Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
BaryOnyxx

Poor Roma

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
263 posts
4,118 battles

I'm not sure how WG will handle Roma, so I'm writing this little blurb which no one will give a damn about, just for the first amendment aspect of it.

 

    Roma is far too strong for a T8 ship; she probably would have been better as a T9, and here's my logic:

The first reason that the Roma would be a better T9 ship, is because of her hitting power.  If we look at the other T8 ships, the Amagi, the Bismarcks, the Alabama and South Carolina's, and the Monarch, we see ships with decent, but not outrageous hitting power.  The hitting power of the Roma's guns was on par, or better than that of the Yamato's guns at medium/long range.  True, at point blank range the Yamato did penetrate more armor, but after 15,000 yards, the Roma's guns were actually capable of greater penetration than the Yamato's.  I have no clue How WG intends to model this, but I have a bad feeling that "bigger is always better", will be their motto, so that the Roma's guns will be relegated to being equal to other T8 units' armament, guns that had nowhere near the destructive ability of Roma's main battery. This will be a real shame, and an injustice to one of the ship's great strengths, and main reasons for owning her.  Roma's guns were simply superb, capable of hitting just as hard as T10 guns in this game, and if this ability is taken away from her, she will be "Roma" in name only. 
 
       In the Bismarck's final battle, British BB guns didn't have the KE to penetrate the Krupps Wotan armor that made up the combination of Bismarck's belt and barbette armors at point blank range; the 381mm Ansaldo model 1934 used on the Littorio class would have been able to penetrate the combined armor at the ranges the British were firing at.  According to Dulin and Garzke's definitive work on capital ships; Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, if we refer to page 496, appendix "C", "Capital-Ship Main-Battery Guns", and check the entry for the Ansaldo Model 1934, we see that the gun was capable of penetrating 510mm of vertical, face-hardened armor at 18,000 yards; the combination of the two mentioned layers of armor on the Bismarck were 320mm + 220mm, for 540mm.  I think it safe to say that if the Roma would have been within 15,000 yards of Bismarck, a single, properly placed shell would have been able to penetrate directly to one of the shell handling rooms, causing predictable devastation.  Please don't misunderstand me; I am not critical of the Bismarck, as she was a fine ship, and the British BBs were fearsome war machines that were up against a formidable foe, I am merely trying to point out that the Littorio class ships had such devastating hitting power, that I am not sure of how WG can  model the quantities, and keep Roma a T8 ship.
 
  The next thing, is that Roma had very compact machinery spaces.  In this game, designers call it the citadel: in real life, the fact that the Roma was intended for a very limited range of operations, meant that her designers were able to build her with very small machinery spaces, propulsion spaces, and in general, compact vitals that were very well protected.  This should make her VERY difficult to "citadel", as such an event would be the net equivalent of threading a needle. 
    Next, comes her controversial torpedo defense system.  The truth of the matter is that if the Pugliese system was hit by a torpedo, it generally did a decent job of absorbing the impact.  Unfortunately, the shear forces would disrupt a great part of the defense system, rendering the rest of it less capable of absorbing subsequent hits.  However, if the ship had the misfortune of being struck outside of the protected system, then damage to the ship could be very, very severe, and such an event did happen once to Littorio, and once to Veneto.  This is the ship's "Achille's Heel".
 
    The next issue is that of dispersion.  Roma's detractors keep making the shrill argument that the Littorio class occasionally showed excessive dispersion during combat.  This is an old complaint, and the cause of this problem was discovered in the 1960s, and is well documented.  Italian military supply was very irregular in world war two, and as a result, ammunition quality was very uneven.  The Vittorio Veneto, which got most of its ammunition from its port in Naples, frequently showed evidence of improperly manufactured projectiles, in the form of excessive dispersion when firing her main guns.  Yet Littorio, supplied by more modern northern ordnance suppliers, proved itself capable of accurate fire out to a range of 35,000 yards, splintering British destroyers, though not scoring direct hits. The only other ships that could come close to such an achievement, were the New Jersey and the Missouri, shooting at Japanese destroyers in 1945, straddling and splintering them, from a range of 35,000 yards, with radar guided gun fire. 
 
