View Full Version : Wrong ship data in game.
According to my sources I found out that Tsessarevich got 10'' lower belt and 9'' - upper belt (from bow to stern), when Retvizan got 9'' upper and lower belts between main caliber turrets. Also I want to say that Retvizan got Krupp armor. Unfortunatelly I don't have information about Tsessarevich armor, but it was either Harvey or Krupp.
And If I remember correctly, the ingame numbers are 11'' for Tsessarevich.
Also, the Idzumo, Iwate, Adzuma and Yakumo ingame numbers are 9'' of belt. (!!!)
Wth, guys ? These are CAs, not BBs ! Where were u looking at when implementing the numbers in game ?
The correct belt thickness is 7'' Krupp, not 9''.
Also, the Asama and Tokiwa got the same 7'', but Harvey, not Krupp.
I think u guys hould fix that ASAP.
Omg, I've just looked to the data provided by ship info during battle...
Guys, that just plain stupid - Idzumo, Iwate, Adzuma and Yakumo have 12'' (twelve inch) of main belt...:freak:
That number (accordnig to Krupp type) of armor is even greater than any predreadnought ever had. These CAs are faster, and have more armor than any BBs of that time. :hush:
Please, tell me that this is just an unhappy joke
Neutrino 123
08 Aug 06, 07:11
Well, the actual battleships have more armor then referances say as well. Could this be what DGG means when it refers to the belt armor as including the backing slope of the deck armor?
No, this can't be.
No CA in RJW, WW1 or WW2 had even 10'' belt, not speaking about 12''.
Bah, even BCs got less than 10'' belt !
Although I'd like to see Storm Eagle's reply, the manual says armor value is in "effective" inches, indicating that more factors other than mere thickness are taken into effect"
The term "Effective inches" must be used when the armor belt is tilt at some degrees to the ship board surface.
AFAIK there were no such issues with IJN CAs.
Guys.
I've just looked through the manual to see the ship data.
And I was shocked.
All BBs and most CAs armor numbers are wrong.
Even including backing slope of deck, which in reality existed only on some BBs.
"Effective" armour thickness could also include a more or less subjective judgment on the layout or construction of the armour, I guess?
saddletank
08 Aug 06, 09:00
All BBs and most CAs armor numbers are wrong.
Given the long game development time and the good availability of period ship data I conclude therefore that these numbers are not inches of armour as you understand them but armour plus other factors that combine to result in a value the game uses.
We know nothing about the shell penetration values either so these are probably not what you expect...
Given the long game development time and the good availability of period ship data I conclude therefore that these numbers are not inches of armour as you understand them but armour plus other factors that combine to result in a value the game uses.
We know nothing about the shell penetration values either so these are probably not what you expect...
Well, I KNOW something about shell penetration.
Russian guns:
305/L40
armor penetration - 15'' if 3.000 meters range, and 12'' if 5.000 meters range. (for Krupp armor type)
shell speed - 792 meters per second.
Max firing range - 14-15.000 meters.
saddletank
08 Aug 06, 17:56
Sorry, I meant we know nothing about the penetration values Norm has given the guns in the game. If his ships are carrying 'apparently' too much armour then he may have applied some other process to his gun penetration data as well. I wasn't suggesting people here knew nothing about period artillery capabilities.
Apologies for any confusion!
Bloodstar
08 Aug 06, 18:03
Well, I KNOW something about shell penetration.
Russian guns:
305/L40
armor penetration - 15'' if 3.000 meters range, and 12'' if 5.000 meters range. (for Krupp armor type)
shell speed - 792 meters per second.
Max firing range - 14-15.000 meters.
How they lost 35 ships then at Tsushima? :clown:
Mario
How they lost 35 ships then at Tsushima? :clown:
Mario
Because they got stupid admiral, who did nothing. He even didn't changed squadron course and speed when Japs were spotted...
saddletank
08 Aug 06, 19:06
Admiral Rozhdestvenski, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Yes, that poor man was the main cause of the Russian defeat.
Because they got stupid admiral, who did nothing. He even didn't changed squadron course and speed when Japs were spotted...
You're wrong there. The squadron was in two columns with the good 1st division to starboard and the two bad divisions in column to port. He ordered the first division to speed up and steam to port. Communications were bad and the first division got jumbled. He cancelled the manuever which only made things worse. He may have been better off had he not maneuvered.
WallysWorld
08 Aug 06, 19:46
It was the last minute order by Rozhdestvenskii that caused the fleet to come out in two unequal columns. Other navies like the Royal Navy probably could have performed the move, but lack of training and poor handling of the Urssian ships were the cause.
Main reasons (in my opinion) for Tsushima:
1) Rozhdestvenskii failed to give orders during the battle. He did well taking the division around the world, but I think failed during the battle. Nebogatov performed better getting his little task force (including the badly damaged battleship Orel) though the night before justifiably surrendering the next morning.
2) Poor training for the Russian crew. Excellent training for the Japanese.
3) Russian ships were worn out after the long journey while Togo's ships were quickly overhauled after Port Arthur finally fell. In other words, ship performance.
4) Shimose used by the Japanese. More deadly than the Russian shells although some here have disputed that.
Hinchinbrooke
08 Aug 06, 21:57
Rozhdestvensky had an impossible task. Given the odd assortment of ships under his command, I'm surprised he made it to the Tsushima Straits. Long voyage, few port calls, dissent amongst the crews (see 1905 Revolution)..........
............ and they managed to put up a decent fight in the end.
Admiral Rozhdestvenski, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
The one and only Anne Robinson :-D
Too bad I have only BBC Prime in my cableTV.
Guys, stop flooding please.
This topic is important, and I don't want it to be closed.
I also want to tell, that "Osliabia" class BBs were armored with 8'' of belt, not 10'' like it is in game. They were weak armored, they got only 10'' guns, and their speed was equal to IJN BBs - 18 knots. They MUST be most sucky BBs in game after Chin Yen, and coastal BBs.
Why the hell perfectly made and designed ship - Retvizan - got less armor than these bastards (some Russian ship designer called them so) ?
Still waiting for devs answer.
