|
Post by dorn on Feb 9, 2020 15:47:30 GMT -6
I will reopen that topic.
What is the main difference in RTW as I know that RTW does not remember hits so it does not take into consideration if citadel was penetrated or not.
Flotation points are same in both cases, sloped deck helps to protect vitals by increasing vertical protection by sloped deck. On opposite AoN has more volume so more ship is protected but mainly up, so structure.
It seems to me that sloped deck protect better against flotation damage and AoN against structure damage and that AoN weights less than sloped deck. But it seems to me that AoN does not protect ship more in case of flotation damage.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Feb 9, 2020 16:28:07 GMT -6
AoN also requires have no BE and DE armor. BE also counts for protection for the funnels.
So one of the questions is to go BE 2" and DE 1-2" for protection from HE, splinters and near bomb hits or to give those up for the AoN
AS in many things in this game there is no always perfect solution. Some will depend on your enemies.
AoN removes the weight of BE and DE into the B and D for a stronger citadel then saves weight by shape. So the question is what do you do with that weight? Is it to increase the B and D armor? then your more protected from big guns which would blow through the light BE and DE anyway.
Worried more about destroyers starting fires or slowing with HE to the BE and DE? then keep those armors and dont go AoN.
Protection with the inner slope is debatable. It is generally known that one thicker plate is stronger than 2 plates that add up to the same. Using the weight savings of AoN for thicker armor on say a BB may mean increasing the immunity zone, the range at which shells get stopped.
At higher gun calibers shots will blow through at some range anyway and BE/DE protects from minor stuff.
If Im making an anti-destroyer cruiser or a multi-role cruiser Id rather have the BE/DE than a thicker citadel as they will fight small guns more often.
A big huge battleship likely will be better at long range big gun bashing with thicker AoN. Then you can fight a night action at close range with destroyers.... so.... nothing is ever perfect
Also, Aircraft carriers need the box shape anyway to mount the hanger anyway.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Feb 9, 2020 17:22:01 GMT -6
Indeed, all the armour schemes are a trade off.
The Extended armours are optional anyway - any ship can be ordered with B and D armour but no BE or DE.
What AoN does is improve the weight saving, specifically of the flat armour scheme (the only one it affects afaik).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 9, 2020 17:29:18 GMT -6
Issue is that saving weight going from sloped deck to AoN is not too much. And I compare both variants with no BE or DE armour.
I will take example of my actual game in 1925.
Heavy cruiser with displacement of 10000 tons, 4" belt and 1.5" deck armour. Sloped deck: 2415 tons (B 1286 tons, D 1129 tons) AoN: 2262 tons (B 1286 tons, D 976 tons)
So the difference is 153 tons and just adding 0.5" of belt armour needs 236 tons. And 1.5" of sloped deck should be more helpful than 0.5" additional belt armour.
So as protection of watertightness of ship, magazine and machinery, it seems that sloped deck is much better.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Feb 10, 2020 23:16:39 GMT -6
One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that deck armour is relatively lighter compared to belt armour with a 'flat deck on top of belt' scheme as opposed to 'sloped deck.' So there are really two components to this choice; Sloped deck vs Flat Deck, and Extended vs AoN.
I would presume that in the above example, the extra 0.5 inch on the belt in a 'flat deck on top of belt' scheme would be more beneficial to water tightness, whereas the extra 1.5 inches on the sloped deck would be more beneficial for the protection of the magazine and machinery.
