|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 20, 2021 10:45:42 GMT -6
A magazine box is protective. I also balance protection with fire power. It is in no way true. A magazine box just halves the armor thickness everywhere except the magazines and allows you to save weight by sacrificing protection. I never use it as leaving the engines vulnerable is undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 11:00:13 GMT -6
A magazine box is protective. I also balance protection with fire power. It is in no way true. A magazine box just halves the armor thickness everywhere except the magazines and allows you to save weight by sacrificing protection. I never use it as leaving the engines vulnerable is undesirable. The magazine is the most destructive section of the ship, I believe in protecting the ship as much as possible from explosions like Hood, etc. If I use unit machinery to break up the engines for protection, then use the magazine box, the I have tried to protect the reliability of the ship and the protection from massive explosions which could sink the ship. So far it has worked perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 11:56:54 GMT -6
Some references about unit machinery and magazine box
When Invincible was designed, it was not appreciated that British cordite charges would explode rather than burn if exposed to enemy fire.86 Tests had been carried out on charges but only on small quantities and the effect of a rapid build-up of both temperature and pressure when a large mass was ignited was not recognised. Hindsight suggests a very thick box round the magazine and supply trunks-as well as better propellants. Ammunition passages were a serious hazard, as Fisher seems to have recognised.
Brown, David K. Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development 1860-1905 . Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The need to subdivide machinery spaces had been recognised but not the need for a true unit system, alternating boiler and engine-rooms which would have been essential if protected only by 3in plates. This concept of a thick magazine box and splinter protection elsewhere was finally adopted for the Kent class of post Washington cruisers.
Brown, David K. Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development 1860-1905 . Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition. Destroyers
Full ‘unit’ machinery (alternating boiler and engine rooms) would have added greatly to the size and cost and in such small ships might not have been very effective.
Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.
It appears that unit machinery was not felt necessary with the destroyers due to cost and size, however it was used on all cruisers and battleships along with carriers. The magazine box was used in coordination with unit machinery.
Hope this explains my designs.
|
|
|
Post by holoween on Nov 20, 2021 13:12:24 GMT -6
It's an older game that has been finished. I use these games to build advanced warships. I build warships based on the traditional idea of firepower, protection, speed, and reliability. Sometimes you have trade speed for protection like the Navy has had to do in some of its smaller warships. Your ship doesnt balance speed firepower and protection it simply ignores protection. 9" Armour over the magazines and for the turret front will get reliably penetrated by 1920 from all ranges by capital ship guns. Because of magazine box your main belt is only 4.5" which gets penetrated at all ranges by heavy cruiser guns.
What is its supposed use scenario?
It cant be for the battle line as it will get hit and without protection it will quickly degrade in capability.
For hunting heavy cruisers its masively oversized and still vulnerable.
As carrier escort its got too little aa.
The only thing i could see it as remotely workable at is for long range sniping support for tougher ships that form the main battle line.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 13:29:46 GMT -6
It's an older game that has been finished. I use these games to build advanced warships. I build warships based on the traditional idea of firepower, protection, speed, and reliability. Sometimes you have trade speed for protection like the Navy has had to do in some of its smaller warships. Your ship doesnt balance speed firepower and protection it simply ignores protection. 9" Armour over the magazines and for the turret front will get reliably penetrated by 1920 from all ranges by capital ship guns. Because of magazine box your main belt is only 4.5" which gets penetrated at all ranges by heavy cruiser guns.
What is its supposed use scenario?
It cant be for the battle line as it will get hit and without protection it will quickly degrade in capability.
For hunting heavy cruisers its masively oversized and still vulnerable.
As carrier escort its got too little aa.
The only thing i could see it as remotely workable at is for long range sniping support for tougher ships that form the main battle line.
How is this?
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Nov 20, 2021 13:58:16 GMT -6
I'd do almost anything to get this thing up to 28 knots, since 28+ knots is the breaking point between BBs and Fast BBs - and I'd really love to get something like this into fights with AI BCs I thought 27 knots was the breaking point? That was the entire point behind designing it this way so if the old wiki information which says it's 27 is wrong then I'm going to have to redesign this thing to fix it. The entire point was for this to qualify as a fast BB. Edit: Found an earlier ship I had proposed where aeson replied encouraging me to increase the speed to 27 knots to qualify as a fast BB so that backs up what the wiki states and I'm just hopeful it's right. An expensive ship with a lot going into engines for it to wind up not doing what I want it to do. lol It seems I was wrong and 27 knots is indeed the minimum speed for a fast BB. Sorry 'bout that.
|
|
|
Post by holoween on Nov 20, 2021 14:28:17 GMT -6
How is this? Better but impossible to build as a mid 1920s design and for a 50s design way below standard.
