Reddit mentions of Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II

Boyo? Hahaha I'm being trolled by an 1890 Top Hat dude with a handlebar moustache. Sing us a Barbershop song, Sport!

Anyhooo....

AoN was invented in the US with the Standard class of BB's. AoN does not mean that the bow and stern of the ship had no armored bulkheads, as you said here:

>She had an All or Nothing scheme, which means the bow had little if any armor.

On American BBs, the forward and aft bulkhead were generally of the thickness of the armor belt, hence... wait for it... "All or Nothing"

All or Nothing means you do not add 'medium' armor thickness as on a Japanese Fuso or RN Queen Elizabeth or US New York Class. You either have the maximum thickness of plate practical, or no armor at all. All. or. Nothing.

Typical American Standard BBs included a 13.5" armor belt, and a forward and aft bulkhead of 13.5". In most cases, this armor was tapered from the belt/deck armor end to meet the barbette, which, again, had about 13.5" of armor.

This rule was violated in the US with the intallation of I believe a 15" forward plate in USS Wisconson. Other Iowa class BB's had a typical 12.2" forward bulkhead.

So the Richeleau had a thinner forward bulkhead, but by not means is it 'little' armor, and in being not the same thickness as the belt, actually deviates from the All or Nothing scheme.

U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History Friedman Hardcover

[Battleships: Allied Battleships in World War II 1st Edition Robert O. Dulin Jr., William H. Garzke Jr. ] (https://www.amazon.com/Battleships-Allied-World-War-II/dp/0870211005)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you have some reading to do.

Do not take your cues on BB design from World of Warships. It's a game. In fact, true AoN armor schemes are nearly impenetrable from the bow, including the Iowa, Montana, and Yamato class ships. In fact, due to the great deal of STS armor plate included in the two final US classes designed, it would be nearly impossible for a Yamato to penetrate several layers of 1/2", 1-1/2", and 1" STS armor plate, at an angle, and not be disturbed to maintain enough APC integrity to pierce the forward bulkhead. This causes some frustration for those of us who have studied the relevant history of American BBs, and the relative weakness of most IJN APC rounds, but then, it's just a game.

Have a good day!

Edit: I'd like to add, the STS 'armor plate' used in the construction of the Iowa class ships does not include stringers or support beams. All other ships, including other US ships besides the Iowa and Montana classes, used marine-grade steel for decks and bulkheads. In those two classes, decks and bulkheads are often made of STS, or Special Treatment Steel, 118,500 psi tensile. It's essentially Class B armor. So while the Yamato was constructed of mild steel, and had armor plates, the Iowa and Montana classes are actually made out of armor plate. By comparison, modern American warships, as good a standard as any, are constructed of HY80, or steel with 80,000 psi tensile. Of course, modern steel is more consistent and more importantly, has a greater 'give to yield' envelope than STS made in the 1930s. Still, the lavish use of STS in Iowa and Montana class plans and construction means these ships are incredibly stout, much more so than Wikipedia armor statistics can convey. In short, WoW is an arcade game, and the final two classes of American BBs are the finest possible way to construct a Battleship, regardless of fire-control or damage control practice or any other oft-mentioned US superiority. The fabric of the ships themselves is vastly superior to any other BB ever constructed or conceived. They are literally Superweapons.