   Last but not least, Nathan Okun described Roma's Terni Cemented Armor as the "Best all-around armor ever used on a battleship".  It was both hard, and tough, highly resistant to spalling, and in simple words, required less thickness to maintain a particular level of protection, than any other armor used on capital ships - at least it did according to Mr. Okun. Again, I wonder how WG is going to handle this one.
   In closing, The Roma would represent a combination of devastating hitting power, exceptional accuracy, and a solid armor scheme, that no T8 could possibly match.  Her guns alone were on such a different level than those used by the Germans, or anyone else for that matter, that we're really looking at T10 guns on a T8 BB.  But then again, maybe there's a glimmer of hope; WG gave the T6 Molotov an AP power that punches holes in T8 BB armor, so if history is any indicator, maybe there's hope for the Roma - but then again, Roma isn't a Russian ship.............
Prediction:  I sadly predict that Roma will not be modelled to its full, awesome potential.  However, I am grateful to WG for the Giulio Cesare; I knew she was about to be released when I read the ceasar salad joke, and am very glad to see another Italian ship.  Thanks WG!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
399
[GC]
Alpha Tester
1,101 posts
5,173 battles

I've seen plenty of Bismarck, Yamato, and Iowa fanboys, but I think this is the first time I've ever seen anybody gushing about Roma/Littorio. No way is Roma a tier 9. She's a contemporary of Bismarck, KGV, and North Carolina. Solid tier 8. Probably very good tier 8, if Giulio Cesare is anything to judge by.

--Helms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
9,887 posts
17,704 battles
13 minutes ago, Rotten_Fish said:

I'm not sure how WG will handle Roma, so I'm writing this little blurb which no one will give a damn about, just for the first amendment aspect of it.

 

    Roma is far too strong for a T8 ship; she probably would have been better as a T9, and here's my logic:

The first reason that the Roma would be a better T9 ship, is because of her hitting power.  If we look at the other T8 ships, the Amagi, the Bismarcks, the Alabama and South Carolina's, and the Monarch, we see ships with decent, but not outrageous hitting power.  The hitting power of the Roma's guns was on par, or better than that of the Yamato's guns at medium/long range.  True, at point blank range the Yamato did penetrate more armor, but after 15,000 yards, the Roma's guns were actually capable of greater penetration than the Yamato's.  I have no clue How WG intends to model this, but I have a bad feeling that "bigger is always better", will be their motto, so that the Roma's guns will be relegated to being equal to other T8 units' armament, guns that had nowhere near the destructive ability of Roma's main battery. This will be a real shame, and an injustice to one of the ship's great strengths, and main reasons for owning her.  Roma's guns were simply superb, capable of hitting just as hard as T10 guns in this game, and if this ability is taken away from her, she will be "Roma" in name only. 
 
       In the Bismarck's final battle, British BB guns didn't have the KE to penetrate the Krupps Wotan armor that made up the combination of Bismarck's belt and barbette armors at point blank range; the 381mm Ansaldo model 1934 used on the Littorio class would have been able to penetrate the combined armor at the ranges the British were firing at.  According to Dulin and Garzke's definitive work on capital ships; Battleships Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, if we refer to page 496, appendix "C", "Capital-Ship Main-Battery Guns", and check the entry for the Ansaldo Model 1934, we see that the gun was capable of penetrating 510mm of vertical, face-hardened armor at 18,000 yards; the combination of the two mentioned layers of armor on the Bismarck were 320mm + 220mm, for 540mm.  I think it safe to say that if the Roma would have been within 15,000 yards of Bismarck, a single, properly placed shell would have been able to penetrate directly to one of the shell handling rooms, causing predictable devastation.  Please don't misunderstand me; I am not critical of the Bismarck, as she was a fine ship, and the British BBs were fearsome war machines that were up against a formidable foe, I am merely trying to point out that the Littorio class ships had such devastating hitting power, that I am not sure of how WG can  model the quantities, and keep Roma a T8 ship.
 
  The next thing, is that Roma had very compact machinery spaces.  In this game, designers call it the citadel: in real life, the fact that the Roma was intended for a very limited range of operations, meant that her designers were able to build her with very small machinery spaces, propulsion spaces, and in general, compact vitals that were very well protected.  This should make her VERY difficult to "citadel", as such an event would be the net equivalent of threading a needle. 
    Next, comes her controversial torpedo defense system.  The truth of the matter is that if the Pugliese system was hit by a torpedo, it generally did a decent job of absorbing the impact.  Unfortunately, the shear forces would disrupt a great part of the defense system, rendering the rest of it less capable of absorbing subsequent hits.  However, if the ship had the misfortune of being struck outside of the protected system, then damage to the ship could be very, very severe, and such an event did happen once to Littorio, and once to Veneto.  This is the ship's "Achille's Heel".
 
