Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
The Italians appear to have been the only ones to have grasped the significance of scaling effects as they pertain to face thickness. Most of us probably know that British face-hardened armor was exceptional, much better than, say, American. But that's only half true. British armor is great against battleships shells, but against cruiser shells US armor is actually better. The difference is that the British used a thin face layer while the Americans used a really thick face layer. You can say there's an inverse relationship between the sixe of a shell and the face thickness of the armor that can best defeat the shell. The Italians realized this and used thin faces (c30%) for their battleship armor and thick faces (c50%--give or take, I don't remember the exact numbers) for their Zara armor.
Quoted
The German competition is the Hipper class which, for all the battleship-like appearance, was not all that well armored. The deck armor was very thin, and the sloped portion was exposed to direct hits from shells entering above the belt. Turret armor was good though.
In contrast, the Japanese used only the thinnest plating to protect barbettes and turrets. Their best feature was the inclined belt armor. This was probably not as effective as it might have been because it was all (I think) NVNC armor. The Japanese never used face-hardened armor on their heavy cruisers.
Comparisons with French, American, and British designs are more difficult because the underlying theories were so different. Just as a general rule, the Allies used their armor more for protecting the vitals and less for protecting buoyancy.
Algerie is the only French class that can challenge Zara. And while Algerie was a well-rounded design, she cannot match the thickness or coverage of Zara's armor. In addition, there's a gap of sorts near her aft turrets that makes me kind of nervous.
Unfortunately for ship-lovers, the British stopped building heavy cruisers after their truncated Cathedral class. The ammo spaces had very good deck protection, but the portion of protected hull volume was not great, and the main battery relied on 1in of protective plating.
The Americans also limited the volume enclosed within their armor, but if you look at Baltimore, you'll see that the thicknesses are impressive. And American cruiser armor, both homogenous and face-hardened, is very high in quality.
In my view, the best-protected heavy cruiser would have to be either Zara or Baltimore. The choice may be a matter of taste. Baltimore's main battery and vitals are well protected, but Zara has more protected buoyancy.
Quoted
The counties had 4" box protection around the magazines. How do you sim that? a 4" armour belt?
Quoted
The Rock Doctor
One doesn't need a battlecruiser to deal with Tylor. She's too slow to pursue any modern cruiser, and even a number of battleships are fast enough to match speed with her.
Quoted
Red Admiral
As for Tylor and Oyama, you simply build a small battlecruiser similar to Invincible mounting 305mm guns. But that would start another building race. For a scouting party, use either lots of cruisers with torpedoes, or a battlecruiser. Oyama can beat neither. Look at the saga of Tarrantry, Sans Souci survived a while, but eventually succumbed to torpedoes.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH