AP shells dont matter

[SiWi]

6 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

However it does greatly reduce the cost and also complexity of the vehicle, plus you don't need to make the tank as thickly armoured as others too.

Plus tanks were quite big even with slopped armour so space is a non-issue, except for really smoll tonks or tanks that are quite close to the ground.

But having the armour boxy can make things roomy i guess, but makes the armour weaker (corners, flat surfaces) and heavier just to get the same material for the same protection.

Its why the T-34 and argueably the panther were such great tanks (if they also had more time develop them that would of helped).

the is one caviar to sloped armor and that is that if you look to modern tanks but even many tanks directly after the T34, you see that they have slopped frontal armor but no slopped side armor. 

 

So for tanks space does become a concern, at least on the sides.

 

How much this translate to ships I have no idea.

[RedParadize]

@SiWi I was half way into writing the same thing lol.

 

People don't slope side for tanks because they expect the pilot too face the enemy. Choosing your angles is easier for ship.

[Mycophobia]

Sloping tank armor is easier because most of the time the shell are going to come in at a near horizontal arc, this is not the case with ships. Shell at mid range are going to come in with a small arc that actually make straight plate more effective than sloped plates.

Sloped armor itself is not necessarily beneficial to have on a ship. Though its worth nothing that many late bb do use armor inclined outward with flatdeck like so: \----/ . This increases the chance of plunging fire hitting the armored deck, while still give some benefit of sloped armor against more horizontal shots.

Regarding Bow-tanking. WoWs auto bounce is just a gamey mechanic, and shouldn't translate into this game. Angling can have some benefit in deflecting shots if those comes in close range(and thus have a more horizontal trajectory) AND hit your main belt. The more angled you are, the more likely it will be for those horizontal shots to hit your poorly protected fore portion of the ship, which is protected by belt edge, which should be easily defeated by most capital caliber shells. Against plunging fire, benefit of angling is pretty negligible since most shells will be hitting deck.

[Diabolic_Wave]

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

However it does greatly reduce the cost and also complexity of the vehicle, plus you don't need to make the tank as thickly armoured as others too.

Plus tanks were quite big even with slopped armour so space is a non-issue, except for really smoll tonks or tanks that are quite close to the ground.

I'd like to contradict you with the point about size. Sure, they're quite big, but the inside can still be quite cramped, like how on the Panzerjaeger 38(t) it's a little hard to do anything in. And the bad ergonomics of early T-34s are at least partly due to the sloped side armour.

Don't get me wrong, tanks aren't small, but sloped armour doesn't help with crew comfort and ability to work.

Of course, none of this matters as much for ship armour, where the belt can slope outwards at shallow angles, the armoured deck can be worked into a turtleback style armour scheme, without severely compromising the space available. I don't have the book now, but looking at Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Yamato (Janusz Skulski) you can see both of these armour schemes implemented in one ship at once. Most of the space that would be 'wasted' is either also used to enhance the armour scheme or used for storing supplies like oil, fresh water, etc. Because you have more space to work with, the loss of space is easier to manage.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Diabolic_Wave

[Cptbarney]

7 minutes ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

I'd like to contradict you with the point about size. Sure, they're quite big, but the inside can still be quite cramped, like how on the Panzerjaeger 38(t) it's a little hard to do anything in. And the bad ergonomics of early T-34s are at least partly due to the sloped side armour.

Don't get me wrong, tanks aren't small, but sloped armour doesn't help with crew comfort and ability to work.

Of course, none of this matters as much for ship armour, where the belt can slope outwards at shallow angles, the armoured deck can be worked into a turtleback style armour scheme, without severely compromising the space available. I don't have the book now, but looking at Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Yamato (Janusz Skulski) you can see both of these armour schemes implemented in one ship at once. Most of the space that would be 'wasted' is either also used to enhance the armour scheme or used for storing supplies like oil, fresh water, etc. Because you have more space to work with, the loss of space is easier to manage.

