imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 5, 2019 8:05:15 GMT -6
Sorry, I thought we were still talking about the Bismarck or other pre-AoN Armor turtleback layouts, not a "Properly-designed all-or-nothing" ship. The post you were replying to mentioned an HMS Dreadnought style armor for example... dorn's post was in reply to imryn, who was arguing for the sloped deck scheme getting some of the AoN benefits. EDIT: Quoted the wrong post - this a reply to alexbrunius: I think you are equating AoN with "Flat deck on Belt" and that is just wrong. There is nothing in the AoN design philosophy that says you have to use a Flat deck on Belt armor scheme, and conversely the is nothing about a Flat deck on Belt armored ship that makes it compliant with AoN design principals. Bismark, along with every other capital ship built after 1912 incorporated the AoN design philosophy to one degree or another. In the case of the Bismark she was an AoN design apart from her armor scheme. The external armor skin on a ship is probably the most superficial and least relevant factor in determining if a ship is AoN or not. The most important factor is that the ship is designed with a compact armored citadel with sufficient reserve buoyancy. If Germany had wanted to convert her to a full AoN design they could have removed the extra armor on the bow and stern and increased the armor on the upper belt, and that wouldn't even have been a particularly big job.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 5, 2019 8:13:27 GMT -6
Sorry but these two things do not follow. If you are building an AoN ship with a turtleback armor deck you can still give the citadel enough reserve buoyancy - you just have to make it longer and / or wider. The forward / aft citadel armor does not have to extend up to the top of the belt to achieve this. No you can't. The Citadel of turtle-back design simply sits too low either under or very close to the waterline even before the aft and bow sections of the ship become flooded. After they become flooded the deck layer will be under the waterline with good margin and this means without such armor any shellfire can hole and start to flood compartments above the deck armor layer ( but below or at the belt armor level ) if it comes in at any angle other than 90 degree perfect broadside. Bismarck indeed had a good layer of forward / aft armor extending up to the same level the belt armor did, and in similar thickness, for good reason. In the case of the Bismark she was an AoN design apart from her armor scheme. So you could say that the Armor scheme of the Bismarck was of AoN design apart from her armor scheme? Sorry what? AoN is a type of armor scheme...
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 5, 2019 8:33:21 GMT -6
Sorry but these two things do not follow. If you are building an AoN ship with a turtleback armor deck you can still give the citadel enough reserve buoyancy - you just have to make it longer and / or wider. The forward / aft citadel armor does not have to extend up to the top of the belt to achieve this. No you can't. The Citadel of turtle-back design simply sits too low either under or very close to the waterline even before the aft and bow sections of the ship become flooded. After they become flooded the deck layer will be under the waterline with good margin and this means without such armor any shellfire can hole and start to flood compartments above the deck armor layer ( but below or at the belt armor level ) if it comes in at any angle other than 90 degree perfect broadside. Bismarck indeed had a good layer of forward / aft armor extending up to the same level the belt armor did, and in similar thickness, for good reason. In the case of the Bismark she was an AoN design apart from her armor scheme. So you could say that the Armor scheme of the Bismarck was of AoN design apart from her armor scheme? Sorry what? AoN is a type of armor scheme... Yes you can. This is maths a 3 year old can do. Your ship needs a certain amount of volume in the citadel to give it the required reserve buoyancy. if you want to reduce the height of the citadel you have to increase the length and / or width to compensate, but you still have the same volume. AoN is NOT a type of armor scheme. Read "All or Nothing" Protection and All or Nothing (armor)
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 5, 2019 8:59:14 GMT -6
Yes you can. This is maths a 3 year old can do. Your ship needs a certain amount of volume in the citadel to give it the required reserve buoyancy. if you want to reduce the height of the citadel you have to increase the length and / or width to compensate, but you still have the same volume. Have you ever tried to balance sitting in water on top of a flotation device fully submerged under water? This is what happens when you have all your buoyancy submerged below water. What happens is that the "buoyancy" ( or inflatable ball or what you sit on ) shoots to the surface toppling you both and you go into the drink head first... This is not usually how a successful Battleship design works if it's citadel ends up above water and the bridge and turrets ends up below water... It's understandable that you might struggle with this math since it's a bit more advanced then the type that is done by 3 year olds. Luckily the Germans knew better when they designed the Bismarcks armor scheme or it could probably not have survived as much punishment. AoN is NOT a type of armor scheme. Read "All or Nothing" Protection and All or Nothing (armor) I have read them multiple times and both of them refer to "all or nothing" armor schemes. Have you read them even once?
