|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 29, 2019 10:00:39 GMT -6
5. Strictly speaking, the game does not let the player handle the propulsion system, but only the boilers as oil/coal firing. In RtW2 diesel engines will be a thing, but apart from that anything between the steam and the propeller shaft will still be "abstracted", which is a bit of a shame, it shouldn't need to do a lot, but it would be fun to tinker with turbo-electric drives, or manually deciding if the turbine propulsion systems are mature enough to utilize at a certain point. After all, "More possible customization/experimentation > less."
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 10:14:05 GMT -6
Which brings me to the game. In the game all of the weight savings are linked to the "Flat Deck on Belt" armor scheme and NOT to the AoN research unlock, which is just plain wrong. After AoN is "Unlocked" every ship should benefit from the weight savings because, historically speaking, every ship was designed using at least some of those principals from that point on, regardless of what armor was applied. Even Bismark, which clearly did not have an AoN armor scheme, had a compact armored citadel with sufficient reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat. In the game you can select a belt and deck value, leave both extended values at 0 and toggle back and forth between "Flat Deck on Belt" and any other scheme and see a huge weight saving which just should not be there. Once you have unlocked AoN designs EVERY armor scheme should offer the same savings in weight for the belt and deck armor, and you should be able to add BE and DE armor if you want without losing that saving (you just pay full weight price for the BE and DE armor). Remember, the weight savings represent the fact that due to AoN design the volume that the belt and deck armor have to protect is smaller, requiring less armor plate. NOT because by the application of putting a flat deck on top of the belt the armor plates got magically lighter. The weight savings comes from the fact that there is less surface area for the deck in a flat design compared to a sloped design. If you take a design in-game and remove the deck armor and then shift the armor schemes between flat deck and sloped you will see that the weights and available displacements don't change. To my best understanding, in-game, AoN provides two main benefits. One, the ship is significantly less vulnerable to progressive flooding from the bow and stern areas of the ship. Two, because of that, you can leave the ends of the ship unarmored. This means that all of the hull's armor tonnage is used in the man deck and main belt areas giving you greater protection in those areas for the same total weight of hull armor compared to a distributed design regardless of whether it's a flat deck or sloped. I don't know why you believe that the turtleback is the overall superior design. It's more effective than the American and British flat deck AoN schemes only at short range. Significantly shorter than was typically expected in post-Jutland battleship combat. Therefore, there are indeed a set of circumstances where the turtleback design would have the advantage. At night without radar or in regions that frequently had poor daytime visibility like the Arctic in winter or the North Sea. That's a pretty small percentage of the world's oceans and night time battles can be mostly avoided by doctrine (see every war I fight in RTW1 now after many bitter teaching moments, lol). I certainly don't consider myself an expert on the subject but you need to ask yourself why the actual experts, the battleship architects for virtually every country still allowed to build battleships after WW1 all came, to slightly varying degrees, to the same conclusion, one that is directly contradicting to yours. I wasn't aware of that particular "foible" in game - I will have to check it out for myself, but off hand It makes me even more confused about how they have implemented AoN in RTW1. Without doing the maths I can't believe the difference in weight between a flat deck and a sloped deck can be more than 10 or 15% and the variances I have seen are way more than that. Anyway, I will check for myself.
AoN does provide the resistance to flooding you described, due to the principal that the citadel contains enough reserve buoyancy to keep the ship afloat despite the bow and stern being totally flooded. This does not mean that you are required to leave the bow and stern un-armored (as we are in the game). Hits and flooding to the bow reduce the ships speed, hits in the stern can affect steering and propulsion, so there are arguments to armoring those areas.
The key to my thinking is "short range" just as you say. In the game I have never fought a battle at anything but short range; and I am talking about sub 12,000 yards here. The way the game AI handles "spotting" ranges is shockingly bad, and scout forces can be relied upon to tuck tail and run on first sighting the enemy, and the moment a target flips to "unknown ship" everyone ceases fire (and then probably targets something stupid like 4 BB's firing at a single DD) so the only way to ensure that my battleships are actually firing at the enemy battleships is to close to stupidly short ranges. And that's not even mentioning the times when I have started a scenario to find it is 5 minutes to twilight or the enemy is already close enough to board me!. In my opinion RTW does not do long range combat at all so short range it is, and the turtleback is king (or it would be if they had put it in the game).