It still has a main belt of only 8.5" Its now protected from CA and immune from BB at the magazines but its belt is still vulnerable. It has 8" secondaries which is strange because 7" deck and 8.5" belt screams long range but then the 8" secondaries are useless. Same weight in 5" dual purpose would be far better. Extended belt makes it basically immune from 6" fire but against BB it will only initiate the fuzes for the main battery. Secondaries are also only 1" so splinters will quickly take them out. Secondaries should always have at least 2". TPS 3 is a strange choice considering that torpedos are one of the biggest threats for BB if available it should always be TPS4.
All these characteristics scream BC but at 28knots its really slow for one at least for lategame.
So again im wondering what is its intended use?
For a mid to late 50s BB something like this seems more apropriate to me:
Primary job at that stage is to seve as a blocking force against BB/BC trying to reach my carriers.
Immunity zone of 14000yards to 31000yards against 18" guns so aiming for 20000yards fights against BBs.
Maximim AA i can reasonably fit because there isnt enough armour around to defeat 2000pound AP bombs so rather disrupt the aircraft. Generally as much redundancy as possible so even with damage the ship can fight and get back to port Enough firepower to stopp BBs pushing into them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 14:31:59 GMT -6
How is this? Better but impossible to build as a mid 1920s design and for a 50s design way below standard.
It still has a main belt of only 8.5" Its now protected from CA and immune from BB at the magazines but its belt is still vulnerable. It has 8" secondaries which is strange because 7" deck and 8.5" belt screams long range but then the 8" secondaries are useless. Same weight in 5" dual purpose would be far better. Extended belt makes it basically immune from 6" fire but against BB it will only initiate the fuzes for the main battery. Secondaries are also only 1" so splinters will quickly take them out. Secondaries should always have at least 2". TPS 3 is a strange choice considering that torpedos are one of the biggest threats for BB if available it should always be TPS4.
All these characteristics scream BC but at 28knots its really slow for one at least for lategame.
So again im wondering what is its intended use?
For a mid to late 50s BB something like this seems more apropriate to me:
Primary job at that stage is to seve as a blocking force against BB/BC trying to reach my carriers.
Immunity zone of 14000yards to 31000yards against 18" guns so aiming for 20000yards fights against BBs.
Maximim AA i can reasonably fit because there isnt enough armour around to defeat 2000pound AP bombs so rather disrupt the aircraft. Generally as much redundancy as possible so even with damage the ship can fight and get back to port Enough firepower to stopp BBs pushing into them.
Are you looking at the correct drawing, the Kaiser I put up now has a main belt of 17 inches.
|
|
|
Post by holoween on Nov 20, 2021 14:33:53 GMT -6
17" Magazine box means 17" on the magazines and half so 8.5" everywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 20, 2021 15:11:43 GMT -6
17" Magazine box means 17" on the magazines and half so 8.5" everywhere else. Box protection to magazines If this option is selected, belt and deck thickness will be halved for hits to areas other than magazines. Belt and deck weight is reduced by 1/3. Again, I am attempting balance firepower, protection, speed and reliability. If this box can protect my ship, I will use it. Update: The HMS Nelson was the first British battleship to use an armour box or AON. Here is what it was. The main armour belt was 13ft deep, 14in thick over the main magazines and control positions, and 13in over machinery and the 6in magazines. The belt was sloped at 18° to the vertical and was inboard. Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 20, 2021 15:36:52 GMT -6
I thought 27 knots was the breaking point? That was the entire point behind designing it this way so if the old wiki information which says it's 27 is wrong then I'm going to have to redesign this thing to fix it. The entire point was for this to qualify as a fast BB. Edit: Found an earlier ship I had proposed where aeson replied encouraging me to increase the speed to 27 knots to qualify as a fast BB so that backs up what the wiki states and I'm just hopeful it's right. An expensive ship with a lot going into engines for it to wind up not doing what I want it to do. lol It seems I was wrong and 27 knots is indeed the minimum speed for a fast BB. Sorry 'bout that. Hey no worries! Had me worried for a minute there though.
|
|
|
Post by holoween on Nov 20, 2021 16:07:03 GMT -6
17" Magazine box means 17" on the magazines and half so 8.5" everywhere else. Box protection to magazines If this option is selected, belt and deck thickness will be halved for hits to areas other than magazines. Belt and deck weight is reduced by 1/3. Again, I am attempting balance firepower, protection, speed and reliability. If this box can protect my ship, I will use it. Update: The HMS Nelson was the first British battleship to use an armour box or AON. Here is what it was. The main armour belt was 13ft deep, 14in thick over the main magazines and control positions, and 13in over machinery and the 6in magazines. The belt was sloped at 18° to the vertical and was inboard. Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition.