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 5, 2019 9:26:14 GMT -6
Yes you can. This is maths a 3 year old can do. Your ship needs a certain amount of volume in the citadel to give it the required reserve buoyancy. if you want to reduce the height of the citadel you have to increase the length and / or width to compensate, but you still have the same volume. Have you ever tried to balance sitting in water on top of a flotation device fully submerged under water? This is what happens when you have all your buoyancy submerged below water. What happens is that the "buoyancy" ( or inflatable ball or what you sit on ) shoots to the surface toppling you both and you go into the drink head first... This is not usually how a successful Battleship design works if it's citadel ends up above water and the bridge and turrets ends up below water... It's understandable that you might struggle with this math since it's a bit more advanced then the type that is done by 3 year olds. Luckily the Germans knew better when they designed the Bismarcks armor scheme or it could probably not have survived as much punishment. AoN is NOT a type of armor scheme. Read "All or Nothing" Protection and All or Nothing (armor) I have read them multiple times and both of them refer to "all or nothing" armor schemes. Have you read them even once? The phrase "sufficient reserve buoyancy" seems to be confusing you. It means the citadel has enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat regardless of flooding elsewhere in the ship, and afloat means above the water not below the water. If you have read those articles please point out the passage where they say how the armor should be arranged. Not the generalised concept of protecting the citadel and not protecting anything else, but the specific arrangement. You can't, because AoN does not specify HOW these areas are protected, it just dictates what should be protected and what shouldn't. How you go about providing that protection, the arrangement and placement of the armored plates has nothing to do with AoN. That arrangement of armored plates is an armor scheme and there are many different ways to design an armor scheme that is compliant with AoN design philosophy. In RTW terms both "Flat deck on Belt" and "Sloped deck" should be considered AoN compliant armor schemes if no DE and BE armor is added. AON is a ship design philosophy and NOT an armor scheme.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 5, 2019 11:46:59 GMT -6
The phrase "sufficient reserve buoyancy" seems to be confusing you. It means the citadel has enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat regardless of flooding elsewhere in the ship, and afloat means above the water not below the water. If you have read those articles please point out the passage where they say how the armor should be arranged. Not the generalised concept of protecting the citadel and not protecting anything else, but the specific arrangement. You can't, because AoN does not specify HOW these areas are protected, it just dictates what should be protected and what shouldn't. How you go about providing that protection, the arrangement and placement of the armored plates has nothing to do with AoN. That arrangement of armored plates is an armor scheme and there are many different ways to design an armor scheme that is compliant with AoN design philosophy. In RTW terms both "Flat deck on Belt" and "Sloped deck" should be considered AoN compliant armor schemes if no DE and BE armor is added. AON is a ship design philosophy and NOT an armor scheme. On one hand, I technically agree with you. But in a practical sense I can't.
See how little space the Tirpitz has within it's doubly armored citadel and compare it to the comparatively large amount of space afforded by the flat deck design of the KGV. As a result of this, to get a buoyant citadel you're going to have to make it much longer. You've already brought that up, but I feel that the end result is going to be that the extra weight of that space you must defend will result in an extremely heavy amount of armor or a Mostly-or-Nothing armor scheme. That leads us into the next issue, which was brought up earlier, which is the waterline. As I understood it most sloped-deck designs had the sloped portions extend below the average waterline, which of course can lead to the awkward situation of water on top of your citadel. I feel furthermore that the possible ways that this could be protected against either lead you to an armor design that has more in common with the flat-deck style or would be prohibitively heavy.