I think I have already answered your last point, but nevertheless here it is: I am not now and have never been talking about designing ships for the real world. I am now and have always been talking about how real world designs and ideas relate to designs in the game. I firmly believe that in the circumstances that pertain in the game (i.e. Badly implemented AI that continuously forces short range engagements) a turtleback armor scheme would be far better than flat deck on belt.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 10:45:40 GMT -6
Putting this into the context of RTW2 I would like to see a more detailed ship design module. Once AoN designs are unlocked the ship design screen should calculate the dimensions of the citadel based on the choices we make: 1. Armor scheme choice (and add turtleback armor as a research-able choice) 2. Turret layout. Get rid of the RTW add turret mechanism and make a choice between "All forward ABL", "2 forward, 1 aft ABY", "2 forwrd, 2 aft ABXY" etc possibly adding some of the later layouts as research unlocks. 3. Gun caliber and number of guns per turret combined with number of rounds per gun to give a volume for magazine space. 4. TDS choice. Has a major impact on citadel length. 5. Propulsion system. instead of just Coal / Oil give us some granularity and add Steam turbine / electric as a choice. 6. design speed. This affects hull shape and combined with TDS choice has a major impact on citadel length. 1. Turtleback armor is the “sloped deck behind belt” option available from the beginning. It should be made less susceptible to progressive flooding once AON is researched, but it’ll usually be more susceptible to it than AON due to the possibility of water coming in ABOVE the (very low) armored deck. 2. No. More possible customization/experimentation > less. 3. The exact size of the ships isn’t even calculated. The volume of components is very much abstracted. 4. It directly affects the maximum width of the citadel (for a given beam) below a certain point. How the designers deal with that can change a lot of things, not just the length of the citadel. 5. Turboelecric drive uses steam turbines to turn the generators. Once you have turbines there are only two reasons to go back to vertical expansion engines. One, you can’t afford turbines. And two, no companies in your country can make them big enough for your ship. I would like to see an option for turboelectric drive or regular geared turbines, but that’s probably still too specific for this game. 1. That is really disappointing. If the ship is designed to AoN principals the citadel should have enough reserve buoyancy to remain afloat if everything else is flooded, not just the bow and stern. 2. I wasn't talking about taking any choices away, I was talking about codifying all of the currently available choices and allowing the player to select from all those that are available. 3. And this would also be an abstract, where the players choices affected the 3 dimensions of the box. 4. Actually if you make some fairly basic standardising assumptions (such as ship must be Panamax) you are left with length and height. If you chose flat deck you get less length increase, sloped deck you get more length increase. 5. I agree, but they did didn't they? Americans! I think they were just afraid of the invisible magic electricity and reverted to having big lumps of metal flying around. Probably doesn't offer enough of an advantage to be worth adding it to the game though. 6. You didn't comment on design speed, and I think that's an important one for RTW2. RTW didn't really cover any of the fast designs, or rather during the time period of RTW we didn't see any real breakthroughs in high speed hull design, but that changes in the time period for RTW2 so I hope its modeled in.