Neutrino 123
09 Aug 06, 14:14
From page 80 of the Distant Guns manual, one finds that the in-game armor is given in rounded effective inches, presumably in nickel-steel.
From these sites, one can find that Harvey armor is ~1.19 times as effective as nickel-steel and Krupp armor ~1.4 times as effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp_armour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_armour
Comparing the values of the HIJMS Asama in Distant guns to those on these sites indicates that that the hull and conning tower are composed of normal steel, while the belt and deck armor must be stronger.
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/208694x53053/281303/a0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Asama
http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0312.htm
If the deck armor were Krupp, it’s 2 inches would round to three effectively, so I would guess that it is composed of Harvey armor, allowing it to round to 2.5. Thus, only the main belt can be Krupp. This is given as 7 inches, effectively 9.8 with Krupp armor. The deck armor is backed over to add to this, giving an effective armor of 9.8+2.38 = 12.18 inches effectively. I suppose a bit of sloping would increase this, but rounding to 12 seems reasonable.
Considering the HIJMS Nisshin:
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/219726x53053/281303/a0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasuga_class_cruiser
http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0317.htm
It appears that the deck and conning tower are regular steel. It appears that the regular non-main-belt hull armor value in Distant Guns contradicts the above sites. However, the belt armor can be obtain with the normal calculation of adding the effective belt and backing deck armor: 6*1.19+1.5 = 8.64, which rounds to 9 inches, as given in the Distant Guns manual.
Finally, considering a crap ship like the Chin Yen:
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/232286x53053/281303/a0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Yuen
http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0105.htm
It appears that the given values in Distant Guns match these sites exactly, since there is no backing deck armor, and it’s best armor type is regular nickel-steel.
Problem solved!:) Remember kids, math is your friend!
Now, THERE is an analyst!
saddletank
09 Aug 06, 17:28
Oh my word! I've never seen 11 technical links in a forum post before! Nice post my friend :)
From page 80 of the Distant Guns manual, one finds that the in-game armor is given in rounded effective inches, presumably in nickel-steel.
From these sites, one can find that Harvey armor is ~1.19 times as effective as nickel-steel and Krupp armor ~1.4 times as effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp_armour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_armour
Comparing the values of the HIJMS Asama in Distant guns to those on these sites indicates that that the hull and conning tower are composed of normal steel, while the belt and deck armor must be stronger.
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/208694x53053/281303/a0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Asama
http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0312.htm
If the deck armor were Krupp, it’s 2 inches would round to three effectively, so I would guess that it is composed of Harvey armor, allowing it to round to 2.5. Thus, only the main belt can be Krupp. This is given as 7 inches, effectively 9.8 with Krupp armor. The deck armor is backed over to add to this, giving an effective armor of 9.8+2.38 = 12.18 inches effectively. I suppose a bit of sloping would increase this, but rounding to 12 seems reasonable.
Considering the HIJMS Nisshin:
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/219726x53053/281303/a0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasuga_class_cruiser
http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0317.htm
It appears that the deck and conning tower are regular steel. It appears that the regular non-main-belt hull armor value in Distant Guns contradicts the above sites. However, the belt armor can be obtain with the normal calculation of adding the effective belt and backing deck armor: 6*1.19+1.5 = 8.64, which rounds to 9 inches, as given in the Distant Guns manual.
Finally, considering a crap ship like the Chin Yen:
http://navalhistory.flixco.info/G/232286x53053/281303/a0.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Yuen
http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/stc0105.htm
It appears that the given values in Distant Guns match these sites exactly, since there is no backing deck armor, and it’s best armor type is regular nickel-steel.
Problem solved!:) Remember kids, math is your friend!
Chin Yen - absolute match to the reality, of course if we can skip that her belt was divided into 3 parts and, as u can see in this link, the protected part of Chin Yen is not that big. In game it seems to me that her belt is much longer, cuz I wasn't able to sink her with my 6 protected cruisers, when most of hit were bow and stern hit.
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Reference/Fleet/RJ2/Draw/06.jpg
Now, lets take a closer look to Asama.
First of all, her armor was Harvey type, not Krupp.
Second, the main belt thickness was 7''
According to the armor effectiveness of Steel vs Harvey, Steel vs vs Krupp
(1 to 1.19 and 1 to 1.4, and yes, I know these numbers) we can calculate the belt thickness if it was in steel -
7'' x 1.19 = 8.33''.
8.33'', NOT 12'' !
Here is url for her armor:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Reference/Fleet/RJ2/Draw/10.jpg
Ok, now lets calculate the armor thickness of Peresvet.
Here is url:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Reference/Fleet/RJ1/Draw/05.jpg
She and her sisterships got 9'' of Harvey main belt.
9'' x 1.19 = 10.71''
Again - 10.71'' or 11'', NOT 14'' !
Now, Poltava got Krupp type main belt with 368mm thickness, or 14.5'',
Petropavlovsk got 16'' main belt with steel type.
Ingame data for Petropavlovsk is perfect match, but Poltava should get the
14.5'' x 1.4 = 20.3'' main belt, NOT 16'' !
Now - lets see the Borodino and her sisterships:
Their main belt armor was 194mm or almost 8'' of Krupp armor.
armor config:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Reference/Fleet/RJ1/Draw/43.jpg
8'' x 1.4 = 11.2'', not 10''
If u want guys, I'll just take one free day to recalculate and rewatch all the BBs, CAs and PCs armor and gun data to find bugs there. Do u wan't me to do this ?
PS: Please, don't think that I want to hurt anyone, I just want this game to be as accurate as possible.
saddletank
10 Aug 06, 06:34
KGB, it may be worth making sure Norm sees this thread. I think he's away squishing bugs and doesn't have time to read the forum so possibly an e-mail would be best.
KGB, it may be worth making sure Norm sees this thread. I think he's away squishing bugs and doesn't have time to read the forum so possibly an e-mail would be best.
