Warspite Armour values WRONG

[lethalbizzell]

While looking at the Armour viewer i noticed a few inconsistencies...

Armour of the warspite is much less than of the real Warspite, which is why such heavy damage is now being taken ALL THE TIME. 

 

Here are the current armour values:

Outer armour

for end Armour belt - 102mm

aft Armour belt  152mm,

main upper armour bet - 25mm

main middle Armour belt - 152mm

main lower armour belt 330 mm

Torpedo bulges - 25mm 

deck armour - 25mm

Inner citadel

citadel torpedo bulkhead - 51mm

battery barbette Armour - 256mm

 

THIS IS INCORRECT. 

 

From multiple sources all over the internet i quickly found that Warspite actually had : 

 

- Machinery spaces  and magazine of 13 inches of armour , this is 330mm. And is next to the waterline. simply the lower armour belt. (modeled correctly)

- The upper Armour belt was 6 inch (152mm) amidship (middle)  tapering to  4inch (102) at fore and aft. (modeled incorrectly)

- Deck armour was 5 inches (127mm) after her refit in 1927. stopping plunging fire. (modeled incorrectly)

- Barbettes (below the gun turrets) had 7 to 10 inches of armour (modeled correctly)

- Conning tower had 11 inches (279mm) of armour on the sides.  (modeled incorrectly)

 

This is way more armour than what is currently modeled on the Warspite, and would stop citadels, and huge losses due to penetrations, i hope this post is seen by WG, as at this moment Warspite is very weak and needs to be edited. I if need be can go to the British library to help in this..... (I actually would,  i like research) i have noticed that some of the armour values in-game are actually matching with WIKIPEDIA, of which states "values as when built" thus whoever researched before modeling didnt exactly do much research. What is in game is the refitted version. 

 

changes to be made :

The upper belt has not been modeled correctly (where the secondaries are)  that is also 6 inches (152mm) also the deck armour that is shown as 25mm is supposed to be 127mm as this is the refit post 1927, originally she had 3 inches of deck armour. Bulkheads... of which im sure we in game call citadels. Are also 6 to 4 inches   152 - 102 mm not 51mm

 

I can add more to this post like sources and the images in game if need be.... 

 

Hope this helps ! 

 

 

 

Sources :

 

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Queen_Elizabeth_Class_Battleship_-_HMS_Queen_Elizabeth

http://gb-navy-ww2.narod.ru/HTM-BB-QE.html

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_queen_elizabeth_class_battleships.htm

http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=HMS-Warspite-03

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pw63CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&lpg=PT6&dq=queen+elizabeth+class+battleship+technical&source=bl&ots=SaaNa3GdqR&sig=8aQfN_fGk9MQdxURHAbte4Wu4kg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGr_b2_YTPAhXsJ8AKHdyiA0A4ChDoAQg2MAQ#v=onepage&q=queen%20elizabeth%20class%20battleship%20technical&f=false

http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Queen_Elizabeth_Class_Battleship_-_HMS_Malaya

 

 

 

 

 

[peoplescavalry]

Hardly sailed the old lady lately, guns are still good but she just gets owned by everything these days.

[Webley_Mark]

I don't have a problem with her current armor... But these values look nice. Very nice.

[lethalbizzell]

Hardly sailed the old lady lately, guns are still good but she just gets owned by everything these days.

 

This must be due to the fact that many other BBS have had armour reconfigurations.... and That the Warspite has an early model of Armour dating back to closed beta. Therefore her modelling is too simple and this is the cause of huge losses of HP on salvos, even when angled. 

[Shagulon]

 

This must be due to the fact that many other BBS have had armour reconfigurations.... and That the Warspite has an early model of Armour dating back to closed beta. Therefore her modelling is too simple and this is the cause of huge losses of HP on salvos, even when angled. 

 

​Pretty sure they did the warspite with the US BBs

[lethalbizzell]

 

​Pretty sure they did the warspite with the US BBs

 

then it is still wrong. 

[Webley_Mark]

Pretty sure they did the warspite with the US BBs

 

Yes, they did her with the USN's BB.

 

then it is still wrong. 

 

Wait a sec.... I don't think so. Armour Belt, 330mm?

 

Here they are, hidding behind the 152 of the bulkheads:

 

 

[lethalbizzell]

 

Yes, they did her with the USN's BB.

