Matrix Games Forums

To any interested, follow this link to an article on torpedo defense systems at NavWeaps.
 
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.htm

I had always heard that Boise took a turret hit that resulted in the magazine being flooded, both deliberately and inadvertently from shellholes in the hull, not from any submarining shells.

Belt armor was also effective against kamikaze attacks when the planes flew at the hull from very low altitude.  Missouri was struck by one amidships and it barely dented the hull because it hit on her belt armor.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I had always heard that Boise took a turret hit that resulted in the magazine being flooded, both deliberately and inadvertently from shellholes in the hull, not from any submarining shells.

Belt armor was also effective against kamikaze attacks when the planes flew at the hull from very low altitude.  Missouri was struck by one amidships and it barely dented the hull because it hit on her belt armor.

IIRC, it was an underwater hit. In fact it was the only documented underwater hit by the specially shaped Japanese "Diving" shells. The hit did everything it was supposed to do, bypassing the belt and penetrating the magazine before exploding. Except it hit the Boise and the Boise cannot ever, ever have a magazine explosion [:D]

or be scrapped!

uh oh.....[X(]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

No, torpedoes never penetrated armor. Ideally with magnetic exploders the torpedo would pass under the ship and then explode under the ship. The ability of water to transmit shock waves would do the rest and in an ideal situation the keel of the ship would snap in two.

If I remember well, I'd add that the "keel snapping" would rather happen because of the void created by the explosion once the bubble created by the explosion retracts, and leaves the keel trying to support the weight of the ship while weakened by the explosion and having both the bow and the stern still being supported by the water.

Don't 4get the 24" Long Lance.  In theory it was designed to hit/punch through even the thickest belt armour found on BB's in the 30's  - although I accept ships like the Iowa class had even more protection,  although in RL I don't think any were ever hit by a LL
Certainly near Guadacanal in the Fall of '42 the new fast battleship North Carolina was hit and badly damaged by one LL - hit under a turret and completely knocked it out of true,  in addition to the flooding had to limp back to PH for major repairs.  The belt armour was substantial on this BB but the LL didn't seem to have too many problems in causing major damage to the hull and turret foundations...

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Don't 4get the 24" Long Lance.  In theory it was designed to hit/punch through even the thickest belt armour found on BB's in the 30's  - although I accept ships like the Iowa class had even more protection,  although in RL I don't think any were ever hit by a LL
Certainly near Guadacanal in the Fall of '42 the new fast battleship North Carolina was hit and badly damaged by one LL - hit under a turret and completely knocked it out of true,  in addition to the flooding had to limp back to PH for major repairs.  The belt armour was substantial on this BB but the LL didn't seem to have too many problems in causing major damage to the hull and turret foundations...

Actually it wasn't a LL but a 21" submarine torpedo.

LL torpedoes were only carried on surface warships, not subs, and not all surface warships carried them either.
 
IIRC the largest ship hit by a LL torpedo was a USN cruiser, either one of the Brooklyn's (Helena) or a ship like Pensacola. 

Belt armor of US ships is best used against 250kg bombs droped by Vals over Pearl Harbor... like throwing peas against the walls [:@]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Belt armor of US ships is best used against 250kg bombs droped by Vals over Pearl Harbor... like throwing peas against the walls [:@]

I doubt many bombs ever dropped by a divebomber, anywhere, had to bother with penetrating a ship's BELT armor. They were designed to penetrate a ship's DECK armor, which was the layer(s) of protection parallel to the keel, not perpendicular to it.

Although near misses were sometimes as good as hits if they could buckle plates below the waterline, especially if the bomb was relatively ineffective against a ship's deck armor.  

Yes but I doubt those bombs penetrated the belt armor even if they were near misses.  Those kinds of hits tended to create flooding in either nonarmored portions of the ships or the voids outside the armor.

I was writing about AE - I had to watch the process of scratching paint on light cruisers belt armor with 250kg bombs recently [;)]

Every time I see a "1000 lb bomb hit on belt armor" message when one of my DB's attacks a cruiser or CV I cringe, knowing it's going to be a wasted hit.  I guess those are supposed to be the near misses that take place, because a DB diving at a near 90 degree angle isn't going to hit the belt armor of any ship with a bomb.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

LL torpedoes were only carried on surface warships, not subs, and not all surface warships carried them either.

IIRC the largest ship hit by a LL torpedo was a USN cruiser, either one of the Brooklyn's (Helena) or a ship like Pensacola. 

Several, in fact. Minneapolis, New Orleans, Northampton, and Pensacola all got hit with Long Lances at Tassafaronga. Portland, Juneau, and Atlanta in the Friday the 13th battle off Guadalcanal.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Every time I see a "1000 lb bomb hit on belt armor" message when one of my DB's attacks a cruiser or CV I cringe, knowing it's going to be a wasted hit.  I guess those are supposed to be the near misses that take place, because a DB diving at a near 90 degree angle isn't going to hit the belt armor of any ship with a bomb.

Maybe the bomb is supposed to be hitting the top side of the belt armor? Would explain the lack of penetration..., from that angle the belt could be 10 feet thick... [:D][:D][:D]

Mike Scholl was on to something earlier. I remember reading something a long while back explaining in the milliseconds after detonation a "bubble" forms next to the hull containing the fireball. Water by volume can only contract 4% thats it. Well at these pressues involved the armor becomes like putty and bends or blows apart to relieve the pressure being forced against it. The deeper the hit the more effective the blast as the pressure wave seeks the easiest way out. That's now you get those hundred foot towers of water next to the ship. OUCH!

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Yes but I doubt those bombs penetrated the belt armor even if they were near misses.  Those kinds of hits tended to create flooding in either nonarmored portions of the ships or the voids outside the armor.

From what I understand, the near misses tended to move whole sections of the armor back (i.e. in towards the ship) in one mass. Depending on the amount of deflection, the depth, and the force of the hit, that movement could cause the armor belt to detach from the surrounding hull at the top or bottom of belt (or end, I suppose, in an all-or-nothing armor scheme). The top was bad in that listing, partial flooding, high seas, etc. could cause flooding over the top of the armor. The bottom, as you might expect, could be really bad depending on the location of the hit relative to other protective devices.

I think I have seen posts from the devs where bimb hits against belt armor are intended to represent near misses that are close enough to "buckle plates". Supposedly they have the chance to cause minor flooding. Or at least they did in WitP.

Mike

Belt Armour - huh! Good gawd yaw, what is it good for?

Absolutely nuttin.

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I think I have seen posts from the devs where bomb hits against belt armor are intended to represent near misses that are close enough to "buckle plates". Supposedly they have the chance to cause minor flooding. Or at least they did in WitP.

Mike

Depends on the bomb. When Tirpitz was sunk, the bombardiers orders were to try for near misses. Of course, they were using 6-ton "Tall Boy" bombs.