|
|
Post by hardlec on Jan 17, 2019 11:34:53 GMT -6
One thing to remember is that the crew of a ship in combat will be at their battle stations. They will be with the essential systems protected by the armor.
Well, mostly.
Some sailors, like the lookouts and crews for the light guns will be exposed, but that is no different from a dispersed armor scheme.
The distribution of armor is very significant. At least as important as the effectiveness of the armor itself.
Modern ships have less weight of steel, but vital areas are protected by Kevlar. Modern vessels are also designed to resist fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Jan 17, 2019 20:46:35 GMT -6
I am referring to a wikipedia article on AoN link Section 3 "In Practice" talks about this. I realise that this is not exactly the most authoritative source however some cross checking has shown me that the additional decks referred to did exist and had the purpose stated. Oh, interesting. I see where you're coming from. I don't find the article editor's argument convincing (not that a Wikipedia article has the room to treat it properly in any case) because the multiple decks ultimately come down to protecting the ship's vitals in the citadel, not spreading protection around to other parts of the ship. I don't see it as a violation of the all-or-nothing principle any more than I would a decapping belt outside an internal main armored belt, so long as both remained limited in length to the citadel region. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 17, 2019 21:26:18 GMT -6
I'm putting this article from Navweaps up here about All or Nothing but I believe we have all seen it. If not, here it is. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-070.phpIn my research, not just Norman Friedman, the main reason for All or Nothing was cost. It was cost per performance because battleships were becoming very expensive and the Navy and government were attempting find way to reduce cost. |
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 18, 2019 6:34:26 GMT -6
I'm putting this article from Navweaps up here about All or Nothing but I believe we have all seen it. If not, here it is. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-070.phpIn my research, not just Norman Friedman, the main reason for All or Nothing was cost. It was cost per performance because battleships were becoming very expensive and the Navy and government were attempting find way to reduce cost. Thanks for that link. It puts the evolution of AoN into better context than the Wiki article and presents a valid argument why the additional armoured decks on US ships were compliant with the AoN protection scheme. It doesn't really touch on the way that AoN also changed the way ships were designed in order to create a compact citadel to minimise the volume that needed to be protected. In my opinion the criticism of the Bismarks armour scheme is unwarranted and does not consider a key point - The shells that penetrated the upper belt and detonated above the armoured deck would have been penetrating the citadel if the armoued deck had been situated above the belt (as it is in "Flat deck on belt"). Use of medium armour capable of detonating but not excluding AP shells in the upper belt is obviously a weakness of the design, however the fact that the belt could be penetrated without threatening the citadel was a strength. If AoN principals had been applied with a strong belt and turtleback deck the ship would have had superior vertical protection and equivalent horizontal protection to a Flat deck on belt ship. I didn't see anything there about cost, and would be interested to find out about that, particularly because I would have thought that the RN would have jumped on any cost saving given their policy to maintain a fleet equal in size to the next 2 fleets. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 9:37:43 GMT -6
I'm putting this article from Navweaps up here about All or Nothing but I believe we have all seen it. If not, here it is. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-070.phpIn my research, not just Norman Friedman, the main reason for All or Nothing was cost. It was cost per performance because battleships were becoming very expensive and the Navy and government were attempting find way to reduce cost. Thanks for that link. It puts the evolution of AoN into better context than the Wiki article and presents a valid argument why the additional armoured decks on US ships were compliant with the AoN protection scheme. It doesn't really touch on the way that AoN also changed the way ships were designed in order to create a compact citadel to minimise the volume that needed to be protected. In my opinion the criticism of the Bismarks armour scheme is unwarranted and does not consider a key point - The shells that penetrated the upper belt and detonated above the armoured deck would have been penetrating the citadel if the armoued deck had been situated above the belt (as it is in "Flat deck on belt"). Use of medium armour capable of detonating but not excluding AP shells in the upper belt is obviously a weakness of the design, however the fact that the belt could be penetrated without threatening the citadel was a strength. If AoN principals had been applied with a strong belt and turtleback deck the ship would have had superior vertical protection and equivalent horizontal protection to a Flat deck on belt ship. I didn't see anything there about cost, and would be interested to find out about that, particularly because I would have thought that the RN would have jumped on any cost saving given their policy to maintain a fleet equal in size to the next 2 fleets. I will browse through my Friedman book, I believe that is one source for the information about budgets. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 11:12:24 GMT -6
I mentioned in an earlier post about AON being based on cost per performance. My source, one of them, is U. S. Battleships by Norman Friedman, Chapter 5. I have another source to check about the General Board.
