Fletcher class DD armored??

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Fletcher class DD armored??

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Fletcher class DD armored??

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 7:01:43 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

were the Fletchers really the world only armoured DDs?? It seems this give them some sort of invunerability in battles vs. japanese DDs. Japanese DD guns are unable to penetrate either deck armour or belt armour of fletcher. In fact, they can not sink them at all unles they hit them with torpedo (which is highly unlikely). I'm seeing japanese DD forces being cut to peaces by single or a pair of escort Fletchers over and over again. Cause of this is allways the same- japanese DD can not penetrate their armour. So were the Fletchers really so immune to japanese DDs??

< Message edited by CV Zuikaku -- 12/18/2010 7:03:14 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 8:00:54 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Please don't wste our time with absurd rants. The largest Fletcher armor is 18, and Japanese 12.7cm guns penetrate 58.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 2

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 9:27:15 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

JWE doesn't agree, its a rant.

How about ignoring the post if you don't agree with it. Or looking at both sides of the armour ratings.

I am not questioning the accuracy of these ratings, but I'd rather be in a Fletcher than a Fubuki.

Fletcher�� Manouvre� 67� Durability 10� Belt Armour� 18� Deck Armour 15 - No other US DD has Belt or Deck Armour. EDIT Gearing class has 5 for both Belt & Deck Armour.

Fubuki�� Manouvre� 67� Durability� 8� Belt Armour�� 0� Deck Armour� 0 - No other IJN DD has Belt or Deck Armour

No RN DD Class has Belt or Deck armour either.

The ratings may be correct, the Fletcher is a 1939 class and Fubuki 1927, but it can explain why its harder for an IJN DD to damage a Fletcher class DD.

PS Taken from latest patch, scenario 1

< Message edited by JeffK -- 12/18/2010 10:10:17 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 3

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 9:51:47 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

Not only did the Fletcher class have an armored belt, but they made routine structural members out of armor steel. Some British officers touring US shipyards who saw this literally started to cry when they saw the construction techniques and materials... out of jealousy and/or frustration, i assume...

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 4

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 10:05:29 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

This is great info, explaining the differences and why its harder to sink a Fletcher than an IJN DD

I am surprised that no other DD rates any level of armour though.

EDIT Gearing class has 5 for both Belt & Deck Armour.
Allen M Sumner which is an improved Fletcher has zero. ??
(Maybe not improved, but "an improvement on", 2 different sites say different things, you just cant trust the internet any more.)

< Message edited by JeffK -- 12/18/2010 10:14:36 PM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 5

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 10:20:47 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Maybe they just stubbed their toes on the armour or walked into a groin-level bulkhead and suffered a penetrating hit of their own?

Maybe CV Zuikaku should go and study this?

To be fair though the Fletcher armour helps them a lot BUT it isn't impenetrable and Fletchers can be killed in surface combat by IJN DDs.

Hyperbole is the enemy of rational discussion. Hyperbole doesn't help improve the game. Rational discussion backed by some level of statistically valid testing does.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 6

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 11:19:03 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Please don't wste our time with absurd rants. The largest Fletcher armor is 18, and Japanese 12.7cm guns penetrate 58.

There was no intention to rant. I was just asking about the armour on Fletchers since i thougt that DDs didn't have armour at all. And I didn't noticed it in the game either untill many and many shells bounced of Fletcher's armour in my game...

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 7

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 11:29:16 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

To be fair though the Fletcher armour helps them a lot BUT it isn't impenetrable and Fletchers can be killed in surface combat by IJN DDs.

Well, they can be killed by japanese DDs, but only at point blank ranges. At 10000+ Yds range even guns of Cls are often (not allways) unable to penetrate. And IJN DD gunfire at 3000+ Yds can only damage superstructure and start fires which is rarely fatal. Didn't even noticed armour on Fletchers untill some of them heavilly outnumbered schreaded IJN DD TFs. A couple of times

P.S. rtrapasso, Thanks for the info. Didn't know that fact. Data I found on internet do not mention anything about armoured protection of Fletcher class....

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 8

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 11:34:02 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

The more I look the less info about armour on a Fletcher class is available, best comment I find is .75" belt armour, is this better or worse than any other class?

Apart from rtrappaso's anecdote about American shipbuilding prowess, which would improve Durability (Fletcher has the highest Durability rating for a DD) I cant find anything except that the Fletcher class was a superb Destroyer design.

Many variables in surface combat, lighting, spotting, leaders etc etc can affect a combat, but if you then get a hit, as CV Z mentions above, you would expect some damage, not too many "bounce off armour" results. ( Is the IJN DD gun a DP weapon, so is the (5"/38)? Is that working properly at the moment?)

CV Z, have you any combat report saves which might show the results?