Thanks, saddletank, I always forget about such thing as e-mail :)
From my sources I would agree with you KGB. The only factor that I think might have been built into the armour thickness figures for the game is allowing for coal bunkers. They as I am sure you know were placed to give added protection. So it may be a possibility that the game designers have used. However I do not know of their location in individual ships nor their effectiveness. Tsesarivich did have Krupp armour she also had her deck armour taken down to below the waterline as a form of anti torpedo bulkhead. There is a nice diagram of it in Parkes.
From my sources I would agree with you KGB. The only factor that I think might have been built into the armour thickness figures for the game is allowing for coal bunkers. They as I am sure you know were placed to give added protection. So it may be a possibility that the game designers have used. However I do not know of their location in individual ships nor their effectiveness. Tsesarivich did have Krupp armour she also had her deck armour taken down to below the waterline as a form of anti torpedo bulkhead. There is a nice diagram of it in Parkes.
The coal bunkers provided almost no protection from shells.
In WW1 they were used to make additional protection from torpedoes.
About Tsesarevich:
Here is the slit of Tsesarevich near the midship frame.
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Cesarevich_1/Draw/27.jpg
U can see the configuration of protected areas.
Neutrino 123
10 Aug 06, 09:17
KGB, it looks like you are not taking into account the backing slope of the deck armor, which Distant Guns adds to the main belt armor when giving the effective belt thickness. Distant Guns also lists Krupp armor for the Asama (a brief search indicates that both are listed, depending on the source).
As a side note, I do find it strage that referances seem to leave out "backing slope of deck armor", since this would seemingly have a major effect on armor rating of the belt area.
The reason you were having difficulty sinking the Chin Yen was probably because the Russian protected cruisers only have 6'' guns, while the Chin Yen has 10'' of armor even in the hull outside the main belt.
Finally, I tried the links you sent, but the images seem to load very slowly, at 0.3kb/sec or so. Also, they stopped loading partway through...
KGB, it looks like you are not taking into account the backing slope of the deck armor, which Distant Guns adds to the main belt armor when giving the effective belt thickness. Distant Guns also lists Krupp armor for the Asama (a brief search indicates that both are listed, depending on the source).
As a side note, I do find it strage that referances seem to leave out "backing slope of deck armor", since this would seemingly have a major effect on armor rating of the belt area.
The reason you were having difficulty sinking the Chin Yen was probably because the Russian protected cruisers only have 6'' guns, while the Chin Yen has 10'' of armor even in the hull outside the main belt.
Finally, I tried the links you sent, but the images seem to load very slowly, at 0.3kb/sec or so. Also, they stopped loading partway through...
In most cases the backing slope of deck armor really provides no additional protection. Especially knowing the ranges of gunfire of that time.
As for Chin Yen, I've already told that her main belt was twice or even less than her lenght. And if this is so in game - this must also be fixed.
Lempereur1
10 Aug 06, 13:10
Norm will not get to this till next week...
Other matters pressing..
Norm will not get to this till next week...
Other matters pressing..
Ok, no problems.
I just want Norm saying something about all these things that I've posted.
SunScream
14 Aug 06, 12:21
Just to muddy the waters, don't forget to factor in where the coal bunkers were :)
Coal makes fairly good additional armour, it stops shells and acts as a blast absorber (assuming you are not at the tail end of a long patrol.)
Most ships had bunkerage immediately behind the armour, and the practise of using the triangular area behind the main belt and above the sloped section of the deck as a coal bunker was common.
The Russian ships also laboured under another shortcoming regarding fighting - their ships were unequipped/under-equipped with telescopic sights, which gave the Japanese some advantage at longer range targetting.
Bullethead
14 Aug 06, 13:04
In most cases the backing slope of deck armor really provides no additional protection. Especially knowing the ranges of gunfire of that time.
I strongly disagree with this assertion for a number of reasons:
1. Sloping armor plate greatly increases its effectiveness. First, for shells with RWJ-type flat trajectories, it tends to cause shells to glance off instead of penetrating. And where they don't bounce off, the distance the shell has to travel through the armor is increased above the nominal thickness of the plate due to the slope.
2. The structure of the ship outboard of the slope (the hull skin of a PC or the belt armor of an AC or BB) often initiated the shell's fuze. This could often make the shell explode in the space between the outer surface of the hull and the slope of the deck. The sloped deck armor would then be very effective at stopping fragments from penetrating further into the ship. It would not have to stop the whole, intact shell.
3. The triangular space between the hull surface and the internal sloped deck was almost always used as a coal bunker, because the slope of its floor made it useless for just about everything else. The coal, of course, made a pretty good shellburst absorber. The slope made this bunker wider at the top, so it provided more protection there than would have been the case with a flat deck on top of the belt and a rectangular coal bunker inboard of the belt. At the bottom, the bunker was narrower, but this was below the waterline, where the water would have already slowed the shell down somewhat.
As for Chin Yen, I've already told that her main belt was twice or even less than her lenght. And if this is so in game - this must also be fixed.
In the manual, it says that the number listed for belt armor only applies from the waterline up to 1/2 the height of the ship's hull's side, and for only the center 1/2 of the ship's length. IOW, the belt armor number is used on only 1/4 of the ship's total surface area on the side. The rest of the hull is protected by the hull armor number, equating to thinner upper belts and the thinning of the main belt at the ends of the ship. Individual components of the ship, such as the conning tower and gun mounts, have their own specific armor values. Hope this helps.
Bullethead
14 Aug 06, 13:27
One of my own pet peeves with incorrect game data concerns the speeds which the DDs and TBs are capable of. The IJN's are all WAY too high (29+ knots in the game), and the Russians are mostly a little too high (26-27 knots in the game).
Every DD in the game is not really a true DD by even WW1 standards, but what was then termed a TBD, or torpedoboat destroyer. These ships were just scaled-up torpedoboats, with no forecastle and very low freeboard. They were absolutely buried in swells of 10 feet because their long, narrow hulls cut into every wave instead of riding over them. 10 feet being about average for a calm day in the open sea, it was impossible under almost all conditions for these ships to achieve anything like the speeds they have in DG, regardless of what they made on trials. And most of them never broke 27 knots on trials except under ideal conditions of light weight, dead flat calm water, and extra stokers aboard.
