A change to armor and citidal protection

[Zak MacKay]

My proposed change is to spit belt into 3 different levels. Lower, middle and upper which the ship are currently broken into. Lower would be the belt you select and if penetrated would cause the most damage as you hit the citadel area. Middle would have less armor so easier to penetrate but you would take less damage when it does.

Citidal slot would be renamed armor scheme and change the armor distribution as well. So all or nothing may have full mid and lower belt protection but no upper and extended protection.

This would make it simpler as theirs less confusion on belt extended and less things to change overall.

Secondary and smaller guns would be able to do damage as they won't always have to deal with the thick main belt armor. It would also mean if you picked all or nothing you need to fear quick firing guns more. Or if you think you will be closing into shorter ranges you could pick "turtleback" over all or nothing to provide protection from smaller guns.

[Pedroig]

Belt, extended belt, deck, and extended deck are well defined and common terminology for ships in the 20th+ century. 
There could/should be better explanation on Citadel coverage, effects, and weight. (Currently citadel options have very little effect on weight/cost). 
Secondary guns against a BB won’t have a penetrating hit on the hull at HISTORICAL engagement ranges. Almost all damage done by them will be on the superstructure and deck with “plunging fire”. 
Secondary guns on B v B are a different matter, they still aren’t penetrating any belt armor, but were targeted at secondaries, funnels, bow and stern, as well as superstructure. This would be at the 2000-4000 yard ranges. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Pedroig

[Zak MacKay]

I am not talking about the names and what they represent. Their was also multiple belts historically.

Just I don't know exactly where to set the extended belt compared to the main. Changing the system to this would mean extended is auto set depending on main belt. So theirs less micro/confusion on extended belt but also removes exploits/ahistorical. Like adopting all or nothing armor ahead of its time by not armoring things.

What I am suggesting is the things you listed have weak points instead of being universally thick. Or the ships armor would have a weak point smaller heavy guns could exploit. So say you have a battlecruiser with 12" main guns. If you hit the main belt of a ship it will probably not penetrate. But if it hit the middle or upper it can go through this weaker section if the scheme has it weaker.

If your armor scheme was all or nothing or a basic scheme you would be more vulnerable to secondary fire over other dreadnoughts. HMS hood had 5" upper belt, 7" middle and 12" top. Scharnhorst would have about 2" upper and 14" lower unsure which is middle. Most things don't mention KGV's upper plating at all. KGV had a main belt of 14.7" and I think about 1 inch on the upper section but I did not look that hard for it. Bismarck has 12.6" lower (the sources use different units) and 5.7 upper.

Right now secondaries cannot exploit the bow, stern or super structure as its just too thick. This system would present weak and strong points in the scheme. So belt extended would only cover parts of the bow with the upper square being less. Your scheme may not protect the upper deck letting secondaries penetrate it. Their not penetrating the belt per say as it just does not exist. Or 8" secondaries may penetrate the thinner sections now.

The game covers pre dreadnoughts up to modern battleships. Modern battleships with their long range engagements don't need to worry about secondaries. But pre dreadnoughts had a ton and expected to use them. A battleship like mikasa would have better protection coverage going all the way up against secondary fire. A armoured cruiser like drake would have a belt still but not full coverage like battleships. A first rate protected cruiser like diadem would have some armor but only on the vital lower area. 

Your first rate protected cruisers would regret not being armoured when a dozen secondaries of a pre dreadnought start hammer its middle. Or you may decide you only need a protected cruiser and take the weaknesses.

 

[Guest]

We also need tapered armor belts because many many ships didn’t have uniform thicknesses

[Pedroig]

You mean like this?  They still don't use terminology as "upper, middle, lower".  On the top one the "red" areas are the belt proper, barbettes, and turrets.  The pink is too (maybe what you are referring to as "upper belt"), the light pink is the extended belt.  The problem is depending on citadel configuration, nation building the ship, design theory, etc. any/all these numbers change, they also are actual and not effective armour thickness listed.  

There isn't a whole lot to hit in the bow or the stern through the hull at a 90 degree angle.  And shooting "across the T" on the hull makes the effective armour greater than the main belt.  Secondaries were used to clear the decks, hit the superstructures (towers and funnels), and the casemates.  The main use of secondaries during the B era against other B's was to keep a constant ROF on the ship to give the enemy "something to think about" more than to destroy/sink the ship...

[Zak MacKay]

I mean that 8" thick place above the 11" or the grey above that. Dreadnought only has parts of its decks armored (like other battleships did have) but other battleships like the lord nelson had the belt go all the way up. This less armored section is more vulnerable to secondary guns. Still more likely not going to destroy you but it can do more. Ships also had differing levels of belt coverage. Some battleships belts would cover more making them less vulnerable in those sections.

The schemes would also cover ships with less protection then a battleship. In a pre dreadnought vs a armored or protected cruiser it would matter more.

It would also mean something like this could happen where because of the weaker armor in the middle of the ship its possible to hit the citidal. But if it hits lower down it won't penetrate.

[Pedroig]

It's not actually more vulnerable to secondary guns due to angle changes and  faster dropoff of penetration with range.  At 15000 yards, there isn't a single secondary gun which can penetrate 5" armour, and very few can penetrate 3".  Meanwhile, 12"+ have little problem penetrating 5" armour at that range (Hood era).  

The only time secondary guns have any real effect on penetration will be during the first 5-10 years of the campaign (during which engagement range will more than double).  And for the last 5-10 years, they had all best be DP or their use will be once in a campaign...

[Zak MacKay]

Its not just secondaries but also cruisers and destroyers guns. Also battleships are  not the only ship in game.

Quote

 Meanwhile, 12"+ have little problem penetrating 5" armour at that range (Hood era).  

Because the hood has a less protected scheme. Meanwhile the lord nelsons a pre dreadnought had 8" of armor on the top making it more protected. Right now that 5" hood armor easily penetrated by 12" guns is actually very hard to penetrate as its actually 12" belt.

Quote

And for the last 5-10 years, they had all best be DP or their use will be once in a campaign...

Torpedo boats exist. The smaller guns where meant to drive away torpedo boats.

If you keep the belt uniform everywhere the only ships that would have any chance are super dreadnoughts. If your new class of dreadnought is launched it would make every other one before it obsolete. Because theirs so little chance of penetrating the main belt. Where if you had varying armor they would not be able to penetrate the thickest more protected parts but would the weaker sections. Its not just secondaries this effects its every size gun. Just secondaries would be more effected.

Also I don't think planes will exist so DP guns won't really be needed.

Smaller guns already would be pretty weak due to range. You don't need to add more things making them weaker and weaker.

[Pedroig]

The belt currently isn't uniform everywhere.  I don't think you understand the values being displayed.  When you pick an armour thickness you pick a MAXIMUM thickness, the actual coverage being determined by hull form and citadel choice.

Secondaries are cruiser and destroyer main guns, being generous, 2-4" is anti-screen ship gun, 5-8" is anti-cruiser gun, 9-11 is anti-battleship gun, 12"+ is anti-dreadnaught gun.

Without DP, secondaries won't be able to get elevation to threaten deck/turret top.  Planes existed in WWI, and by the 30's naval planes were common.

[Christian]

22 hours ago, Pedroig said:

The belt currently isn't uniform everywhere.  I don't think you understand the values being displayed.  When you pick an armour thickness you pick a MAXIMUM thickness, the actual coverage being determined by hull form and citadel choice.

Secondaries are cruiser and destroyer main guns, being generous, 2-4" is anti-screen ship gun, 5-8" is anti-cruiser gun, 9-11 is anti-battleship gun, 12"+ is anti-dreadnaught gun.

Without DP, secondaries won't be able to get elevation to threaten deck/turret top.  Planes existed in WWI, and by the 30's naval planes were common.

belt coverage should ONLY taper on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships (aka it begins tapering at the waterline and gets thinner below the waterline)

ships with non AON do have sideways taper 

currently citadels dont seem to be modeled correctly which is something they have said they are working on

Quote

Secondaries are cruiser and destroyer main guns, being generous, 2-4"

generally speaking no 3-5 inch guns are destroyer guns and in some cases 6 inch guns

light cruisers heavy cruisers armored and protected cruisers can have from 6-11 inch guns 

battleships are from 10-18 inch

 

planes in ww1 were next to useless floatplanes had to almost travel around landed in order to launch the torpedo

their payload was extremely limited too often at most a 100kg bomb (which does nothing to a BB

increased elevation for guns was not because of planes but the need to shoot further many non dp destroyer guns had high elevation while not being dp same goes for cruisers or bbs

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Christian said:

belt coverage should ONLY taper on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships (aka it begins tapering at the waterline and gets thinner below the waterline)

ships with non AON do have sideways taper 

currently citadels dont seem to be modeled correctly which is something they have said they are working on

Wrong. HMS Dreadnought has a tapered belt and many others did too. As shown in picture below the main belt tapered from 11” to 7” below the waterline. Now it’s not a full height taper but it still tapers.