    The next issue is that of dispersion.  Roma's detractors keep making the shrill argument that the Littorio class occasionally showed excessive dispersion during combat.  This is an old complaint, and the cause of this problem was discovered in the 1960s, and is well documented.  Italian military supply was very irregular in world war two, and as a result, ammunition quality was very uneven.  The Vittorio Veneto, which got most of its ammunition from its port in Naples, frequently showed evidence of improperly manufactured projectiles, in the form of excessive dispersion when firing her main guns.  Yet Littorio, supplied by more modern northern ordnance suppliers, proved itself capable of accurate fire out to a range of 35,000 yards, splintering British destroyers, though not scoring direct hits. The only other ships that could come close to such an achievement, were the New Jersey and the Missouri, shooting at Japanese destroyers in 1945, straddling and splintering them, from a range of 35,000 yards, with radar guided gun fire. 
 
   Last but not least, Nathan Okun described Roma's Terni Cemented Armor as the "Best all-around armor ever used on a battleship".  It was both hard, and tough, highly resistant to spalling, and in simple words, required less thickness to maintain a particular level of protection, than any other armor used on capital ships - at least it did according to Mr. Okun. Again, I wonder how WG is going to handle this one.
   In closing, The Roma would represent a combination of devastating hitting power, exceptional accuracy, and a solid armor scheme, that no T8 could possibly match.  Her guns alone were on such a different level than those used by the Germans, or anyone else for that matter, that we're really looking at T10 guns on a T8 BB.  But then again, maybe there's a glimmer of hope; WG gave the T6 Molotov an AP power that punches holes in T8 BB armor, so if history is any indicator, maybe there's hope for the Roma - but then again, Roma isn't a Russian ship.............
Prediction:  I sadly predict that Roma will not be modelled to its full, awesome potential.  However, I am grateful to WG for the Giulio Cesare; I knew she was about to be released when I read the ceasar salad joke, and am very glad to see another Italian ship.  Thanks WG!!

first off, South Carolina IS NOT A T8, you're thinking of NORTH Carolina there buddy

*EDIT* i sense a Dseehafer is inbound with much knowledge

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

You missed like half of Bismarck's vertical armor. No mention of her 120mm turleback or her 45mm longitudinal bulkhead, or of her 57mm magazine walls. You also cannot just add up armor thicknesses, though, just to humor you... that's 320 + 120 + 45 + 57 + 220 = 762mm... and that's without taking into account the effective thickness of the turtleback. And then there's the fact that the belt was mounted on 60mm of teak and the fact that the area between the turleback and the longitudinal bulkhead is filled with fuel oil and water. There was not a naval gun ever made that was capable of penetrating a Bismark class's magazines. Even the Americans didnt give their mk8 super heavy shell a chance in hell of penetrating a Bismarck's magazine from within 25km according to their own calculations.

 

Now, this does not take away from the fact that Littorio's guns do in fact have very good penetration. Even if this proves to be a problem, the guns were only rated at 1.5rpm anyways, if need-be her gun's superb penetration can be balanced by gosh-awful rof all within historical boundaries. Roma will be fine, further balace against her firepower is the fact that she'd be the lightest t8 battleship in the game, which means she'll have fewer hitpoints than every other t8 battleship. And her AA is, on paper, worse than even Tirpitz's... so there's that too. Again, Roma will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Also, historical accuracy plays no role in this game (if it did there would be no way German battleships are as inaccurate as they are), among other factors, accuracy in-game is measured by how far apart the guns are on a ship. The further the guns, the less accurate. This completely flies in the face of historical accuracy, but oh well, thats the way it is in-game.

 

And for that matter, historical armor quality is not represented in-game either. WG does not look at armor type, composition, or quality, only thickness.

 

Most of your concerns about Roma are non-issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles

Concerning her citadel, according to Phoenix_JZ, this is what it will look like in-game...

