|
|
Post by epigon on May 3, 2022 10:11:15 GMT -6
Is there a way to raise the angled belt efficiency from +10% of effective armor to +20%?
The way I understand it, SoDak's internal 12.2 inch belt angled at 19 degrees from vertical (plus 2.2 inch of STS) was equal to 15.5 (17.3) inch of vertical armor at roughly 20k yards, which means the in-game 10% modifier is undervaluing the benefits.
By buffing the value, it would provide a means of offsetting the significant gains of gun pen vs. armor in 1920-1940 period and make practical immunity zones feasible for a longer time.
Thank you in advance!
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 3, 2022 10:49:39 GMT -6
Is there a way to raise the angled belt efficiency from +10% of effective armor to +20%? The way I understand it, SoDak's internal 12.2 inch belt angled at 19 degrees from vertical (plus 2.2 inch of STS) was equal to 15.5 (17.3) inch of vertical armor at roughly 20k yards, which means the in-game 10% modifier is undervaluing the benefits. By buffing the value, it would provide a means of offsetting the significant gains of gun pen vs. armor in 1920-1940 period and make practical immunity zones feasible for a longer time. Thank you in advance! My understanding is that the efficiency of an angled belt is around 10%....if you have a 10 degree angle, which is what Hood has. This is a limitation on ships with a sloped deck as angling the belt further will open up the sloped deck to direct hits. Any All or Nothing armored battleship can have much steeper angles, like 19 degrees as you mentioned, which should realistically improve armor by 20-25 percent. My preferred solution is therefore giving a 10% or 15% side armor bonus to AoN ships with an inclined belt. |
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on May 3, 2022 16:40:25 GMT -6
Yes, please!
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 4, 2022 10:29:54 GMT -6
Inclined belt is really much more complicated issue and for advantage to have more effective protection against hits there are several disdvantages. You can see than even Royal Navy who pioneered use of inclined belt on capital ships, eg. partly external on HMS Hood and internal on Nelson class did not choose it for KGV class.
We can take a ship with some deck armour and belt armour. If we decide to increase vertical protection by angling such belt armour without changing deck armour we lost some internal volume by inclining it inwards meaning we need same armour for smaller ship. Relating to protection it even does not mean a ship is better protected, it means it is differently protected. It gives more effective armour if shell hits armour however there is now lower probability that shell even hit part of ship which is protected by belt armour as it is now inclined. And even if there is hit on bottom edge of the belt on vertical armour, the shell would pass bellow inclined armour if there is no increase volume of belt armour more down the ship.
So we think about it and do not change hull shape, only incline armour inside a ship. But it has some negative effects too. We have smaller volume of citadel protected by armour as armour is inclined toward the ship internals. To compensate it, you need to put armour somewhere else increasing amount of armour you use or accept lower buoyancy of the citadel. Another thing is that even if your armour belt is not penetrated, part of the ship is flooded. It is not significant but it is still damage and it needs repairs. As in previous example of external inclined belt you risk that hits normally hit main belt will pass through unarmoured part as inclined belt protects less volume (take paper, look at it from top than incline paper and you will see things which you did not before you inclined this paper as without inclination there were covered by paper).
Another thing is that inclined belt makes any repairs more difficult as compared to external belt.
So having internal belt is certainly not only win scenario. And as this topic is really quite complicated which can be seen just by all navies use different inclination of main belt and different design. The solution of RTW is simple and practical one.
Some additional interesting information is that in WW2 it did not matter at all, battles between capital ships were decided because of comletely different reasons, so it seems to me that it is more academical debate than practical solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 7, 2022 15:54:37 GMT -6
The problem with sloped or angled armor belts is that at sea, in a blue water situation, the belt is angled and then in another minute, it isn't. Another factor is that they don't actually save weight or cost, in fact they are more costly to build or repair. Yamato and Iowa had angles of 20 degree's and 19.5 degrees. There are many factors for and against angled belts.
