cteb
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by cteb on Dec 22, 2019 12:27:48 GMT -6
I've been reading the SAI manual and have found that while it describes the effects of various hit locations, it never describes in any detail the ingame effect of hits to either the bridge or conning tower.
Could somebody tell me the actual effect of these locations being damaged/destroyed ingame? I'd prefer a factual answer over speculation, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Dec 22, 2019 12:39:01 GMT -6
Unfortunately, I'll have to pass on bridge hits.
|
|
cteb
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by cteb on Dec 22, 2019 12:42:03 GMT -6
Unfortunately, I'll have to pass on bridge hits.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Mar 6, 2020 4:17:50 GMT -6
I'm unclear if CT armor helps protect against bridge hits. Does anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Mar 6, 2020 4:36:47 GMT -6
I'm unclear if CT armor helps protect against bridge hits. Does anyone know? Conning tower is the armoured part of the bridge so it would be peculiar if it did. Seems like there's a confirmation on the tidbit thread too: "There are two kinds of hits, bridge hits and conning tower (CT) hits. CT armour protects against the latter but not the former. The reasoning is that only a small part of the command staff would be in the rather cramped CT, ad a bridge hit might incapacitate a lot of other command or signalling personnel, or even have splinters entering the CT through the vision slits (yes it happened). A penetrating CT hit is more damaging than a bridge hit."
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 6, 2020 4:46:20 GMT -6
I'm unclear if CT armor helps protect against bridge hits. Does anyone know? This post, and others from the same thread, indicate that it does not protect against bridge hits, but it does protect against conning tower hits, which, if the CT armor is heavy enough, basically halves the frequency with which you suffer command and control penalties due to hits in that region of the ship. Historically, the conning tower was a rather cramped armored tower (cramped to save weight) that rose from the armor belt to at least the level of the bridge. The bridge, and the superstructure below it, were built around this tower. The bridge itself was unarmored, but the crew could take shelter in the conning tower without leaving the bridge and could get at least a bit of a sight picture of the battle by peering out through vision slits. However, the view through the vision slits was poor enough that many captains commanded their ships from the part of the bridge outside of the CT. EDIT: Added link to post (forgot it the first time).
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Mar 6, 2020 5:15:38 GMT -6
All right. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 6, 2020 8:22:33 GMT -6
By WW2, most warships were navigated from the bridge but fought from wherever the radar/sighting reports met the gunnery control. This would later be known as the combat center (or by other names) but was usually located deep inside the ship, often near damage control central, and would typically be run by the exec or subordinate officers while the captain conned the ship.
A bridge hit could produce chaos - see the USS San Francisco at First Guadalcanal or HMS Prince of Wales at the Denmark Strait - but navigation/steering control could usually be restored either from the bridge area, the auxiliary control or even by sending men down to work the rudder motors or steering by engines. Most warships in combat situations would leave thousands of yards between themselves and other friendly ships as a guard against loss of control. This was an issue even in fleet problems - at least once, US battleships avoided ramming by using electric engines to rapidly go full astern and ahead. Being able to operate in close order under combat conditions, especially at night or in bad weather, requires training, training, training and exposure to risk. The IJN trained for this before WW2; other navies had to learn how in the hard school of combat.
The conning tower was intended to provide protection for those commanding and steering the ship but usually involved serious weight penalties due to the necessary thickness of armor and its height above the waterline. British capital ships stopped featuring them because captains didn't want to use them - they were cramped, vision was severely restricted and a hit could incapacitate those inside just from shock and noise (think of being inside a big steel bell hit by a supersonic exploding hammer). So opinions as to their usefulness were and are distinctly divided. My opinion is that they were not used as much as doctrine said they should have been - in the presence of the enemy and with friendly ships around, most commanders urgently needed to see what's going on around them (just imagine if Prince of Wales had plowed straight into Hood, for one example) and stayed out in the open regardless of risk.
The bridge could comprise several sections including a weather-protected area with the wheel and engine controls and other adjacent areas like a map room, radios, captain or flag officer seating, open 'wing' areas for better vision etc and so forth. These areas were not armored, or at best armored against splinters (the bits of metal shrapnel created when a lot of explosives go off in the presence of a lot of sheet steel). A conning tower (if present) was commonly at the back of the actual bridge with small viewing ports or slits cut into it. I have toured museum ships where you could see into the conning tower and I don't see how anyone inside could have seen anything useful - but that's just MHO.
|
|