I am against the inclined belt on Korpen's battlecruiser. I think it is too early, unjustified by the battles fought in the war, and they need the hindsight of the next level FCS to be effective.

My argument is that it should be included in the armor tech, decreasing the weight of the plating for the same level of protection. And in a battle sim its application would be the most straightforward.

Quote from: P3D on May 14, 2008, 01:25:07 PM
I am against the inclined belt on Korpen's battlecruiser. I think it is too early, unjustified by the battles fought in the war, and they need the hindsight of the next level FCS to be effective.

I disagree on all points.
It is in the same era as it was introduced on historic battlecruisers. It is motivated by battle experience, as inclination have a larger effect on short range then it has at long, and therefore is irrelevant to FC tech as such.

QuoteMy argument is that it should be included in the armor tech, decreasing the weight of the plating for the same level of protection. And in a battle sim its application would be the most straightforward.

Inclination does not have that effect, so that would be a very poor solution. If one wants them, one have to be able to show how (with a pretty drawing), and calculate its effect when asked to.

But for me this is really a quest about style. Do we want and encourage players to put down time and effort in drawing and designing ships and working on concepts, or just post cloned springsharp files without any originality and absolutely no drawings?

I'm no real expert on armour, but having searched in the internent in the past regarding certain ships, I found out that Hood had inclined armour. Are there ships before Hood that used inclined armour?

If you want to make things interesting, it should require both 1911 BB/BC tech and 1915 Armour tech. :)

I think that if a tech is needed, it would automatically fall under the "1911: Improved protection schemes (e.g. AoN), quad turrets, turreted secondaries".

Quote from: Korpen on May 14, 2008, 01:55:03 PM
I disagree on all points.
It is in the same era as it was introduced on historic battlecruisers. It is motivated by battle experience, as inclination have a larger effect on short range then it has at long, and therefore is irrelevant to FC tech as such.

Er... 20% inclination  has more than twice the effect of a 10% one. 10* change in inclination has more effect when the angle of fall is larger. Larger the AoF, the more prominent the drop in penetration.

QuoteInclination does not have that effect, so that would be a very poor solution. If one wants them, one have to be able to show how (with a pretty drawing), and calculate its effect when asked to.

But for me this is really a quest about style. Do we want and encourage players to put down time and effort in drawing and designing ships and working on concepts, or just post cloned springsharp files without any originality and absolutely no drawings?

You can calculate it. I can. No other member of the board has shown any inclination yet to play with NaAB to that extent - at least no one metinoed it here. That means if someone sims a battle, it is either you or me to run it, or such fancy (and not so fancy) effects as inclination  - the extent of a main belt, different shell weight, or even gun length - would not be taken into account. I know the system Ithekro used was even more simplistic, that could not take into account nonstandard calibers and not having 4 main guns.

I am trying to cobble together a system that could be used to sim battles and take into account at least some of those small differences we account for in an out of SS. That is, arbitrary gun caliber, shell weight (at least differentiating light and heavy shells), the actual extent of the armored belts (i.e. different hit location table for every single ship).
Or if these are chosen not to be important at all, just design ships with minimal armored belts, and no need to get into the details.

BTW If you want to help me, you are welcome.

Quote from: Walter on May 14, 2008, 02:21:28 PM
I think that if a tech is needed, it would automatically fall under the "1911: Improved protection schemes (e.g. AoN), quad turrets, turreted secondaries".

I tend to agree w/ Walter here. But I also, having looked at the diagram, conversations w/ Korpen, etc... Think that the belt is only inclined due to the hull form. The ships has a very pronounced "V" shape by comparison to other ships w/ their "U" shaped hull. I don't think it's out of the question to use it in this case. It's not like he wants an internal belt e.g. Iowa, just one that conforms w/ his hullform.

Quote from: Sachmle on May 14, 2008, 03:01:46 PM

Quote from: Walter on May 14, 2008, 02:21:28 PM
I think that if a tech is needed, it would automatically fall under the "1911: Improved protection schemes (e.g. AoN), quad turrets, turreted secondaries".

I tend to agree w/ Walter here. But I also, having looked at the diagram, conversations w/ Korpen, etc... Think that the belt is only inclined due to the hull form. The ships has a very pronounced "V" shape by comparison to other ships w/ their "U" shaped hull. I don't think it's out of the question to use it in this case. It's not like he wants an internal belt e.g. Iowa, just one that conforms w/ his hullform.

It's inclined even amidships, then add the bulge. Like Hood. Most BBs have slightly inclined belt at the barbettes due to hullform, even if it is nominally vertical.

Really inclined belt technologie since 1916
Great Great year for BBs & BCs

Jutland & Hood Laid down this year.


Jef

To me, this should wait till SS3 and proper implementation of the effects.

Otherwise, it just seems like a way to trim weight off for other things, and then claim better protection than what you devoted to it.

I'm not sure that it is.  An inclined belt can be thinner, but it also has to be longer to protected the same vertical depth.  I'd think that the overall weight of armor would be about equal.

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 14, 2008, 07:39:03 PM
I'm not sure that it is.  An inclined belt can be thinner, but it also has to be longer to protected the same vertical depth.  I'd think that the overall weight of armor would be about equal.

No. For the same 'line-of-sight' thickness (and thus weight) the inclined armor is more effective. More of the shell's moment will be directed sideways, not through the plate.

Quote from: Carthaginian on May 14, 2008, 07:15:52 PM
To me, this should wait till SS3 and proper implementation of the effects.

I am taking a dim view of SS3 at the moment. It produces seriously underweight designs.
Compare what Delcyros and I came up with here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/6105
Borys

Still has a bit to go, Borys. :)
Remember, the engine slider isn't on yet. When that happens, the settings for the engine weights can be codified to make up for that difference... hopefully.

Korpen, did you sim the main belt as its true height and width, or as its vertical extent and apparent horizontal thickness?

My perspective at the moment is that if inclined armor should fall into a tech, the battleship tech (which implies to me structural engineering) seems more appropriate to me than the armor tech (which implies to me metallurgical advances).  However, I'm not commiting myself to voting in a poll at this point.

I'm more interested at this point in ensuring that the true weight and placement or the armor is accurately simmed, and that there's some sim-historical validity to introduction of inclined armor at this time. 

Somebody mentioned Jutland in connection with this - can this be elaborated on?  Inclined armor is not one of the things I'm used to hearing as resulting from Jutland.

Can somebody - either Korpen or the mods who simmed the Pacific War battles - advise on the engagement ranges between Swiss and Dutch battlelines?

Quote from: The Rock Doctor on May 15, 2008, 10:38:49 AM
Korpen, did you sim the main belt as its true height and width, or as its vertical extent and apparent horizontal thickness?

I simmed the true size of the slab of armour, and compensated for the loss of height in the drawing (about 25cm shorter vertical height). I feel this is the only accurate way to sim it, it also requires far less calculations.

The way I sim inclined armor is with horizontal-line-of-sight thickness, just divide thickness by cosine(inclination). E.g. 25cm plate 108 inclined should be simmed with 25/(0.9848)= 25.39 cm thickness.

The major battle between first-line capital ships was the Battle of Tarakan, with 10-12ky firing distances. Lack of Swiss FC counted here.

Rocky,

the problem is that metallurgical advances are pretty limited. Over KC, I can imagine only two techs (giving 10% and +20%). Combining it with inclined stuff might allow one or two more  tech in the 1910-1940 timeframe.
The other thing is that it makes the task of the poor guy who is running the battle much easier. Inclination would be one more additional factor to be considered, needing one or two more dice rolls per hit and two additional tables to look up.