In short, I actually agree that a "turtleback armor focused around specific vital parts of a ship with enough reserve buoyancy to survive unarmored portions being flooded" is theoretically possible, but the downsides to it are significant and can easily be avoided by a simple Flat deck design.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Feb 5, 2019 16:13:53 GMT -6
I have been following the arguements in this thread about the AON and, while very interesting, I feel that a point is being missed. Every naval ship in history has had all-or-nothing armour in some way, shape or form. Even Napoleonic war ships had extra wood and metal at the magazines and at the waterlines.
All-or-nothing is in fact just an armour prioritisation scheme. As times have changed, the critical areas have changed.
Similarly, different nations used different designs and had different priorities for protection. Therefore, direct comparison is difficult.
In the end, armour schemes can only be tested if the armour was subjected to every different type of combat imaginable. WW2-era ships were never thus and therefore arguing over the merits of one over the other gives a situation whereby both and neither parties are correct.
Of course, discussing the theoretical merits/failings of distinct ships' schemes is always to be encouraged.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 6, 2019 4:38:12 GMT -6
Ok, we seem to have some confusion about the terminology in use here. In the passage alexbrunius quoted from "All or Nothing" Protection the author repeatedly refers to "The "All or Nothing" scheme" and talks exclusively about the armor scheme that was developed by the US for its post 1912 dreadnoughts. That is the focus of the authors article and he does a excellent job in explaining the reasoning behind the US adoption of the "Flat deck on Belt" armor scheme. He also demonstrates how the US designers that came up with this were right in their predictions of how the threat environment would evolve, and how other nations eventually came round to their way of thinking. What he does not discuss is how the adoption of the "All or Nothing" philosophy changed the way that the ship under the armor was designed.
The second article All or Nothing (armor) has a section "Rationale" which explains how the adoption of "All or Nothing" thinking fundamentally changed the way that ships were designed. Its a pretty big section so I am surprised that alexbrunius hadn't noticed it seeing as he claims to have read it many times.
Applying the "Flat deck on Belt" armor scheme to a ship which had not been designed using "All or Nothing" principals would offer absolutely no savings in weight or improvement in protection as the components that required "All" protection would be spread throughout the ship, leaving very little that could be given "Nothing".
So we have confusion of terminology where both the armor scheme and the design philosophy are referred to as "All or Nothing". To make matters worse (for me anyway) the protection scheme described in the first article was widely adopted as the best (possibly only?) way to properly armor a ship designed using "All or Nothing" principals.
The first article lays out the reasoning behind this and it boils down to the threat of long range plunging fire increasing and short range direct fire decreasing. In the real world this was exactly what happened and even the navies (like the RN) who had initially gone a different way came around to this way of thinking after WW1.
In the alternate reality of RTW the reasoning that led to the real world adoption of "Flat deck on Belt" armor schemes for "All or Nothing" designed ships does not hold true. The threat of long range plunging fire is negligible in RTW due to the way that the AI handles spotting and scouting forces, and most Dreadnought engagements take place at short range. Note that this has no effect on the validity of "All or Nothing" design principals, just on the armor scheme applied.
So with the threat of long range plunging fire low, and the threat of short range direct fire high, my contention is that an armor scheme that emphasises vertical protection such as a turtleback scheme, applied in accordance with "All or Nothing" principals would be superior.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 6, 2019 5:04:21 GMT -6
We have had some discussion about the threat of progressive flooding midships to a ship with a turtleback armor scheme, and I have tried to argue that it could be mitigated by good design. Here I would like to present a comparison of the results of a hit that penetrated the belt armor on two different armor schemes:
"Flat deck on Belt": Hit penetrates the citadel, causes critical damage to magazines / turbines / generators / boilers. Subsequent flooding of the magazines and machinery spaces. "Turtleback": Hit does not penetrate the citadel, causes damage outside the citadel and flooding / progressive flooding midships / possible stability issues.