That was probs mostly to do with bad tank design in general and the fact that many nations were basically still experimenting with tank design (and plane design) due to both being quite new at the time still. I doubt most tanks at the time had questionable comfort too be honest compared to now. Plus war too.

Oh well, such is things i guess.

[Diabolic_Wave]

21 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

That was probs mostly to do with bad tank design in general and the fact that many nations were basically still experimenting with tank design (and plane design) due to both being quite new at the time still. I doubt most tanks at the time had questionable comfort too be honest compared to now. Plus war too.

Oh well, such is things i guess.

I mentioned those two to point out that their armour schemes were arguably 'bad designs'. yes. Both of those tanks had worse ergonomics than many contemporaries (Pz IV, Sherman, etc), partly due to the way they sloped the armour.

(Before you mention the sherman's sloped armour, it wasn't sloped at the sides and was a bigger tank all around, mitigating some of the disadvantages ergonomically)

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

I mentioned those two to point out that their armour schemes were arguably 'bad designs'. yes. Both of those tanks had worse ergonomics than many contemporaries (Pz IV, Sherman, etc), partly due to the way they sloped the armour.

(Before you mention the sherman's sloped armour, it wasn't sloped at the sides and was a bigger tank all around, mitigating some of the disadvantages ergonomically)

Sherman had curved armour didn't it? T-34's were a solid tank though despite the chassis, it seems like modern tanks are becoming more boxy unless thats my imagination.

Either way i think we both just hi-jacked the thread lol, we should stop despite this being very interesting.

[jodgi]

4 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

it seems like modern tanks are becoming more boxy unless thats my imagination.

The box and it's shape is less important than not getting hit in the first place and, if you get hit: reactive armor.

[Steeltrap]

7 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Sherman had curved armour didn't it? T-34's were a solid tank though despite the chassis, it seems like modern tanks are becoming more boxy unless thats my imagination.

Either way i think we both just hi-jacked the thread lol, we should stop despite this being very interesting.

You can blame me, I raised the issue that sloping armour can bring its own issues and gave T-34 as an example. Someone did point out that sloping in ships is a very different issue, but of course the principle that all armour schemes have potential plusses and minuses was really all I was getting at.

[Diabolic_Wave]

6 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

You can blame me, I raised the issue that sloping armour can bring its own issues and gave T-34 as an example. Someone did point out that sloping in ships is a very different issue, but of course the principle that all armour schemes have potential plusses and minuses was really all I was getting at.

The principle itself I can totally agree with. My favourite being turtleback armour being less likely to withstand plunging fire if it gets through the outer armour.

[SiWi]

9 minutes ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

The principle itself I can totally agree with. My favourite being turtleback armour being less likely to withstand plunging fire if it gets through the outer armour.

I do hope that the development and choice between different armor schemes will be a feature.

 

Like you want to make a brawler you chose turtleback if you want long range engagements, you chose all or nothing.

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 11/1/2019 at 2:17 AM, RedParadize said:

Without talking about modern material and technology, modern thinking could offer allot of solutions to warships armor. 

Unlike tanks, cost matter more than weight and space. Weight still matters trough. Instead of opting for 12" thick and expensive face hardened plate of steel, a simple sandwich of 12 spaced 1"steel plate would do just as good of a job at a much lower cost. You could even bolt most of them as deformation is actually what you are looking for.

since 1" plate are much easier to mass produce it would be cheaper and easier to make it of greater quality.

 

 

I think what you mean is 'decapping' plates?

Indeed it allowed you to make your armor out of two relatively cheaper plates of steel.

The issue is how much space the thing takes up.

Italy went around the space issue by using cement foam in between the plates. This however increased the weight a hefty amount, and its questionable if the weight of the whole thing was better than a single plate of steel of equal weight/price.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

14 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Sherman had curved armour didn't it? T-34's were a solid tank though despite the chassis, it seems like modern tanks are becoming more boxy unless thats my imagination.

Either way i think we both just hi-jacked the thread lol, we should stop despite this being very interesting.