[Zak MacKay]

Quote

The belt currently isn't uniform everywhere.  I don't think you understand the values being displayed.  When you pick an armour thickness you pick a MAXIMUM thickness, the actual coverage being determined by hull form and citadel choice.

Secondaries are cruiser and destroyer main guns, being generous, 2-4" is anti-screen ship gun, 5-8" is anti-cruiser gun, 9-11 is anti-battleship gun, 12"+ is anti-dreadnaught gun.

Without DP, secondaries won't be able to get elevation to threaten deck/turret top.  Planes existed in WWI, and by the 30's naval planes were common.

Ooh its not? If that is actually the case then its not really shown or all of my shots fail. When I change citadel armor tonnage does not really change. That is what I am suggesting changing actual coverage with citidal choice. So maybe its already a feature and I don't know it or its not implemented.

I could see that logic for DP secondaries. I did not think of the high angle factor. Just DP secondaries would be useful for shooting down aircraft.

What I mean is the 5-11"gun caliber on semi and pre dreadnoughts are not that threatening right now. If you had 2/3 of the ships covered in belt then theirs a chance a 6" shot hits a unprotected portion and causes a fire.

[Christian]

16 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:

Wrong. HMS Dreadnought has a tapered belt and many others did too. As shown in picture below the main belt tapered from 11” to 7” below the waterline. Now it’s not a full height taper but it still tapers.

since when did HMS dreadnought become an AON protected ship ?

if dreadnought was to be an AON ship she would have to look like this

(uss nevada)

 

unlike dreadnought navada has no armor outside of her main citadel protection while dreadnought has both ends covered by 4 inches of KC armor

(rear section of armor is rudder protection which is technically part of the citadel as it only protects the rudder)

 

also please read what i wrote

Quote

 

belt coverage should ONLY taper on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships (aka it begins tapering at the waterline and gets thinner below the waterline)

ships with non AON do have sideways taper 

 

dreadnoughts belt tapers sideways something which AON SHIPS DO NOT 

HMS dreadnought is NOT protected with the AON scheme 

even then i said 

Quote

should only taper downwards on AON ships

the first AON scheme ship was the USS Nevada in 1911 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Christian

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Christian said:

since when did HMS dreadnought become an AON protected ship ?

It’s not, your reading the schematics wrong. The belt starts at 11” above the waterline and tapers or 7” below, if it tapered sideways in the diagram you posted it would have sections that are 11,10,9,8,7 but it goes straight from 11” to 8” then to 4” The central main belt is only listing maximum thickness. In the picture I posted it’s badly illustrated but the belt tapers downwards not amidship you end. Tapering belts isn’t a strictly AoN feature, though I will admit is happens most commonly on them.

Edit: here’s a much better image to detail the armor layout of HMS Dreadnought:

Edited October 22, 2019 by Absolute0CA

[Christian]

On 10/22/2019 at 3:29 PM, Absolute0CA said:

It’s not, your reading the schematics wrong. The belt starts at 11” above the waterline and tapers or 7” below, if it tapered sideways in the diagram you posted it would have sections that are 11,10,9,8,7 but it goes straight from 11” to 8” then to 4” The central main belt is only listing maximum thickness. In the picture I posted it’s badly illustrated but the belt tapers downwards not amidship you end. Tapering belts isn’t a strictly AoN feature, though I will admit is happens most commonly on them.

Edit: here’s a much better image to detail the armor layout of HMS Dreadnought:

im well aware dreadnought tapers

dreadnoughts belt armor tapers sideways at the front from 11 inches to 9 inches 

well less tapers but more varies in thickness 

which is also why i made this statement

Quote

 

belt coverage should ONLY taper on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships (aka it begins tapering at the waterline and gets thinner below the waterline)

ships with non AON do have sideways taper 

 

i should have said belt coverage should only taper sideways on aon ships instead of only taper which is a mistake

more correct statement would have been

belt coverage should only taper sideways and down on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships

 

Quote

Tapering belts isn’t a strictly AoN feature, though I will admit is happens most commonly on them.

never claimed that

 

tapering happends more often on older ships in fact as AON ships need an equal belt thickness over water or there are weakspots in the armor which compromise the armor layout

this is why aon belt armor tapers downwards and not sideways

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Christian