Jump to content


Photo

RNN Errata


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Martin Jerred

Martin Jerred

    Private

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 03 January 2007 - 04:19 PM

First many thanks for the RNN supplement, first of many I hope.However, on the Ships Logs is there a problem with Java and Sumatra? (and Marblehead come to that). The logs indicate Armour of CL(CS) and yet the turret boxes are not defined by a heavy black border indicating they are not armoured. Compare to say, Tromp which is CS(CS) and has the heavy borders.Is this an error or a deliberate method of attempting to dostinguish armour ratings. Do hits on Java's turrets have to penetrate or not?cheersZippee

#2 Jim O'Neil

Jim O'Neil

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 218 posts
  • LocationSE Arizona, Sierra Vista/ Ft Huachuca area

Posted 03 January 2007 - 10:48 PM

JAVA doesn't have turrets, she has open backed shields ... as does Tromp.MARBLEHEAD does have lightly armored turrets (1" all around IIRC).

#3 Martin Jerred

Martin Jerred

    Private

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 January 2007 - 11:47 AM

Indeed so why the classification of CL(CS) ??The bracketed armour classification only applies to primary guns (turreted or not).I know what the actual/historical situation is...I'm just not sure what the rules intent is...cheersZippee

#4 Lonnie Gill

Lonnie Gill

    Captain

  • ODGW Staff
  • 305 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 12:14 AM

Zip,Thanks for your reply. We hope the response to the RNN Supplement will enable us to justify other supplements.The standard for armor indication on the Ship Logs is a medium bold border around hull and armament cells for CL and CS armor and heavy bold borders around cells for CA and the various levels of battleship armor. This distinction can be subtle unless you have a high dpi printer. Thus, De Ruyter correctly has medium bold borders around her main battery. The Marblehead should have medium bold around hers as well as her casemates and turrets were armored as Bravo6 noted in his reply. The technocrats will remind me that they are technically"gunhouses" rather than "turrets", but functionally they provided the same kind of all-around protection. Thin, but protection none the less, primarily against splinters. Contrast this with batteries with open gun shields. Experience in WW I quickly showed that while a gun shield provided some protection from a direct hit, the guns and their crews were terribly vulnerable to splinters and nearby hits. The most extreme example was HMS Chester at Jutland. Thus, I have taken the position that open mounts with gunshields should not have a bold border on the Ship Logs and turret armor should be shown as (-) or not listed at all. You'll note this on the 5.5" Japanese light cruisers on the IJN Ship Logs. In Tromp's case, the shielding was quite extensive, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt with medium bold borders.So, the main battery on Java and Sumatra are correctly shown without medium bold borders to reflect their gun shied protection. However, their turret armor was incorrectly shown as "(CS)" when it should be "(-)" or left blank as I did with the IJN cruisers. Similarly, the Marblehead should have medium bold borders around her main battery armament boxes. Good catch! For the moment, you can annotate your Ship Logs. When I have a chance to process the changes, we will post them on-line so you can download the corrected Ship Logs. ODGW's on-line service provides a nice solution for my typos.

#5 Martin Jerred

Martin Jerred

    Private

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:07 PM

Thanks for that Lonnie, that all makes sense.The supplement is excellent, I like the format, a bit of exposition, ship logs, air stats and gunnery charts together with a few scenarios is just right.Any hints on what supplement may be next? Norwegian would be useful...cheersZippee

#6 Lonnie Gill

Lonnie Gill

    Captain

  • ODGW Staff
  • 305 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 10:13 PM

Thanks for the kind words on the approach. The folks at ODGW worked pretty hard with me to ensure we provided value. It's good to get some validation that we're on target.As for the next step, truth be told, we're looking pretty hard at WW I. Hardly a big revelation. Indications are there is a strong interest in it next. I have always had a big interest in that period as well. Clearly, we're still in the brainstorming phase at this point, so don't let the rumor mill get started. There are also some ideas kicking around about Norway and other navies that might gel into something. Again, far too premature to speculate yet.

#7 Martin Jerred

Martin Jerred

    Private

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 04:55 AM

Well WWI is probably slightly more than a supplement :) I thought it might be worth pointing out that the hyperlink for the RNN website is incorrect (typo I guess)It should be http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/the link in the pdf lacks the "s"...Zippee

#8 CinC

CinC

    ODGW Janitor

  • ODGW Staff
  • 170 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:13 AM

lonnie wrote:

So, the main battery on Java and Sumatra are correctly shown without medium bold borders to reflect their gun shied protection. However, their turret armor was incorrectly shown as "(CS)" when it should be "(-)" or left blank as I did with the IJN cruisers. Similarly, the Marblehead should have medium bold borders around her main battery armament boxes. Good catch! For the moment, you can annotate your Ship Logs. When I have a chance to process the changes, we will post them on-line so you can download the corrected Ship Logs. ODGW's on-line service provides a nice solution for my typos.

New file containing the updates has been posted to the Royal Netherlands Navy folder.Cheers,CinC

#9 Martin Jerred

Martin Jerred

    Private

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 12:46 PM

Just to be pedantc :evil: The ship logsin the full RNN supplement have not been updated - ie Java etc still have the wrong armour values.The charts in the chart only download are modified thoughthanksZippee

#10 CinC

CinC

    ODGW Janitor

  • ODGW Staff
  • 170 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 01:12 PM

That is correct, as per my earlier post the new file has the updates.Cheers,CinC




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users