Jump to content


Photo

Deck armour and Belt armour

armour deck belt gunnery

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Asherbanipal

Asherbanipal

    Private

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 02:14 AM

The GQ3 rules are good, I will not deny that but I think they have been over simplified in some regards. It strikes me as strange that the in service dates of some equipment is tracked down to the month in which it was introduced but in other regards, the rules are are very simple in their modeling of WW2 naval combat. Belt and deck armour is represented by a single factor but turrets have their own values.

 

The armour classes given for each class are a combination of deck armour, belt armour and general vulnerability to damage of the ship. Yet it fails to take into account that the deck armour and belt armour of a certain class might not give the same 'value' of vulnerability.

For instance, the modern battleships of WW2 had thick deck armour to resist plunging shells and bombs which were far more common in WW2 than WW1. WW1 battleships have thick belt armour but thin deck armour because the ranges were shorter and so the flight path of the shells are flatter. However under the present rules either the WW1 ships get a bonus because of the thickness if the belt or are penalised because of the thinness of the deck compared to WW2 ships.

 

So what to about it?

 

On the range charts, there is a line showing whether the shooting is high angle (and so pass over intervening ships) or low angle. This also indicates whether the deck or belt is hit. If all armoured ships have 2 armour factors, 1 for belt and the 2nd for deck, using the same classifications as now, i.e. BB, CA etc, then the difference between WW1 and WW2 ships can be more accurately modelled. For instance the Hood would have a rating of BB/BC. That is BB for the belt and BC for the deck.

.

Using the range charts, depending on the gun and range, a shell would either hit the belt (underneath the line) or the deck (above the line. Whether or not the shell penetrates still depends upon the penetration power of the shell vs the armour of the ship where the shell hits. There is no need for complicated rules, just the one stating whether the belt or the deck is hit.

 

Of course, the deck armour value would have to be worked out for each ship.

 

The rule: "when a hit is registered, the range chart is consulted to determine the whether the belt or deck armour of the target ship is hit. If the range is above the line then the deck is hit. If the range is below the line then the belt is hit. Only the range from shooter to target is taken into account. No range modifiers are taken into account. Once the armour of the target is determined, then the penetration value of the shell is compared. Then damage is worked out as per normal."

 

So what do people think?

 

 



#2 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 320 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 16 March 2015 - 06:12 PM

My first response upon reading this post was chuckle and think how ironic.  Most criticisms of GQ3 are that it is too complicated, or even perhaps that it looks too daunting to even attempt.  I personally don't agree, but nowadays people don't seem to be able to, or want to, use their brains when playing a wargame...

 

I would guess the ratio of belt to deck armor was evaluated to be consistent enough to warrant the fidelity of being modeled by a single rating as sufficient.  It's also probably not the best practice to base one's game design on a single battle.

 

As to the example of Hood, presumably against Bismarck, it is a little counter-intuitive, but I think it works.  In GQ3, Bismarck's 15" guns can penetrate Hood's BB armor at any range.  Hood's 15" guns can only penetrate Bismarck's BA armor at more than 24000yds, or when she closes to within 18000yds.  PoW's 14" guns are in the same boat - so to speak.  The tactical and strategic burden to attack is on the British, so they are strongly motivated to close the range so they can hit better - especially since as soon as both ships are shooting at the Bismarck, they'll be penalized up 1 row for 2+ batteries shooting at the same ship.  During the period they are closing the range between 24000 to 18000yds, they won't be able to penetrate.

 

Dave



#3 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 16 March 2015 - 10:14 PM

An interesting ides, but it has several flaws. First, you're assuming that at a certain range that either the deck or the side would be struck to the exclusion of the the other. Such is not the case. Instead a hard black line, the reality is that it more a broad gray continuum. Certainly, at some long ranges, the deck will more likely be struck, but not always (and the reverse would be true at shorter ranges). So a hard and fast rule would not be historically accurate. Second, you're basing your assumptions on one action where an unmodified WWI design met a WWII design. In point of fact, this was a rarity since nearly all the extant WWI ships had been extensively modified in the intra-war years (and, if the war had been delayed, Hood too would had been modified). Finally, your rule would add an extra layer of complexity for little real benefit (at least for the greater majority of actions).