One would presume that there must be some bonus related to the damage system conferred by the 'AoN' scheme, otherwise it would be a useless tech.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Feb 11, 2020 2:43:16 GMT -6
Issue is that saving weight going from sloped deck to AoN is not too much. And I compare both variants with no BE or DE armour. I will take example of my actual game in 1925. Heavy cruiser with displacement of 10000 tons, 4" belt and 1.5" deck armour. Sloped deck: 2415 tons (B 1286 tons, D 1129 tons) AoN: 2262 tons (B 1286 tons, D 976 tons) So the difference is 153 tons and just adding 0.5" of belt armour needs 236 tons. And 1.5" of sloped deck should be more helpful than 0.5" additional belt armour. So as protection of watertightness of ship, magazine and machinery, it seems that sloped deck is much better. Well, I've had a quick play at attempt at duplicating in 1903 for a 10,000t cruiser, 22kn with 4"/1.5" is 1,309t and 1,148t respectively (Sloped). Switching to Flat (but *not* AoN, as the tech isn't available yet) saves 115t deck armour - pretty close to 10%. Looks like Flat + AoN gives a total 13% saving. Not great, almost certainly more useful on a heavy warship but every little helps. Perhaps research indicating how accurate this was, Dorn? I think the team are much more likely to implement a change if evidence from real life can be found to support the position.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Feb 11, 2020 3:36:36 GMT -6
I believe that AoN gives more benefits besides weight save. I recall reading a while ago that it gave extra flotation points, but maybe it makes BE and DE damage much less significant. Anyways, I would say that it is better than Sloped Deck, that anyways needs to armour the BE and DE areas to protect against splinters.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 11, 2020 4:09:39 GMT -6
I believe that AoN gives more benefits besides weight save. I recall reading a while ago that it gave extra flotation points, but maybe it makes BE and DE damage much less significant. Anyways, I would say that it is better than Sloped Deck, that anyways needs to armour the BE and DE areas to protect against splinters. It does not. Make 2 same ships wizh only difference of armour scheme and start fleet excercise. You will find both ships have same flotation points. As belt weight same in both cases, logical conclusion is that they protect same area so DE and BE do not matter.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 11, 2020 4:19:43 GMT -6
Issue is that saving weight going from sloped deck to AoN is not too much. And I compare both variants with no BE or DE armour. I will take example of my actual game in 1925. Heavy cruiser with displacement of 10000 tons, 4" belt and 1.5" deck armour. Sloped deck: 2415 tons (B 1286 tons, D 1129 tons) AoN: 2262 tons (B 1286 tons, D 976 tons) So the difference is 153 tons and just adding 0.5" of belt armour needs 236 tons. And 1.5" of sloped deck should be more helpful than 0.5" additional belt armour. So as protection of watertightness of ship, magazine and machinery, it seems that sloped deck is much better. Well, I've had a quick play at attempt at duplicating in 1903 for a 10,000t cruiser, 22kn with 4"/1.5" is 1,309t and 1,148t respectively (Sloped). Switching to Flat (but *not* AoN, as the tech isn't available yet) saves 115t deck armour - pretty close to 10%. Looks like Flat + AoN gives a total 13% saving. Not great, almost certainly more useful on a heavy warship but every little helps. Perhaps research indicating how accurate this was, Dorn? I think the team are much more likely to implement a change if evidence from real life can be found to support the position. It is nice saving but eliminating half of inch of belt armour and switch to sloped deck saves weight and add protection of vitals because of sloped deck. So sloped deck protect better or save weight (you can have less belt as sloping deck helps) which means it protects vitals more effective. So if you are not concerned about superstructure damage, sloped deck seems better. So it means that cruisers whose belt are more usually penetrated (especially light cruisers), sloped deck brings reasonable solution. As weight per inch of thickness increases with thickness of armour plate (simulatimg additional structures), sloped deck could be still more effective. If bombs are taken into consideration, sloped deck only increase extremes by chance as in some cases protection is increased by slope, in same cases opposite. And again, superstructure is more damaged.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Feb 11, 2020 6:13:27 GMT -6
Well, I've had a quick play at attempt at duplicating in 1903 for a 10,000t cruiser, 22kn with 4"/1.5" is 1,309t and 1,148t respectively (Sloped). Switching to Flat (but *not* AoN, as the tech isn't available yet) saves 115t deck armour - pretty close to 10%. Looks like Flat + AoN gives a total 13% saving. Not great, almost certainly more useful on a heavy warship but every little helps. Perhaps research indicating how accurate this was, Dorn? I think the team are much more likely to implement a change if evidence from real life can be found to support the position. It is nice saving but eliminating half of inch of belt armour and switch to sloped deck saves weight and add protection of vitals because of sloped deck. So sloped deck protect better or save weight (you can have less belt as sloping deck helps) which means it protects vitals more effective. So if you are not concerned about superstructure damage, sloped deck seems better. So it means that cruisers whose belt are more usually penetrated (especially light cruisers), sloped deck brings reasonable solution. As weight per inch of thickness increases with thickness of armour plate (simulatimg additional structures), sloped deck could be still more effective. If bombs are taken into consideration, sloped deck only increase extremes by chance as in some cases protection is increased by slope, in same cases opposite. And again, superstructure is more damaged. Yes, but what I'm saying is - shouldn't a penetrating hit which penetrates the belt but not the sloped deck still inflict some flotation damage? If that's the case, then that's a point in Flat Deck's favour - a ship which pays for a sloped deck with less belt armour than it would otherwise have will sink more easily through progressive flooding. On the other hand, this is less of a concern for light cruisers because of the arbitrary (in my opinion unjustified) 3 inch cap on the belt.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 11, 2020 6:39:14 GMT -6
It depends when sloped deck joints belt armour.