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jan 29, 2019 12:07:49 GMT -6
1. That is really disappointing. If the ship is designed to AoN principals the citadel should have enough reserve buoyancy to remain afloat if everything else is flooded, not just the bow and stern. It’s not just a reserve buoyancy problem. Flooding above the armored deck seriously compromises the stability of the ship. Kirishima’s sinking is a bit of an extreme example due to her outdated design, but she actually capsized AWAY from the side with all the damage due her stability being compromised. 2. I wasn't talking about taking any choices away, I was talking about codifying all of the currently available choices and allowing the player to select from all those that are available. That’s going to be quite the list. IMO it’s better to keep the current system (which is more than adequate) on the KISS principle. 3. And this would also be an abstract, where the players choices affected the 3 dimensions of the box. The game doesn’t calculate a box, and since the ship designer isn’t being totally reworked, won’t calculate a box. That’s the level of abstraction we’re dealing with. 4. Actually if you make some fairly basic standardising assumptions (such as ship must be Panamax) you are left with length and height. If you chose flat deck you get less length increase, sloped deck you get more length increase. Beam, length, and draft restrictions are outside factors that have nothing to do with the individual design of the TDS. 5. I agree, but they did didn't they? Americans! I think they were just afraid of the invisible magic electricity and reverted to having big lumps of metal flying around. Probably doesn't offer enough of an advantage to be worth adding it to the game though. I did miss a couple reasons. Experimentation is one. As with most new technologies, navies are generally unsure of them and feel their way forward instead of jumping right in. Fuel efficiency is another. Direct drive turbines have terrible fuel efficiency at cruising speeds compared to vertical expansion engines. That changes with reduction gears and other technological advances though. After the Nevada class (which introduced geared turbines) the USN never felt a need to go back to vertical expansion engines. As for turboelectric drive, there were fears of issues with it, mostly due to shock from torpedo hits. As it turns out, most of these fears never materialized. It’s also heavier. This wasn’t much of a concern with the Standard classes due to all its benefits, but the weight crunch imposed by treaties sent it out of style. I would recommend www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-038.php for more detailed info. 6. You didn't comment on design speed, and I think that's an important one for RTW2. RTW didn't really cover any of the fast designs, or rather during the time period of RTW we didn't see any real breakthroughs in high speed hull design, but that changes in the time period for RTW2 so I hope its modeled in. I didn’t comment on it, but I agree. High speed/low tonnage designs should probably see a percentage chance of having a penalty to their TDS for each torpedo hit. That would represent the thinning of the TDS at the bow and stern while also leaving a chance for the torpedo to hit the full TDS amidships. |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 29, 2019 14:53:41 GMT -6
I am not now and have never been talking about designing ships for the real world. I am now and have always been talking about how real world designs and ideas relate to designs in the game. I firmly believe that in the circumstances that pertain in the game (i.e. Badly implemented AI that continuously forces short range engagements) a turtleback armor scheme would be far better than flat deck on belt. [/div][/quote] I'm not thrilled with the AI, and the game is less friendly to long range engagements than I'd like, but it's still possible to play with a long range engagement doctrine, and the AI's tendency to under-deck its ships makes such a doctrine especially rewarding in the mid to late game (also the fact that in recent versions it tends to react to my heavy-armor 2x3 AB battlecruisers with British-style traditional battlecruisers, which tends to give me an advantage at any range). |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 29, 2019 14:58:40 GMT -6
Unless the implementation creates meaningful choices between triple-expansion reciprocating engines, direct-drive turbines, geared turbines, and turboelectric drive, I don't particularly care to have the ability to choose the type of propulsion system used.
2. I wasn't talking about taking any choices away, I was talking about codifying all of the currently available choices and allowing the player to select from all those that are available. By changing the player's choice of turrets to a choice of turret configurations, you might perhaps not be limiting the player's choice of mechanically-distinct turret configurations, but you are limiting the player's choice of aesthetically-distinct turret configurations. Mechanically, ABV is identical to ABY - the two configurations have the same tonnage cost for a given number of guns in each corresponding turret and have effectively the same turret arcs - but V turret is drawn further forwards than Y turret, and A and B turret are drawn with slightly more separation in ABV than in ABY, and maybe I like how the ship looks better that way. If you go in for ship profile pictures, the game generates V turret higher up than Y turret, as well, which is another aesthetic reason why I might prefer ABV to ABY.  ABX, meanwhile, is strictly inferior to both ABY and ABV because it offers the same turret arcs but costs more tonnage. However, of the possible configurations in the game, it's also possibly the best match for Littorio (especially for the profile image), and so if I wanted to create Littorio in the game I might consider using it. Similarly, ABXY is inferior to ABVY within the game as ABXY offers the same turret arcs as ABVY while costing more tonnage, but ABXY better matches most historical four-turret battleships with fore-and-aft superfiring pairs while ABVY better matches Kongo, Derfflinger, and Tiger.
