flight deck armor)
Column 3: Base Durability Rating (virtually only Akagi and Kaga stay as/was, but some are close to as/was)
Column 4: Modified Durability Rating (half the reduction in deck armor is added to durability)
Column 5: Class name - and if side armor changed - the historical side armor at the thickest point (usually magazines).
Column 6: Classification (CV, CVL, CVE)

[el cid again]

Some USN and RN carriers had both armored main decks and armored hanger decks. In this case the total is added and then discounted as if it were one armored deck. IRL this is less effective than the more common practice of letting the main deck be the hanger deck and also be armored. One single thickness of armor is worth more than an equal amount of different armor is. However - as we are discounting the non flight deck armor anyway - this system is probably not bad. In all cases is appears that ships with flight deck armor had a lower armored deck as well - so the armor should be discounted - not only because some of it does not protect the hanger - but because split armor is indeed less effective. Wether this exists in two or three different decks is not as important as that it is not a single thickness.