 

IDtkkqO.png

6AFdEon.png

 

As you can see, it is still above the waterline. Which means it will be easier to hit than the citadels on the RNBBs. I did not say "easy", I said "easier", just to make myself clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,324
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts

I like Roma too, but please don't push her to be a free XP premium. I don't want to grind for her. I just want to rub a bunch of money on her and take her home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,716 posts
4,076 battles
46 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

first off, South Carolina IS NOT A T8, you're thinking of NORTH Carolina there buddy

*EDIT* i sense a Dseehafer is inbound with much knowledge

 

I bet a SC could rock in a Tier 8 match though. At least sink like one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[HELLS]
Members
2,970 posts
39,923 battles
1 hour ago, dseehafer said:

You missed like half of Bismarck's vertical armor. No mention of her 120mm turleback or her 45mm longitudinal bulkhead, or of her 57mm magazine walls. You also cannot just add up armor thicknesses, though, just to humor you... that's 320 + 120 + 45 + 57 + 220 = 762mm... and that's without taking into account the effective thickness of the turtleback. And then there's the fact that the belt was mounted on 60mm of teak and the fact that the area between the turleback and the longitudinal bulkhead is filled with fuel oil and water. There was not a naval gun ever made that was capable of penetrating a Bismark class's magazines. Even the Americans didnt give their mk8 super heavy shell a chance in hell of penetrating a Bismarck's magazine from within 25km according to their own calculations.

 

Now, this does not take away from the fact that Littorio's guns do in fact have very good penetration. Even if this proves to be a problem, the guns were only rated at 1.5rpm anyways, if need-be her gun's superb penetration can be balanced by gosh-awful rof all within historical boundaries. Roma will be fine, further balace against her firepower is the fact that she'd be the lightest t8 battleship in the game, which means she'll have fewer hitpoints than every other t8 battleship. And her AA is, on paper, worse than even Tirpitz's... so there's that too. Again, Roma will be fine.

Please explain the 14-inch hole in the front faceplate or Turret Anton of Bismarck noted by Dr. Ballard during his examination of the wreck....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
9 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Please explain the 14-inch hole in the front faceplate or Turret Anton of Bismarck noted by Dr. Ballard during his examination of the wreck....

 

That's the turret. We're not talking about the turret, we're talking about the magazine. Bismarck's turret armor was crap, that much is well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[HELLS]
Members
2,970 posts
39,923 battles
8 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

That's the turret. We're not talking about the turret, we're talking about the magazine. Bismarck's turret armor was crap, that much is well known.

That's a 360mm faceplate of Krupp face-hardened KC n/A armor plate you are talking about. 16.07 inches. Think about that for a bit....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

You lost me at comparable firepower to the Yamato. In game, really only 2 things matter with BB gun firepower and Roma has neither.

Shell caliber and shell weight are king. That's why Yamato is the Mack Daddy. She has the fattest, heaviest shells in the game. That's why the USN 16" guns are in the #2 spot. They aren't as large in caliber as the IJN 410mms or the Brit 419mms or the German 420mm, but the shells are so much heavier that they are harder hitting. A 381mm shell that is only 1900 pounds isn't going to clock in anywhere near a 460mm shell that weights 3000, or a 406mm shell that weighs 2700.

As we all know, things that work well in game and things that work well in reality are often not really related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
19 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

That's a 360mm faceplate of Krupp face-hardened KC n/A armor plate you are talking about. 16.07 inches. Think about that for a bit....

 

What's there to think about? Any turret face-plate under 400mm was crap for that time. There is not a single naval historian worth his salt out there praising the Bismarck class's turret armor. Not only was the armor comparatively thin compared to other modern battleships but the turret design was terrible as well (to add insult to injury). In fact, the turret design encouraged penetrations by giving an incoming shell a near-flat surface to penetrate. Other turrets, like those on the American fast battleships, presented an angled plate no matter what angle the shell is coming in from. No other battleship ever built protected its magazines and machinery spaces better than the Bismarck's did (at normal combat ranges), but their turret protection was terrible.

 

There. The most notorious German naval fanboi on the forums isn't even willing to defend the Bismarck class's turret armor...

 

Think about THAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles

You missed like half of Bismarck's vertical armor. No mention of her 120mm turleback or her 45mm longitudinal bulkhead, or of her 57mm magazine walls. You also cannot just add up armor thicknesses, though, just to humor you... that's 320 + 120 + 45 + 57 + 220 = 762mm... and that's without taking into account the effective thickness of the turtleback. And then there's the fact that the belt was mounted on 60mm of teak and the fact that the area between the turleback and the longitudinal bulkhead is filled with fuel oil and water. There was not a naval gun ever made that was capable of penetrating a Bismark class's magazines. Even the Americans didnt give their mk8 super heavy shell a chance in hell of penetrating a Bismarck's magazine from within 25km according to their own calculations.

