Why is this part even modeled? if it isn’t on the Barham?
It seems like you KNOW the thing had Upgraded armor on the Turtleback, yet you ignore it.
HELL id be fine if you carried over the 76.2mm across the entire turtleback.
Just to make the thing a tad more Competitive.
No counter proof is needed from what i am reading, the issue lies with why the dev’s consider a layer of steel behind armorued steel, not worth modelling?
However, you also appear to be wrong here, the evidence is quite clear that the angled plate for the turtle back was not reinforced, the issue of missing the 25.4mm underneath is a seperate issue.
I.e, why not merge the models?:
Due to several reasons:
Interesting, thank you for the clarification.
Except yah know… The lamination was to heavily reduce the amount of spalling created by the plate on top of it.
But yall don’t take that into consideration do yah?
Wrong. Because NC is intended to be used as armour only and would not provide sufficient structural support to the ship due to its properties. It must be placed on constructional steel such as HT. on the other hand, anti spalling plate must be placed beneath and separately from the main armour, for example, as appeared on US standard battleships.
The British built it that way.
Who are you to just go around deleting armor plates from their ships?
The QE class battleships were built in a Era where Plunging fire was not considered, due to the limited range of the optics and guns at the time.
When Plunging fire became more prominent, they upgraded the armor of their ships to compensate.
by Layering non Cemented steel plates, over the already installed anti Spalling shell plating.
HELL look at your diagrams above, IT EVEN SHOWS THAT THEY ARE SPACED APART.
There is a gap between the 40lb High Hardness steel, and the 160lb rolled steel.
So by your OWN LOGIC, it should be considered anti spalling shell plating. BECAUSE ITS BENEATH AND SEPERATE
I hate how this doesnt even sound outrageous to me anymore. The Devs blatantly ignored that Rodney’s rate of fire is still too low. Despite clear historical evidence. Ignoring some armour here or there doesnt surprise me.
Doesn’t the Rodney still not have any torpedo protection or am I thinking of another ship
Because it is from armour arrangement plan, where the clarity of the composition of armour is needed. In general arrangement plans you can see they were laminated directly in touch with each other.
HT is NOT “high hardness”, it is called “high tensile steel”, a widely used ship structural steel between 1910s to 1930s
Read my comment above, there are hidden ship structures already in place to simulate the effectiveness of back plates. 1" HT backplate =/= 1" RHA effectiveness whatsoever
Then why was it used as shell plating?
Like Actively used as shell plating.
The Queen Elizbeth class battleships, AND MANY OTHER British battleships were built with that as their shell plating, so why?
If it was just structural steel?
There isn’t much else to be added to the discussion. That’s just how the way it works, and has been working for years.
Your own words:
The QE class battleships were built in a Era where Plunging fire was not considered, due to the limited range of the optics and guns at the time.
It was not a British exclusive problem but basically every navy except USN at that time was using structural steel such as HT and its equivalents as protective deck
After 1920s HT was gradually replaced by NC as armour and DS as structural steel
Because it was a combination of decent corrosion resistance, easy weldability and high tensile strength that allowed nations to more easily and quickly construct more rigid structural hulls using thinner materials that saved weight faster.
High tensile strength, corrosion resistance and easy to repair is everything you want in a ship structure
And why are you applying Modern Specifications to WW1 and WW2 Era ships?
The plates still served the same purpose.
and it was serving that same Purpose when Warspite got hit by a Fritz X.
If it hadn’t been for that shell plating its likely the Fritz X that hit her would have done alot more damage, Possibly even causing her to combust, then and there as it hit RIGHT on a magazine.
Instead that old WW1 Shell plating ate up the Spall, and gave the crews enough time to figure out what to do. Which was flood the magazine to put out the fire the Fritz X caused.
You can’t just delete a Piece of armor that was instrumental in keeping that ship from going bellow the waves.
HTS, especially WWI era HTS, does not have nearly the same protective qualities as steels counted as armor steel in game. Laminating plates further reduces effectiveness. The 1” of HTS in the plan you posted would probably amount to around one quarter inch equivalent RHA protection at best, it isn’t anything to get this worked up over. Warspite is far from the only ship to be modeled this way. Nevada is a good example, with only the 1.5” STS plate added in modernization over existing steel modeled. If the entire laminated thickness were modeled as a single plate of homogeneous armor it would be more than twice as effective accounting for overmatch but also very inaccurate to reality. Further, modeling HTS as armor steel would turn many more modern battleships into volumetric nightmares in a sense resembling a massive armored beehive. I know off the top of my head from reading the damage report on South Dakota that the ship made extensive use of HTS in external playing outside the areas covered by STS and as internal bulkheads. If it were modeled with HTS having similar equivalent to antifrag armor for example it would be massively more durable than it really ought to be. While it might perhaps by better to model laminated plates as their calculated RHA equivalent that would also probably just generate a mass quantity of well intentioned bug reports while not really changing ships’ effectiveness in game.
Wait
The fritzx that punched through every armored deck and exploded in a boiler room as well as blowing out the double bottom of the hull?
She didn’t take a fritzx above her magazines, if she did she would have been dead.
Thank you for the work you put into researching.