With few exceptions, the so-called DDs in DG, whether Russian or Japanese, were either Brit-built or at least built to Brit designs with much Brit supervision, and were thus identical except in minor details to TBDs under the White Ensign. Extensive documentation exists for the trials of the Brit-built ships, whether destined for the RN or foreign powers. There is also much documentation for the effective sea performance of the RN ships. None of this supports the DG so-called DDs being able to achieve 29 knots under any circumstances other than ideal trial conditions, and usually they didn't even go that fast. The best open sea speeds of such ships was only around 25 knots on relatively calm days, and this could only be maintained for a couple of hours before the stokers started dying. Usually they could only manage 21-23 knots under more typical sea conditions. This applies to both the IJN and the Russian so-called DDs.
The situation for the TBs was even worse. These things had hardly more freeboard than surfboards, so the effect of sea state on them was more pronounced. Few of these could reach even 20 knots on a normal day at sea. Plus they had even fewer stokers to share the work of all the shovelling. I therefore find it rather amusing to see IJN TBs screaming around at 29 knots in the middle of the ocean.
SunScream
14 Aug 06, 14:03
Couldn't agree more Bullethead - you know your stuff :)
saddletank
14 Aug 06, 15:59
Even a small sea will slow the DG TBs right down. Sea state 3 with 1m waves will cause most TBs to lose 5 knots or so off their speed which seems about right.
Protracted high-speed running with TBs, TBDs etc in this era also led to the problem of bearings over-heating, even with forced lubrication, and so this restricted speeds further. I guess it would not be possible/desirable in the scope of DG to implement mechanical failures. I suppose it's down to the discretion of the player if he wants to restrict his TBs to more "realistic" speeds! (Pity the computer opponent won't oblige though!)
I strongly disagree with this assertion for a number of reasons:
1. Sloping armor plate greatly increases its effectiveness. First, for shells with RWJ-type flat trajectories, it tends to cause shells to glance off instead of penetrating. And where they don't bounce off, the distance the shell has to travel through the armor is increased above the nominal thickness of the plate due to the slope.
2. The structure of the ship outboard of the slope (the hull skin of a PC or the belt armor of an AC or BB) often initiated the shell's fuze. This could often make the shell explode in the space between the outer surface of the hull and the slope of the deck. The sloped deck armor would then be very effective at stopping fragments from penetrating further into the ship. It would not have to stop the whole, intact shell.
3. The triangular space between the hull surface and the internal sloped deck was almost always used as a coal bunker, because the slope of its floor made it useless for just about everything else. The coal, of course, made a pretty good shellburst absorber. The slope made this bunker wider at the top, so it provided more protection there than would have been the case with a flat deck on top of the belt and a rectangular coal bunker inboard of the belt. At the bottom, the bunker was narrower, but this was below the waterline, where the water would have already slowed the shell down somewhat.
Theoretically you are right. But in practice, as we now, the battle in Yellow Sea showed us that Mikasa (the best-armored IJN BB) was unable to shoot and turn her main caliber guns.
She had backing slope of 76mm thickness, right after 178mm Krupp belt near the main caliber guns mounts.
As I see her plans, the backing slope had like 40 degrees incline.
During the battle in Yellow Sea when squadrons were coming close to each other Mikasa was badly damaged when the distance between Russian and IJN squadrons was 23-30 cabelts (1 cabelt = 185.2 meters).
The approximate distance of fire was 27.5 cabelts or 5093 meters.
Now, as we now, the mounts of Mikasa's main caliber guns of Mikasa were damaged, meaning that russian shells penetrated the belt and the slope.
The slope's incline of approx 40 degrees meant that the un-incined armor after main belt and coal bunkers was like 6''. So, 7'' plus coal bunkers and 6'' backing slope together provided like 11'' of armor (in reality even more, like 13-14'' because of the fact that shell lost the most of her muzzle kinetic energy after going through main belt and coal)
In theory, we come to a conclusion, that russian 12'' guns couldn't penetrate even the lighter part of Mikasa's main belt (I remind, that the central part of belt was 9'').
The maximum angle of Russian 305/L40 guns was 15-18 degrees with almost 13.000 meters maximum range.
So, the range of 5.000 meters means that the incline of shell when it hit Mikasa's belt was like 7-9 degree to perpendecular. I remind, that the armor penetration of Russian 305/L40 guns at 5.000 meters was 12'' Krupp if the 0 degrees hit to normal.
The angle of backing slope hit so, was like 33 degrees to normal. And, though this is hard to believe, the backing slope was still penetrated.
Why did I described these fact in such a detail ?
To show u, that the theoretical defense in fact wasn't so perfect.
PS: The theoretical anti-torpedo defence of PoW or Repulse was good. But in reality....
In the manual, it says that the number listed for belt armor only applies from the waterline up to 1/2 the height of the ship's hull's side, and for only the center 1/2 of the ship's length. IOW, the belt armor number is used on only 1/4 of the ship's total surface area on the side. The rest of the hull is protected by the hull armor number, equating to thinner upper belts and the thinning of the main belt at the ends of the ship. Individual components of the ship, such as the conning tower and gun mounts, have their own specific armor values. Hope this helps.
The manual is not correct anyway.
The ships like Asahi, Mikasa, etc had belts from bow to stern, and the thinner places were defended by a 4'' armor only, but still had it.
Bullethead
14 Aug 06, 19:34
Now, as we now, the mounts of Mikasa's main caliber guns of Mikasa were damaged, meaning that russian shells penetrated the belt and the slope.
That is a faulty assumption. The guns could have been knocked out by being hit by themselves, without the belt and sloped deck being touched. In fact, this is probably what happened, because the mechanisms that moved the guns weren't behind the belt armor and sloped deck anyway.
Mikasas's main belt only rose above a short distance above water, about 1/2 the height of the hull at most. The top (flat part) of the deck was level with this, and the slopes went down to the lower edge of the belt, so the whole slope was behind the belt and also thus low down in the hull. IOW, all this armor was well below where the damage took place. It probably wasn't touched by the shells that knocked out the guns.
