Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
ramp4ge

Why doesn't Colorado have turtleback plates?

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,470
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
556 battles

Colorado was the last of the Standard-type battleships.

Colorado was a repeat-Tennessee, with the 14"/50 armament replaced by 16"/45 rifles. 

Tennessee was a repeat-New Mexico with rearranged machinery and improved TDS.

 

Now that we have that out of the way..

 

sF5Xbs1.png

 

Why? Colorado should have the same internal armor scheme as New Mexico and Pennsylvania. They are all Standard-type ships and were built to the same design methodology, sharing as much internal structure and armor scheme as possible. Why is it that the Colorado doesn't have turtleback plates when the other two Standard-type ships represented in the game do?

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,371
[RKLES]
Members
7,543 posts
9,589 battles

Turtle back citadel armor does have the drawback of being vulnerable to plunging fire at longer ranges and only gains the high durability of the German BBs when at closer ranges. So perhaps US designers felt they wanted to be safer at longer ranges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
556 battles
25 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Turtle back citadel armor does have the drawback of being vulnerable to plunging fire at longer ranges and only gains the high durability of the German BBs when at closer ranges. So perhaps US designers felt they wanted to be safer at longer ranges?

 

It has nothing to do with "US designers" because as-designed, Colorado, which was a repeat-Tennessee with 16" guns, had them.

 

Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado all shared virtually identical armor distribution and schemes. This is why they are referred to as Standard-type battleships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,371
[RKLES]
Members
7,543 posts
9,589 battles
8 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

It has nothing to do with "US designers" because as-designed, Colorado, which was a repeat-Tennessee with 16" guns, had them.

 

Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado all shared virtually identical armor distribution and schemes. This is why they are referred to as Standard-type battleships. 

Yeah 16’ was popular USN gun size for main guns, but are you sure they did not change things between the designs even though they look similar? 

I see differences in them when comparing them. :Smile_Default:

It’s one thing to standardize some things like sizes of gun shells between ships, and maybe some other things to help with standardizing Maintenance, Equipment, and ammunition between the ships, but I think you will find differences do exist as they came up with new ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,628 posts
556 battles

Colorado was a Tennessee-class with 16" guns. Tennessee was New Mexico-class with different machinery and improved TDS.

 

The armor profiles stayed the same from the Nevada-class to the Colorado-class. 

 

Structurally, all of the Standard-type ships were nearly identical. 

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-071.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,173 posts

The OP is making the point that the only difference between the later standards is caliber size and turret groupings. But for some reason the internal armor structure in-game for the Colorado is missing the requisite turtleback behind the main belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
278
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,475 posts
9,931 battles

Tennessee and Colorado classes were designed from the outset with turbo-electric machinery, and as such had narrower engineering spaces and had an improved TDS and compartmentalization.

New Mexico herself was built with turbo-electric machinery, but it has placed in the same spaces as her direct drive turbine sisters used, much like all the earlier standards. She didn't benefit from having Turbo-electric drive beyond the maneuverability the system offered.

Standards were similar classes, that were all incremental improvements on the preceding class.  At the ranges that Standards were supposed to fight, the ships with the wider machinery spaces needed the turtledeck armor to protect those spaces. The last two classes with their narrower machinery spaces didn't need it as any shell hitting in that area is just going to explode inside the TDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
361
[ZIPPO]
Members
1,589 posts
3,603 battles

The internal armour was redesigned with the Tennessee class and was the first class to be designed post Jutland. Turtleback armor was shown to be of little use at the ranges ships were starting to fight at and better deck armour began to be the focus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[SRBL]
Members
133 posts

According to Siegfried Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers, which is pretty much the definitive work on the subject, the Maryland Class Battleships were described as follows: 'The arrangements, thickness and extent of armor and protective equipment corresponded to the Tennessee Class; only the main side armor was increased to 406mm above the vital machinery in keeping with the increase of the HG caliber...'

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.

×