 

 

Wait a sec.... I don't think so. Armour Belt, 330mm?

 

Here they are, hidding behind the 152 of the bulkheads:

 

 

 

The upper belt has not been modeled correctly (where the secondaries are)  that is also 6 inches (152mm) also the deck armour that is shown as 25mm is supposed to be 127mm as this is the refit post 1927, originally she had 3 inches of deck armour. they have correctly modeled the barbettes, 330mm main belt and the belt above that. im finding out on the inner armour that protected citadel 

[Webley_Mark]

Maybe they did it on purpose.

 

For balancing reason.

[Unintentional_submarine]

I'm sure you guys know that the 6 inch protection was greatly reduced, in order to save weight (445 tons in all). The conning tower was removed, also to save weight (230 tons). That Warspite does in fact have her 127mm deck armour above the magazine (it seems the word 'deck' is confusing some as there appear to be an assumption that it means the weatherdeck).

 

Heck I'll just upload a screenshot.

 

 

Now, where she might be armoured and/or modelled wrong is her very forward citadel area which is a bit odd (shouldn't go beyond the front turret). And the central deck armour which is only 89mm thick, which appears to be from Barham rather than Warspite as what I know Warspite had a uniform armoured deck across the length of the citadel spaces.

 

But the 25mm at the secondaries isn't wrong as such (yes it is wrong in that it wasn't specifically 25mm, but 25mm is a specific thickness used for gameplay reasons, New Mexico and Colorado didn't have specifically 25mm plates either, it is just used for the structural plates, which is was covered the 6 inch batteries after the last refit), and neither is the conning tower as it simply didn't exist any longer.

[ironhammer500]

Bit with the 2ndary guns is incorrect according to the drawing in game it is 25mm thick when it should be 6 inch thick.

[Unintentional_submarine]

Bit with the 2ndary guns is incorrect according to the drawing in game it is 25mm thick when it should be 6 inch thick.

 

As I said, that armour was removed in the last refit. It isn't wrong to be much less than 152mm.

[lethalbizzell]

 

As I said, that armour was removed in the last refit. It isn't wrong to be much less than 152mm.

 

hmmm where you find out it had armor removed ??? 

 

quote from : http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Warspite#Post-1937_Refit

 

1933-1937 Refit

In May 1933, Warspite returned to service with the 2nd Battle Squadron, but in just six months she was sent to reserve. Major funds had been allocated to update the major units of the Royal Navy/ Under the treaties of the early 1920’s, the Royal Navy was permitted to have 15 capital ships. The Nelson and Rodney were the only new ships built, and only the five ships of the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge-classes remained along with the three battlecruisers – Hood, Renown, and Repulse. Rather than build new ships, it was decided to save money and rebuild the existing ships. Warspite and Renown were to be the first ships to undergo this rebuilding.

Now nearly 20 years old, Warspite had virtually all structures apart from the gun houses above the upper deck removed. Next, all boilers and main machinery were removed. The engine rooms were now subdivided into eight separate spaces and the boiler rooms divided longitudinally into six spaces. The inner bottoms were also completely rebuilt - another first for Warspite and the Admiralty. The 24 Yarrow boilers were replaced with just six new Admiralty type boilers. New Parsons geared turbines replaced the old, the original two funnels were also replaced with a single large funnel to give more room for anti-aircraft weapons. Armour plating was improved, the decks now being 5 1/2 inches thick over the machinery and magazines.

Whilst all this was going on, the guns were modernised by Vickers Armstrong. To permit removal of the guns, the turret roofs were removed and guns lifted out. To increase the elevation, and thus the range of the guns, the trunnions were raised, permitting an elevation of 30 degrees and a new maximum range of 32,000 yards. New shells were also designed to overcome earlier deficiencies and these were more streamlined to help increase their range.

The secondary batteries were also greatly modified. Half the 6” casemate-mounted guns were removed, leaving just the midships four on each side. The single 4” guns were also removed, but replaced with four twin 4” AA mounts, two on each side, above the 6” batteries. To further increase the anti-aircraft capabilities, two platforms were built on each side of the funnel, and a total of four eight-barrelled 2-pounder 'pom-poms' installed. These guns were nicknamed 'Chicago Pianos' by the seamen who manned them. On the roofs of B and X turrets were mounted two quadruple 0.5” Vickers machine guns. New fire control equipment was also installed. Elliots of Lewisham made the equipment for the 15” and 6” batteries, and Vickers Armstrong at Barrow that for the anti-aircraft batteries. The immense amount of new electrical equipment resulted in the entire ship being rewired.