Early shermans used cast armor, this was curved. (Almost all curved armor is cast)

Later shermans used basic slabs of rolled armor which was welded.

Modern tanks use a composite armor design, whereas AP projectiles could 'skim' off a curved piece of armor, modern shells 'dig in' and cannot be defeated in such a way. At least not easily.

The large arrays of composite armor are most easily made in big 'bricks' because of their inner layout (Basically layers upon layers of various materials in various angles and shapes).

The large external bricks/boxes are ERA, basically some plastic explosive behind a metal plate, when struck the metal plate disrupts HEAT warheads, and with modern designs, can erode APFSDS rounds.

[Kasuga]

You can slope frontal armor and dont limit the vehicle design (even Hetzer was usable with the extreme angled armor... or that rumanian Stug that is practically flat in front) but not same with lateral armor, think that if you slop lateral armor to you reduce a lot internal space unless you made vehicle excesive width something that increase weight and well post WWII tanks become a lot heavier and bigger angle lateral amor increase this even more.

Modern tanks are more "volvo design" because slope is not increasing a lot the protection VS modern ammo and offensive systems and well, is easier a box design over a sloped one, new armor and all the extra protection modules outside with all modular concept adapt better to a box base vehicle to made easier mount them and replace when appear new tech... in general armor size today is bigger because is more based in non steel armor, a simple composite armor needs more space, see the T-72 and the first modernizations like the B model... the bulge in turret and the reactive armor outside.

In sea size is not a problem, turrets are over bigger plataforms and can angle without affect the base design.

 

[sRuLe]

On 11/1/2019 at 9:06 PM, Diabolic_Wave said:

but looking at Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Yamato (Janusz Skulski) you can see both of these armour schemes implemented in one ship at once.

+ To you. Btw Yamato is the WORST examp of armoring the ship.

 

From the side, looks cool... but it's side view. And what we have... Take a look on a deck and belt "connection". Single long range hit, and deck blown into, it just don't lean on a belt upper side, just "hangs" in the air(support structures). For the close range encounters main belt are just too high, asking for penetration.

 

[Cptbarney]

@sRuLe Iowa and richypoo seem to have pretty decent armour schemes along with north carolina and bismarck (alaska ia BC so eh ill ignore her) Yammy seems to have a shot trap which is interesting too be honest. Also north carloina kinda has the same thing the angle is much steeper on the rounded thing and the slope.

[sRuLe]

On 11/1/2019 at 9:05 PM, Mycophobia said:

Regarding Bow-tanking. WoWs auto bounce is just a gamey mechanic, and shouldn't translate into this game. Angling can have some benefit in deflecting shots if those comes in close range(and thus have a more horizontal trajectory)

1st... in WoWS despite their "balancing" mechanics U still can pent through the "roof" tried on all levels. But about "how" I'll shush. 

Angling can benefit but... most of your ship structure made from just constructive hardened steel from 20 to 50mm, which just don't stop even 11" APC/CPC shell due shell's weight, speed (sum of it called - "shell drag", don't know does it correct name on english). Otherways made whole ship from one solid peace of steel, or angling just don't work. Plus to that AP shell entering an constructive steel just literally "fix&hold" it's angle... and start "bitching around" inside of ship internals.

[Steeltrap]

14 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

The principle itself I can totally agree with. My favourite being turtleback armour being less likely to withstand plunging fire if it gets through the outer armour.

I don't imagine I need to point this out to all the fellow ship nerds, lol, but it really is quite fascinating looking at the rather torturous process developing a major capital ship was.

The number of versions initially considered could be huge, all based on balancing the holy trinity of speed, protection and firepower. And that's before getting into the finer points of armour schemes, particularly the vexed issue of what makes for the most effective anti-torpedo defence system; different nations came up with all sorts on that topic.

It's understandable of course, as it represented a massive investment in what were the most complicated mobile collections of modern technology for their time. Not as though it was easy to say "oops, got that incorrect, let's change a lot of things half way through" (although changes certainly were made on the fly, primarily based on lessons learned from combat). In some ways they were incredible experiments; "we think this is best, let's build it and see what happens if we have to use it".