In 1903, the General Board which controlled the design of all things Navy, assumed that all building of battleships would continue as before, at two battleships per year. In 1904, Congress only approved one, but the General Board requested three in 1905. Keep in mind, that the fiscal year for the Navy begins in October, so this means that the dates are referenced to October of 1904. However, Congress saw that ships were growing larger and larger, and more importantly, more expensive. It only allowed one battleship for 1907,1908 and again in 1913.
President Taft wanted to continue Teddy Roosevelt’s building plan however, the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives, which controls the budgets, and their caucus rejected all of them. Now enters Woodrow Wilson, who was not a supporter of military expenditures. I will leave it at that. After that it was a fight to get two battleships per year.
Now how does this relate to AON. Well we know that the firepower of the battleship was improving in this time period. Bigger guns, larger and better ammunition, improved fire control. To protect a new battleship, you needed speed and armor protection. Well if I try to increase armor thickness over the whole ship, from the quarter deck to the bow, the ship weight will increase to the point, where I will lose speed. To gain the speed, I will have to increase engine power which means a wider beam to allow for larger engine rooms, more boilers, and more turbines. You might even have to increase the length to maintain the LtoB ratio for speed. This will increase the requirements for hull strength, and this means more weight, and all of this is cost. A cost that might climb so high, that it is not possible to get the design, during a peacetime period, through Congress.
So, what do you do? Well, you perform an assessment of the most important areas of the ship, the center and armor it with thick armor to protect it and forget the rest. If I can design and build a ship with this All or nothing configuration, then I can make it survivable during surface actions and still maintain a reasonable cost per performance, plus the overall building cost can be managed.
I am trying to simplify this whole procedure but the book, as most of you know, does a thorough job. It always boils down to cost per performance. I can’t have everything I want, so how do I get the most important design factors in my ship, for the budget allowed.
You cannot separate weapons of war from budgets, especially after a war. Governments after a war generally are very reluctant to continue the budgets need to prosecute the past war. This what we saw immediately after WW1, WW2 and I saw it after Vietnam.
In summary, the AON concept of armor was used because it gave the best armor protection for the cost. It was a cost effective method of improving the protection of the ships and still improve the speed and get the budget for the ship allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 11:32:08 GMT -6
I just did some research in my book on the General Board titled “Agents of Innovation: The General Board and the Design of the Fleet that defeated the Japanese”. It discusses the U. S. Navy Policy of 1922 which had a section entitled
“Building and Maintenance Policy”. The three main points were:
To make the capital ship ratios the basis of building effort in all classes of fighting ships.
To make superiority of armament in their class an end in view in the design of all fighting ships
To provide for great radius of action in all class of fighting ships
In other words, the US Navy was emphasizing cruising radius and the superiority of armament which meant more efficient power plants and larger fuel reserves. However, this conflicted with armor protection, striking power because you can’t build everything into a ship. To gain cruising radius, you need more storage for fuel and provisions. The Board would have to have trade-offs of gun power, mobility and armor as with all weapons. The key was to gain the most efficient balance between the factors. As the book states, gun caliber and armor were now equal in importance to cruising range.
For those of you interested, the information I am using comes from Chapter 5 Battleships Modernization. I will continue to search for more information in my library and on the internet. I hope all of you will help in this quest.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 14:36:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 18, 2019 16:09:33 GMT -6
I didn't see anything there about cost, and would be interested to find out about that, particularly because I would have thought that the RN would have jumped on any cost saving given their policy to maintain a fleet equal in size to the next 2 fleets. I've read somewhere (sorry I can't recall where) that the RN's BB designs during WW1 may have been a bit slow to evolve as they were in a 'building race' with Germany, and had a bit less time to step back and try new things. I'm pretty sure the designs for the G3s and N3s had an AON approach, more-or-less. Can't remember the source, though (but I have an article on the G3s/N3s I can look up for that) so take that with a hefty grain of salt. One day I'll give Brown's back on British warship design during the period a read and see what he has to say about it. If anyone here has read it already, it may cover this off. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 16:56:31 GMT -6
