RE: dreadnought thrust was Re: Fighters and Hangers

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> I encountered similar problems when doing the conversion of FT I to
> WW2 Naval - for instance an Iowa class battleship had 9 Class A (Beam
> 3) guns mounted in three turrets, twenty Class C (Beam 1) mounted on
> the sides, 10 PDS and 4 ADS.

I assume that you made no distinction between 14", 15", 16" and 18"
guns?

How about 6" and 8" cruiser guns?  Were they both B batts?  How about
the 12" on the Alaska?

Aside: I think that classed batteries is one of the best improvements
to FT to come from the EFSB/FBs, as it allows a greater range of
choices.

> Belt armor was represented by shields, but ignored if fire came from 
> the front/rear arc

Sounds like sidewalls and impeller wedges :)

You do know that all ships with belt armor, including pre-dreadnought
battleships and armored cruisers either had armored transverse
bulkheads joinng the ends ofthe belts, anged the belts inward to join
to the fore and aft barbettes, or extended the belts all the way to
join at the bow and stern, right?

Just before WW1, the USN found from testing that light armor was worse
than no armor since it did not stop shells penetrating but did detonate
them inside the ship.  The new pattern, called "all or nothing
armoring" was to strengthen the armor over vital areas to the point
where it offered tremendous protection, and reduce all other areas to
completely unarmored status to allow shells to pass through without
detonating.  This was picked up by other navies and became the norm
after WW1.

At the battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines during WW2, Japanese
battleships fired AP shells at US CVEs at point black range.  The
shells passed completely through the ships without detonating.

> or from long range (plunging fire).

And all ships built after the battle of Tsushima in 1905 have armored
decks precisely to defend against plunging fire.

In fact, the USN built battleships based on an "immunity zone" idea. 
This zone was defined as "from X thousand yards to Y thousand yards
against Z" shellfire".	Where X was the closest range at which Z"
shells could not penetrate the belt and Y was the farthest range before
plunging shells would penetrate the armored deck.  The zone was usually
calculated based on the ship's own main battery size, since the ship
was assumed to be facing similarly armed contemporaries in other
navies.

> Hull boxes was based on displacement, roughly 1 box
> per 1,000 tons with some fudge factor based on anecdotal evidence of
> strength of design.

Which figures did you use?  Standard load (Washington Treaty), full
load, or maximum deep load?  These could be very different, for example
some ships built to Washington Treaty limits of 35,000 dwt standard
could have full or maximum loads of 40,000 to 45,000 dwt.  Could make a
big difference in a game.

<snip> 
> 
> There was a problem with Battleships and heavy cruisers annilhating
> destroyers at long ranges, which historically didn't happen much. 
> Another issue is that in real life, salvoes are very much hit or
> miss, with rarely anything like a "grazing" shot.  Getting slammed
> with 1,600 lbs of armor-piercing steel is going to hurt, but a near
> miss is only going to get you wet, so in reality there should be a
> "to hit" roll then a damage roll.

That is why I used K-guns.  However, if you want to use the beam
battery mechanic, try this:
Each beam only rolls a single die, however it has a range equal to the
full range for the weapon, e.g. an A batt/class 3 rolls 1 die out to 36
MU.  Score the roll as for normal beam dice.  Each hit does a number of
points of damage equal to the class of the battery, so an A batt/class
3 does 0, 3, or 6 damage.

J