|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 19, 2019 9:58:00 GMT -6
Whereas the early dreadnoughts to the best of my knowledge kept quite uniformly to the principle that the conning tower should be armored at least as strongly as or more strongly than the belt, the King George V class and its planned and actual successors took precisely the opposite approach and provided only 3 - 4 inches. As I understand it, the Conning Tower was seen by the time of World War II as something of a useless accessory, and its armor decreased along with its perceived importance.
However, the thing that I really can't understand is the intermediate solution seen on designs like the Queen Elizabeth, New Mexico, Tenessee, and Colorado. On all of these ships, the conning tower armor was only about 11 inches; notably lighter than the belt (13.5 inches) and much lighter than the turret face (ranging from 15 to 18 inches.) In the time period in which these ships were built, it seems to me that kind of protection was overkill against 8 inch guns, but incapable of stopping an enemy's main battery shells. Can anyone explain to me what the logic behind this was, and whether you agree or disagree with it in the context of RTW?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 19, 2019 10:55:57 GMT -6
Whereas the early dreadnoughts to the best of my knowledge kept quite uniformly to the principle that the conning tower should be armored at least as strongly as or more strongly than the belt, the King George V class and its planned and actual successors took precisely the opposite approach and provided only 3 - 4 inches. As I understand it, the Conning Tower was seen by the time of World War II as something of a useless accessory, and its armor decreased along with its perceived importance. However, the thing that I really can't understand is the intermediate solution seen on designs like the Queen Elizabeth, New Mexico, Tenessee, and Colorado. On all of these ships, the conning tower armor was only about 11 inches; notably lighter than the belt (13.5 inches) and much lighter than the turret face (ranging from 15 to 18 inches.) In the time period in which these ships were built, it seems to me that kind of protection was overkill against 8 inch guns, but incapable of stopping an enemy's main battery shells. Can anyone explain to me what the logic behind this was, and whether you agree or disagree with it in the context of RTW? QE class - 13" armour on turret face, 11" armour on turrets side, 11" armour CT as built, HMS Warspite has only 2-3" after refit.
I think that it was standard pre-Jutland view on protection.
Turret faces was usually sloped so their effective armour decreased with range on opposite with belt armour (sometimes even it was sloped in opposite way) and conning tower armour. I think this will be the reason.
I sometimes even in RTW decrease CT armour. Usually going around 4" in early dreadnoughts (when secondary 6" guns could still hit CT), later only 2" of splinter protection.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 19, 2019 19:34:58 GMT -6
Whereas the early dreadnoughts to the best of my knowledge kept quite uniformly to the principle that the conning tower should be armored at least as strongly as or more strongly than the belt, the King George V class and its planned and actual successors took precisely the opposite approach and provided only 3 - 4 inches. As I understand it, the Conning Tower was seen by the time of World War II as something of a useless accessory, and its armor decreased along with its perceived importance. However, the thing that I really can't understand is the intermediate solution seen on designs like the Queen Elizabeth, New Mexico, Tenessee, and Colorado. On all of these ships, the conning tower armor was only about 11 inches; notably lighter than the belt (13.5 inches) and much lighter than the turret face (ranging from 15 to 18 inches.) In the time period in which these ships were built, it seems to me that kind of protection was overkill against 8 inch guns, but incapable of stopping an enemy's main battery shells. Can anyone explain to me what the logic behind this was, and whether you agree or disagree with it in the context of RTW? QE class - 13" armour on turret face, 11" armour on turrets side, 11" armour CT as built, HMS Warspite has only 2-3" after refit.
I think that it was standard pre-Jutland view on protection.
Turret faces was usually sloped so their effective armour decreased with range on opposite with belt armour (sometimes even it was sloped in opposite way) and conning tower armour. I think this will be the reason.
I sometimes even in RTW decrease CT armour. Usually going around 4" in early dreadnoughts (when secondary 6" guns could still hit CT), later only 2" of splinter protection.
