Wedge or Tapered Armor Modeling

[Kaiser Kirk]

So, I'm putting this up here for comments/suggestions, or vehement objections.

For some time I've wanted to have belts that thinned towards the edges.

These were historically used both to extend the belt upwards, and so guard against shells diving over the belt- my goal at this time
AND
These were used to extend the belt downwards, to guard against shallow shorts.
As design got into the 1920s, and the possibility of shells pass under the ~1.6m deep belts grew, many countries had a tapered lower belt
- eventually turning into the armored bulkheads of the South Dakotas..which actually made them worse.

The Alternative is to have a very "Tall" belt of even thickness and prohibitive weight - which would be Ahistorical.

This would not be mandatory, but I feel could easily be explained in the design notes.

The questions I've wrestled with is how to explain
A) what they did
B) why I want to bother.
C) what I want to do

This shows some historical ships (scanned from Breyer), and the simple math which would give you a modeled result- and in this case save .375m of belt height.


This shows why the Parthians - with their continued use of Protective decks - want to extend the belt upwards, but thin it
At this time, the underwater strikes like Bismarck vs. Prince of Wales would not be known, but simple wave period and roll would.


So, what I'd like to do, is see if there are any strong objections to my detailing a thinning belt extension,
and modeling the "averaged" height of the full thickness belt in SS,
but detailing the full extent in the design notes.

It's consistent with 1910s technology.
It's simple math, open to any who wish to bother
Not required, and not a huge advantage for doing it, I save a little, but not unbalancing amount

[snip]

The big question to jump to mind is how much does the height of the belt play into the combat sim aspect. What effect, if any, does the noted belt height have on simming? Little broader than this, but something thats been nagging the back of my mind.

[Kaiser Kirk]

That's something I've been trying to incorporate.
Base Seakrieg is just "belt" or deck, as the default ships only have those values.

The little 3x5 cards with the ship diagram I make have freeboard and the various heights of the belts.
When there is a hit, I roll for how far from the bow it is, then take the freeboard in meters to roll how high up the hit is.

All that is why a stock record sheet I can just fill out is on my 'To Do'.

For below WL hits, I'm a little inconsistent as it's a tracking issue.  I have completely forgotten it // I have simply tacked on 1-2m of "target height" // and in the case of the Battle of Dakar, I tracked the 5x shell dia as max dive and added that in- which meant there was potential for underwater hits as the belt was right to the waterline (which happened historically).

Once I have which belt area it's impacting on, I compare the penetration vs. that target armor.  If it's real close, I may worry about angles. Likewise I'll factor in protective decks when relevant. While Armor decks should grant a bit more floatation, I haven't quite worked that out yet.

Any penetrating hits can do criticals.

For Upper Belt crits, I disallow systems that are not hittable by the shell splinters from that area.
There is a 'pass through' % in SK44 I'll use for the AoN ships.

It all makes battles against 1 hit MTBs much easier than complexly armored battlewagons...but less interesting.

See, all very simple.

And rolling for 'how high' on the belt is already part of the process.

[snip]

This seems like something that would be a good thing to have a calculator for, like we have for Destroyer trial speeds and research.

[The Rock Doctor]

As long as the math is clear and visible, I'm okay with this sort of modeling.

[Jefgte]

I agree

A kind of "Trial Speed Destroyer " calculator is probably the best solution.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I have no clue how to make a forum calculator.

But I'm quite happy to "Show my work" so the math is cleanly presented.

[snip]

Guinness would be the man with the calculators.

[TacCovert4]

I'm going to give a tentative yes.  I'd like to have some sort of calculation notes for it per class.  Or something.  As it stands we presume that a belt is 50 50 split at the waterline, or at least a meter and a half under, unless noted differently.

[Kaiser Kirk]

I'm going to give a tentative yes.  I'd like to have some sort of calculation notes for it per class.  Or something.  As it stands we presume that a belt is 50 50 split at the waterline, or at least a meter and a half under, unless noted differently.

Thats what I will have to do for AON.
Currently I presume the upperbelt covers from freeboard down to the main belt, then the main belt goes the rest of the way.
Historically there were ships where the belt stopped at the waterline, or was just ~1foot under.
Then there were ships that became so overloaded the belt was under the waterline...also bad as holes in the side allow free flooding over the decks.