|
Post by serenity on May 21, 2019 0:49:55 GMT -6
How does the magazine box armor affect turret armor, and can/should it be used on all ships or some?
what does an inclined belt do aside from making ships more expensive?
a general overview of these two mechanics would be nice.
also, what happens if you use a narrow belt with all or nothing.? It says you don’t get the full effect of AON but what does that mean in practice?
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 21, 2019 1:03:48 GMT -6
Box armour halves the protection of machinery but reduces weight. Historically it was used on British heavy cruisers.
Inclined belt increases protection by 10% but apparently shortens the belt profile, so more hits on armoured deck or below belt. Historically most interwar and WW2 capital ships used one.
Narrow AoN probably just decreases the flotation point benefit from AoN. Historically US cruisers used this as did Japanese heavy cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 21, 2019 1:32:11 GMT -6
Box armour halves the protection of machinery but reduces weight. Historically it was used on British heavy cruisers. Inclined belt increases protection by 10% but apparently shortens the belt profile, so more hits on armoured deck or below belt. Historically most interwar and WW2 capital ships used one. Narrow AoN probably just decreases the flotation point benefit from AoN. Historically US cruisers used this as did Japanese heavy cruisers. I would think that there must be something more to the inclined belt - or at least, there ought to be. An inclined belt maximises effective thickness at a given range, but the benefit decreases at shorter ranges. Furthermore, an inclined armour belt complicated repairs, making them take longer.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 21, 2019 2:10:25 GMT -6
Box armour halves the protection of machinery but reduces weight. Historically it was used on British heavy cruisers. Inclined belt increases protection by 10% but apparently shortens the belt profile, so more hits on armoured deck or below belt. Historically most interwar and WW2 capital ships used one. Narrow AoN probably just decreases the flotation point benefit from AoN. Historically US cruisers used this as did Japanese heavy cruisers. I would think that there must be something more to the inclined belt - or at least, there ought to be. An inclined belt maximises effective thickness at a given range, but the benefit decreases at shorter ranges. Furthermore, an inclined armour belt complicated repairs, making them take longer. It does that IRL yes, but 10% bonus is what the manual says. Repairs would only be a problem if you made it internal like Americans did.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on May 21, 2019 2:35:43 GMT -6
I would think that there must be something more to the inclined belt - or at least, there ought to be. An inclined belt maximises effective thickness at a given range, but the benefit decreases at shorter ranges. Furthermore, an inclined armour belt complicated repairs, making them take longer. It does that IRL yes, but 10% bonus is what the manual says. Repairs would only be a problem if you made it internal like Americans did. I didn't know that it was possible to have an external inclined belt. Which ships did?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 21, 2019 2:42:51 GMT -6
Box armour halves the protection of machinery but reduces weight. Historically it was used on British heavy cruisers. Inclined belt increases protection by 10% but apparently shortens the belt profile, so more hits on armoured deck or below belt. Historically most interwar and WW2 capital ships used one. Narrow AoN probably just decreases the flotation point benefit from AoN. Historically US cruisers used this as did Japanese heavy cruisers. I would think that there must be something more to the inclined belt - or at least, there ought to be. An inclined belt maximises effective thickness at a given range, but the benefit decreases at shorter ranges. Furthermore, an inclined armour belt complicated repairs, making them take longer. I think it more depends how inclined belt is made.
Early example is HMS Hood, later examples are HMS Rodney and USN battleships. The in game effect is stated that armour is more expensive, weight nothing more and has increase probability of deck and lower belt edge hits.
I think that according to this information it is more likely HMS Hood style because later style has some flooding even if main belt is not penetrated as there is space between main and external belt. On top of that style of HMS Hood does increase probability of mentioned hits which is not true for later designs - inclined belt as internal part of ship.
Question is if there is lower edge belt hit, what influence how much flooding is done. I should expect that it should be TDS system.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 21, 2019 3:37:32 GMT -6
It does that IRL yes, but 10% bonus is what the manual says. Repairs would only be a problem if you made it internal like Americans did. I didn't know that it was possible to have an external inclined belt. Which ships did? North Carolinas had external inclined belt. Montana was supposed to have one too. Yamato's belt over the waterline had significant inclination too. Those are three that come to mind almost instantly, probably there were more.
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 21, 2019 3:43:35 GMT -6
Littorio also did, even if the belt had the decapping plate it was not internal. It was provided in modules that had both the decapper and the main belt that were attached to the ship's sides on the outfitting pier after launch.