Thanks, that makes good sense. What reason do you have for reducing the CT armour to splinter protection, as in the World War II era? And you say 'sometimes' - do you sometimes also give it the same protection as the belt and / or turrets? In what cases will you give it heavy as opposed to light armour?
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 19, 2019 20:34:25 GMT -6
Thanks, that makes good sense. What reason do you have for reducing the CT armour to splinter protection, as in the World War II era? And you say 'sometimes' - do you sometimes also give it the same protection as the belt and / or turrets? In what cases will you give it heavy as opposed to light armour? Personally, I find that CT is rarely a factor. It doesn't get hit much and will only be able to stand up to lighter rounds in the mid-late game. While it's not a major source of weight, I'll usually be more than happy to cut it's armor down to a fraction in order to mount an extra pair of secondary guns or some additional ammo.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Mar 19, 2019 20:52:50 GMT -6
Thanks, that makes good sense. What reason do you have for reducing the CT armour to splinter protection, as in the World War II era? And you say 'sometimes' - do you sometimes also give it the same protection as the belt and / or turrets? In what cases will you give it heavy as opposed to light armour? Personally, I find that CT is rarely a factor. It doesn't get hit much and will only be able to stand up to lighter rounds in the mid-late game. While it's not a major source of weight, I'll usually be more than happy to cut it's armor down to a fraction in order to mount an extra pair of secondary guns or some additional ammo. When you say that 'it will only be able to stand up to lighter rounds in the mid-late game', surely that is only the case if it does not have as much armour as it possibly could have? Most players, I think, place a high premium on turret armour which remains immune to enemy heavy calibre fire at combat ranges, even if the belt and deck are not - and several ships retained medium - heavy CT protection until the end of the battleship era: 12 inches of the North Carolina, 16 on the South Dakota, 17.3 on the Iowa, 19.7 on Musashi. In every case except for the North Carolina, the CT armour on these ships was thicker than the belt but thinner than the turrets; on North Carolina, it was just as thick as the belt. So, do you mean that CT armour strong enough to resist main battery fire is too expensive to be justifiable, or something else?
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 19, 2019 21:51:42 GMT -6
When you say that 'it will only be able to stand up to lighter rounds in the mid-late game', surely that is only the case if it does not have as much armour as it possibly could have? Most players, I think, place a high premium on turret armour which remains immune to enemy heavy calibre fire at combat ranges, even if the belt and deck are not - and several ships retained medium - heavy CT protection until the end of the battleship era: 12 inches of the North Carolina, 16 on the South Dakota, 17.3 on the Iowa, 19.7 on Musashi. In every case except for the North Carolina, the CT armour on these ships was thicker than the belt but thinner than the turrets; on North Carolina, it was just as thick as the belt. So, do you mean that CT armour strong enough to resist main battery fire is too expensive to be justifiable, or something else? Was in a bit of a rush when I made that post. On a 30,000t Dreadnought, an inch of CT armor weighs somewhere around the range of 30 tons. Thus, to armor the CT to 15" costs 450 tons. However, I am generally one to fight my battles at close ranges, using my BB/BC to slow enemy capitals to then allow the DDs to rush in for torpedo runs. Even at medium ranges, a 15+ inch gun will penetrate that without issue (basing this off a 1926 endgame). Uparmoring to 18" provides a bit of protection, but for only a few thousand yards distance further. And of course, that adds another 90 tons to the design. However, a CT of 6-7 inches will generally be protected against the majority or BB/BC secondaries such as the 6" guns, except at extreme close range. Thus, I compare my choices: do I spend roughly 300 tons to protect against what is a rather rare hit, or do I merely accept adequate protection from smaller rounds and put that weight into something else? I'm a strong believer in the "active over passive" benefits; an extra secondary gun makes it's presence known every time an enemy is within range, heavy CT armor only does so occasionally.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 20, 2019 2:01:57 GMT -6
The reason RN go just with splinter protection on CT was that their commanding staff prefer unarmored bridges over armoured CTs so there point to armour CT is quite lowered and it save not only weight but topweight.
