5 replies to this topic

[W. Clark]

I saw that the armor level of a CT is considered in the rules to be that of the ship's belt armor. The concepts that I like best about your rules is your ability to take something complex and make it simple but not a one size fits all treatise. Your gunnery rules are the best example of that kind of design genius. So I kind of hold you to a higher standard then is perhaps totally fair.

So, just because I'm retired and have no life I started examining ship cards for CT and then looking them up in my various volumes of Conway's and comparing how Conway's had their CT (if they had one) armored and compared that to the various armor levels as defined in GQ 3.3.

I found that German CT almost always were armored at least one level greater than their belt armor. Graf Spee had 6" armor or BD on her CT instead of CA and the German CLs almost all had 4" armor on their CT or CA instead of CL.

I also found some ships that had armored CT while their ship cards listed them with a bridge only. The first one I found like that was De Ruyter whose CT had 30mm of armor or CS. That one struck me particularly hard as the Dutch need all the help they can get. I happen to like commanding the ABDA, what can I say, I'm a sucker for lost causes.

In any case this is one of the few places where it appears that you settled for sort of a one size fits all. On the other hand I tried to figure out an elegant and simple way to indicate the actuall level of armor of a particular ship's CT where it exceeded or was less than that ship's belt armor. I have to admit that stumped me but then that's why I pay you for your ideas because they are better.

So I guess what I'm really asking for is a sort of confession. Did a simple means of giving a ship with a CT its own armor level elude you also? Or, did you just settle for a one size fits all?

[Kenneth D. Hall]

While waiting for the powers that be to make known their will , I offer this:

You bought it, you paid for it, you're playing it; modify it as you see fit. One's fellow participants should be informed, but other than that, I say have at it. The original decision was likely a simplification, and different sources may well offer contradictory data, so many years after the fact.

[Dave Franklin]

Assuming you decide it's worth it, you could always put the CT's armor in the box.

So an unarmored bridge would still say "Bridge", but using your example from above, the Graf Spee would say "BD" - or maybe "CT(BD)".

[Cpt M]

In point of fact, the Conning Tower on surface ships were rarely used as the war progressed due to their limit command facilities and visibility. In the case of the USN, most of the pre-war cruisers had their CTs removed in an effort to free up weight for other improvements and were not missed in the least. By 1942, both the USN and IJN commanders had pretty much ceased to use the CT to con their ships (this was especially true in the Solomons actions) and the RN rarely, if ever, used their CTs during the entire war. So in most scenarios the CT armor will be moot since all command functions had migrated to the bridge. In all the scenarios I design, the CT is always replaced by the Bridge. If I was to use CTs in a scenario, I would impose a reduction in sighting due to the limited 'situational awareness' (something that could be especially bad in a night scenario).

[Cpt M]

So I guess what I'm really asking for is a sort of confession. Did a simple means of giving a ship with a CT its own armor level elude you also? Or, did you just settle for a one size fits all?

That was intentional as a way to simplify the CT armor rating. As you found out, CT armor can fall within a considerable range. And for something that, by all contemporary accounts, was either rarely (if ever) used, a separate rating was felt to needlessly add complexity for no real appreciable return.

[W. Clark]

That all makes sense to me. It appears that CTs are for the narrow mined battleship centric thinkers and being as how the Dutch didn't any BBs they need to be more cruiser like in their thinking. Thank you for the insight and I'll give some thought as how to include it in my scenarios in the future.