And the 8-8 fleet neverweres had external inclined belt too.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on May 21, 2019 3:49:19 GMT -6
As far as I know TDS influences all flooding, both torpedo and waterline hits. Also if it's AoN, I would expect the flotation damage to be minimal. I am using that scheme (Aon + inclined) on two classes of my BBs and they seem to be extremely durable.
|
|
snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on May 21, 2019 4:27:47 GMT -6
huh, I'll have to remember this, I didn't put an inclined belt on any of my capitals. I'll consider it much more from now on.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 21, 2019 5:26:13 GMT -6
As far as I know TDS influences all flooding, both torpedo and waterline hits. Also if it's AoN, I would expect the flotation damage to be minimal. I am using that scheme (Aon + inclined) on two classes of my BBs and they seem to be extremely durable. I think you misunderstand AoN concept. The concept is not about preventing flooding in extended part but to have citadel which even if all both ends are flooded give ship enough buoyancy not to sink. And to put all armour in citadel as there is no reason put armour outside citadel as it does not protect this buoyancy.
So flooding could be severe as pre-AoN concept on extended parts, even larger as there is no armour at all, however ship should not sink if citadel is not penetrated. (eg. USS Pittsburgh loosing her bow were in no danger of sinking as long as her forward bulkhead holds).
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 21, 2019 5:49:58 GMT -6
As far as I know TDS influences all flooding, both torpedo and waterline hits. Also if it's AoN, I would expect the flotation damage to be minimal. I am using that scheme (Aon + inclined) on two classes of my BBs and they seem to be extremely durable. I think you misunderstand AoN concept. The concept is not about preventing flooding in extended part but to have citadel which even if all both ends are flooded give ship enough buoyancy not to sink. And to put all armour in citadel as there is no reason put armour outside citadel as it does not protect this buoyancy.
So flooding could be severe as pre-AoN concept on extended parts, even larger as there is no armour at all, however ship should not sink if citadel is not penetrated. (eg. USS Pittsburgh loosing her bow were in no danger of sinking as long as her forward bulkhead holds).
I do not think Pittsburgh, together with rest of the US cruisers, utilized concept of armoured raft associated with AoN that you described in the first paragraph. Not enough weight and space on such a small, narrow ship (in effect the problem is that due to lack of beam and draft amidships you would need to armour very large portion of the ship to protect the sufficient buoyancy, and this would be very heavy). Only the machinery belt was full height I belive (it certainly was for earlier US cruisers) the magazine belt and rest of the protection was basically against systems damage only. And on the flip side, some non-AoN ships (like Bismarck) used the armoured raft. That aside, from what I've seen claimed on the forum, AoN does not mechanically represent armoured raft as such in the game either. It just gives some kind of bonus to reserve buoyancy points.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on May 21, 2019 8:09:49 GMT -6
As far as I know TDS influences all flooding, both torpedo and waterline hits. Also if it's AoN, I would expect the flotation damage to be minimal. I am using that scheme (Aon + inclined) on two classes of my BBs and they seem to be extremely durable. I think you misunderstand AoN concept. The concept is not about preventing flooding in extended part but to have citadel which even if all both ends are flooded give ship enough buoyancy not to sink. And to put all armour in citadel as there is no reason put armour outside citadel as it does not protect this buoyancy.
So flooding could be severe as pre-AoN concept on extended parts, even larger as there is no armour at all, however ship should not sink if citadel is not penetrated. (eg. USS Pittsburgh loosing her bow were in no danger of sinking as long as her forward bulkhead holds).
I do understand the AoN and flooding, but in game it's represented by greatly extended flotation damage bar. So while the flooding itself is the same on AoN and non-AoN ship, in regard to ship's total buoyancy/flotation points in game, the damage on AoN would be minimal. I may have worded it in a wierd way, but I do understand the concept.
|
|
|
Post by warlock on May 21, 2019 13:17:56 GMT -6
I wish they had a turtleback configuration as I love to push my BB/BCs in close to the enemy to slug it out but theoretically, inclined armor, depending on the direction of incline and location, should actually change the protection value of a ship at a given range, no more, no less. For example an inclined plate should be more susceptible to long range plunging fire since the the shells would be impacting the plate at a more flat angle. Closer ranged shots however would hit a a greater angle increasing both effective armor thickness and deflection. How it works in game though, I have no clue.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 21, 2019 13:27:51 GMT -6
I wish they had a turtleback configuration as I love to push my BB/BCs in close to the enemy to slug it out but theoretically, inclined armor, depending on the direction of incline and location, should actually change the protection value of a ship at a given range, no more, no less. For example an inclined plate should be more susceptible to long range plunging fire since the the shells would be impacting the plate at a more flat angle. Closer ranged shots however would hit a a greater angle increasing both effective armor thickness and deflection. How it works in game though, I have no clue. Sloped Deck is turtleback.
|
|