Armor Thicknesses

[Fizwalker]

So, I am designing my pre-dreadnought today and after arming this thing with all the latest tech and gadgets I got to wondering..... Is she better armoured than the last class....? She has 11.4 inches of nickel-steel in her belt.... And well... the answer is yes, yes she is. The last 2 classes had 11.2 inches of compound armour... (Though not as good on the turrets just going by thickness....) But still, using 1 inch Iron Plate as a base, what would the thicknesses of later armour types be to equal that original inch thickness?

[DemonicSquid]

You can use the generic armour modifier as a base to calculate this.

So Krupp IV is about 140% depending on what other modifiers you may or may not have researched.

I find that 300mm (12") of main belt armour on a BB is sufficient for nearly any engagement provided you are keeping up in tech. 300mm of Krupp IV would be therefore equivalent to roughly 420mm (16.5") of plate. You can go higher but the trade-off is generally not really worth it in the current game.

[ZiggyDeath]

Originally posted by Fizwalker:

So, I am designing my pre-dreadnought today and after arming this thing with all the latest tech and gadgets I got to wondering..... Is she better armoured than the last class....? She has 11.4 inches of nickel-steel in her belt.... And well... the answer is yes, yes she is. The last 2 classes had 11.2 inches of compound armour... (Though not as good on the turrets just going by thickness....) But still, using 1 inch Iron Plate as a base, what would the thicknesses of later armour types be to equal that original inch thickness?

AFAIK, the 0% modifier would be roughly for just mild steel, given the armour descriptors rather than iron.

Armour penetration of a gun is always given for a hypothetical armour plate strength with 0% modifiers.

Your 11.4" nickel-steel plate has a thickness equivalent to 15.96". Your compound plate has a equivalent thickness of 15.12".

Those are the numbers you want to compare to to see if a gun can penetrate it or not.

[wizwom]

Let me fire up the game and do the math.
Iron plate has an armor modifier of -25%; So it actually counts as 0.75" But Iron plates's -80% weight for the belt is enticing ships with low deck armor to use iron plate.
Compound has +35%; 1.35"
Nickel-Steel 1.40
Harvey 1.50
Krupp I 1.75
Krupp II 1.95
Krupp III 2.10
Krupp IV 2.40" - or 3.2" equivalent of Iron plate.

The "armor forging" tech tree will modify these numbers, so campaign game ships will be better than custom battle ships.

[-=EDF=- Kouta Seto]

*sigh* Krupp IV is 140% better than NORMAL STEEL, aka a 0% modifier. So the 300 mm would actualy go up for 140% more, aka 720ish, thats a fact and thats what kept Bismarck afloat against 16 inch bombardment of Rodney. She did take some damaging hits prior from Wales, thou the damage was at best minimal to non existend. She lost some oil but thats about it while ingame? Yea no, 10 inch guns punch through 400mm Krupp IV armor (aka around 900+mm) with ease, wich is unhistorical even compared to WG and Gaijin.

The armor used on 1915 ships onward is already TWICE as good as it was back on the Dreadnought (as Kongou would have literarely wiped out any ship currently in service or even planed by the brits or any nation, thats how powerfull she was compared to the rest (she also was the first ship with 14 inch guns to ACTUALY hope to penetrate 200mm armor reliably, she would still struggle against a real BB with 305mm belt (and yes, most if not all captains manouver their ships ALWAY'S to be belt hit range (like hood tried and failed to do)