Aft of the new funnel, two hangers were built along with a single cross-ship catapult for two Fairey Swordfish spotter floatplanes. To recover the planes, two deck cranes were installed. The planes were manned by the Fleet Air Arm. A new impressive citadel-type bridge structure similar to that of the Nelson-class was also constructed. This entirely altered the look of the ship and provided space for the needs of a flagship and for the new weapons system controls. It was also gas-proof.

 

I dont see any mention of removal of any armor, only improvement... 

[ironhammer500]

 

As I said, that armour was removed in the last refit. It isn't wrong to be much less than 152mm.

 

You sure this wasn't for when she became a Museum piece?

[Webley_Mark]

 

You sure this wasn't for when she became a Museum piece?

 

A musuem piece? The Warspite?!

[ironhammer500]

 

A musuem piece? The Warspite?!

 

After the war she was to be turned into a Museum ship but was sunk in a Storm, this is why i asked about the refit to remove armour was it after WW2?

[Crusherheads]

u know this is a game... torpedos can travel around 30 km... shells can fly over 40km so on and nothing this exist withing the game....cruisers that was never build... even battleships aka H41... so on.

[zFireWyvern]

After the war she was to be turned into a Museum ship but was sunk in a Storm

No she wasn't, she was approved for scrapping in 1946. She ran aground near Prussia Cove because of a storm but didn't technically sink in it

[ironhammer500]

No she wasn't, she was approved for scrapping in 1946. She ran aground near Prussia Cove because of a storm but didn't technically sink in it

 

Seems few documents tell different stories, but they tried to make it a Museum ship, some documents say she was going to be one, other say she just got scrapped, but most of the documents all say there was never removed armour in refits.

[Webley_Mark]

Well, at the end she got scrapped in 1950.

[Brett50]

Well researched, unfortunately I doubt the devs will bother changing it, they'll trot out the usual "the ship is performing fine statistically" and go back to churning out yet more premium ships to milk more money  

it's a real shame but I must say I have noticed the old girl seems to get penetrated rather easily even by 203's for large damage (when she's not getting burned to a crisp by HE spam)

and the less we go into the short gun range on a ship that has the longest main battery hit record the better.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

The Warspite is very weak, just a few hits depletes the armour, taking into account the Warspite has a very slow turret turn, the armour should be much better

[Dee_82]

shes not Russian, shes not going to get buffed anymore than she has

 

[warspite666]

At the end of the day, its an arcade game, and much as we like to chew our history, and kudos to all those here who do, the ships performance in game does not in anyway correlate to reality, Add to this she is deliberately weakened because she is premium, I dont think she will get any love from the devs whatsoever. The only thing thing that is accurate in game, is the lovely model, and really, I dont care if she is sub par, I love seeing that classic hull in combat, in the same way im looking forward to seeing the models of the Nelson, KGV and Vanguard if and when they finally appear.

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

hmmm where you find out it had armor removed ??? 

 

quote from : http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Warspite#Post-1937_Refit

 

1933-1937 Refit

In May 1933, Warspite returned to service with the 2nd Battle Squadron, but in just six months she was sent to reserve. Major funds had been allocated to update the major units of the Royal Navy/ Under the treaties of the early 1920’s, the Royal Navy was permitted to have 15 capital ships. The Nelson and Rodney were the only new ships built, and only the five ships of the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge-classes remained along with the three battlecruisers – Hood, Renown, and Repulse. Rather than build new ships, it was decided to save money and rebuild the existing ships. Warspite and Renown were to be the first ships to undergo this rebuilding.

Now nearly 20 years old, Warspite had virtually all structures apart from the gun houses above the upper deck removed. Next, all boilers and main machinery were removed. The engine rooms were now subdivided into eight separate spaces and the boiler rooms divided longitudinally into six spaces. The inner bottoms were also completely rebuilt - another first for Warspite and the Admiralty. The 24 Yarrow boilers were replaced with just six new Admiralty type boilers. New Parsons geared turbines replaced the old, the original two funnels were also replaced with a single large funnel to give more room for anti-aircraft weapons. Armour plating was improved, the decks now being 5 1/2 inches thick over the machinery and magazines.