In RTW I have several thoughts: a) early pre-dreadnought game - hits are common from all calibers so just limiting CT protection to some caliber does not give enough sence and savings are not large b) early dreadnought game - hits could be done mainly by main battery but the range of fight is still short and hits could be from either caliber. So it has sence to armour it against up to 6 (or 7") guns used as secondary predreadnoughts. Thinking of armouring against 10" do not have so much sense as armour needed against 10" guns vs. 12" guns as not so heavy. So I usually went either full armour or about 4" c) late dreadnought game - mainly hits are only by main armament so all or nothing principle could be applied with some reasonable splinter protection of 2"
Question: armour or not armour on CT? As distance increases piercing CT gives some disorganization of ship however it is not fatal. So it is quite reasonable saving.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Mar 20, 2019 5:07:04 GMT -6
Three problems with a heavily armoured conning tower: 1) it is a heavy weight high up in the ship, raising the centre of gravity 2) if the command crew prefer the better visibility of an open bridge then an armoured conning tower does not protect the crew 3) even if heavy armour can stop a shell penetrating, a heavy shell hitting the outside of a smal metal box will leave the occupants concussed
None of these seem to be considered in-game.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 20, 2019 6:18:06 GMT -6
Three problems with a heavily armoured conning tower: 1) it is a heavy weight high up in the ship, raising the centre of gravity 2) if the command crew prefer the better visibility of an open bridge then an armoured conning tower does not protect the crew 3) even if heavy armour can stop a shell penetrating, a heavy shell hitting the outside of a smal metal box will leave the occupants concussed None of these seem to be considered in-game. Arguably #2 is, as bridge hits cause many of the same issues as CT penetrations, just to a lesser extent.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 20, 2019 7:14:37 GMT -6
Hm, in line with the topic I started thinking about that in some sense for a heavy shell passthrough hits could be maybe the least devastating, so armoring for splinter protection and praying for the shell to not arm could actually be a viable way of thinking (not that it's a happy day for anyone inside, but the impact of a main caliber shell really isn't fun in any scenario in the first place), and I vaguely remembered some photos of a vessel's bridge where exactly this happened, but I can't for the life of me find it now. :\
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 20, 2019 10:50:10 GMT -6
Perhaps you're thinking of the compass platform hit on Prince of Wales, several photos of which can be found here: www.hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/pofw_damage1.htmAs for me, I either armor the CT to somewhere between belt and turrets, or give it only 2" splinter protection.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 20, 2019 10:58:05 GMT -6
It very well might be it, I do not have a clear memory of it; regardless, this is certainly the kind of example I was looking for and also agree with your design philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 20, 2019 15:01:02 GMT -6
3) even if heavy armour can stop a shell penetrating, a heavy shell hitting the outside of a smal metal box will leave the occupants concussed Speaking of this, it's fairly easy to find video and audio footage of heavy guns being fired, both in-period combat footage and more recent footage from Iowa-class gunnery practice, but I'm not aware of any footage documenting hits landing aboard. A recording of just what it sounds like when a shell hits that small metal box would be really intriguing to listen to.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Mar 20, 2019 16:28:03 GMT -6
... a CT of 6-7 inches will generally be protected against the majority or BB/BC secondaries such as the 6" guns, except at extreme close range. Thus, I compare my choices: do I spend roughly 300 tons to protect against what is a rather rare hit, or do I merely accept adequate protection from smaller rounds and put that weight into something else? I'm a strong believer in the "active over passive" benefits; an extra secondary gun makes it's presence known every time an enemy is within range, heavy CT armor only does so occasionally. I've always just gone with "CT same as turret" without really thinking about it at all. I like this philosophy, and will be using it from now on.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 20, 2019 17:27:36 GMT -6
CT hits are relatively rare but their effects can be devastating. Reducing your fire control one level (i.e. equivalent to going from Directors to Central Firing), reducing crew quality one level and/or locking your ship on course for a number of minutes. One or all of those results are possible and any one of those things can cost you the ship. While I understand why it was done historically, in-game I would never reduce my CT armor to secondary gun or splinter levels of protection. That's just my personal take on it.
|
|