Note: If you read Appendix 4, of D.K. Brown's book titled "Warrior to Dreadnought", it has a good but complex explanation of stability which helps to understand why angle belt armor isn't what it is cracked up to be. I don't believe it is used anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 8, 2022 9:01:06 GMT -6
One more issue is whether the game follows geography in its application of winds and tides. The Med is an enclosed sea that does not have much wind or tides. So, for Italy and A-H, the angled deck would be effective. It would be effective for France and Great Britain since they have ports and strategic goals in the area. For the US, CSA and Japan that would not be the case since both are in blue water ocean locations. Even the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea are blue water seas and oceans. The real problem is Germany since the North Sea is a very windy sea and has strong tides, but the Baltic does not. Russia has a similar situation since the Black Sea is an enclosed sea, but Murmansk and Vladivostok are not on an enclosed sea. It does get complex. Does all this information relate to the game? I don't know. Maybe one of the team can answer that question. I, for one, will use angled belt when available.
|
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on May 9, 2022 10:40:18 GMT -6
The problem with sloped or angled armor belts is that at sea, in a blue water situation, the belt is angled and then in another minute, it isn't. Another factor is that they don't actually save weight or cost, in fact they are more costly to build or repair. Yamato and Iowa had angles of 20 degree's and 19.5 degrees. There are many factors for and against angled belts. Note: If you read Appendix 4, of D.K. Brown's book titled "Warrior to Dreadnought", it has a good but complex explanation of stability which helps to understand why angle belt armor isn't what it is cracked up to be. I don't believe it is used anymore. Its not that slopped or angled armor isn't used any more, its that NO armor is used anymore. Modern ships are not armored. The thickest places on ships are those that have to take jet and rocket thrust, such as VTOL planes or from some older ships with on deck missile launchers instead of VLS. To put it bluntly armor isn't cost effective when you have a missile hitting it at hypersonic speeds, its not going to matter even slightly. |
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on May 9, 2022 10:58:05 GMT -6
One more issue is whether the game follows geography in its application of winds and tides. I do not know the answer to that, but it doesn't appear to follow the location's weather in whether you get a "invasion delayed due to bad weather" message. Specifically, in the Caribbean, I only receive this delay December through February (and maybe November and March), exactly like in the other sea areas. But the bad weather in the actual Caribbean occurs from late May through early November, because of storms and, to a lesser degree, mosquitoes (since this message only occurs during an attempted land invasion). |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 9, 2022 10:58:28 GMT -6
The problem with sloped or angled armor belts is that at sea, in a blue water situation, the belt is angled and then in another minute, it isn't. Another factor is that they don't actually save weight or cost, in fact they are more costly to build or repair. Yamato and Iowa had angles of 20 degree's and 19.5 degrees. There are many factors for and against angled belts. Note: If you read Appendix 4, of D.K. Brown's book titled "Warrior to Dreadnought", it has a good but complex explanation of stability which helps to understand why angle belt armor isn't what it is cracked up to be. I don't believe it is used anymore. Its not that slopped or angled armor isn't used any more, its that NO armor is used anymore. Modern ships are not armored. The thickest places on ships are those that have to take jet and rocket thrust, such as VTOL planes or from some older ships with on deck missile launchers instead of VLS. To put it bluntly armor isn't cost effective when you have a missile hitting it at hypersonic speeds, its not going to matter even slightly. Well, that is not actually true. the Nimitz class carriers have 2.5 inches of armor over most of its vitals. It's actually pretty well armored. I haven't researched the Ford's and I don't think that information is available. But overall, passive armor is not used. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2022 14:42:32 GMT -6
The problem with sloped or angled armor belts is that at sea, in a blue water situation, the belt is angled and then in another minute, it isn't. Another factor is that they don't actually save weight or cost, in fact they are more costly to build or repair. Yamato and Iowa had angles of 20 degree's and 19.5 degrees. There are many factors for and against angled belts. Note: If you read Appendix 4, of D.K. Brown's book titled "Warrior to Dreadnought", it has a good but complex explanation of stability which helps to understand why angle belt armor isn't what it is cracked up to be. I don't believe it is used anymore. And if you are being honest, there is another case where it is better angled, and in any case, to negate the sloped armor effect you need dramatic rolling effect which is not desired on a battleship, so it averages out, and your argument is moot. You're using a single out of context point to make/defend weird cases. Epigon... A 20 degree decline will get you to about 1.10 at PB, and at 10 degrees fall angle (so about 16,000+ yard for some heavy caliber guns) 1.24. RTW doesn't model belt angle for the angled belt, although it is not difficult to do. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 9, 2022 15:29:43 GMT -6
Issue is that if the height of such belt is same, than probability of shell going bellow armour is higher and such hit can have catastrophic effects as it would go deeple into the ships vital.