The main parts of the guns' training and elevating gear, which is what was actually damaged, was well up above all this. This was inside the barbette, an armored tower that rose from the top (unsloped part) of the armored deck, on up through the rest of the hull, and out the top a few feet above the upper deck. The turret, with other parts of the mechanism and the guns themselves, sat on top of the barbette even higher above the belt.
To damage the guns as you describe, therefore, all the shell had to do with hit the barbette or the turret itself. Either place, even if the shell didn't penetrate the armor, could have jammed the turret and/or guns.
NormKoger
15 Aug 06, 03:29
Hello guys,
A couple of quick notes on armor...
The "backing slope" did indeed offer substantial protection. It is the entire point of "protected cruisers", which tended to have little or no armor except for the turtle shell shaped armored deck protecting ships vitals. I always used to wonder at the reasoning behind protected cruisers - a single armored deck and nothing else. It was not until I really looked at the drawings and saw the shape of that deck that the logic became apparent. Battleships and armored cruisers with sloped armored decks were very tough targets indeed. Can a shell get through the belt and do damage? Yes, but the really critical stuff on these ships was behind / under the armored deck. In the game, you can do plenty of damage without penetrating armor. But you can not hit things like engineering spaces without penetrating.
A few years back, I was very fortunate to run across a wonderful reference on the ships of the Russo-Japanese War. There is a two volume set: Sergei Suliga's: Ships of the Russo-Japanese War - Russian Fleet (vol. 1) and Japanese Fleet (vol. 2). I would dearly love to find something this complete on World War I ships (hint, hint). For review purposes, one of the pages describing Gromoboi is shown below:
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/pr_images/suliga_rus_15.jpg
Please take note of the small drawing at center left. That curved area (with indicated armor) is the backing slope. Look at the thickness and angle. 102mm (4 inches) sloped at about 60-70 degrees from the vertical, behind a vertical 6 inch belt. Looks pretty tough, doesn't it? The guys who cut their wargaming teeth on games modeling tanks, looking at this drawing, are probably wondering how anything could get through that deck - coming in at anywhere near a flat trajectory. Indeed, the game figures may actually understate the effect of this arrangement.
I've considered whether to increase the effect of rough seas on ship speeds, and still haven't made up my mind. It can also be argued that published speeds (which were used in the game) for these ships are a bit optimistic. But I'm pretty happy with the armor figures and arrangements.
That is a faulty assumption. The guns could have been knocked out by being hit by themselves, without the belt and sloped deck being touched. In fact, this is probably what happened, because the mechanisms that moved the guns weren't behind the belt armor and sloped deck anyway.
Mikasas's main belt only rose above a short distance above water, about 1/2 the height of the hull at most. The top (flat part) of the deck was level with this, and the slopes went down to the lower edge of the belt, so the whole slope was behind the belt and also thus low down in the hull. IOW, all this armor was well below where the damage took place. It probably wasn't touched by the shells that knocked out the guns.
The main parts of the guns' training and elevating gear, which is what was actually damaged, was well up above all this. This was inside the barbette, an armored tower that rose from the top (unsloped part) of the armored deck, on up through the rest of the hull, and out the top a few feet above the upper deck. The turret, with other parts of the mechanism and the guns themselves, sat on top of the barbette even higher above the belt.
To damage the guns as you describe, therefore, all the shell had to do with hit the barbette or the turret itself. Either place, even if the shell didn't penetrate the armor, could have jammed the turret and/or guns.
Just look at the Mikasa's plans, and u will see that the elevator and turning mechanisms of the main caliber guns were protected by the lighter part of belt, as I've described - the 7'' armor. There was only 1 more well protected zone, and this was the central part of the ship.
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2004_08/Draw/10.jpg
Hello guys,
A couple of quick notes on armor...
The "backing slope" did indeed offer substantial protection. It is the entire point of "protected cruisers", which tended to have little or no armor except for the turtle shell shaped armored deck protecting ships vitals. I always used to wonder at the reasoning behind protected cruisers - a single armored deck and nothing else. It was not until I really looked at the drawings and saw the shape of that deck that the logic became apparent. Battleships and armored cruisers with sloped armored decks were very tough targets indeed. Can a shell get through the belt and do damage? Yes, but the really critical stuff on these ships was behind / under the armored deck. In the game, you can do plenty of damage without penetrating armor. But you can not hit things like engineering spaces without penetrating.
A few years back, I was very fortunate to run across a wonderful reference on the ships of the Russo-Japanese War. There is a two volume set: Sergei Suliga's: Ships of the Russo-Japanese War - Russian Fleet (vol. 1) and Japanese Fleet (vol. 2). I would dearly love to find something this complete on World War I ships (hint, hint). For review purposes, one of the pages describing Gromoboi is shown below:
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/pr_images/suliga_rus_15.jpg
Please take note of the small drawing at center left. That curved area (with indicated armor) is the backing slope. Look at the thickness and angle. 102mm (4 inches) sloped at about 60-70 degrees from the vertical, behind a vertical 6 inch belt. Looks pretty tough, doesn't it? The guys who cut their wargaming teeth on games modeling tanks, looking at this drawing, are probably wondering how anything could get through that deck - coming in at anywhere near a flat trajectory. Indeed, the game figures may actually understate the effect of this arrangement.
I've considered whether to increase the effect of rough seas on ship speeds, and still haven't made up my mind. It can also be argued that published speeds (which were used in the game) for these ships are a bit optimistic. But I'm pretty happy with the armor figures and arrangements.
Norm, the armor of PCs is good as it is. There are, however, the arguable moments in CAs armor. Though you also may be right, I, in my turn, also ust the same source as you - Suliga's books.
Anyway, we can argue about CAs later, but Poltava in game has less armor than she must have, as well, as Borodino class BBs also lacks some belt inches.
We can discuss that, If you have enough time.
saddletank
15 Aug 06, 08:06
Discussing Mikasa's disabled main guns there are many ways to disable a turret without penetrating any armour. Things like sighting hoods can be crushed, trunnions distorted, gear teeth stripped, various minor instruments damaged by concussion, electrical power can be lost through damage to generators or the cutting of cables, armour being distorted by non-penetrating hits which jams traversing mechanisms - there are 101 ways for a battleship turret to be out of action while the armour integrity of it's protection remains unbreached.
