Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
NDA_2020

Is the Colorado armor belt correct?

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BLITZ]
Modder
4,784 posts
8,898 battles

The wiki clearly states that the armor belt was up to 343mm thick.

 

 

 

edit:

"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."

 

So, you have to look in the back of the ship for a small part 410mm thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
103 battles
13 minutes ago, principat121 said:

The wiki clearly states that the armor belt was up to 343mm thick.

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. Upper deck armor was 3.6 inches (91 mm) initially and was later increased to 4.1 inches (104 mm). Lower deck armor ranged between 2.25 and 1.5 inches (57 and 38 mm) and was also presumably strengthened during conversion.[17]

 

Where is it clearly stated that the armor belt was up to 343mm thick. Show me on the ship armor preview the 410mm and 14" or 355mm along the belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,784 posts
8,898 battles
30 minutes ago, NDA_2020 said:

Where is it clearly stated that the armor belt was up to 343mm thick. Show me on the ship armor preview the 410mm and 14" or 355mm along the belt.

colo.thumb.jpg.5c4f307c74e4ef46fb05397f461c786d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
5,636 posts
12,703 battles
3 minutes ago, NDA_2020 said:

 

coloradoarmorbeltwiki.jpg

Maybe just maybe you are missing some important words as "exception " and "near vital machinery" :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,199 posts
9,087 battles

If you actually account for torp belt and the citadel plating itself, Colorado does get approximately the 410 mm of armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
103 battles
20 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

If you actually account for torp belt and the citadel plating itself, Colorado does get approximately the 410 mm of armour.

I haven't read anything to support this theory. The numbers are still off though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,199 posts
9,087 battles
11 minutes ago, NDA_2020 said:

I haven't read anything to support this theory. The numbers are still off though. 

I mean, Colorado had no main belt of 410 mm of strength. The main belt was 343 mm. Such is indicated at wikipedia and pretty much most sources. What however is implied and likely is that further plating existed to create effectively 410 mm of plating above vital spaces. Ingame, the 343 mm belt is the main belt, but the citadel has additional plating and a torpedo belt exists. I do not know the exact values, as I cannot access the game atm, but the citadel should be like 44-45 mm comparable to WV and California and the torpedo belt a further 25+ mm. This would mean a shell that tries to pen the citadel has to go through at least 412 mm of plating.

 

Spoiler

J5eLHEH.jpg

Just to show, whatever the extra plating above citadels was would have been internal plating on the citadel, the belt was 343 mm even above magazines.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
103 battles
7 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

I mean, Colorado had no main belt of 410 mm of strength. The main belt was 343 mm. Such is indicated at wikipedia and pretty much most sources. What however is implied and likely is that further plating existed to create effectively 410 mm of plating above vital spaces. Ingame, the 343 mm belt is the main belt, but the citadel has additional plating and a torpedo belt exists. I do not know the exact values, as I cannot access the game atm, but the citadel should be like 44-45 mm comparable to WV and California and the torpedo belt a further 25+ mm. This would mean a shell that tries to pen the citadel has to go through at least 412 mm of plating. 

"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".   This implies the belt armor only not a combination of armors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,199 posts
9,087 battles
5 minutes ago, NDA_2020 said:

"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".   This implies the belt armor only not a combination of armors.

At the end of the day, your source is a wikipedia page that conflicts with itself though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,119 posts
245 battles

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/o/Colorado_class.htm

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_colorado_class_battleships.html

https://world-war-2.wikia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship

 

They all say 13.5inches as well so 343mm's is correct. Only around certain sections inside the ship would it reach higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
103 battles
21 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

At the end of the day, your source is a wikipedia page that conflicts with itself though.

 

12 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/o/Colorado_class.htm

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_colorado_class_battleships.html

https://world-war-2.wikia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship

 

They all say 13.5inches as well so 343mm's is correct. Only around certain sections inside the ship would it reach higher.

This looks like a play off the wiki but again it reads the same message.

coloradoarmorbeltwiki2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,119 posts
245 battles
2 minutes ago, NDA_2020 said:

 

This looks like a play off the wiki but again it reads the same message.

coloradoarmorbeltwiki2.jpg

Key word being exception. In other words parts of near the machinery were reinforced. The belt outside of that area isn't. So no 343mm's is correct for the outer main belt. Inside should be another thinner belt and which added with the outer should reach 410mm's.

 

Also her own wiki page mentions nothing about internal belts anyways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Colorado_(BB-45)

Also the thickier armour belt is on the tennesse class, but thats the internal sections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee-class_battleship#Armor

 

Not that it matters anyways since colorado has paper armour compared to most of its peers anyways. I doubt a 410mm main belt would be of any help too be honest in this game. Maybe in UA:D it would however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts

Meaning is it historically correct in the game? Yamato armour isn't anyway... :Smile_sceptic: do other BB's have historical armour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,119 posts
245 battles
2 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Meaning is it historically correct in the game? Yamato armour isn't anyway... :Smile_sceptic: do other BB's have historical armour?

Yammy should have the following:

 

turret front: 650mm's

Main belt: 410mm's

Deck: 200mm (75% of deck). 230mm (rest of deck).

 

The deck armour might be underneath somekind of top deck armour, but she had loads of design flaws anyways especially around her arse and front (lol).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Players
2,837 posts
11,161 battles
6 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

do other BB's have historical armour?

Kremlin does.

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
Just now, CptBarney said:

The deck armour might be underneath somekind of top deck armour, but she had loads of design flaws anyways especially around her arse and front (lol).

 

 

Nani! :Smile-angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
103 battles
6 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Meaning is it historically correct in the game? Yamato armour isn't anyway... :Smile_sceptic: do other BB's have historical armour?

Yes. I haven't had the opportunity to research Yamatos' armor yet but if is not accurately depicted in the game, that would be something to discuss.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
Just now, NDA_2020 said:

Yes. I haven't had the opportunity to research Yamatos' armor yet but if is not accurately depicted in the game, that would be something to discuss.

 

I'm hoping to be proven wrong, so a comparison would be something I for one would very gratefully wish to see, NDA_2020-san!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
5,636 posts
12,703 battles
49 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Yamato armour isn't anyway...

What is incorrect on Yamato?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
25 minutes ago, Sigimundus said:

What is incorrect on Yamato?

 

That's what I been trying to recollect here. I can just say I remember seeing an armor scheme that was different form what we got. In game armour seems to be missing something IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
30 posts
103 battles
10 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

That's what I been trying to recollect here. I can just say I remember seeing an armor scheme that was different form what we got. In game armour seems to be missing something IIRC.

I'll look into it and post up my findings. I'm curious now. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[I-J-N]
Players
4,783 posts
2 minutes ago, NDA_2020 said:

I'll look into it and post up my findings. I'm curious now. 

 

Just remember I could remember wrong, or seen something I misinterpreted. Cheers! :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×