|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 19, 2019 12:36:25 GMT -6
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. In WW2 was Nelson and Rodney doomed as they both need urgent maintenance. They original speed was same as QEs, their deck protection was better however she was not able reach that speed anti AA guns was not on par.
If both get refit similar to QE, they would be beter suited for the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 19, 2019 17:00:28 GMT -6
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. While their speed was a disadvantage, Nelson and Rodney were both used very widely in WW2 (they were retired very shortly afterwards in no small part because they were 'clapped out'). They also made sense in the context of the RN approach to carrier use, where torpedo bombers would slow the enemy fleet and the battlewagons would catch up and sink them. That's not to say I don't agree that more speed would have been handy, but in the context of when they were built (when the rest of the RN battle line, Hood aside, wasn't able to go much faster, if at all), there would have been too few 'fast BBs' to pursue an enemy battle line by themselves. It's worth noting that in the Med similarly fast QEs got some BB-on-BB gun action going. |
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 21, 2019 9:43:27 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. Some highlights from the above linked text clearing up the earlier disputed points about all or nothing letting shells or bombs passing through without detonating: "A bomb striking the unprotected ends of the ship could easily pass out the bottom without detonating. It's important to remember that the term "all of nothing" refers to devoting the armoring effort entirely to protecting certain vital spaces in the ship, not to placing the armor into single thicknesses only." "In contrast USS South Dakota came off fairly well when a power failure and an ill-considered turn silhouetted the ship to Japanese fire off Guadalcanal. The ship was extensively hit by common, HE, and AP shells in the superstructure, most of which passed through while causing relatively little damage." |
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Jan 21, 2019 22:16:57 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. Some highlights from the above linked text clearing up the earlier disputed points about all or nothing letting shells or bombs passing through without detonating: "A bomb striking the unprotected ends of the ship could easily pass out the bottom without detonating. It's important to remember that the term "all of nothing" refers to devoting the armoring effort entirely to protecting certain vital spaces in the ship, not to placing the armor into single thicknesses only." "In contrast USS South Dakota came off fairly well when a power failure and an ill-considered turn silhouetted the ship to Japanese fire off Guadalcanal. The ship was extensively hit by common, HE, and AP shells in the superstructure, most of which passed through while causing relatively little damage."
...and this about Bismarck
"DKM Bismarck also featured incremental armoring, as was largely laid waste during its final battle above its armored deck by AP shells detonated by a medium thickness upper belt."
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 28, 2019 7:38:59 GMT -6
Pretty tangential but I think it's interesting that all-or-nothing armor, Mahanian doctrine and the philosophy of pragmaticism (not the same as pragmatism) all came to maturity in America while being ignored in Europe. They represent a very "modern" way of thinking about the way that observed effects aren't reflective of probabilities. It's something that would later become more intuitively clear with Abraham Wald's aircraft armor experiments.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 7:09:04 GMT -6
Hi everyone. I have had some time to digest all the information you have provided to me, and expanded my understanding of AoN armor considerably, but something about the way it has been applied in the game still bugs me.
My understanding is that AoN is a philosophy that is applied to the design of the whole ship, not just the armor scheme - the ship is designed to provide as small a citadel as possible. This has included reducing the number of main turrets, using all forward main armament, using electric final drive propulsion, etc. The actual armor scheme that is applied to the ship can be almost any scheme you want, as long as it conforms with the "All or Nothing" philosophy.
The "Flat Deck on Belt" armor scheme we have in the game, and was used on the US battleships, is certainly one way to do it but it is not the only way, and in my opinion not the best way. I believe that the German "turtleback" style of armored deck is far superior. Imagine two identical ships, each with the same belt armor and one with a flat armor deck on the belt; the other has the same thickness of deck armor but in a turtleback configuration. They both have exactly the same thickness of deck armor and therefore exactly the same protection against plunging fire and bombs, however the vertical protection is vastly superior on the ship with the turtleback.
I am not claiming that the armor on the Bismark was superior, because it clearly wasn't. What I am claiming is that the application of the turtleback armored deck in a proper AoN scheme would be superior to a "Flat Deck on Belt" design.