With the ability to choose up to seven centerline turrets out of a list of ten possible turrets, there are 967 legal centerline turret configurations (10 one-turret, 45 two-turret, 120 three-turret, 210 four-turret, 252 five-turret, 210 six-turret, and 120 seven-turret configurations). Many of them are not mechanically distinct from one another, a few are strictly inferior to others (e.g. ABXY is strictly inferior to ABVY since the two configurations have the same turret arcs but ABXY is heavier for a given level of armor protection and the same number of guns in corresponding turrets), and some are exceptionally unlikely to be used (e.g. CLQR, which is strictly inferior to ALQY due to having worse turret arcs at the same tonnage cost for a given level of armor protection and the same number of guns in corresponding turrets and as such is rather unlikely to be chosen even if the player prefers the lower tonnage cost of linear configurations to the superior turret arcs of superfiring configurations), but all of them are aesthetically distinct, and you lose a lot of that if you reduce the main battery options from choose N turrets to choose one of C configurations. You can, of course, do something to add aesthetic variation back into the choice of main battery configurations, but that tends to defeat the point of reducing choose N turrets down to a list of C configurations.
Beyond that, I don't see any significant advantage to reducing main battery design from "choose N turrets" to "pick one of C configurations." The only illegal turret combinations involve cross-deck fire (Q, R and V disallowed, must have one and only one of the FK and GJ pairs), unbalanced wing turrets, more than seven centerline turrets, or fairly large numbers of turrets (more than 16 using 7" or lighter guns, more than 12 using 8"-10" guns, or more than 10 using 11" or heavier guns); otherwise, pretty much anything goes. I doubt if you'd learn turret configurations faster than turret positions - especially if representing most or all historical configurations rather than a more minimal set of mechanically-distinct configurations - and there are too many configurations in general for a list of all of them, or a reasonably-large subset of them, to be useful.
US battleships did not go from using turboelectric drive to using triple expansion engines. You might be thinking of the switchover from the direct-drive turbines used in the Wyoming- and Florida-class battleships and tested on the Delaware-class North Dakota to the triple expansion engines of the New York class and on the Nevada-class Oklahoma (Nevada received geared turbines to allow for a head-to-head comparison of the two systems). Turboelectric drive was first introduced on New Mexico and was used for the subsequent Tennessee- and Colorado-class battleships and the Lexington-class aircraft carriers, and would have been used on the Lexington-class battlecruisers and South Dakota-class battleships had these not been cancelled due to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. The later carriers and the fast battleships would use geared turbine propulsion for reasons of size, weight, and cost; turboelectric drives took up more space, weighed more, and costed more than geared turbines and so were deemed less suitable for the fast battleships, all of which - including the Iowas - were designed under treaty limitations.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 29, 2019 16:07:10 GMT -6
Armor layout isn't my strong suit but I'd raise a couple points I vaguely remember hearing about. Due to the sloped edges, doesn't turtleback armor limit the internal space that can be utilized? If you had two identical ships, one with Flat-on-top and one with turtleback, wouldn't the Flat have a larger internal space available for machinery and whatnot? In that case I could see turtleback limiting the AON bonus since that machinery would have to be spread out longitudinally. Secondly, isn't sloped armor slightly less effective against plunging fire? If we assume a 45 degree vertical angle for incoming fire, a flat deck would sustain those hits at a comparable angle, whereas a sloped deck would take them more directly. Of course, I could be entirely wrong on both points.
With that being said, I do see your points, but I'll leave that aspect of the debate to those more in the know. I agree that with a turtleback deck the citadel has to be lower in the hull, and therefore a bit longer or wider, however this is not all bad. A longer citadel means that it is easier to incorporate 4 turrets into the design (and 4 magazines) and a longer narrower citadel allows for a better TDS system to be used. USS Tennessee (? i think) was built with electric drive propulsion which allowed for narrow machinery spaces (and for the machinery spaces to be more heavily compartmentalised than normal) which gave greater depth for the TDS and she was noted for having excellent TDS. Flat deck does give the citadel a greater vertical space however that vertical space isn't as well protected. You pays your money and you takes your chance...