This kind of discussion often takes place on WW2 forums regarding tank armour and AT gun effectiveness, with people quoting different armour pentration figures at each other ad nauseum (I'm not suggesting that is going on here BTW, just saying that people can get very hung up on statistical weapon data) but you do not need to penetrate a tanks armour in order to convince the crew that staying in it is a Bad Idea (tm).
Mechanical contraptions like tanks and battleship turrets are very vulnerable to non penetrating hits.
Discussing Mikasa's disabled main guns there are many ways to disable a turret without penetrating any armour. Things like sighting hoods can be crushed, trunnions distorted, gear teeth stripped, various minor instruments damaged by concussion, electrical power can be lost through damage to generators or the cutting of cables, armour being distorted by non-penetrating hits which jams traversing mechanisms - there are 101 ways for a battleship turret to be out of action while the armour integrity of it's protection remains unbreached.
This kind of discussion often takes place on WW2 forums regarding tank armour and AT gun effectiveness, with people quoting different armour pentration figures at each other ad nauseum (I'm not suggesting that is going on here BTW, just saying that people can get very hung up on statistical weapon data) but you do not need to penetrate a tanks armour in order to convince the crew that staying in it is a Bad Idea (tm).
Mechanical contraptions like tanks and battleship turrets are very vulnerable to non penetrating hits.
The Battleships and tanks are different in many ways.
As for Mikasa's turrets we really can't say what were the reasons of disabling, but in WW2 most non-penetrating damage to tanks was done by HE shells.
During RJW times the Russian shells had almost none HE.
Ok, we can stop this discussion, cuz there are still many terms which needs to be discussed, and I named them many times.
The Battleships and tanks are different in many ways.
I'll make a note of that.
I'll make a note of that.
I didn't want to make my posts look like some ironic answers. I am sorry if u think so.
I only want to say that tank armor was also its hull, when the ship's armor is build around the hull.
SunScream
15 Aug 06, 11:56
In R A Burt's British Battleships of World War One there is a remarkable photo of HMS Centurion which, post war, was used as a target ship.
She had been hit forward just below the weather deck immediately in front of A turret by a 13.5" shell. There is no armour at this point and the shell had penetrated some distance before bursting.
The deck is heaved up so much that the gun barrels of A turret are pinned at full elevation by wood and metal and the turret is immobilized. The side of the ship is bowed outwards and detatched from the deck so you can see the cabin spaces inside.
A lot of damage from a single hit that did not hit armour, which certainly knocked out A turret.
British barbette design incorporated a space between armoured trunk and the internal workings so that a hit that distorted or damaged the armoured trunk would not intefere with the operation of the turret. Mikasa almost certainly has this feature.
Bullethead
15 Aug 06, 13:05
But you can not hit things like engineering spaces without penetrating.
Thanks for posting :).
I have a question about propulsion damage....
I've always heard that you could do some damage to the boilers at least by hitting the stacks. There were usually armored gratings just above the boilers to try to stop fragments, but they could be penetrated. On top of that, pieces of scrap iron from the funnels, surrounding structure, and shell fragments could just block the smoke hole, not only reducing draft but sometimes even driving the hot boiler exhaust back into the compartment and forcing its evacuation. Plus holes in the funnels could also reduce the draft.
In battles, I've seen many ships with their funnels leaning in all directions with black hit spots all over them. However, in most cases, the ships don't lose any speed or take propulsion system damage unless there's flooding as well, indicating waterline penetrations. Am I missing something are does funnel/uptake damage not have much effect in DG?
In R A Burt's British Battleships of World War One there is a remarkable photo of HMS Centurion which, post war, was used as a target ship.
She had been hit forward just below the weather deck immediately in front of A turret by a 13.5" shell. There is no armour at this point and the shell had penetrated some distance before bursting.
The deck is heaved up so much that the gun barrels of A turret are pinned at full elevation by wood and metal and the turret is immobilized. The side of the ship is bowed outwards and detatched from the deck so you can see the cabin spaces inside.
A lot of damage from a single hit that did not hit armour, which certainly knocked out A turret.
British barbette design incorporated a space between armoured trunk and the internal workings so that a hit that distorted or damaged the armoured trunk would not intefere with the operation of the turret. Mikasa almost certainly has this feature.
I've posted the plans of Mikasa. This is not barbret design. The last IJN BB of that design was Fuji.
Bullethead
15 Aug 06, 15:17
I've posted the plans of Mikasa. This is not barbret design. The last IJN BB of that design was Fuji.
Actually, Mikasa and all other IJN BBs, and nearly every BB built since then, had barbettes :). It's a confusing subject because the terminology has changed over time, and this was especially true in the RJW days. But I'll try to explain it....
Turrets came before barbettes, such as in USS Monitor, HMS Monarch, etc. At the time these ships appeared and for the rest of the 1800s, the word "turret" meant what these and similar ships had. That was an armored enclosure for guns, which usually but not always rotated, and which sat on top of the deck itself. Such turrets rotated on a central vertical shaft below them. This and the ammo hoists were not surrounded by any armored tube, but were instead protected by armor on or near the ship's side some distance outboard of the turret's roots.
Turrets of this type, however, placed heavy weight high up in the ship, so required a low, unseaworthy hull if the ship was to be stable. To get around this problem, the barbette mounting was developed. This was a vertical tube of armor rising from the armored deck and surrounding the ammo hoists and the gun training and elevation mechanisms. The guns themselves, however, were in the open on top of this armored tube, with little or no protection from anything beyond rifle fire. This was called a "barbette mounting", as in HMS Royal Sovereign, and allowed more hull freeboard and thus better performance at sea.
Over time, the seaworthiness advantages of the barbette mounting caused it to become favored over turrets in most navies. Also, improvements in armor-making technology allowed adequate protection from thinner, lighter barbette armor. The weight saved in the barbette was used to provide the previously exposed guns with enclosed, armored housings on top of the barbettes.