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 9

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/18/2010 11:36:38 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

25.4mm/in x .75in = 19.05mm

They used 18mm if I read the second post correctly.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 10

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 12:11:31 AM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Many variables in surface combat, lighting, spotting, leaders etc etc can affect a combat, but if you then get a hit, as CV Z mentions above, you would expect some damage, not too many "bounce off armour" results.� ( Is the IJN DD gun a DP weapon, so is the (5"/38)? Is that working properly at the moment?)

CV Z, have you any combat report saves which might show the results?

Yes I have. I can c/p the latest engagement near Tarawa. It is '44 so I am fully aware of radar controlled US gunnery and advanced DC skills. And I knew that Fletcher was a great DD. But seems bit odd to me that IJN DDs do score hits on Fletcher and can not do any damage below superstructure. And it is not BB Bismarck

Day Time Surface Combat, near Tarawa at 136,129, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Noshiro
CL Tenryu, Shell hits 3, on fire
CL Tatsuta, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
DD Susuzuki, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Hamanami
DD Samidare, Shell hits 6, heavy fires , heavy damage
DD Akatsuki, Shell hits 2
DD Ikazuchi
CL Teshio, Shell hits 6, on fire
DD Yamanagiri

Allied Ships
DD Porterfield, Shell hits 14, heavy fires
DE Loeser
AKA Artemis, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
422 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 44 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions: 20,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 20,000 yards
Japanese open fire on surprised Allied ships at 20,000 yards
CL Teshio launches Long Lance Torpedoes at DD Porterfield at 20,000 yards
CL Teshio launches Long Lance Torpedoes at DE Loeser at 20,000 yards
CL Teshio fires at AKA Artemis at 20,000 yards
DD Akatsuki launches Long Lance Torpedoes at DD Porterfield at 20,000 yards
DD Susuzuki launches Long Lance Torpedoes at DD Porterfield at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 14,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 14,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages AKA Artemis at 14,000 yards
DD Yamanagiri engages DD Porterfield at 14,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages DD Porterfield at 14,000 yards
DD Susuzuki engages DD Porterfield at 14,000 yards
Range closes to 12,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Tenryu engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Noshiro engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
DD Samidare engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Susuzuki at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 8,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 8,000 yards
DD Susuzuki engages AKA Artemis at 8,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Samidare at 8,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Susuzuki at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
CL Tenryu engages AKA Artemis at 11,000 yards
CL Noshiro engages AKA Artemis at 11,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
AKA Artemis sunk by DD Hamanami at 11,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Susuzuki at 11,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
CL Noshiro engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
DD Ikazuchi engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
DD Samidare engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Hamanami at 11,000 yards
DD Susuzuki engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Noshiro engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
DD Samidare engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
DD Hamanami engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Susuzuki at 12,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
CL Noshiro engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
DD Samidare engages DD Porterfield at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Samidare at 11,000 yards
DD Susuzuki engages DD Porterfield at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 10,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DE Loeser at 10,000 yards
CL Tenryu engages DD Porterfield at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 9,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DE Loeser at 9,000 yards
DD Akatsuki engages DD Porterfield at 9,000 yards
DD Samidare engages DD Porterfield at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 13,000 yards
CL Tatsuta engages DD Porterfield at 13,000 yards
Range increases to 18,000 yards
DD Hamanami engages DD Porterfield at 18,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DE Loeser at 18,000 yards
DD Yamanagiri engages DD Porterfield at 18,000 yards
DD Porterfield engages DD Susuzuki at 18,000 yards
Range increases to 20,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 20,000 yards
CL Noshiro engages DD Porterfield at 20,000 yards
DD Susuzuki engages DD Porterfield at 20,000 yards
Range increases to 23,000 yards
CL Teshio engages DD Porterfield at 23,000 yards
Range increases to 26,000 yards
Range increases to 30,000 yards
Task forces break off...

Maybe the IJN DD didn't use AP shells? If thy were ment to fight unarmoured targets. I think that I read somewhere they carried only HE ammo...

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 11

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 2:10:08 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

25.4mm/in x .75in = 19.05mm

They used 18mm if I read the second post correctly.

This would imply 1mm of steel = 1 pt of "belt armour"

Problem is that the .75" is the hull, fair enough if you rate Fletchers like this, but what about the hull on all other DD, maybe they should rate 8-12 armour as well. I cant see any reference that the Fletchers had any extra armour above their normal hull.

Maybe the Fletcher is modelled correctly, and other DD need fixing.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 12

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 2:18:44 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

25.4mm/in x .75in = 19.05mm

They used 18mm if I read the second post correctly.

This would imply 1mm of steel = 1 pt of "belt armour"

Problem is that the .75" is the hull, fair enough if you rate Fletchers like this, but what about the hull on all other DD, maybe they should rate 8-12 armour as well. I cant see any reference that the Fletchers had any extra armour above their normal hull.

