Germany has equal number of non-comissioned ship in tree now, Italy just next to Germany and USSR.
Not rule for USSR, but nations that didn’t have enough ships.
1 Like
https://samlib.ru/m/matweenko_a_g/proizwodstwobronidljanuzhdflotawrossijskojimperii.shtml
about ussr armour.
And yes, Kron and new Sevastopol had same issue, but very thick SS amrour especcialy.
Literaly this is not cemented armor, just face-hardened armor.
https://readli.net/lineynyie-korabli-tipa-amp-quot-sovetskiy-soyuz-amp-quot/
page 104-107
Кроме
того, ввиду отсутствия технических условий
и освоенной технологии заводы, а с ними и
НКОП даже в 1938 г. отказывались от изго-
товления плит толщиной более 200 мм.
In addition, due to the lack of technical conditions and the mastered technology, the factories, and with them the NKOP, even in 1938 refused to manufacture slabs more than 200 mm thick.
Фактически же,
в 1939 г. оба старых завода изготовили для
мониторов (типа Хасан) и линкоров проек-
та 23 всего 1844 т брони, в основном, гомо-
генной, из которой 996 т, то есть все 11
партий, постановленных Мариупольским
заводом, были забракованы по результатам
отстрела на полигоне. В 1939 г. этот завод
так и не смог поставить для отстрела цемен-
тированные плиты толщиной более 230 мм.
In fact, in 1939, both old plants produced only 1,844 tons of armor, mostly homogeneous, for monitors (Khasan type) and Project 23 battleships, of which 996 tons, i.e. all 11 batches issued by the Mariupol plant, were rejected based on the results of firing at the proving ground. In 1939, this plant was still unable to supply cemented plates more than 230 mm thick for firing.
На основе материалов прошедшей в
июне 1940 г. на базе ЦНИИ-48 конференции
по броне в ноябре того же года НК ВМФ и
НКСП выпустили совместный приказ, кото-
рый положил «…конец произволу отдель-
ных лиц и организаций в оценке пригодно-
сти отдельных типов брони». Приказ пред-
писывал ориентироваться «на броню БЦ в
толщинах выше 200 мм, а цементированную
броню (КЦ) сохранить для толщины до
200 мм». Несомненно это вынужденное ре-
шение несколько снижало бронестойкость
корабельных конструкций.
Based on the materials of the conference on armor held in June 1940 at the Central Research Institute-48, in November of the same year, the Navy Commissariat and the People’s Commissariat of Shipbuilding issued a joint order that put “…an end to the arbitrariness of individuals and organizations in assessing the suitability of individual types of armor.” The order prescribed focusing “on BC armor in thicknesses greater than 200 mm, and retaining cemented armor (CCA) for thicknesses up to 200 mm.” Undoubtedly, this forced decision somewhat reduced the armor resistance of ship structures.
BC (БЦ) this is name for face-hardened armor
Currently there are no face-hardened armor, only cemented armor in this game. Not soviet bias, but dagor engine problem.
WW1 british ships and all IJN warships were also face-hardened armor but still, they have cememtned armor in this game.
1 Like
Hardened armour exist in game
Lol what problem write code for one more type with Armour Modifier? CA armour is just modifier.
In case of SS they wanted to use cemented armor, but were forced to use face-hardened armor instead, and so they increased the thickness. In the end, nothing was actually built. So, either the armor thickness should be reduced, or the armor modifier should be lowered.
That modifier is already at limit to be added. Thats why ducol steel, one of important type of steel for armor and anti-fragmentation structure, does not get independent stats but divided into ‘structual steel’(which is far inferior than ducol steel), or RHA(which is better than ducol steel) by where it used.
That’s not faced hardened armour we’re talking about. Face hardened armour is about 1.05 X RHAe.
Russian book say another.
We demand a fair recalculation of this paper battleship! Of course he is from red nations.
I’ve read that book before too, and none of there saids ‘face hardened armor is weaker than rolled homogenous armor’.
Current ingame cemented armour is 1.1 X RHAe, what supposed to be ‘face hardened armour’ will be 1.05 X RHAe if implemented in game.
If you can’t understand what RHAe means, then I feel I don’t need to talk to someone that didn’t know even what he/she is talking about.
These ships have so much work poured into them I pray for the success of a future naval mode. I would LOVE to sail these into battle, but as naval currently stands I can’t do it, it’s so unentertaining for me 😔
2 Likes
Cemented armour IS face hardened armour tho - so what is the difference they are trying to make ?
the term “cemented” came from the mid-late 1800’s when it was literally “cementing” a hard plate to a softer one, but that was replaced by the 1900’s with face hardening by carburising - increasing the carbon content of the face and a thickness behind it - originally by covering it with ground carbon (charcoal or coke), which was in turn replaced by playing carbon-rich gas (eg acetylene) across it at high temperatures for several days.
That’s simplistic of course - there were often several steps of heat treatment lasting weeks.
cemented was a term first used by Krupp AFAIK - they used slightly different steel alloys, but hte process was essentially the same.
1 Like
There were difference between modern KCA and WW1 VH though, which is not extremely big.
But anyway, unless Gaijin upgrde their Dagor engine(which they doesn’t for two years for now), there will be no way distinguishing VH and KCA so yeah, pointless protest for now sadly.
1 Like
What is VH?? “Very Hard”??
Gaijin does already differentiate between face hardened and homogeneous for ships -
‘Vickers Hardened’
for that Hardened armour… that is not actually face hardened armour and didn’t use in any of heavy cruisers and battleships right now. It’s like 19th century hardened armour
Face hardened and cemented are exactly the same thing.
In term, yes. But Vickers Hardened armour and Krupp Cemented Armour are little different in quality. VH was little inferior to KCA irl.
That’s maybe why that book is mentioning as ‘as cemented fail, turns into face hardened’
VICKERS HARDENED NON-CEMENTED FACE-HARDENED ARMOR (VH) was a homogeneous armour - see TABLE OF METALLURGICAL PROPERTIES OF NAVAL ARMOR AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
In this case non-cemented means the carbon content of the surface layer was no different from the rest of the plate - the whole thickness was relatively high carbon content, not just the face.
As far as I can tell it was hardened by various heat treatments applied to the face - so the heat would have less effect on increasing hardness at greater depths.
It was unusual in that the hardest metal was located at about 7% of the depth of the plate - not on the face.
the 25" Yamato turret fronts were VH.
The site above rates it as quality of 0.839 - compared to KC and all similar cemented types at 1.0
If the Soviets couldn’t get consistent 230mm “cemented” then there was no way they were going to be able to make VH - I suspect the term above actually means homogeneous, not any form of face hardening at all.
And just as an FYI I don’t actually care about the precise nature of the ship - it shoots, it will make things go boom, it gets shot at and will go boom itself - but I do find the technical details of metallurgy and chemistry fascinating! :)
@Stona_WT The battleship of project 23 “Sovetsky Soyuz” is actually good!..
But what about the truly-legendary ships of the Russian Navy?
We need our Legends!
Even if they are not the most modern.
And in general, ironclads and other pre-dreadnought era ships are interesting not only as part of IJN.
15 Likes
Predreadnoughts need a different game
1 Like
Armoured cruiser Rurik can be in 5.7 in the future. But not sure about pre dreadnoughts… their armor is way above Ikoma and Kurama in game mostly.
Battleship “Slava” is very similar in her characteristics to the “Ikoma”.)
And in any case, for the Russian Navy this ship is as legendary as the recently “passed” Mikasa for IJN.
I can’t agree, especially since the aforementioned “Ikoma” plays quite well.