These enclosed, armored boxes around the guns atop barbettes were originally called "gunhouses", which is still technically the correct name for them. This was to distinguish them from true turrets of the type described above. However, as time continued to pass, no more ships were built with the original type of turret, so the word "turret" came to be applied to the gunhouses of barbette mountings. And that's how we use it today.
So.... Mikasa and all other IJN BBs had guns in barbette mountings with armored gunhouses. That's what they were called at the time. However, today we say she had turrets, just because the meaning of the word has changed since 1904.
SunScream
15 Aug 06, 15:32
Issue of nomenclature here.
A turret is an armoured structure housing the guns, their control mechanisms and all the ammunition handling equipment, although muzzle loaded guns frequently had the loading gear outside in a special armoured box.
The turret sit directly on the deck and cause stability problems due to having all the weight of the aforementioned components mounted together high up. Ships with turrets tend to have very low freeboards to reduce the stability problems, but that makes them unable to fight in heavy seas due to the decks being awash.
The answer to the difficulties mentioned above was the barbette.
The barbette has the guns mounted at deck level while the control, loading and shell handling equipment were mounted in an armoured structure on a lower deck (or more than one) with the top of the armoured structure supporting the guns. The guns retracted into the barbette to enable reloading. The biggest problem with the barbette was the lack of protection for the guns and (when reloading) their crews. This lead to the introduction of an armoured cover to the guns which was known as a gunhouse. Some of the equipment, such as control and aiming gear was then moved into the gunhouse for efficiency purposes as the crew can see what they are shooting at easier. As the gunhouse became heavier in armour the term turret resurfaced, although the pedantically correct definition is really barbette and gunhouse.
The last gasp of main gun turret in the British Royal Navy was the battleship Hood of 1891. Her seven sisters (the Royal Sovereign class) were built with barbettes, but no gunhouses. They were much better ships due to higher freeboard and carried their armour higher than Hood, which had her main belt almost submerged at nomal load.
The Chin Yen, Mikasa and the Centurion have barbettes.
The barbette had beneficial properties over the turret in other ways:
A turret has limited elevation due to the breeches of the guns becoming difficult to access as the breech neared the deck. The barbettes shell handling room, which contains the loading gear, is mostly located on the deck below the gunhouse and enables the guns to be elevated far further than in a turret. In WW2 gun elevations over 45 degrees were common, which required the breeches of the guns to drop below deck level in many cases.
In many turrets as to keep the weight down the loading gear was often fixed to the deck and the guns had to be aligned with the loading mechanism.
As the barbette advanced technologically there was also the ability to load the guns with the gunhouse facing in any direction. Mikasa could load her 12" guns at any angle and any elevation. Load times dropped to around a minute.
As far as I can discover there were no true turret ships present in either Japanese or Russian forces during the war. All heavy gun "turrets" were barbette and gunhouse.
Confusing, isn't it ;)
SunScream
15 Aug 06, 15:33
Must type faster.... :D
Reading the posts from BH and Sunscreen is like a condensed graduate seminar.
Bullethead
15 Aug 06, 15:57
As far as I can discover there were no true turret ships present in either Japanese or Russian forces during the war. All heavy gun "turrets" were barbette and gunhouse.
Heheh, funny we both said the same thing at the same time :).
Anyway, I think some of the oldest Russians in 2PacRon had true, old-school turrets. But apart from that, even their new ships such as the Borodino-class and Tsessarevitch had what were called "French-style center-pivot turrets".
As best I can tell, these were kinda hybrids of the old-school turret and the barbette mounting. They had what was in effect a true turret in all respects, but the central shaft and hoists were surrounded by an armored tube. The tube, however, was usually an inverted cone instead of being cylindrical, and was much lighter than a contemporary barbette.
A turret has limited elevation due to the breeches of the guns becoming difficult to access as the breech neared the deck. The barbettes shell handling room, which contains the loading gear, is mostly located on the deck below the gunhouse and enables the guns to be elevated far further than in a turret.
These "French-type center-pivot turrets" were an exception to this. As you can see in the game and in drawings, they had very tall sides and the trunnions were right up at the top, so the guns were up near the turret roof. This allowed the breeches a lot of room for high elevation. In fact, in these ships, the Russians could elevate their guns further than the Japanese could their barbette mountings. In WW1, Slava, last of the Borodino-class, actually outranged the modern dreadnought Kaiser because of this in the Battle of Moon Sound, although this did her little good in the end :).
For purposes of my review, what is the correct term for those side mounts that can fire at 180 degrees but shouldn't?
Bullethead
15 Aug 06, 16:22
For purposes of my review, what is the correct term for those side mounts that can fire at 180 degrees but shouldn't?
I would call them "bugged", because this problem is found in several distinct types of mounting :).
Broadside guns in those days came with several different types of mounting.
Open deck mounts
Internal open mounts
Casemates
Internal batteries
A casemate was an armored box on the side of the ship with the gun poking out of it. This was a common feature of Brit ships of the 1880s and early 1890s. Look at the 6" guns of Gromoboi in that diagram Norm posted.
An internal open mount often looked like a casemate from the outside but didn't have the armored box around the opening. The gun was protected at most by its own splinter shield, just as if it was in the open up on deck. The small broadside guns of Borodino had this type of mounting.
Internal batteries replaced casemates. Instead of armored boxes around each gun, there was a belt of armor all along the side covering all the guns in the battery. But again, it often looked like a bunch of casemates or internal open mounts from the outside. Mikasa had this for most of the 6" guns.
NOTE: all these types of mounts could be in sponsons and/or have hull embrasures. These would allow more than 90^ arcs, say 120^ for midships guns and 135^ for end guns. But none of them should have 180^, and these other arcs ain't in the game.
NormKoger
15 Aug 06, 16:32
... I, in my turn, also ust the same source as you - Suliga's books.
Did Suliga ever create books like these for any periods other than the Russo-Japanese War? If he did, I'd love to know about them.
...but Poltava in game has less armor than she must have, as well, as Borodino class BBs also lacks some belt inches. We can discuss that, If you have enough time.
Sure, it's fun. I will probably disappear soon for a couple of days though, to make another pass at the game code.