In the first case the ship may explode and will probably be "mission killed" at least. In the second case the ship might be at risk in the longer term but in the short term its combat effectiveness is unimpaired.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 6, 2019 7:40:33 GMT -6
I have to disagree that the concern of long range fire is negligible in RTW. Late game, I have plenty of fights in good visibility where I'm getting hits at over 20,000 yards. Sure, there are plenty of fights at shorter range as well but the other thing you are neglecting in your comparison is that the belt armor for the AoN design (for ships of the same tonnage) is going to be thicker than the belt armor of a distributed design. The picture above with Tirpitz and KGV demonstrates that perfectly despite KGV giving up 10,000+ tons. So AoN designs will generally see fewer belt penetrations to begin with. Add in the advantage against progressive flooding and there is no reason to consider the non-AoN schemes superior unless you are going to restrict your fighting to at night or only in areas that have a high percentage of bad weather like the North Sea.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 6, 2019 8:02:34 GMT -6
Add in the advantage against progressive flooding and there is no reason to consider the non-AoN schemes superior unless you are going to restrict your fighting to at night or only in areas that have a high percentage of bad weather like the North Sea. Indeed. No one here denies that a Turtleback armor scheme was superior for point blank or short range engagements. That is not a fight battleships of WW2 were built to participate in though ( except for the German ones ). Turtleback leave the ship vulnerable to bomb hits from aircraft, long range plunging fire as well as ( depending on the design ) flooding over the citadel.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 6, 2019 8:25:36 GMT -6
Add in the advantage against progressive flooding and there is no reason to consider the non-AoN schemes superior unless you are going to restrict your fighting to at night or only in areas that have a high percentage of bad weather like the North Sea. Indeed. No one here denies that a Turtleback armor scheme was superior for point blank or short range engagements. That is not a fight battleships of WW2 were built to participate in though ( except for the German ones ). Turtleback leave the ship vulnerable to bomb hits from aircraft, long range plunging fire as well as ( depending on the design ) flooding over the citadel. Yes, but I think I can find some common ground with imryn . There is a point in the game where the AoN scheme might be premature. AoN is nominally a 1911 tech to match when the first American battleship designs using the concept were finalized. Improved directors, where if I recall, you see a considerable jump in long range accuracy is a nominal 1918 tech. So you probably won't see ships in the game equipped with it till mid-1918 or a little later. So there is a middle period where the distributed, turtleback design might still be superior because fire control accuracy isn't yet ready to take the fight to longer ranges. I can't remember if I read it earlier in this thread or on reddit in the last couple of days but someone quoted Dr. Friedman's book on American battleships in which he stated that the AoN scheme was in some ways ahead of its time. He may have only been referring to it being conceived pre-Jutland but it might also apply in-game in RTW1. The question might become in 1912 do you want to build a sloped-deck design for a war in the next four-six years or do you want to try to future-proof your ships so they are effective for ten-twelve years or so. Just something to consider.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 6, 2019 8:29:54 GMT -6
Yes, but I think I can find some common ground with imryn . There is a point in the game where the AoN scheme might be premature. AoN is nominally a 1911 tech to match when the first American battleship designs using the concept were finalized. Improved directors, where if I recall, you see a considerable jump in long range accuracy is a nominal 1918 tech. So you probably won't see ships in the game equipped wit it till mid-1918 or a little later. So there is a middle period where the distributed, turtleback design might still be superior because fire control accuracy isn't yet ready to take the fight to longer ranges. I can't remember if I read it earlier in this thread or on reddit in the last couple of days but someone quoted Dr. Friedman's book on American battleships in which he stated that the AoN scheme was in some ways ahead of its time. He may have only been referring to it being conceived pre-Jutland but it might also apply in-game in RTW1. The difference is that Improved directors, higher barrel elevations and such was pretty easy to refit to existing ships. Citadel armor layout was almost impossible to change, so if you want those 1911 Battleships to not become obsolete 10 years down the line it might still be a good idea to opt for the AoN armor scheme. Arguing that Turtleback still was a superior armor scheme in WW2 as imryn does is not a reasonable argument to make IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 6, 2019 8:33:13 GMT -6
