|
|
Post by liam556 on Feb 2, 2021 1:40:48 GMT -6
What the title says. Why even have it be an option when the game tells you it's illegal to do it?
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Feb 9, 2021 13:51:23 GMT -6
While I agree that something that can never be used shouldn't be there, I would much prefer if they could just make it work. After all, 10 to 15mm of armor were quite common as gun-shields and one light ships like destroyers.
|
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 11, 2021 8:13:46 GMT -6
10-15mm of armour is splinter protection and the same thickness as a general hull. So it's not armour really, and shouldn't be considered or specified. I'd agree it should be removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Feb 21, 2021 5:59:41 GMT -6
10-15mm of armour is splinter protection and the same thickness as a general hull. So it's not armour really, and shouldn't be considered or specified. I'd agree it should be removed. For some nations the armour was plate that went over structural steel. Late war British destroyers had 3/8th to 1/2" plate placed over vital areas adding to the base steel. Same with the additional plates added to assorted heavy and light cruisers. |
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 22, 2021 4:40:24 GMT -6
10-15mm of armour is splinter protection and the same thickness as a general hull. So it's not armour really, and shouldn't be considered or specified. I'd agree it should be removed. For some nations the armour was plate that went over structural steel. Late war British destroyers had 3/8th to 1/2" plate placed over vital areas adding to the base steel. Same with the additional plates added to assorted heavy and light cruisers. However, consider historical accuracy vs programming expediency. If it's not classified as armour, you can generally predict a penetration. If it is classified as armour, you then have to run a series of logic tests on what armour it is, and whether it is penetrated. Which in the case of 10-15mm armour would be most of the time - so unnecessary CPU cycles are consumed calculating that, yes, it might be armour, but a 2" shell and over will still penetrate if it hits properly. That would be my reasoning for not classifying it as armour (but may not be shared by the developers). |
|
|
|
Post by trifler on Mar 7, 2021 21:26:37 GMT -6
I agree it should be removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Apr 6, 2021 4:08:05 GMT -6
For some nations the armour was plate that went over structural steel. Late war British destroyers had 3/8th to 1/2" plate placed over vital areas adding to the base steel. Same with the additional plates added to assorted heavy and light cruisers. However, consider historical accuracy vs programming expediency. If it's not classified as armour, you can generally predict a penetration. If it is classified as armour, you then have to run a series of logic tests on what armour it is, and whether it is penetrated. Which in the case of 10-15mm armour would be most of the time - so unnecessary CPU cycles are consumed calculating that, yes, it might be armour, but a 2" shell and over will still penetrate if it hits properly. That would be my reasoning for not classifying it as armour (but may not be shared by the developers). As nobody pointed out (hate the name, by the way  ), 0.5" as a gun shield would not be unreasonable, and it would be the difference between a light gun shield and an open mount. Also, true, it wouldn't stop even a 2" shell, but it would be enough to stop the occasional shell splinter. Perhaps a compromise would be to make it work for turret/secondary "armour" and remove it for everything else? Honestly, I don't see what the problem is with just making it work for everything, but if people feel so strongly about a half-f***ing inch...  |
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Apr 6, 2021 9:24:28 GMT -6
Allowing 0.5" of armour should give some protection against splinters and straffing.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Apr 24, 2022 8:23:04 GMT -6
10-15mm of armour is splinter protection and the same thickness as a general hull. So it's not armour really, and shouldn't be considered or specified. I'd agree it should be removed. For some nations the armour was plate that went over structural steel. Late war British destroyers had 3/8th to 1/2" plate placed over vital areas adding to the base steel. Same with the additional plates added to assorted heavy and light cruisers. In general that depended on welding technology. As thicker and thicker armor plates could be welded they started to replace the hull instead of being bolted/riveted on top (or to the back). As such, the use thin armor should reduce a ships structural weight. |
|
), 0.5" as a gun shield would not be unreasonable, and it would be the difference between a light gun shield and an open mount. Also, true, it wouldn't stop even a 2" shell, but it would be enough to stop the occasional shell splinter.