Posted 26 January 2008 - 09:17 PM
Posted 14 February 2008 - 09:13 PM
Posted 16 February 2008 - 05:43 AM
Posted 17 February 2008 - 06:29 AM
Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:33 AM
The decision to classifiy the pre-dreads as B* was based on making a definitive break between the older pre-dread designs and the later dreadnought designs, especially in regards to sub division and overall resistance to damage. That being said, in the gray area of the late pre-dread designs (such as Lord Nelson), there may be some grounds for using a 'dual' armor class as you mention (BB for penetration, B* for damage).
In the data sheets, all the pre-dreadnoughts are given armor of B*, which is equivalent to BD. The armor of pre-dreadnoughts varied widely. Of the ships listed for the British, I'd figure Lord Nelson as having BB armor, the Wobbly Eight as having BC, and Canopus as having CA armor. All of them, of course, should be in the B*/CA damage column, _base_d on size and design.Was the B* armor assignment meant for simplicity (in which case differentiating it as above would be a reasonable house rule), or was there a specific design reason?
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, where and how to draw the line is the real problem. Good design data for these early ships is almost impossible to find. Given the lack of good data to the contrary, I would tend to the conservative in making that judgement.
The other question is when to count these as B* for damage purposes. It wasn't as if compartmentalization etc. improved with a quantum leap with Dreadnought, South Carolina, or Settsu. However, I don't have anything resembling good data on that.
Posted 19 February 2008 - 06:36 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users