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

Im curious, how many of you know the new yorks/texas maximum belt armor thickness?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles

Im curious, how many of you know the new york/texas maximum belt armor thickness?

post guesses and comments down below.  it might be thicker then you think unless you know quite a bit about the armor viewer and new york armor scheme.

 

Edited by outwardpanicjoe
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,974
[SYN]
Members
14,455 posts
10,459 battles

13.5", or 342mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
671
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,834 posts
11,180 battles

280mm as per the armour belt figures on the ship when looking at the armour layout in this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
3 hours ago, CriMiNaL__ said:

280mm as per the armour belt figures on the ship when looking at the armour layout in this game

you would think right but unfortunately there i more armor then the armor viewer currently shows i think the armor is still there we just cant see it. 

the top pic is the 280, then 305, 152, then the citadel of 76 mm 

2018-05-02.png

2018-05-02 (1).png

2018-05-02 (2).png

2018-05-02 (3).png

Edited by outwardpanicjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,795
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,090 posts
14,482 battles

My guess?

 

Nonexistent.  It's very easy to citadel the ever-living-sh*t out of Texas and New York.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
21 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

My guess?

 

Nonexistent.  It's very easy to citadel the ever-living-sh*t out of Texas and New York.

well yes if you using 14inch guns so is most thing broadside tho also it doesn't have that turtle back armor scheme so it's flat armor. 

Edited by outwardpanicjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
671
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,834 posts
11,180 battles

Well the Op asked for belt armour thickness so checking the armour layout on it in the game that's the answer I gave. 280mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,408
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles

Her MAB is 305mm, upper belt is 280mm, and she has an interior bulkhead of 76mm.

The citadel itself is behind the 305mm MAB, not the 280mm UB, iirc.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
6 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Her MAB is 305mm, upper belt is 280mm, and she has an interior bulkhead of 76mm.

The citadel itself is behind the 305mm MAB, not the 280mm UB, iirc.

yep that right what does MAB and UB stand for? also maybe when the armor viewer is updated they will show more armor? but who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
6,029 battles

The issue is that the main belt is behind the torpedo bulges and is mostly at or below the waterline. Early Dreadnought battleships often had this type of design where the belt thickness tapered/changed both from top to bottom and bow to stern. The later ships (especially NC/Iowa/Montana) had a single uniform belt which only tapered below the waterline and did not extend past the citadel transverse bulkhead at all. 

It is often harder to figure out how vulnerable you are to AP when looking at a low-tier BB due to the mishmash of armor plates. The pre-Dreadnoughts would be even worse if they were modeled in game. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts
16 hours ago, outwardpanicjoe said:

Im curious, how many of you know the new york/texas maximum belt armor thickness?

post guesses and comments down below.  it might be thicker then you think unless you know quite a bit about the armor viewer and new york armor scheme.

everybody knows that everything is bigger in Texas.  So it seems reasonable to extrapolate that everything is also thicker in Texas.  Therefore the Texas has much thicker armor than the New York.  

and I know quit a bit of stuff about stuff...sooo

 

Edited by Dr_Dirt
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
4 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

The issue is that the main belt is behind the torpedo bulges and is mostly at or below the waterline. Early Dreadnought battleships often had this type of design where the belt thickness tapered/changed both from top to bottom and bow to stern. The later ships (especially NC/Iowa/Montana) had a single uniform belt which only tapered below the waterline and did not extend past the citadel transverse bulkhead at all. 

It is often harder to figure out how vulnerable you are to AP when looking at a low-tier BB due to the mishmash of armor plates. The pre-Dreadnoughts would be even worse if they were modeled in game. 

true but i have also noticed the new Mexico has the whole belt shown behind the bulges but you can still see it in that one but not in others maybe there is some limitations on the viewer with some ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,538
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,734 posts
3,490 battles

The Texas and New York both suffer from having massive immovable structures on their decks that block their guns from rotating to their true full rotation, meaning they have to give dangerous amounts of broadside to fire many of their weapons.

The name of these immovable pieces of the 2 ships? Lifeboats and ship to shore launches.

Why in the world WarGaming has left it this way for so long is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
1 hour ago, Madwolf05 said:

The Texas and New York both suffer from having massive immovable structures on their decks that block their guns from rotating to their true full rotation, meaning they have to give dangerous amounts of broadside to fire many of their weapons.

The name of these immovable pieces of the 2 ships? Lifeboats and ship to shore launches.

Why in the world WarGaming has left it this way for so long is beyond me.

the texas doesn't have the lifeboats in the way of the middle turret so it does have better firing angles on the the texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
16 minutes ago, Ensign_Pulver_2016 said:

 Not thick enough when the T-22 sends torpedoes. 

?? well armor thickness has not as much importance as the torpedo bulge protection which isn't bad on texas anyway at 33%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,795
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
16,090 posts
14,482 battles
17 hours ago, outwardpanicjoe said:

well yes if you using 14inch guns so is most thing broadside tho also it doesn't have that turtle back armor scheme so it's flat armor. 

Even Scharnhorst's 283mm guns rip right through.  Just a terrible ship and my eyes only open wide in excitement when I see NY / TX in a match.  Very easy to damage them and their firepower in reply isn't anything to be feared.  They're also slow, so it's not like they can charge me or better yet, run away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[SF-E]
Beta Testers
998 posts
4,089 battles
17 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Even Scharnhorst's 283mm guns rip right through.  Just a terrible ship and my eyes only open wide in excitement when I see NY / TX in a match.  Very easy to damage them and their firepower in reply isn't anything to be feared.  They're also slow, so it's not like they can charge me or better yet, run away.

comparing a tier 7 ship to a 5? most tier 5s aren't going to do well against a tier 7 battleship 

Edited by outwardpanicjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SYN]
Members
550 posts
6,186 battles
9 hours ago, outwardpanicjoe said:

?? well armor thickness has not as much importance as the torpedo bulge protection which isn't bad on texas anyway at 33%

Some Texas captains put too much faith in that torpedo protection. :Smile_playing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,408
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,258 posts
2,029 battles
19 hours ago, outwardpanicjoe said:

yep that right what does MAB and UB stand for? also maybe when the armor viewer is updated they will show more armor? but who knows.

Oh, sorry about that.

MAB = Main Armor Belt

UB = Upper Belt

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×