Overall, I agree with you on this though - some sort of graduated benefit that takes into account such things as turtleback vs flat deck armour, number and location of main turrets etc would be good.
As for the plunging fire I think that the sloped part of the turtleback is actually shielded by the belt armor against plunging fire that would otherwise strike it at 90 degrees.
Issue with old turtle back armor is that the deck armor is lower. This means that even if citadel is not penetrated the forward and aft flooding can go to central part of ship because deck is lower. The water is going to flood ship over the citadel.
The deck is just a little above waterline so as ship takes water deck cannot protect flooding even adminship.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 29, 2019 23:28:06 GMT -6
Issue with old turtle back armor is that the deck armor is lower. This means that even if citadel is not penetrated the forward and aft flooding can go to central part of ship because deck is lower. The water is going to flood ship over the citadel.
The deck is just a little above waterline so as ship takes water deck cannot protect flooding even adminship.
Deck armor only directly creates a barrier to flow in the direction normal to its surface, i.e. 'up' or 'down' through the ship, whereas the flow of water moving from the ends to the midships region is generally parallel to a ship's decks. As such, unless you are referring to the indirect protection against flooding that the armor deck offers - namely, that it helps protect against battle damage compromising the watertight integrity of compartments beneath the deck (or, in the case of damage below the deck, as from a shell passing through or under the main armor belt, of compartments above the deck) - the position of the main armor deck in the hull is not particularly relevant to protecting against flooding of the midships section from the ends. Moreover, the tops of the armored bulkheads closing off the ends of the citadel should extend at least as high as the top of the main belt armor, which in an all-or-nothing design is probably fairly high in the hull - regardless of where the main armor deck sits. If you have a significant volume of water passing over the top of the armored closing bulkheads and the main armor belt, you have bigger problems than your armored deck leaving a reasonable number of watertight compartments unprotected against plunging fire - especially with an early compartmentalization scheme where more thought may have gone into preventing flooding from spreading along the length and perhaps also the breadth of the ship than into preventing flooding from spreading further up or down in the hull (in the normal orientation). Having the main armor deck higher in the hull would probably help a bit in such a scenario because more of the ship's volume would have been protected against being compromised by battle damage ... but you're already talking about a scenario where you're taking on significant quantities of water at a point probably at least eight or ten feet above the ship's normal waterline, which suggests either that your ship is sitting much lower in the water than it should be or that you're out in reasonably rough seas. |
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Jan 29, 2019 23:58:40 GMT -6
5. Propulsion system. instead of just Coal / Oil give us some granularity and add Steam turbine / electric as a choice.
I do like the idea of making choices regarding the different types of engines in combination with the different types of boilers. The US Navy had real reasons why they went back to reciprocating engines after their initial experiments with turbines. There were range benefits at the time that they felt were necessary for operations in the Pacific. There are also the protection benefits for a distributed plant like turbo-electric, or at least in theory there were. With the later time frame, alternating engine/boiler rooms with their attendant weight increases could be a further differentiation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 16:17:05 GMT -6
I think that the flooding problem with the turtle back scheme is that if the main belt is penetrated above the waterline and then the fore/aft of the ship is damaged, the ship would sit on that side somehow lower in the water, thus alowing water to flood the ship through a hole that was initialy above the water. Then the ship would face several problems with ship systems (magazines, engines, etc) being cut off (at least partialy) from the rest of the ship because of flooded arear horizontaly between them.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 31, 2019 7:53:04 GMT -6
Deck armor only directly creates a barrier to flow in the direction normal to its surface, i.e. 'up' or 'down' through the ship, whereas the flow of water moving from the ends to the midships region is generally parallel to a ship's decks. As such, unless you are referring to the indirect protection against flooding that the armor deck offers - namely, that it helps protect against battle damage compromising the watertight integrity of compartments beneath the deck (or, in the case of damage below the deck, as from a shell passing through or under the main armor belt, of compartments above the deck) - the position of the main armor deck in the hull is not particularly relevant to protecting against flooding of the midships section from the ends. That depends how the fore and aft armor is designed. If we assume forward and aft citadel armor is extended all the way up to the top of the belt, then your right in that they have similar protection ( except if there is extreme levels of list involved ). If we assume armor forward and aft only is used to protect the citadel ( what is below the deck armor ) though... then flooding Aft and fore risks lowering the ship enough into the water that water freely can flow over the entire deck armor layer and flood much larger parts of the ship than would be possible with an AoN armor layout where the whole belt is used to form the "Citadel Box" and buoyancy is guaranteed as long as it remains intact. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 31, 2019 13:20:56 GMT -6
