Battleships

[Logi]

He has steadiness he can trade in.

He still has to fix it though.

Really? No precedent?

I shun the ESC thick decks. Also ledepder breaks the decks up into multiple decks. I meant precedent as in actual combat experience that would demand such thick decks.

While I think 13.5" is thick enough for this situation, there is precedent again

I don't know what you are talking about? He's trying to roll good quality 15" steel. No nation can really do that. That's pushing Maori limits. And then a Maori ship going at 27+ kt? Unthinkable.

Maybe he has 7.5' decks?

Maybe. I just said it was odd. Odd =/= wrong.

Usually the TDS mated with the bottom of the MB. AFAIK, only the Germans carried up to main deck level as a splinter shield behind the belt. I'd say it could actually be shorter.

When you mate the TDS with the bottom of a MB, you create a vulnerability zone. The point of mating is a major weak point in the strength holding the TDS and belt together. It is a very weak seam. Hence any torpedo or shell hits there will cause massive flooding.

It's the same with any joint. That's why joints should be backed and not mated on edges.

[Sachmle]

I shun the ESC thick decks. Also ledepder breaks the decks up into multiple decks. I meant precedent as in actual combat experience that would demand such thick decks.

I don't know what you are talking about? He's trying to roll good quality 15" steel. No nation can really do that. That's pushing Maori limits. And then a Maori ship going at 27+ kt? Unthinkable.

1. Agree.

2. What don't you understand in my response? The 13.5" part or the "Maoria has previously, and can still roll 15"+ face-hard belt armor"?

[Logi]

2. What don't you understand in my response? The 13.5" part or the "Maoria has previously, and can still roll 15"+ face-hard belt armor"?

Last time I checked, the Maori could roll 15" belts but that was the limit. They have rolled 15" belts, but that was the limit of how thick a belt could get.

[Delta Force]

I found a relative thickness calculator online, but I didn't find anything that would give the vertical height of the sloped armor plate, so that's where the unusual deck height came into being. If I knew what the number should be to give 8.25 foot decks I could fix it. Anyone have a calculator or formula that can be used to calculate it?

Also, I had to reduce speed to keep the ship stable, and I really had no where else to put the weight except armor, since more guns would just increase the problem, as would making the ship smaller. That, and the armor isn't that extreme. The Standard Battleships had 5 inch decks, and the Bayern class had nearly 14 inches of armor.

[Logi]

I find relative thickness to be the difficult pat. Actual height of a belt is just simple trigonometry.

Input*sin(angle)

Also:

The Standard Battleships had 5 inch decks, and the Bayern class had nearly 14 inches of armor

Counterpoint is: This is N-Verse, not OTL.

Also; check the belt/deck of either. The Bayern had 13.8" of belt (but that's a far cry from 15" and it was only in a small portion of the main belt, and it was vertical as well) and it's deck was 2.4" (3.9" in important areas). The Standards had 5" decks, but had 13-13.5" belts. However, that was not a single 5" piece but a 3.5" main deck and a 1.5" splinter deck.

If your deck is the same, you must note it. Otherwise it will be taken as one single thick deck. Which is thick beyond reason based on experiences in N-Verse.

Also, comparing 13.8" VERTICAL to 15" SLOPED HEAVILY as not extreme is the same as going from 13.8"/50 to 15"/50 and passing it off as no big deal.

What you have just done is take the highest armor of a ship that can be found and fuse it with another component and try to justify it by passing both as example. A soley 13.5" ship has justification. A 5" thick deck ship with multiple decks has some justification. However, a ship with both greater than 13.5" armor AND a 5" thick single deck has no justifications.

[Delta Force]

So in other words, design the armor for the range you wish to fight at? Thick decks for long range, thick belts for closer in?

I'll probably stick to long range to use the speed advantage of the ship, and also because super-dreadnought guns can penetrate any amount of armor that can be reasonably carried by a ship at closer range.

[Logi]

So in other words, design the armor for the range you wish to fight at? Thick decks for long range, thick belts for closer in?

Yes. Take note that the FC of this time isn't very good so fighting at long range isn't very feasible yet. Ofc, if you do decide on long range and add a thick deck, break it up into multiple decks, please.

[Delta Force]

Can you please provide an example of the formula with respect to armor? I haven't used this kind of math in a while, and it was for astronomy. I'm not sure how it works out once you induce a slope in the armor since the location of the right angle would change (since the armor would no longer be vertical and have a right angle of its own at either of its edges).

[Logi]

I'm not sure what you are asking for here?

Actual belt height or LOS thickness for a belt?

[Delta Force]

Well, for in terms of what kind of belt height would I need to get a vertical coverage of 16.5 feet with a slope of 20 degrees. I found a calculator that can find the new relative thickness of a sloped piece of armor, so I can figure that part out. I just don't know how high the belt must be including a slope of 20 degrees to get a vertical coverage of 16.5 feet (since sloping sacrifices height to increase relative thickness).

However, the formula for relative thickness would be interesting to know too. I should try to pick up the trigonometry I have forgotten.

[ctwaterman]

Ugg....

Remember when you told your math teacher but I will never real life ever ever use these formulas ???

Well you were wrong and the math teacher was right ????

Charles

[miketr]

Well, for in terms of what kind of belt height would I need to get a vertical coverage of 16.5 feet with a slope of 20 degrees. I found a calculator that can find the new relative thickness of a sloped piece of armor, so I can figure that part out. I just don't know how high the belt must be including a slope of 20 degrees to get a vertical coverage of 16.5 feet (since sloping sacrifices height to increase relative thickness).

However, the formula for relative thickness would be interesting to know too. I should try to pick up the trigonometry I have forgotten.

I can do the math but would suck at explaining it.  So I will cheat and show you an app instead.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html

You have side b 16.5, you have your angle A 20 degrees.  The app does the rest.

Michael

[Logi]

Listed SS belt height * cos(angle) = actual belt height.

Listed SS belt thickness / cos(angle) = LOS thickness (Not recommended as it oversimplifies things)

Therefore:

Actual Belt Height / cos(angle) = Desired SS Belt Height

Desired LOS thickness * cos(angle) = SS Belt Thickness

[ctwaterman]

I knew it I just knew it was going to involve and angle and a side of a triangle and a sine, Cosine, or tangent...

heck I think were on a tangent right now... :o ;D

So make damn sure you calculator has the sine, cosine and tangent functions or use mike' sneaky program.

Charles

[Guinness]

I'm math-phobic and I hate trig, but relative thickness isn't that hard to figure out. I usually have to resort to pen and paper to make sure I have the right measurements in the right places though.

This causes a curious look on my face though:

Listed SS belt thickness / cos(angle) = LOS thickness (Not recommended as it oversimplifies things)

This is absolutely true if you want to calculate the thickness of armor of an angled plate at 90degrees LoS which itself has uniform thickness, is it not?