This is reason why for example Nelson class battleship armour scheme was not considered so good.
As mentioned earlier, the disadvatages are huge that practically can outweight the advantages. You can compare the height of main armour belt of Iowa and KGV. In Iowa class it protect less than half of the height of KGV. Part of it was different design, part the angle. The chance that shell will hit armour belt of Iowa class and KGV class battleship was really huge. This is one thing RTW simulates quite well, so many hits are outside the citadel.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 9, 2022 16:56:50 GMT -6
Issue is that if the height of such belt is same, than probability of shell going bellow armour is higher and such hit can have catastrophic effects as it would go deeple into the ships vital.
This is reason why for example Nelson class battleship armour scheme was not considered so good.
As mentioned earlier, the disadvatages are huge that practically can outweight the advantages. You can compare the height of main armour belt of Iowa and KGV. In Iowa class it protect less than half of the height of KGV. Part of it was different design, part the angle. The chance that shell will hit armour belt of Iowa class and KGV class battleship was really huge. This is one thing RTW simulates quite well, so many hits are outside the citadel.
Can you guys please do that with turrets too. Its funny at times when 1/4 of hits are deflected off a 26" turret face, but their hit percentage being a couple times higher than it should be based on relative size messes with the balance. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on May 9, 2022 23:00:49 GMT -6
Issue is that if the height of such belt is same, than probability of shell going bellow armour is higher and such hit can have catastrophic effects as it would go deeple into the ships vital.
This is reason why for example Nelson class battleship armour scheme was not considered so good.
As mentioned earlier, the disadvatages are huge that practically can outweight the advantages. You can compare the height of main armour belt of Iowa and KGV. In Iowa class it protect less than half of the height of KGV. Part of it was different design, part the angle. The chance that shell will hit armour belt of Iowa class and KGV class battleship was really huge. This is one thing RTW simulates quite well, so many hits are outside the citadel.
On the other hand, Nelson and Rodney were designed to be flooded down in action, reducing that vulnerability. It was a deliberate choice in order to reduce ship weight/displacement - they were the first Treaty battleships. With that said, it's not an option in game. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 10, 2022 0:33:13 GMT -6
Issue is that if the height of such belt is same, than probability of shell going bellow armour is higher and such hit can have catastrophic effects as it would go deeple into the ships vital.
This is reason why for example Nelson class battleship armour scheme was not considered so good.
As mentioned earlier, the disadvatages are huge that practically can outweight the advantages. You can compare the height of main armour belt of Iowa and KGV. In Iowa class it protect less than half of the height of KGV. Part of it was different design, part the angle. The chance that shell will hit armour belt of Iowa class and KGV class battleship was really huge. This is one thing RTW simulates quite well, so many hits are outside the citadel.
Can you guys please do that with turrets too. Its funny at times when 1/4 of hits are deflected off a 26" turret face, but their hit percentage being a couple times higher than it should be based on relative size messes with the balance. Just for information turrets hits include hits on barbette too. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 10, 2022 0:55:12 GMT -6
Can you guys please do that with turrets too. Its funny at times when 1/4 of hits are deflected off a 26" turret face, but their hit percentage being a couple times higher than it should be based on relative size messes with the balance. Just for information turrets hits include hits on barbette too. I mean accounting for the barbettes. The hit ratio in game does seem to run about 1/4 for capital ships and I don't think even Agincourt gets there irl. For example, this is the side profile of a North Carolina class battleship: T - 12.7%, from 5.9% Turret Face and 6.8% barbette B - 12.2% CT - 1.5% Forward Hull - 15.1% Aft Hull - 9.1% Upper Hull - 11.2% Superstructure - 23.1% Funnels - 8.4% Secondaries -6.5% |
|
