Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
godzilla5549

Battleship Forward Bulkhead Armor Thickness Values

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

Preface: Assume that the 28mm bow armor change is on the live server. Do not come here complaining about how your favorite battleship is now "useless" because you can't be immune to damage from the front.

 


 

I would like to have a discussion on the armor thicknesses of the frontal bulkhead of the T8-10 battleships.

 

For anyone who does not know how to view the frontal bulkhead armor, go to the armor viewer and remove the first option. That will allow you to see the internal armor.

 

I would like to see if these armor values are in fact historical or not.

 

One battleship that I want to specifically look at is Iowa. In the game, her bulkhead armor is worse than North Carolina, but I believe that it should be the same or even better. North Carolina has a uniform bulkhead thickness of 282mm, and from what I can tell, Iowa should have 287mm which tapers to 216mm near the bottom.

 

Sources are welcome and encouraged.

 

EDIT: If you can't tell, I would not be against a buff to Iowa's frontal bulkhead armor if it is indeed wrong. Same goes for other ships if their armor is wrong.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
644
[APOC]
Members
1,980 posts
7,191 battles

I'm no expert but I do know that the hull design of Iowa is a different scheme than the NC and SD lines. It could be totally possible that they are inaccurate, as people have found legitimate errors on New Orleans and Montana, but the Iowa was an entirely new design built primarily for speed.

 

So I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it did actually have worse overall bulkhead armor just due to it being slimmer. They have the same beam overall iirc but that's at the mid of the ship. The bow is far more narrow and the stern has a special rudder design.

 

I think this had something to do with the paper designs of the Montana as well. On paper they increased the beam but the overall style of the ship reverted back to the South Dakota to keep a thicker belt and side on a larger overall portion of the ship.

Edited by GG_Bootcamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

I'm no expert but I do know that the hull design of Iowa is a different scheme than the NC and SD lines. It could be totally possible that they are inaccurate, as people have found legitimate errors on New Orleans and Montana, but the Iowa was an entirely new design built primarily for speed.

 

So I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it did actually have worse overall bulkhead armor just due to it being slimmer. They have the same beam overall iirc but that's at the mid of the ship. The bow is far more narrow and the stern has a special rudder design.

 

I think this had something to do with the paper designs of the Montana as well. On paper they increased the beam but the overall style of the ship reverted back to the South Dakota to keep a thicker belt and side on a larger overall portion of the ship.

 

From what I have been able to find, both Iowa and North Carolina used BuOrd Class A armor on both the belt and the internal bulkheads, so the problem with STS should not come into play.

 

WARNING: LARGE PICTURES

 

 A340C66177BE46168029882A876584C4.jpg

 

 north_carolina_class_bb_protection__armo

 

Share this post


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

I think that it matters a lot which one of the Iowas the in  game ship is modeled as. If I recall correctly, Missouri and Wisconsin had their fwd armor increased because it was deemed likely that they would most likely come under straight on fire using their high speed to pursue enemies. If the in game Iowa is Iowa herself, I think the fwd bulkhead should actually be weak. If it's modeled as Wisconsin, which I thought the C hull was, than it should be a bit better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

I have also found that the forward plate of the "pike armor" for Yamato is possible the wrong thickness. In game it is listed as being 350mm, which is the same as the side plates, but what I find is that it should 300mm while only the side plates are 350mm.

 

 5fz2WFO.jpg

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[-DPF-]
Members
774 posts
11,104 battles

Transverse bulkheads protecting the citadel are Class A armor, 287 mm for BB 61-62 & 363 mm for BB 63-64. Robert F. Sumrall, Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons & Equipment, Naval Institute Press, 1988 p. 129 :)

 

Edited by Nhi_Vanye
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

I think that it matters a lot which one of the Iowas the in  game ship is modeled as. If I recall correctly, Missouri and Wisconsin had their fwd armor increased because it was deemed likely that they would most likely come under straight on fire using their high speed to pursue enemies. If the in game Iowa is Iowa herself, I think the fwd bulkhead should actually be weak. If it's modeled as Wisconsin, which I thought the C hull was, than it should be a bit better. 

 

 Missouri and Wisconsin incorporated the most significant change in armor from the South Dakotaclass: the increase from 11.3 inches (290 mm) to 14.5 inches (370 mm) of the vertical Class A armor on the forward transverse armored bulkhead. The extra armor provided protection from fire directly ahead, which was considered more likely given the high speed of the Iowa class.

 

From Wikipedia, however this specific line is not given a source, but the surrounding lines are all linked to Friedman.