They don't get mentioned much, but I seem to recall the King George V class having some of the heaviest armour of any BB around at the time. Yes PoW still got done, but that in part was due to the Achilles' heel problem of the shaft seals etc, and rather proving the point that BBs operating under hostile skies were really asking for trouble. Ironic given her connection with Bismarck. I haven't gone and checked (being lazy), but that was my recollection of the class.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Steeltrap

[ThatZenoGuy]

9 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

@sRuLe Iowa and richypoo seem to have pretty decent armour schemes along with north carolina and bismarck (alaska ia BC so eh ill ignore her) Yammy seems to have a shot trap which is interesting too be honest. Also north carloina kinda has the same thing the angle is much steeper on the rounded thing and the slope.

Where does Yamato have a shot trap?

A shot trap is an area of armor where a shell is 'forced' into it, typically into a weaker area of armor. These are things like turret rings and mantlets.

I cannot see where Yamato's armor scheme would shunt a shell into a weaker area of armor.

[Guest]

The only weak section of armor is the obvious split between the main and lower belt that anyone with a partial sense of design should have caught as the major flaw that it was.

[ThatZenoGuy]

57 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

The only weak section of armor is the obvious split between the main and lower belt that anyone with a partial sense of design should have caught as the major flaw that it was.

That's really only a weak point when you hit it directly with something particularly powerful.

I have a video detailing that weakness coming up soon actually! Yey.

 

[sRuLe]

8 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

hat's really only a weak point when you hit it directly with something particularly powerful.

Quote

Take a look on a deck and belt "connection". Single long range hit, and deck blown into, it just don't lean on a belt upper side, just "hangs" in the air(support structures).

Answer is given. 

[Accipiter]

lol you guys can't be serious about that connection between upper and lower belt, it's at such an angle that an enemy shell (keep in mind an attacking shell whould be hitting not horizontally but at least at like 10° plus of plunging angle from short range, and 45° or more at long range) whould never hit it directly! to hit it directly it whould need to go horizontally trough so much water it whould already be defeated. and it's so small it's literally more thin than the BB Shell itself that whould be hitting it, so no way it's gonna go trough it.

same thing with the citadel roof not being "put" on the upper side of the belt but hanging against the side of it... uhhh yeah, so what??

it doesnt change anything about the tickness or angle of neither the belt nor the deck's armor, it's resting on a solid support structure so it doesn't make a difference. if what you're trying to say is that a shell that hit it whould "push in" the citadel roof by breaking its support structure and thus penetrade the citadel by "pushing" down like a door that portion of the deck armor rather than penetrating it, LOL NO , just literally no, you guys are so wrong lol, that is not even remotely how physics work.

that section of deck armor weights hundred of tons, it has so much inertia compared to a 1.2 tons shell, if the shell doesn't penetrate it will literally just shatter, bounce off, or vaporize itself into dust from the impact energy, it's weight is just not even remotely enough compared to that entire section of armor to make it move at all.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Accipiter said:

lol you guys can't be serious about that connection between upper and lower belt,

Actually I am, though historically it was more against torpedoes that it failed but it did, resulting in flooding that if it had been up to par wouldn't have happened. This flaw weakened the Yamato's TDS by over half.

[Christian]

10 minutes ago, Absolute0CA said:

Actually I am, though historically it was more against torpedoes that it failed but it did, resulting in flooding that if it had been up to par wouldn't have happened. This flaw weakened the Yamato's TDS by over half.

eh half is a bit of an overstatement

 

it weakened the torpedo protection but the thing that matters most with any TDS design is depth sure it made the protection weaker but as both musashi and yamato showed it really did not matter much when both survived atleast 10 torpedoes with an above average warhead

sure design is to some extent important but the depth of the design is the single most important aspect of any torpedo protection this is also why the french richileu even though it did not have an amazing TDS design its still better than all other anti torpedo designs just because its deeper than every other design

Edited November 4, 2019 by Christian