Whilst all this was going on, the guns were modernised by Vickers Armstrong. To permit removal of the guns, the turret roofs were removed and guns lifted out. To increase the elevation, and thus the range of the guns, the trunnions were raised, permitting an elevation of 30 degrees and a new maximum range of 32,000 yards. New shells were also designed to overcome earlier deficiencies and these were more streamlined to help increase their range.

The secondary batteries were also greatly modified. Half the 6” casemate-mounted guns were removed, leaving just the midships four on each side. The single 4” guns were also removed, but replaced with four twin 4” AA mounts, two on each side, above the 6” batteries. To further increase the anti-aircraft capabilities, two platforms were built on each side of the funnel, and a total of four eight-barrelled 2-pounder 'pom-poms' installed. These guns were nicknamed 'Chicago Pianos' by the seamen who manned them. On the roofs of B and X turrets were mounted two quadruple 0.5” Vickers machine guns. New fire control equipment was also installed. Elliots of Lewisham made the equipment for the 15” and 6” batteries, and Vickers Armstrong at Barrow that for the anti-aircraft batteries. The immense amount of new electrical equipment resulted in the entire ship being rewired.

Aft of the new funnel, two hangers were built along with a single cross-ship catapult for two Fairey Swordfish spotter floatplanes. To recover the planes, two deck cranes were installed. The planes were manned by the Fleet Air Arm. A new impressive citadel-type bridge structure similar to that of the Nelson-class was also constructed. This entirely altered the look of the ship and provided space for the needs of a flagship and for the new weapons system controls. It was also gas-proof.

 

I dont see any mention of removal of any armor, only improvement... 

 

There are actual documents about this, it isn't some super secret thing. Probably why it hasn't been mentioned much. It's one of those "it is well known, so no point in mentioning it".

 

First Sea Lord Chatfield (in office when Warspite entered her late 30s refit) wrote to Admiral sir William Fisher Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet:

"In the 'Warspite' I am taking out four 6-inch guns, removing the 6-inch battery armour, and putting it on the engines and boiler rooms, ..."

As accounted by Joseph Moretz' book The Royal Navy and the Capital Ship in the Interwar Period: An Operational Perspective

Now I don't know Moretz' qualities himself, but here he only shows the intention of Chatfield, who was quite adamant in the refitting of the capital ships, making that a priority.

 

Of course that itself isn't evidence of what happened, but it does lend credence to the point that D. K. Brown makes that 445 tons were saved in this reduction of armour on the 6-inchers' battery. 

 

Let me just post this up.

40lb = 1 inch. The number you are looking for is the 6e on the B 9/8 lower section where you can see the secondary battery outline. You can also see this on the left in the cutout that shows the secondary deck.

 

 

 

Now the argument would be that, hey it didn't get reduced to 25mm, but either 2 inches of NC (non-cemented, hence very weak plating [as per D. K Brown's listing]) or about 1.5 inches of HT (high-tensile, similarly also weak to direct hits [as per the plan]).

Because of the lack of actual armour in those places, Lesta has apparently decided to just say "heck, let's make it 25mm of armour". The argument against that is the structural steel in the bow and stern being worth upwards of 32mm of armour steel, which it never was. But those things are obviously given a balance treatment (few ships actually had as much as 32mm plating in their outer skin or weatherdecks).

 

But the fact remains, Warspite didn't have 152mm face hardened armour to protect her 6-inchers post refit, what was left was at best splinter protection and Lesta has modelled around that.

 

[EDIT] Now that I have looked more carefully at the plan again, I'm pretty sure that Lesta's sources are similar to it. The armour covering the engine spaces are listed as 9c on 4e. Or 140 pounds, which is 3.5 inches or about 89mm. That's what Warspite has covering the engine spaces ingame.

 

If you are annoyed that what might have reason to be around 38mm is only 25mm, then feel free to use that. I won't be saying anything against that. But that's about the only armour problem that Warspite has at this time. Her citadel might edge out too far in front, but that's another issue, and one I don't think is easily exploitable.