 

Hello,

 

    Thanks for your detailed reply.  There's a bit more to it than what you've described, and I'm sorry, but the shell wouldn't have to penetrate 762mm of armor.  From 15,000 yards, a shell from the Littorio would be ingressing at approximately -17 degrees, meaning that it could, conceivably, strike the 320mm belt, have enough energy to penetrate it, and then proceed to pierce the 110mm slope over the fuel bunkers, and counterflooding void.  The projectile would then be on a reasonably close track to strike the shell handling rooms, if it hit the right point, or course.  I regret that we can't post large files on this forum, but if you want to contact me privately, I would be more than happy to scan the image in Garzke's book, and show you what I mean.  What I am referring to is approximately how the Duke of York got it's "Magic Bullet" in the Scharnhorst, which had heavier armor, defeated by a much weaker shell, from a longer distance ( I believe DOY was at 22k yards when she crippled Scharnhorst).

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles

Concerning her citadel, according to Phoenix_JZ, this is what it will look like in-game...

 

 

I have a different version from Dulin and Garzke that I can send you also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles
21 minutes ago, Captain_Dorja said:

You lost me at comparable firepower to the Yamato. In game, really only 2 things matter with BB gun firepower and Roma has neither.

Shell caliber and shell weight are king. That's why Yamato is the Mack Daddy. She has the fattest, heaviest shells in the game. That's why the USN 16" guns are in the #2 spot. They aren't as large in caliber as the IJN 410mms or the Brit 419mms or the German 420mm, but the shells are so much heavier that they are harder hitting. A 381mm shell that is only 1900 pounds isn't going to clock in anywhere near a 460mm shell that weights 3000, or a 406mm shell that weighs 2700.

As we all know, things that work well in game and things that work well in reality are often not really related.

Only two things matter, you're right; the structural integrity of the shell, and its kinetic energy.   Think of it like this; most LEOs would prefer a .357 magnum over a .45 ACP, even thought the .45 is heavier.  The reason is that the magnum has considerably more kinetic energy, and energy, after all, is the ability to do work, or, wreak havoc.  The ideas of weight-based gunnery dates back to Nelson at Trafalgar and the Carronnets (sp?), and other weight-based cannons that were all firing sub-sonic shot.  Weight was the only way to increase energy, when velocity was fixed at high subsonic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
10 minutes ago, Rotten_Fish said:

You missed like half of Bismarck's vertical armor. No mention of her 120mm turleback or her 45mm longitudinal bulkhead, or of her 57mm magazine walls. You also cannot just add up armor thicknesses, though, just to humor you... that's 320 + 120 + 45 + 57 + 220 = 762mm... and that's without taking into account the effective thickness of the turtleback. And then there's the fact that the belt was mounted on 60mm of teak and the fact that the area between the turleback and the longitudinal bulkhead is filled with fuel oil and water. There was not a naval gun ever made that was capable of penetrating a Bismark class's magazines. Even the Americans didnt give their mk8 super heavy shell a chance in hell of penetrating a Bismarck's magazine from within 25km according to their own calculations.

 

Hello,

 

    Thanks for your detailed reply.  There's a bit more to it than what you've described, and I'm sorry, but the shell wouldn't have to penetrate 762mm of armor.  From 15,000 yards, a shell from the Littorio would be ingressing at approximately -17 degrees, meaning that it could, conceivably, strike the 320mm belt, have enough energy to penetrate it, and then proceed to pierce the 110mm slope over the fuel bunkers, and counterflooding void.  The projectile would then be on a reasonably close track to strike the shell handling rooms, if it hit the right point, or course.  I regret that we can't post large files on this forum, but if you want to contact me privately, I would be more than happy to scan the image in Garzke's book, and show you what I mean.  What I am referring to is approximately how the Duke of York got it's "Magic Bullet" in the Scharnhorst, which had heavier armor, defeated by a much weaker shell, from a longer distance ( I believe DOY was at 22k yards when she crippled Scharnhorst).

 

Peace.