 

EDIT: I got ninja'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

Transverse bulkheads protecting the citadel are Class A armor, 287 mm for BB 61-62 & 363 mm for BB 63-64. Robert F. Sumrall, Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons & Equipment, Naval Institute Press, 1988 p. 129 :)

 

So now the question is, which Iowa is the C hull Iowa we have in game? If it is indeed Missouri/Wisconsin, then the frontal bulkhead should be the 363mm. I am not able to tell the exact differences between the US ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[CRAYN]
Beta Testers
2,085 posts
4,674 battles

Even if the ship we have is 61 or 62 is there a reason not to have the peak values of the ship class? 

 

Personally, I would not be against that. I was just trying to find a more historical reason why Iowa's bulkhead thickness should be increased. There is no real reason why it should be the same or worse than North Carolina for balance reasons though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Even if the ship we have is 61 or 62 is there a reason not to have the peak values of the ship class? 

It leaves the door open to WG to release a Missouri premium that has much better tanking ability from the front and is more forgiving with angles (even if the bow-armor nerf doesn't go through, Iowa's frontal bulkhead is a liability to her angling profile).  And don't tell me that they aren't at least considering it, because USS Black has been in the game files for several patches now.

So now the question is, which Iowa is the C hull Iowa we have in game? If it is indeed Missouri/Wisconsin, then the frontal bulkhead should be the 363mm. I am not able to tell the exact differences between the US ships.

I think it is Iowa herself.  The fire-control equipment in the superstructure matches that in this picture of her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)#/media/File:USS_Missouri_transfers.JPG

 

The key distinction between Iowa herself and the rest of the class was that her bridge was different (I think it was the conning tower that was a deck higher), but without comparison to a rendered model of Missouri or any of her other sisters, I can't use that information to help.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[-DPF-]
Members
774 posts
11,104 battles

It leaves the door open to WG to release a Missouri premium that has much better tanking ability from the front and is more forgiving with angles (even if the bow-armor nerf doesn't go through, Iowa's frontal bulkhead is a liability to her angling profile).  And don't tell me that they aren't at least considering it, because USS Black has been in the game files for several patches now.

I think it is Iowa herself.  The fire-control equipment in the superstructure matches that in this picture of her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)#/media/File:USS_Missouri_transfers.JPG

 

The key distinction between Iowa herself and the rest of the class was that her bridge was different (I think it was the conning tower that was a deck higher), but without comparison to a rendered model of Missouri or any of her other sisters, I can't use that information to help.

 

Just sick dseehafer on it, and he will give you all you need!:medal:

Share this post


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

I consider it very unlikely that WG will release a prem Missouri. If they didn't sell it in the shop, NA players would burn down their offices and they have never sold a premium above t8 ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
368 posts
1,545 battles

It leaves the door open to WG to release a Missouri premium that has much better tanking ability from the front and is more forgiving with angles (even if the bow-armor nerf doesn't go through, Iowa's frontal bulkhead is a liability to her angling profile).  And don't tell me that they aren't at least considering it, because USS Black has been in the game files for several patches now.

I think it is Iowa herself.  The fire-control equipment in the superstructure matches that in this picture of her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)#/media/File:USS_Missouri_transfers.JPG

 

The key distinction between Iowa herself and the rest of the class was that her bridge was different (I think it was the conning tower that was a deck higher), but without comparison to a rendered model of Missouri or any of her other sisters, I can't use that information to help.

 

Screw Missouri. Wisconsin is the best Iowa! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Screw Missouri. Wisconsin is the best Iowa! :) 

Technically we're both wrong, New Jersey's gotten more honors than either of them...:trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,360
[LEGIO]
Members
3,738 posts
10,892 battles

 3QtHQfB.jpg?1

Iowa:

 DACPUBd.jpg?1

Montana:

 nKWGV6o.jpg

 

 

In the section on the Montana which designs is the author referring to when he mentions "new large 8in and 6in cruisers" and "a new 7500-ton anti-aircraft cruiser"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
194
[TBLF]
Members
557 posts
8,429 battles

 

In the section on the Montana which designs is the author referring to when he mentions "new large 8in and 6in cruisers" and "a new 7500-ton anti-aircraft cruiser"?

 

Didn't have time to go over the cruiser chapter but in the Atlanta section there is a small blurb about a 1944 proposal to take the Atlanta design and replace the 5/38's with the 5/54 Mk16 which is what I think its talking about.

So from this

 AfPzCw3.png?1

to this

 CUPY4oY.png?1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[-K_P-]
Members
545 posts
3,883 battles

I would pay for a T8 Atlanta with the better guns and smoke. Maybe also some extra armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×