But it should be minimal. You can think about internal inclined belt as even if it is not penetrated, water can go in between internal and external belt.
In case of sloped deck you have not reserve buoyancy so high. So if ship takes water and are deeper in water, spaces above deck armour around sloped deck could be flooded as sloped deck starts bellow waterline. So in reality you have less reserve buoyancy vs. AoN even if length of protected area by belt is the same. However flotation points are same in game.
So the difference should come with calculation of flotation damage after hits. We do not know that.
Neverthless it seems that sloped deck is more interesting solution for light cruisers than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Feb 11, 2020 8:02:02 GMT -6
I believe that AoN gives more benefits besides weight save. I recall reading a while ago that it gave extra flotation points, but maybe it makes BE and DE damage much less significant. Anyways, I would say that it is better than Sloped Deck, that anyways needs to armour the BE and DE areas to protect against splinters. It does not. Make 2 same ships wizh only difference of armour scheme and start fleet excercise. You will find both ships have same flotation points. As belt weight same in both cases, logical conclusion is that they protect same area so DE and BE do not matter. There must be an advantage to AoN, specially compare to previous flat deck designs. I don't know if it makes BE hits less important or something like that, but from my experience AoN designs tend to be more survivable than the previous designs.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 11, 2020 10:35:26 GMT -6
AON reduces floatation damage in the ends of the ship (BE/DE, and the parts too far forward or aft for any armor), but requires that there be no BE/DE armor. This reflects the historical "all our nothing" concept, where the citadel was built to be heavily armored, and to be capable of keeping the whole ship afloat even if the unarmored ends were completely flooded (known as the "armored raft").
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Feb 11, 2020 11:03:03 GMT -6
AON reduces floatation damage in the ends of the ship (BE/DE, and the parts too far forward or aft for any armor), but requires that there be no BE/DE armor. This reflects the historical "all our nothing" concept, where the citadel was built to be heavily armored, and to be capable of keeping the whole ship afloat even if the unarmored ends were completely flooded (known as the "armored raft"). If I understand it correctly same hit on ship with same displacement makes more flotation damage on ship with sloped deck armour scheme than AoN?
|
|
|
Post by splashell on Feb 11, 2020 11:21:42 GMT -6
This is from wikipedia:
"The armored citadel can be visualized as an open-bottomed (closed top) rectangular armored raft with sloped sides sitting within the hull of the ship. From the box, shafts known as barbettes would lead upwards to the ship's main gun turrets and conning tower. Although it was desirable for the citadel to be as small as possible, the space enclosed was an important source of reserve buoyancy and helped prevent the ship from foundering when other compartments had flooded. Through compartmentalization and the redundancy of key systems, any damage done to the ship outside this armored box would likely be survivable. As long as those systems within the box remained intact, the ship could continue to fight."
In other words, the "box" we call a citadel, which contains usually turrets and other vital systems, also provides enough empty space and hence buoyancy for the ship to stay afloat even if other unarmored compartments are flooded. I don't know if/how the game models this though.
Basically this might not be so true in, for instance, a battleship with all forward armament. The citadel and provided buoyancy might be to little or at least make it harder for the ship to remain afloat if other compartments are flooded, which now account a larger percentage of the ship.
|
|