Yes, but I think I can find some common ground with imryn . There is a point in the game where the AoN scheme might be premature. AoN is nominally a 1911 tech to match when the first American battleship designs using the concept were finalized. Improved directors, where if I recall, you see a considerable jump in long range accuracy is a nominal 1918 tech. So you probably won't see ships in the game equipped wit it till mid-1918 or a little later. So there is a middle period where the distributed, turtleback design might still be superior because fire control accuracy isn't yet ready to take the fight to longer ranges. I can't remember if I read it earlier in this thread or on reddit in the last couple of days but someone quoted Dr. Friedman's book on American battleships in which he stated that the AoN scheme was in some ways ahead of its time. He may have only been referring to it being conceived pre-Jutland but it might also apply in-game in RTW1. The difference is that Improved directors, higher barrel elevations and such was pretty easy to refit to existing ships. Citadel armor layout was almost impossible to change, so if you want those 1911 Battleships to not become obsolete 10 years down the line it might still be a good idea to opt for the AoN armor scheme. Arguing that Turtleback still was a superior armor scheme in WW2 as imryn does is not a reasonable argument to make IMHO. Haha, yeah, I just edited my previous post with that very question. Sorry about that.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 6, 2019 9:15:10 GMT -6
I have to disagree that the concern of long range fire is negligible in RTW. Late game, I have plenty of fights in good visibility where I'm getting hits at over 20,000 yards. Sure, there are plenty of fights at shorter range as well but the other thing you are neglecting in your comparison is that the belt armor for the AoN design (for ships of the same tonnage) is going to be thicker than the belt armor of a distributed design. The picture above with Tirpitz and KGV demonstrates that perfectly despite KGV giving up 10,000+ tons. So AoN designs will generally see fewer belt penetrations to begin with. Add in the advantage against progressive flooding and there is no reason to consider the non-AoN schemes superior unless you are going to restrict your fighting to at night or only in areas that have a high percentage of bad weather like the North Sea. I am not talking about a distributed design - as I have repeatedly stated I am talking about an AoN design with Turtleback armor scheme. When I say the AI forces short range engagements I am talking about the behavior of scouting forces and the way that my ships cease fire and switch targets the moment a target flips to "unknown ship". Taken together it means that in order to get my battle line to consistently fire on the enemy battle line I have to close in to 16,000 yards or even closer. Yes, there are some lucky shots at long range (normally just as my scouts are running away) but for consistent fire I always have to move closer in. When comparing ships in RTW tonnage is not the only yard stick to use, but if I was given a fixed tonnage I would build my ship to have a close range exclusion zone (i.e. thick belt) but only enough deck to survive at 20,000 yards or closer. Thus, i am accepting the possibility of plunging fire at 25,000 sinking me in the knowledge that I will rarely receive that fire and will always be closing the range with the enemy. Additionally, seeing as deck armor is so prohibitively heavy compared to belt armor my design may well actually be lighter that a Flat Deck on Belt ship with a long range exclusion zone. I understand what you are saying about KGV and Tirpitz but you are comparing apples and potatoes. One is an flat deck on belt ship and the other is a distributed armor scheme. My proposed armor scheme did not exist in the real world so there are no ships to look at, you have to use your imagination. Imagine The German turtleback deck armor applied on an AoN ship, so no BE or DE armor and no thin upper belt armor.
|
|