I went through my book by Norman Friedman entitled “The British Battleships 1906-1946 and did find five matches for All or Nothing. I found one reference to it in The Grand Fleet by D.K. Brown. D.K. Brown’s other books only had one reference to All, or Nothing armor scheme. Amazingly, in Warships after Washington: The development of Five Major Fleets 1922-1930 I found seven references. I will read those tonight and try to put together a summation, if that would help. It appears by a quick perusal that it is just referencing the USN's design of the USS Nevada.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 18, 2019 17:14:50 GMT -6
I didn't see anything there about cost, and would be interested to find out about that, particularly because I would have thought that the RN would have jumped on any cost saving given their policy to maintain a fleet equal in size to the next 2 fleets. I've read somewhere (sorry I can't recall where) that the RN's BB designs during WW1 may have been a bit slow to evolve as they were in a 'building race' with Germany, and had a bit less time to step back and try new things. I'm pretty sure the designs for the G3s and N3s had an AON approach, more-or-less. Can't remember the source, though (but I have an article on the G3s/N3s I can look up for that) so take that with a hefty grain of salt. One day I'll give Brown's back on British warship design during the period a read and see what he has to say about it. If anyone here has read it already, it may cover this off. G3 was used as basic design for Nelson and Rodney, they have practically similar armor layout. I think N3 was even more armored with higher inclination. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 18, 2019 17:52:16 GMT -6
I went through my book by Norman Friedman entitled “The British Battleships 1906-1946 and did find five matches for All or Nothing. I found one reference to it in The Grand Fleet by D.K. Brown. D.K. Brown’s other books only had one reference to All, or Nothing armor scheme. Amazingly, in Warships after Washington: The development of Five Major Fleets 1922-1930 I found seven references. I will read those tonight and try to put together a summation, if that would help. It appears by a quick perusal that it is just referencing the USN's design of the USS Nevada. Cheers Oldpop, The Grand Fleet' was the one I had in mind (although I'm sure Friedman's book would also be a goody, and anything by John Jordan is also going to be all quality). Good luck, would be interested if you turned anything up  . |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 18, 2019 18:54:13 GMT -6
I've read somewhere (sorry I can't recall where) that the RN's BB designs during WW1 may have been a bit slow to evolve as they were in a 'building race' with Germany, and had a bit less time to step back and try new things. I'm pretty sure the designs for the G3s and N3s had an AON approach, more-or-less. Can't remember the source, though (but I have an article on the G3s/N3s I can look up for that) so take that with a hefty grain of salt. One day I'll give Brown's back on British warship design during the period a read and see what he has to say about it. If anyone here has read it already, it may cover this off. G3 was used as basic design for Nelson and Rodney, they have practically similar armor layout. I think N3 was even more armored with higher inclination. Well, using The Grand Fleet as a reference- Nelson 710 x 106 x 30 Disp. 35,000 Main arm- 9-16 Shp=KTS 45,000=23 Belt 14 Deck 6.75 G3 850 x 106 x 32.5 Disp. 48,000 Main arm- 9 x16 Shp=Kts 160000=32 14@18 Deck 8-4 I am not certain that the G3 was the parent of the Nelson’s, but the Nelson's were classified as 'O3' meaning that they were in the design sequence of the N3. Who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 19, 2019 1:48:03 GMT -6
G3 was used as basic design for Nelson and Rodney, they have practically similar armor layout. I think N3 was even more armored with higher inclination. Well, using The Grand Fleet as a reference- Nelson 710 x 106 x 30 Disp. 35,000 Main arm- 9-16 Shp=KTS 45,000=23 Belt 14 Deck 6.75 G3 850 x 106 x 32.5 Disp. 48,000 Main arm- 9 x16 Shp=Kts 160000=32 14@18 Deck 8-4 I am not certain that the G3 was the parent of the Nelson’s, but the Nelson's were classified as 'O3' meaning that they were in the design sequence of the N3. Who knows. Nelson had inclined belt armor 18 degrees too. I am not sure if G3 was parent but it is sure that a lot of features from G3 was used on Nelson and it seems that it includes armor layout. I think Nelson was mainly G3 decreased in displacement and slower one.
Note: I need to use for your new picture. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 19, 2019 10:01:39 GMT -6
Well, using The Grand Fleet as a reference- Nelson 710 x 106 x 30 Disp. 35,000 Main arm- 9-16 Shp=KTS 45,000=23 Belt 14 Deck 6.75 G3 850 x 106 x 32.5 Disp. 48,000 Main arm- 9 x16 Shp=Kts 160000=32 14@18 Deck 8-4 I am not certain that the G3 was the parent of the Nelson’s, but the Nelson's were classified as 'O3' meaning that they were in the design sequence of the N3. Who knows. Nelson had inclined belt armor 18 degrees too. I am not sure if G3 was parent but it is sure that a lot of features from G3 was used on Nelson and it seems that it includes armor layout. I think Nelson was mainly G3 decreased in displacement and slower one.
You're correct, the Nelson class (O3) was the direct decendant of the G3 concept, retaining the All-Forward armament and the gun calibre. However, the Washington and London naval treaties had made battleships the size of the G3 illegal. The Royal Navy still wanted the ship, though, so decided to compromise on speed and armour. In the end, though, the deficiencies in armour were solved by new and innovative armour distribution (Not AON but something similar). The speed remained a problem and the Nelsons were doomed to shore bombardment and having to surprise or have others weaken an enemy before they could catch up to engage. |
|
.