#4 Asherbanipal

Asherbanipal

    Private

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 05:00 AM

An interesting ides, but it has several flaws. First, you're assuming that at a certain range that either the deck or the side would be struck to the exclusion of the the other. Such is not the case. Instead a hard black line, the reality is that it more a broad gray continuum. Certainly, at some long ranges, the deck will more likely be struck, but not always (and the reverse would be true at shorter ranges). So a hard and fast rule would not be historically accurate. Second, you're basing your assumptions on one action where an unmodified WWI design met a WWII design. In point of fact, this was a rarity since nearly all the extant WWI ships had been extensively modified in the intra-war years (and, if the war had been delayed, Hood too would had been modified). Finally, your rule would add an extra layer of complexity for little real benefit (at least for the greater majority of actions).

Ok, some shells will hit the deck at short ranges but these will be very few. Likewise for long range, some will hit the belt. But these will few and far between. Is it worth making the rules more unrealistic for the sake of these few shells?

 

Yes, most WW1 battleships were modified and uparmoured. However what could not not be modified is the placement of this armour. The deck on WW1 battleships were one deck lower than on WW2 ships (the deck was raised because of the threat of bombs). This is of importance in where the damage occurs. Bismark, basically a WW1 design, lost communications, both via telephone and physical (i.e. men moving) during its last battle. This obviously has an effect on the efficency of the ship to take damage and still function.

 

As for adding an extra layer of complexity, no, not really. To check whether a range is above or below the line takes but a second. Checking the armour type of the target is something that has to be done anyway. OK, for many actions, this won't apply because the deck and belt armour types are the same. Then again, many rules would not apply to all of the actions fought. Should we drop these rules from the rule book completely?

 

Lastly, the use of different deck and belt armour values will mean more tactical decisions for the players in maneovering their ships to obtain the best firing range. Surely this is a good thing?



#5 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 11:11 PM

Ok, some shells will hit the deck at short ranges but these will be very few. Likewise for long range, some will hit the belt. But these will few and far between. Is it worth making the rules more unrealistic for the sake of these few shells?

 
Actually, depending on the range, the results would be far more than a few shells. For example, at some point, the percentage of shells striking deck verses side would be 50/50. In that case, you would need some mechanism to determine whether the shell strikes the deck or side (a hard either/or line would not be reasonable). So you would need another level of complexity on top of your proposed rule to make it work.
 

Yes, most WW1 battleships were modified and uparmoured. However what could not not be modified is the placement of this armour. The deck on WW1 battleships were one deck lower than on WW2 ships (the deck was raised because of the threat of bombs). This is of importance in where the damage occurs. Bismark, basically a WW1 design, lost communications, both via telephone and physical (i.e. men moving) during its last battle. This obviously has an effect on the efficency of the ship to take damage and still function.


The damage model used in GQ3 already incorporates much of what you stated (just at a more abstract level). The level of specific detail you mention, however, is below the level of the damage model and would require a different damage model altogether.
 

As for adding an extra layer of complexity, no, not really. To check whether a range is above or below the line takes but a second. Checking the armour type of the target is something that has to be done anyway. OK, for many actions, this won't apply because the deck and belt armour types are the same. Then again, many rules would not apply to all of the actions fought. Should we drop these rules from the rule book completely?


A broad revision for the benefit of a very small number of potential actions (and I'd debate even if that is the case) that would add additional complexity for little real return is, generally, not desirable. If a rule can demonstrate that it adds more to the game for little, or minimal impact on play, then it can be considered a winner. This concept, I'm afraid, does not meet that test.  
 

Lastly, the use of different deck and belt armour values will mean more tactical decisions for the players in maneovering their ships to obtain the best firing range. Surely this is a good thing?


The current rules provide that already. In fact, the nature of 'damage space' is reflected very well in the rules. Knowing the range of your vulnerabilities verses that of the opposing ship is a standard of the game.

That said, the game is flexible enough to accommodate any number of 'house rules' (and many gamers have already done so). So, by all means, feel free to adopt this concept for your own games.
  • Kenneth D. Hall likes this

#6 Kenneth D. Hall

Kenneth D. Hall

    Private

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • LocationFlyover Country

Posted 30 March 2015 - 04:12 PM

The current rules model the concept of the "immune zone" adequately enough for my taste.



#7 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Major

  • Members
  • 594 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 28 April 2015 - 11:14 PM

Here, here







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: armour, deck, belt, gunnery

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users