 

First off, we now know that DoY did not put a shell through Scharnhorst's engine room. In fact, Scharnhorst was just having the very same engine troubles that she had been plagued with her entire career and that's why her speed dropped so dramatically. (Saxton, Bonomi, Gehringer)

 

Now, if Scharnhorst's engine rooms had been penetrated this is how it would have been done...

 

Image result for scharnhorst armor

 

 

Scharnhorst's machinery did not fit under her forward and rear armor deck so the armor deck over the engines had to be raised, this created a narrow 80mm longitudinal bulkhead. This area was weak enough to be penetrated by DoY's 14" shell. It would not have been able to punch through the turtleback and the longitudinal torpedo bulkhead, no naval shell would have been able to (at least according to Nathan Okun's calculations).

 

The Bismarck class did not have this problem, there was no weak spot for an incoming shell to take advantage of.

 

Image result for tirpitz armor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles
7 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

What's there to think about? Any turret face-plate under 400mm was crap for that time. There is not a single naval historian worth his salt out there praising the Bismarck class's turret armor. Not only was the armor comparatively thin compared to other modern battleships but the turret design was terrible as well (to add insult to injury). In fact, the turret design encouraged penetrations by giving an incoming shell a near-flat surface to penetrate. Other turrets, like those on the American fast battleships, presented an angled plate no matter what angle the shell is coming in from. No other battleship ever built protected its magazines and machinery spaces better than the Bismarck's did (at normal combat ranges), but their turret protection was terrible.

Again, refer to how the Duke of York Felled Scharnhorst, and we can continue this discussion from a quantitative point of view.  I have the books for Scharnhorst, too.  (Hey, what can I say?  I',m an old timer who reads paper pages, not gallium arsenide-phosphate doped indium oxide pixels on silicon substrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles
4 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

First off, we now know that DoY did not put a shell through Scharnhorst's engine room. In fact, Scharnhorst was just having the very same engine troubles that she had been plagued with her entire career and that's why her speed dropped so dramatically.

 

Now, if Scharnhorst's engine rooms had been penetrated this is how it would have been done...

 

Image result for scharnhorst armor

 

 

Scharnhorst's machinery did not fit under her forward and rear armor deck so the armor deck over the engines had to be raised, this created a narrow 80mm longitudinal bulkhead. This area was weak enough to be penetrated by DoY's 14" shell. It would not have been able to punch through the turtleback and the longitudinal torpedo bulkhead, no naval shell would have been able to.

 

The Bismarck class did not have this problem, there was no weak spot for an incoming shell to take advantage of.

 

Image result for tirpitz armor

HOW DO YOU POST SUCH LARGE FILES????   Geez, I am totally out of touch!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
Just now, Rotten_Fish said:

HOW DO YOU POST SUCH LARGE FILES????   Geez, I am totally out of touch!!!

 

Just good ol' copy-paste. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,791
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
8,856 posts
3,680 battles
13 minutes ago, Rotten_Fish said:

Concerning her citadel, according to Phoenix_JZ, this is what it will look like in-game...

 

 

I have a different version from Dulin and Garzke that I can send you also.

 

It is important to note that a citadel in-game is anything between the foremost and rearmost armored bulkheads and anything under the lowest armored deck. In other words, if the lowest armor deck on a particular ship is above water, then the citadel will extend up to that height and will also be above water. Ships with lower armor decks in-game therefore have lower and harder to hit citadels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles
1 minute ago, dseehafer said:

 

Just good ol' copy-paste. :)

Now I see it!   OK, File size has been increased from 500k to 50MB - big difference!   I will scan Dulin and Garzke  for the Bismarck's protection scheme vs. a shell from the Ansaldo 1934, the Scharnhorst's data, and Garzke's data on the Littorio's machinery spaces, and we can compare notes.  The thing about the 1934 was that it was the only major-caliber shell that used a Sears-Haack figure of revolution, instead of a Spitzer Ogive; this allowed the projectile to keep an inordinate amount of energy downrange, and combined with its very stout construction, it tended to stay together upon impact, and resisted deflections *a bit* more than Spitzer Ogives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
263 posts
4,118 battles
2 minutes ago, dseehafer said:

 

It is important to note that a citadel in-game is anything between the foremost and rearmost armored bulkheads and anything under the lowest armored deck. In other words, if the lowest armor deck on a particular ship is above water, then the citadel will extend up to that height and will also be above water. Ships with lower armor decks in-game therefore have lower and harder to hit citadels.