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 29, 2019 7:25:04 GMT -6
The "Flat Deck on Belt" armor scheme we have in the game, and was used on the US battleships, is certainly one way to do it but it is not the only way, and in my opinion not the best way. I believe that the German "turtleback" style of armored deck is far superior. Imagine two identical ships, each with the same belt armor and one with a flat armor deck on the belt; the other has the same thickness of deck armor but in a turtleback configuration. They both have exactly the same thickness of deck armor and therefore exactly the same protection against plunging fire and bombs, however the vertical protection is vastly superior on the ship with the turtleback. I am not claiming that the armor on the Bismark was superior, because it clearly wasn't. What I am claiming is that the application of the turtleback armored deck in a proper AoN scheme would be superior to a "Flat Deck on Belt" design. Keep in mind that if you angle a flat deck it will need to become longer to reach the same horizontal distance and thus either needs to be made thinner or will become heavier and weight down the ship more. Something else that reduce the usefulness of the turtleback is that since it speaking generally sit much lower you also greatly reduce how much protected volume there is inside the Citadel which is bad both for flotation and for how much of your vital components that can be protected. |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 29, 2019 7:32:03 GMT -6
The "Flat Deck on Belt" armor scheme we have in the game, and was used on the US battleships, is certainly one way to do it but it is not the only way, and in my opinion not the best way. I believe that the German "turtleback" style of armored deck is far superior. Imagine two identical ships, each with the same belt armor and one with a flat armor deck on the belt; the other has the same thickness of deck armor but in a turtleback configuration. They both have exactly the same thickness of deck armor and therefore exactly the same protection against plunging fire and bombs, however the vertical protection is vastly superior on the ship with the turtleback. 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. |
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 7:55:51 GMT -6
The "Flat Deck on Belt" armor scheme we have in the game, and was used on the US battleships, is certainly one way to do it but it is not the only way, and in my opinion not the best way. I believe that the German "turtleback" style of armored deck is far superior. Imagine two identical ships, each with the same belt armor and one with a flat armor deck on the belt; the other has the same thickness of deck armor but in a turtleback configuration. They both have exactly the same thickness of deck armor and therefore exactly the same protection against plunging fire and bombs, however the vertical protection is vastly superior on the ship with the turtleback. 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.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 8:01:31 GMT -6
The "Flat Deck on Belt" armor scheme we have in the game, and was used on the US battleships, is certainly one way to do it but it is not the only way, and in my opinion not the best way. I believe that the German "turtleback" style of armored deck is far superior. Imagine two identical ships, each with the same belt armor and one with a flat armor deck on the belt; the other has the same thickness of deck armor but in a turtleback configuration. They both have exactly the same thickness of deck armor and therefore exactly the same protection against plunging fire and bombs, however the vertical protection is vastly superior on the ship with the turtleback. I am not claiming that the armor on the Bismark was superior, because it clearly wasn't. What I am claiming is that the application of the turtleback armored deck in a proper AoN scheme would be superior to a "Flat Deck on Belt" design. Keep in mind that if you angle a flat deck it will need to become longer to reach the same horizontal distance and thus either needs to be made thinner or will become heavier and weight down the ship more. Something else that reduce the usefulness of the turtleback is that since it speaking generally sit much lower you also greatly reduce how much protected volume there is inside the Citadel which is bad both for flotation and for how much of your vital components that can be protected. I think the German solution was to make the armor thinner on the angled part. Because of the angle the actual vertical thickness was the same as the flat part and this section was protected against direct 90 degree strikes by the belt armor.
EDIT: Sorry I should have said I addressed your second point in my previous reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 29, 2019 8:27:52 GMT -6
I think the German solution was to make the armor thinner on the angled part. Because of the angle the actual vertical thickness was the same as the flat part and this section was protected against direct 90 degree strikes by the belt armor.
Are you sure about that? This armor scheme seems to suggest the exact opposite, thicker angled parts:  |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 29, 2019 9:22:21 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. |
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 9:24:13 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.
There are bound to be other things I haven't thought of, but you get the point. With a consistent formula giving us the length, width, and depth of the citadel we don't need to have any shady weight discounts - there's the box and this is how much armor it needs. Don't like how much it weighs? chose a layout with fewer turrets, reduce the rounds per gun, sacrifice some TDS.
I would find this a much more satisfying design experience.
RTW2 has a particular problem when it comes to battleships - we all know that airpower blows them out of the water. The designers will do their best to add random factors to blur the exact point this happens but we will all figure out pretty quickly that once we get this unlock or that event the battleship is done. We will probably stop building them sometime before that in anticipation so in the game they will die even earlier than they did historically. It might be interesting to try and design one that can survive in an airpower age, but historically they couldn't even defend themselves against air attack, let alone contribute to the defense of the carriers so i doubt they will be any more effective in the game. What will become important will be cruisers, lots and lots of specialised cruisers. A more detailed design process will allow us to make better trade offs when building those ships. I can't wait to start designing air defense cruisers with 1" belt, 6" deck and every gun pointing vertical.
Anyway, RTW2 is going to be a game of two halves; the first half is the battleship age and I think my ideas for ship design will add a huge amount to that, but then the whistle will blow and every battleship in the world will get scrapped overnight. In the real world they hung around for ages but that was mainly because nobody was sure they were done - or rather some people were sure they were done and other people were sure they weren't. We all know they are done so none of us will build them or pay to maintain them when we could be spending that money on carriers or cruisers.
I am sure that once RTW2 is released there will be a mod that allows us to delete airpower and play it as an upgraded version of RTW1 if we want, and I know we will be able to start at 1925 if we want which basically deletes battleships, but I really think a more detailed approach to ship design will benefit both.
Internal vs external hangers on carriers anyone?
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Jan 29, 2019 9:41:15 GMT -6
I think the German solution was to make the armor thinner on the angled part. Because of the angle the actual vertical thickness was the same as the flat part and this section was protected against direct 90 degree strikes by the belt armor.
Are you sure about that? This armor scheme seems to suggest the exact opposite, thicker angled parts: Ok, my bad. Perhaps the designers were anticipating the main threat to be direct fire against the vertical armour, in which case thicker angled armor makes sense?
One thing your beautiful picture shows is the weakness of Bismarks armor - the section of 145mm belt at the top. That section of the belt was repeatedly penetrated by shells which exploded in the area above the turtleback effectively destroying the ships upper works, but I don't think any of them were able to penetrate the turtleback. Another thing it shows is how the vertical armor protects the angled portion of the turtleback. If that upper section of the belt had been a continuation of the 320mm lower section far fewer of those shells would have penetrated. In the situation she was in she was going to sink eventually - If she had her armor scheme "tuned" to fit AoN principals I think she might have lasted longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jan 29, 2019 9:49:14 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. |
|
