|
Post by blarglol on Nov 9, 2022 18:07:56 GMT -6
Ah, so the belt runs behind the casemates then? No, the casemates are above - i.e. further from the waterline than - the armor belt. Historical warships which mounted their secondary guns in casemates generally carried them either on the upper deck (the deck forming the top of the hull) or the deck immediately below it (for a ship with a broken upper deck, this would probably be the main deck; otherwise, it might be called the gun or gallery deck), with the top of the armor belt reaching the bottom of the casemate. Often, the part of the armor belt immediately beneath the casemate armor wasn't part of the main (maximum thickness) belt but rather a thinner upper strake.
If I am not mistaken, the game's armor model assumes that the (main and secondary) casemates are on the deck immediately beneath the upper deck, so the game's model for the side profile for a 'typical' predreadnought or First World War-era dreadnought/superdreadnought battleship should look something like this:
As an aside, you can actually see the top of the armor belt in many photographs of historical warships - it's that step in the hull that, if present, usually runs from just ahead of the forwardmost turret to just behind the aftermost turret roughly halfway between the waterline and the upper deck.
Thanks for the information. This is very helpful
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Nov 11, 2022 6:31:04 GMT -6
Ah, so the belt runs behind the casemates then? No, the casemates are above - i.e. further from the waterline than - the armor belt. Historical warships which mounted their secondary guns in casemates generally carried them either on the upper deck (the deck forming the top of the hull) or the deck immediately below it (for a ship with a broken upper deck, this would probably be the main deck; otherwise, it might be called the gun or gallery deck), with the top of the armor belt reaching the bottom of the casemate. Often, the part of the armor belt immediately beneath the casemate armor wasn't part of the main (maximum thickness) belt but rather a thinner upper strake.
If I am not mistaken, the game's armor model assumes that the (main and secondary) casemates are on the deck immediately beneath the upper deck, so the game's model for the side profile for a 'typical' predreadnought or First World War-era dreadnought/superdreadnought battleship should look something like this:
As an aside, you can actually see the top of the armor belt in many photographs of historical warships - it's that step in the hull that, if present, usually runs from just ahead of the forwardmost turret to just behind the aftermost turret roughly halfway between the waterline and the upper deck.
Thank you for the illustration. Very helpful!
|
|
ck07
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by ck07 on Nov 14, 2022 2:28:43 GMT -6
Very true, especially once a few AP techs come through. Though I'd point out the OP was about not armouring guns of 6" or smaller. To be honest, I thought I'd only opted for 2" splinter armour on the secondaries (not noticing until rechecking the design screen), probably forgot to change that. Mea Culpa! For a 1900 ship, 3" or 4" of armour would be enough to protect against the mass batteries of 6" and maybe 7" guns likely to be faced. Heck, that's why I usually drop the armour on my Conning Towers and increase BE. A lucky hit from a heavy (12") gun would hammer through, but 6" and smaller will just bounce - and they're the ones that tend to get the most hits early game. Edit: I note with interest that protecting the secondary guns *appears* to also protect the tertiary guns which seems wrong. Does this need flagging up? Edit 2: After checking what would happen if I did drop secondary armour to 4", I freed up enough weight for 4 more 6" guns, 2 more 3" guns and an extra 60 rounds of 12" ammunition - matching the armament of the EoI class and dropping free weight to 199t. There is the risk of taking more damage from large calibre hits but for a couple of years that's not a big worry. The EoIs could be built on a lighter hull by dropping ammunition thus dropping cost slightly, but you'd be more likely to have them drydocked for repairs or even need replacing entirely. So, early game, good armour on secondaries increases ships survivability greatly. Mid-late game, not so much but 2" splinter armour will still stop guns being knocked out by lucky hits. I'm impressed with the research effort and fascinated by the results. Now I wonder why my results are so different. Across 4.5 campaigns as JA, RU, GE, AH, and finally UK I still have never once lost anywhere near the number of secondaries you did, let alone lost a ship in significant part to hits on secondaries. I do play on medium scale, so total ships x battles has been smaller than on a larger scale, but still--seemingly--far too large for chance to account for it. As UK, my capital ships since 1907 (25,000-34,300 t, 8 x 14" or 15") and CAs since 1903 (12,900-14,000, 6 or 8 x 9") have all carried 20-24 x unarmored 6". Before DPs, cap. ships carried 12-16 x 4", after 20 x 6" + 20 x 4". In earlier campaigns the dates for 3+ turrets have been a little later and gun calibers have varied, but secondaries have always been < 6", large in number, and--after a few ships in the JA campaign--unarmored. So I don't get it. If I ever do get results like yours, will report.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 16, 2022 3:23:45 GMT -6
Keep in mind RTW3 starts in 1890, so secondaries are arguably the main weapon for the first decade or so. As a general rule armoring secondaries makes sense early game, later on anything beyond splinter protection is superfluous.
|
|
ck07
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by ck07 on Nov 17, 2022 2:19:32 GMT -6
Early game--sure. It's the later game--what I can't figure out, given your test results, is why I am doing so well with no protection at all.
|
|