Deck armor only directly creates a barrier to flow in the direction normal to its surface, i.e. 'up' or 'down' through the ship, whereas the flow of water moving from the ends to the midships region is generally parallel to a ship's decks. As such, unless you are referring to the indirect protection against flooding that the armor deck offers - namely, that it helps protect against battle damage compromising the watertight integrity of compartments beneath the deck (or, in the case of damage below the deck, as from a shell passing through or under the main armor belt, of compartments above the deck) - the position of the main armor deck in the hull is not particularly relevant to protecting against flooding of the midships section from the ends. That depends how the fore and aft armor is designed. If we assume forward and aft citadel armor is extended all the way up to the top of the belt, then your right in that they have similar protection ( except if there is extreme levels of list involved ). If we assume armor forward and aft only is used to protect the citadel ( what is below the deck armor ) though... then flooding Aft and fore risks lowering the ship enough into the water that water freely can flow over the entire deck armor layer and flood much larger parts of the ship than would be possible with an AoN armor layout where the whole belt is used to form the "Citadel Box" and buoyancy is guaranteed as long as it remains intact. The citadel of a properly-designed all-or-nothing ship is supposed to contain enough volume to keep the ship afloat when everything outside the citadel - aside from the superstructure - is flooded. If your citadel only extends slightly above the normal waterline, you don't have enough volume in your citadel to do that. Therefore, if your armor scheme is intended to be all-or-nothing, the armored closing bulkheads at the ends of the citadel have to extend high in the hull regardless of where the main armor deck sits. |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Feb 1, 2019 19:53:23 GMT -6
The citadel of a properly-designed all-or-nothing ship is supposed to contain enough volume to keep the ship afloat when everything outside the citadel - aside from the superstructure - is flooded. If your citadel only extends slightly above the normal waterline, you don't have enough volume in your citadel to do that. Therefore, if your armor scheme is intended to be all-or-nothing, the armored closing bulkheads at the ends of the citadel have to extend high in the hull regardless of where the main armor deck sits. 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... Based on what I was able to find for example these ships ( Like the HMS Bellerophon ) only had a thin 25mm forward armor layer protecting the "citadel" but instead a extended thinner belt all the way around the bow |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 1, 2019 20:09:00 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. |
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Feb 5, 2019 7:47:13 GMT -6
That depends how the fore and aft armor is designed. If we assume forward and aft citadel armor is extended all the way up to the top of the belt, then your right in that they have similar protection ( except if there is extreme levels of list involved ). If we assume armor forward and aft only is used to protect the citadel ( what is below the deck armor ) though... then flooding Aft and fore risks lowering the ship enough into the water that water freely can flow over the entire deck armor layer and flood much larger parts of the ship than would be possible with an AoN armor layout where the whole belt is used to form the "Citadel Box" and buoyancy is guaranteed as long as it remains intact. The citadel of a properly-designed all-or-nothing ship is supposed to contain enough volume to keep the ship afloat when everything outside the citadel - aside from the superstructure - is flooded. If your citadel only extends slightly above the normal waterline, you don't have enough volume in your citadel to do that. Therefore, if your armor scheme is intended to be all-or-nothing, the armored closing bulkheads at the ends of the citadel have to extend high in the hull regardless of where the main armor deck sits. 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. The points about flooding above the armor deck being a problem are well taken. I believe one of the IJN battleships capsized and sank due to such flooding - or rather as a result of the water sloshing from side to side above the armored deck. I don't think that loss was a result of lack of reserve buoyancy in the citadel. In the case of the Bismark the area above the citadel was heavily compartmentalised to reduce flooding and to limit any flood water from moving around. |
|