Youre not saying anything im not.
So your protection scheme gives you great protection for your magazines so youre unlikely to be detonated but your machinery space is practically unprotected against BB shells.
I personally would value protection to the machinery more because a hit to the machines means your ship is out of the fight and with DDs around probably dead.
If you could do something like for the nelson so for example if Box Protection enabled another slider that simply adds armour inches to the magazine spaces it would be much more usefull. But currently its only really viable for cruisers.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 20, 2021 16:20:57 GMT -6
17" Magazine box means 17" on the magazines and half so 8.5" everywhere else. Box protection to magazines If this option is selected, belt and deck thickness will be halved for hits to areas other than magazines. Belt and deck weight is reduced by 1/3. Again, I am attempting balance firepower, protection, speed and reliability. If this box can protect my ship, I will use it. Update: The HMS Nelson was the first British battleship to use an armour box or AON. Here is what it was. The main armour belt was 13ft deep, 14in thick over the main magazines and control positions, and 13in over machinery and the 6in magazines. The belt was sloped at 18° to the vertical and was inboard. Brown, D. K.. The Grand Fleet: Warship Design and Development 1906-1922 . Pen & Sword Books. Kindle Edition. So I appreciate the different perspective! Unfortunately those ships don't really feel well suited for the tasks I expect to need them to perform or the adversaries I intend to pit them against. The last one you showed was definitely an improvement though I do remain skeptical of the box armor myself from what I've heard about it halving thickness of belt for any hit that isn't a magazine. It would essentially be a huge cost savings but mean that my true belt rating would only apply to mag hits... And it's true that those are the ship killers, but they're already rarely hit so most of the hits that ship would suffer would face the much weaker 8.5 belt armor and their performance would likely degrade quickly. The redundancy to the machinery was a pretty nice touch to couple with box armor though. I hadn't considered that and it improves box armor schemes in my mind, but not enough for me to consider using it as I am intending these heavy battle line ships to take a lot of punishment so I can't really make that sacrifice. The real issues I'm struggling with is that I don't know if it's your more modern tech, or else just because you've reduced the armor on your turrets so heavily but I can't achieve similar weights for my guns without intentionally relying on an all forward armament to do it. It's the only way I can pack such heavy guns into my ship and get it to fit. lol. If I tried switching over to your gun layout with my armor scheme I wind up 9k tons overweight. Even reducing my turret armor schemes to the ones you used still leaves each of my turrets weighing about 1k more than yours are listed as so I have to assume that's your advanced technology effecting things. It's outright impossible for me to duplicate with the tech available to me. Though if I'm being honest I'd be kind of loath to reduce my turret armor to anything resembling that level. Any hit to one of my turrets would at best automatically knock it out of action, and at worst cost me my ship. But that level of armoring feels like it would be insufficient to protect it from... well any caliber really. And losing my guns would seriously undermine the effectiveness of my ships to carry out the missions they're meant for. You're 100% right that ship design is about balancing and making sacrifices in one regard or another to get anywhere close to what you really want from it. I honestly feel as if my design has done that relatively satisfactorily in light of the types of adversaries I expect them to face. I've had to make several sacrifices to my ships to do it, in speed, armor, and armament to find a happy median that I believe will still be able to outperform my enemies. I think I need what I have to do it. I can certainly understand arguments for relatively minor adjustments such as the others encouraging me to reduce my deck somewhat to make room for other areas I wanted to restore, but the deviations in your design from mine just make me question whether it'd be able to survive what I intent to put them through. I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever though! Other perspectives is fun and I appreciate you taking the time to share! Just being honest about my thoughts.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 20, 2021 16:25:46 GMT -6
If you could do something like for the nelson so for example if Box Protection enabled another slider that simply adds armour inches to the magazine spaces it would be much more usefull. But currently its only really viable for cruisers.
Personally I love this suggestion and think you should put it forward. Right now based on everything I've been reading, box armor is something most players seem loath to add because it's such an all or nothing venture. It doesn't make sense to do it for light cruisers because it reduces their max 3 to 1.5, doesn't make sense for capital ships because it takes their otherwise formidable armor and turns it into paper, and perhaps only really serves as being useful for CAs but even there I don't see many people using it. Changing it from such a drastic change to one where you can decide how much extra armor to encase your magazines in would make it a much more useful addition IMHO. The cost savings for using it would come from the fact that players could reduce their armor in general by several inches without feeling as if they're foregoing armor altogether to do it.
|
|
|
Post by holoween on Nov 20, 2021 18:29:14 GMT -6
So I appreciate the different perspective!
British 1920 start lets you build this
|
|