Understood.  Thanks for the 411.   Catch you in the a.m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
991
[HELLS]
Members
2,970 posts
39,923 battles
3 minutes ago, Rotten_Fish said:

You missed like half of Bismarck's vertical armor. No mention of her 120mm turleback or her 45mm longitudinal bulkhead, or of her 57mm magazine walls. You also cannot just add up armor thicknesses, though, just to humor you... that's 320 + 120 + 45 + 57 + 220 = 762mm... and that's without taking into account the effective thickness of the turtleback. And then there's the fact that the belt was mounted on 60mm of teak and the fact that the area between the turleback and the longitudinal bulkhead is filled with fuel oil and water. There was not a naval gun ever made that was capable of penetrating a Bismark class's magazines. Even the Americans didnt give their mk8 super heavy shell a chance in hell of penetrating a Bismarck's magazine from within 25km according to their own calculations.

 

Hello,

 

    Thanks for your detailed reply.  There's a bit more to it than what you've described, and I'm sorry, but the shell wouldn't have to penetrate 762mm of armor.  From 15,000 yards, a shell from the Littorio would be ingressing at approximately -17 degrees, meaning that it could, conceivably, strike the 320mm belt, have enough energy to penetrate it, and then proceed to pierce the 110mm slope over the fuel bunkers, and counterflooding void.  The projectile would then be on a reasonably close track to strike the shell handling rooms, if it hit the right point, or course.  I regret that we can't post large files on this forum, but if you want to contact me privately, I would be more than happy to scan the image in Garzke's book, and show you what I mean.  What I am referring to is approximately how the Duke of York got it's "Magic Bullet" in the Scharnhorst, which had heavier armor, defeated by a much weaker shell, from a longer distance ( I believe DOY was at 22k yards when she crippled Scharnhorst).

 

Peace.

I have Ermingo Bagnasco's The Littorio Class: Italy's Last and Largest Batlleships 1937-1948 as a Kindle e-book. It confirms what you say. Bismarck's weakness was the fact that many of the critical systems need to fight the ship had their cable runs outside the citadel, as the turtledeck was the lower deck, not the main deck, and almost all internal communications was not under armor. The protection scheme of Bismarck was essentially an improved WW I concept, oudated by the time she entered service. D.K. Brown did an analysis of this in Nelson to Vanguard, (which I also have as a Kindle ebook) his third volume on warship construction for the RN.  As for the turtleback, once Bismarck is outside her immune zone, the USN 16-incher, the RN's 14 and 16-inchers, and the RM's 15-inchers will pierce her horizontal protection easily with true plunging fire.

As for the North Cape Scharnhorst battle, Duke of York's main armament opened fire at 11,000 meters under radar fire control, and the killing blow to the machinery spaces which slowed Scharnhorst down enough for the entire RN task force to get to close range occured while Scharnhorst was opening the range with her superior speed, to 16,000 meters. Admiral Burnett's cruisers had been tracking Scharnhorst for several hours after having knocked out her radar from outside visual range, and were directing Duke of York's approach by communicating with Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser. The entire engagement was in the dark, in a snowstorm, almost without visual contact by the larger ships and the RN clearly stated that without that radar tracking and blind fire capability, they would not have been able to bring Scharnhorst to battle. Visual contact was intermittent, and only the destroyers that made the torpedo attacks that put the ship down got close enough to see her clearly in the bad weather and the Arctic night. No one actually saw her sink, she just faded from the radar screens. The sources for this are M.J. Whitley's German Capital Ships of World War Two and Captain Stephen Roskill's The War At Sea Volume II. I am a history buff.

The kicker for you DD drivers is the presence of HMS Saumarez at this battle and her use of torpedoes, and her presence and use of torpedoes in the sinking of IJN Haguro in 1945. The second kicker for the DD fans was the presence of HMS Onslow at this fight as well, as she had been the key ship in the Barents Sea battle a year earlier, where her captain was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions. Destroyers did their jobs helping the big boys win, and in fighting the enemy big boys without help from their own, and winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles
29 minutes ago, Rotten_Fish said:

Only two things matter, you're right; the structural integrity of the shell, and its kinetic energy.   Think of it like this; most LEOs would prefer a .357 magnum over a .45 ACP, even thought the .45 is heavier.  The reason is that the magnum has considerably more kinetic energy, and energy, after all, is the ability to do work, or, wreak havoc.  The ideas of weight-based gunnery dates back to Nelson at Trafalgar and the Carronnets (sp?), and other weight-based cannons that were all firing sub-sonic shot.  Weight was the only way to increase energy, when velocity was fixed at high subsonic.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm talking about the in game mechanics. In game, caliber and weight of shell are the most important factors for battleship AP shells. I say this because a larger caliber allows for greater ability to overmatch armor and because an increase in a shell's weight causes the maximum damage to go up a lot. Increased velocity will cause an increase in maximum damage, but not as much as a shell weight increase. I can find the formula for shell damage pretty easily, and I can also show you the US Navy's empirical penetration formula. The game doesn't use that formula exactly, but it's close enough that you can easily plot shell performance and come out close to how things work in game. Anyway, back to the advantage of shell weight over shell velocity in game. Consider the USS Iowa, North Carolina, and Colorado. All 3 battleships are armed with 406mm guns.

USS Colorado - 406mm/45 Mk5 Gun: Firing 406mm AP Mk5 - Velocity 768m/s, weight roughly 2000lbs (I'm too lazy to look it up) = Max Damage 12,400

USS North Carolina - 406mm/45 Mk6 Gun: Firing 406mm AP Mk8 (this is the so called "super heavy shell") - Velocity 701m/sweight roughly 2700lbs (again too lazy to pull exact weight) = Max Damage 13,100
USS Iowa - 406mm 50/ Mk7 Gun: Firing 406mm AP Mk8 - Velocity 762m/sweight roughtly 2700lbs = Max Damage 13,500

Colorado starts out with what I would really call a pretty standard 16" gun. It has a shell that weights right around 2000lbs, it has pretty decent velocity, but nothing crazy. It does good damage, but nothing out of this world. It's very comparable in damage to IJN 410mm AP shells. This makes sense because both Colorado and the IJN 410mm guns fire a shell of nearly the same caliber, weight, and velocity. If you compare Colorado to a ship like Nelson it becomes clear that Colorado has the edge because of shell weight. Nelson has a much faster, but far lighter shell and deals 400 less damage per hit. On the same line, Bismarck shoots light, fast 15" shells and does 200 damage less than Nelson. On the other hand, North Carolina gains 700 damage per shell over Colorado. While technically her Mk6 gun is a different gun than Colardo's Mk5 gun, in game they are essentially the same. The difference is the shell. Since it weights 700lbs more, even though it's a much slower shell, it hits a lot harder. This also explains why North Carolina and Alabama are notoriously difficult ships to get used to playing. They fire a very slow, but high arcing shell, with extreme hitting power for a t8, but landing hits can be tough because of mediocre accuracy and low muzzle velocity. Then the player moves onto Iowa. Iowa (and Montana) retain the same 406mm Mk8 AP shell, but they upgrade from the 406mm/45 to the 406mm/50. This gives then increased shell velocity with the same heavy shell from tier 8. It does give a damage boost, but the boost is only 200 more damage. Losing almost 70m/s of velocity, while gaining 700lbs of shell caused a jump of 700 damage while gaining back 60 of those m/s of velocity on the same weight of shell only brought damage back up by 200.

 

In game, velocity is great, because it makes hitting targets easier, there is no plunging fire so the flatter trajectory can be nice, it makes armor pen easier, and there are no issues with high velocity having inherently bad dispersion or barrels wearing out, but when it comes to dealing the damage itself, the heavier shells just plain hit harder. With the ranges most combat takes place in game the added ease of hitting targets from the higher velocity is usually not as nice to have, in my opinion, as the increased raw power of a heavier shell.

 

formula mentioned above can be found here. I hope you find this post informative and understand my meaning.

Spoiler

Damage formula for AP shells 
Damage = 21.088*(Mass x Muzzle Velocity)^0.4695 <--Since shell mass and velocity are weighted the same in this formula and since mass can increase or decrease over a larger range than velocity, the end result is that shell mass becomes more significant than velocity. Rough velocity range runs from 0m/s up to about 1000m/s where as mass can run from 0lbs up to around 3,000lbs

 

Penetration formula (this is the USN formula - it is very close to what the game uses, but not exactly accurate. I'm mostly including it in case you're curious)

Penetration @ 0 yards (mm) = (0.5561613 * Muzzle Velocity^1.1 * Shell mass^0.55) / Caliber^0.65

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×