Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
jaysboatsalvage

COLORADO armor belt thickness is wrong?

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,304
[GWG]
Members
7,610 posts
14,491 battles

Seems WG goes all 'HISTORICAL' on the ship speed...  but when it comes to actual armor...  
How about leaving the armor and giving us another 5 knots ??

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,317 posts

Please point out where on the Wiki it states Colorado's belt was 410mm because from what I can see it clearly states; "Colorado's main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick".

GnL2P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173
[SRBL]
Members
553 posts
15,142 battles
4 minutes ago, zFireWyvern said:

Please point out where on the Wiki it states Colorado's belt was 410mm because from what I can see it clearly states; "Colorado's main armored belt was 8–13.5 in (203–343 mm) thick".

GnL2P.png

"The "all or nothing" armor scheme introduced in the Nevada-class battleships was continued here, as throughout the Standard-type warships, with armor suite virtually identical to the preceding Tennessee class. The exception was an increase in belt armor near vital machinery to 16 inches (410 mm) to correspond with the increased main gun caliber. Otherwise, the minimum thickness along the belt remained 14 inches." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,387
[HINON]
Members
14,216 posts

The armour viewer does simplify the armour scheme and can be wrong in some instances. You would need to look at the 3d model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,317 posts
32 minutes ago, Tom_Greg said:

"The "all or nothing" armor scheme introduced in the Nevada-class battleships was continued here, as throughout the Standard-type warships, with armor suite virtually identical to the preceding Tennessee class. The exception was an increase in belt armor near vital machinery to 16 inches (410 mm) to correspond with the increased main gun caliber. Otherwise, the minimum thickness along the belt remained 14 inches." 

Thanks, I'll have a look around later, see if I can find anything but there seems to be some conflicting information about so I'm not sure quite how accurate this information is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173
[SRBL]
Members
553 posts
15,142 battles
1 minute ago, zFireWyvern said:

Thanks, I'll have a look around later, see if I can find anything but there seems to be some conflicting information about so I'm not sure quite how accurate this information is.

The footnote says it's Breyer so if you have his book you can double check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[SCCC]
[SCCC]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
256 posts
10,066 battles
19 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

The armour viewer does simplify the armour scheme and can be wrong in some instances. You would need to look at the 3d model.

In the strange case OP is correct, I checked the 3d model and yea, the entire belt is 343mm on it. Interesting if it turns out its supposed to be more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,779
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,803 posts
21,716 battles

Might there be a hidden plate or bulkhead in the armor model that added to the 343mm belt makes 410? I know some ships have plates modeled in the armor profile that aren't visible in the viewer. Didn't Puerto Rico have a whole 100mm deck somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[SCCC]
[SCCC]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
256 posts
10,066 battles
6 minutes ago, Lert said:

Might there be a hidden plate or bulkhead in the armor model that added to the 343mm belt makes 410? I know some ships have plates modeled in the armor profile that aren't visible in the viewer. Didn't Puerto Rico have a whole 100mm deck somewhere?

It could be this 85mm line that is center of ship under water. 

2ddbaf47d4.png

Its well into the center of the ship tho, so without checking the ingame model this thing looks like its inside the citadel.

ce3510b50e.png

Otherwise the 343mm belt extends over the entire beltline. 

a6cd60d3e6.png

So... Idk tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,880
[HINON]
Wiki Editor, In AlfaTesters
7,794 posts
2,144 battles

Her armor scheme should be largely the same as the Tennessee-class - i.e. a 125 by 5.2 meter belt 343mm for the upper 3.2 meters before tapering down to 203mm on the bottom two meters of belt.

Navypedia has a note that states;

"Ships of 1917 programme represented a repeat Tennessee design with twin 406mm/45 guns in place of the earlier triple 356mm/50; there was no other substantial change, although for many years there were unofficial claims of a considerable increase in belt armour. 406mm/45 guns were finally adopted instead of 356mm/50s only in August 1916"

Thus I would presume that the wiki is wrong here, and the maximum belt thickness should be 343mm (13.5").

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,093
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,361 posts
6,986 battles

Lotta things about Rado are wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173
[SRBL]
Members
553 posts
15,142 battles
1 hour ago, Phoenix_jz said:

Thus I would presume that the wiki is wrong here, and the maximum belt thickness should be 343mm (13.5").

The Wiki is citing Siegfried Breyer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
169 posts
8,229 battles

I have the Breyer book. I can correct this in a heartbeat. Wiki has it wrong so WG has it wrong. The 343 mm which they have listed is for the armored bulkhead. They did not look at the side armor which is 203, 406 tapered down to 203, 356 tapered down to 203. So there you have it.

If you have the book you can verify what I have said here. (Note: Trying not to offend anyone).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles
16 minutes ago, Tom_Greg said:

The Wiki is citing Siegfried Breyer. 

And other sources make it clear that those reports are wrong. For example:

image.thumb.png.bdfcc82b04d7677b8b3759188a0ac3f0.png

p117, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
73 posts
8,030 battles

According to Conway's Battleships, the armor stayed at 343 mm all the way through the 1920 South Dakota class because the Navy felt they couldn't manufacture steel thicker than that with consistent quality at the time.

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.

×