It's always possible I made a mistake in analysis of the armor. Looking at Suliga and Conways, I think the game figures for the Borodinos and Poltava are OK. Unless the drawings in Suliga are in error, Poltava's armored deck was the older, horizontal style. It did not curve down at the edges to provide additional protection from flat trajectory bombardment. So all it gets is the "official" 16 inch belt, and no benefit from a non-existent backing slope. The Borodinos are an interesting case. The belt is 6 inches above the water line and 7+ in a very narrow sub-belt at and below. It's an unusual arrangement. In the game, we're giving them credit for the 6 inch portion of the belt - backed by a slope of 2 inch deck armor for a total effective belt of 10 inches. An argument can be made for giving that narrow waterline belt the benefit of a doubt, but even that would only boost these ships effective belts into the 11 inch range. Fortunately, they do at least benefit from the Krupp armor modifier.
Thanks. Always want to be exact. It'll be a long review.
saddletank
15 Aug 06, 17:09
I will probably disappear soon for a couple of days though, to make another pass at the game code.
Norm, if you could look at what is happening with the mine allocations to ships and TFs that would be great. Also the reporting of ammo supplies which is correctly allocated to ships but not reported right in the TF organisation view. Finally the broadside gun arcs that Bullethead is discussing, these really do need work. I have seen Varyag firing her deck mounted weapons that are open mounts but behind shields directly along the deck behind the lifeboat davits - exactly aft. This isn't right, if the side mounted guns could be given 135deg and 120deg values it would make the game much more tactical as running directly away from a pursuing enemy would mean you could only fire your very stern deck guns, so ships would have to withdraw a few points off directly away to maximise their gunfire.
Guys, I'm sorry that my English is so poor. It is VERY hard for me to talk to u about things which needed special terms. I'm not English language specialized, and I can't speak in English with the terms I use in Russian, though I try to do it. It is like describing the Theory of Relativity to a physycian that can't hear u, but can understand u.
I agree with the turrets description, though in Russian books barbrets are guns without or with little armor, as well as "barbret BB" - is the way to armor the BB (meaning armored box in the center part of the ship, and unarmored bow and stern).
I still think that disabling the M.C. guns of Mikasa needed to penetrate the turret armor or the main belt, because the kinetic strike of that power without explosion definately had enough energy to bypass through the armor.
Well, it seems for me so, knowing physics and plans (or designs, I still don;t know how to call this in right way).
Norm, the belt of Poltava was 368 millimeters Krupp.
And in game it has 14.5 inches of belt, less than Petropavlovsk, though Petropavlovsk's armor was thicker (16'' of steel, you are right here), but it was only steel. I think 14.5'' of Krupp = 20'' of steel. So Poltava should get a buff.
Here is the link of part of the book, (sorry, it is in Russian)
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Reference/Fleet/RJ1/03.htm
And yes, Borodino class should get 11'' of belt, IMHO. (so, that is small +1'' buff) :smoke:
I agree with the turrets description, though in Russian books barbrets are guns without or with little armor, as well as "barbret BB" - is the way to armor the BB (meaning armored box in the center part of the ship, and unarmored bow and stern).
Technical terms are difficult to translate. The armored box in the center of the ship in this period would probably be called the "armored citadel" or "breastwork" depending upon the type of vessel.
I still think that disabling the M.C. guns of Mikasa needed to penetrate the turret armor or the main belt, because the kinetic strike of that power without explosion definately had enough energy to bypass through the armor.
Well, it seems for me so, knowing physics and plans (or designs, I still don;t know how to call this in right way).
As I recall, there have been a couple of past articles in the yearly "Warship" volume relating the destructive effects of shellfire at Tsushima, types of shell design and explosives such as "Shimose" and penetration ability. I don't remember the particulars but could possibly dig them out if there's interest.
Alan
Bullethead
15 Aug 06, 22:44
Guys, I'm sorry that my English is so poor.
Your English is WAY better than my Russian :D. I wasn't making fun of your English, I was just making sure we were using the same meanings for the words by explaining what they meant to me.
I agree with the turrets description, though in Russian books barbrets are guns without or with little armor, as well as "barbret BB" - is the way to armor the BB (meaning armored box in the center part of the ship, and unarmored bow and stern).
Lots of English books say the same thing, because they use the modern meaning of the word "turret" for the gunhouse on a barbette mounting. Therefore, they use the term "barbette mounting" for the open-topped barbettes with no armored enclosure for the guns. This confuses a lot of native English-speakers, because technically they're both barbette mountings, one with a gunhouse and one without :).
I still think that disabling the M.C. guns of Mikasa needed to penetrate the turret armor or the main belt, because the kinetic strike of that power without explosion definately had enough energy to bypass through the armor. Well, it seems for me so, knowing physics and plans (or designs, I still don;t know how to call this in right way).
The shells could have penetrated to knock out the guns. I was just saying that you could knock out guns without penetrating the armor. Just banging the armor hard with a big shell could distort the structure, break hydraulic lines, disconnect electrical circuits, etc. Or like was mentioned above, block the guns with wreckage from some other part of the ship.
Your English is WAY better than my Russian :D. I wasn't making fun of your English, I was just making sure we were using the same meanings for the words by explaining what they meant to me.
I know, I'm just sorry that I can't talk to u with my technical language, I have to use simple words to describe complex things.
Lots of English books say the same thing, because they use the modern meaning of the word "turret" for the gunhouse on a barbette mounting. Therefore, they use the term "barbette mounting" for the open-topped barbettes with no armored enclosure for the guns. This confuses a lot of native English-speakers, because technically they're both barbette mountings, one with a gunhouse and one without :).
I see now. Well, that is absolutely clear for me. Thanks for describig. :smoke:
The shells could have penetrated to knock out the guns. I was just saying that you could knock out guns without penetrating the armor. Just banging the armor hard with a big shell could distort the structure, break hydraulic lines, disconnect electrical circuits, etc. Or like was mentioned above, block the guns with wreckage from some other part of the ship.
I agree with you here, that was possible, though banging the armor with AP shell (and Russian AP shell got like 3-5% of explosive) usually mean either no damage, or penetration :p
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.