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 😔
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.
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.
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?
Predreadnoughts need a different game
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.
Because it is at a nice low BR where it can monster DD’s - especially with the new aiming system - I know it well because I wrote most of the old wiki article on it!
But that is 1 ship - and its weakness es are hidden by being among a lot of newer ships.
Start having more pre-WW1 ships in games and things like lack of AA and lack of speed will become proportionally more evident.
So no South Dakota class? :(
It’s a rule for every in-game nation, in case of Italy for example all incomplete ships are completely unnecessary, only Caracciolo was considered something needed, but in the way it’s eventually implemented it became kinda pointless.
PS I still hope they’ll reconsider this naval special treatment and hide all incomplete ships (and change project refits to existed ones), instead they could remove that rule of same ship can’t be in different nations TTs and add Guilio Cesare and Regina Maria.
Which would be quite proportional to the same “Mikasa”. And not counting the fact that “Slava” had AA-guns - many later ships in the game have fewer of them.)
Of course, this won’t make her jump above her head… But she will still have her place in the game.
Moreover, I repeat, she is one of the true-legends - and if this is possible for the IJN, then Russian Navy has the right to the same.
Indeed - a contemporary - not a fast patrol boat from 50 years later!
And such guns were sooooooo effective… you are going to put these at 6.0 and above - they will face jets.
No one has any such “rights” - we get what Gaijin gives us - mostly I suspect it is what they have detailed plans for.
And Ikoma is no legend - so if you are going to make comparisons then you also get “not legendary” :p
Mind you everything at Tsushima qualifies as “not legendary” I suppose…
That “if” there is key 😝