Maybe the Fletcher is modelled correctly, and other DD need fixing.

But above you wrote this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The more I look the less info about armour on a Fletcher class is available, best comment I find is .75" belt armour, is this better or worse than any other class?

Apart from rtrappaso's anecdote about American shipbuilding prowess, which would improve Durability (Fletcher has the highest Durability rating for a DD) I cant find anything except that the Fletcher class was a superb Destroyer design.

Many variables in surface combat, lighting, spotting, leaders etc etc can affect a combat, but if you then get a hit, as CV Z mentions above, you would expect some damage, not too many "bounce off armour" results.� ( Is the IJN DD gun a DP weapon, so is the (5"/38)? Is that working properly at the moment?)

CV Z, have you any combat report saves which might show the results?

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 13

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 2:52:59 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Yeah, maybe bad wording, I'll find the site again and cut & paste it.

Its often hard to prove something that doesnt exist.

Of 5-6 places I looked at none reported extra armour, the above was in the context of being the hull steel thickness, as well as having deck thickness etc.

IFF the Fletchers were "uparmoured", why isnt there a wealth of detail available.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 14

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 2:57:14 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Not saying this is 100% right, but its all I found. At least it wasnt wikipedia

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/317128.html
Hello Ships1,
Thanks for accepting my proposal to post an answer. Based on the book
I have by John Ward, here are the hull and skin thickesses for certain
parts of the ship that were listed (they are called armor plate in the
stats, but the destroyers were actually unarmored):
Armor belt: .75 inch (would be the side of the hull)
Turrets: .5 inch
Deck: .5 inch

The two Fletcher ships profiled in this book are the Heerman and Johnston.

Source:
Ward, John. Ships of World War II. Motorbooks International, October 2000.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 15

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 3:03:20 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Solved
Frank Fletcher-class Destroyer Fleet Role Designation: Hyperspace-Capable Destroyer (SDDD-1714)
Launch of Class Leader: 2232
Commissioning of Class Leader: 2233
Class Strength: 357
Builder: San Francisco Naval Yard.
Length: 460 meters
Mass: 172,000 tons
Crew: 250 enlisted, 20 officers
Maximum Acceleration: 1050 g
Maximum FTL: 45,000 c
Maximum Duration: 1.5 years
Energy Armament:
6 Rings of 5x15.5 cm X-Ray Laser
4 Rings of 5x7.6cm Laser
Missile Armament:
3 Mass Driver Tubes, 50MT Enhanced-Radiation Fusion Missiles
4 Missile Launch Rails, 10MT Enhanced-Radiation Fusion Missiles
3 16-cell Vertical Launch, 5kT Fusion Missiles
Armor Scheme:
Explosive-Reactive Outer Skin
Void Spaces
Main Armor Belt
Shield Scheme (refit):
2 Light Generators
Four Shield Projectors Overview:
The Fletcher-class Destroyers were a major improvement over the older Spruance. Improvements were made across the board � more missile weapons, stronger powerplant, stronger armor, greater speed and reduced crew requirements all coupled with a smaller and less massive hull. In addition, the design was no more costly than the Spruance to build and cheaper to maintain.
As a result, the Navy purchased a great many of them � over 350. The Space Guard also purchased modified versions of them in large numbers � it is one of the most successful ship designs ever made. Possibly the only disadvantage was that the design was not as sturdy as older ones � a sacrifice made when some 8,000 tons have been shaved off!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 16

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 3:06:22 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

From http://www.babylonmodels.com/10787-revell---1-144---us-navy-fletcher-class-destroyer-re-05091.html
A start, but hardly a good reference source.

The construction of new battleships and aircraft carriers capable of speeds over 30 knots also required modern new destroyers capable of up to 38 knots. Consequently in January 1940 the General Ship Board responsible for these plans decided that a new destroyer should be designed with a 127 mm main armament in five gun turrets and 10 torpedo tubes. By the end of 1940 orders for 100 ships of the future Fletcher Class were placed with 11 different shipyards. When the USA came into the war in December 1941, the navy placed a further 75 orders. The DD-445 USS Fletcher type called after Admiral Frank F. Fletcher was launched on 3rd May 1942 from Federal Shipbuilding in Kearny, New Jersey. Unlike previous US destroyers the hull of the ship was able to withstand much heavier loads, so that the destroyer driven by two high-pressure steam turbines with a capacity of 60,000 shp reached a top speed of 37 knots. The maximum cruising speed under operational conditions was 32 to 33 knots. Modern radar equipment ensured that she was also fully operational by night and in poor visibility. Some parts of the superstructure were clad in 12 mm hardened steel armour increased to as much as 19 mm armour plating in vital areas of the hull. Thanks to a very conservative construction, a powerful power plant and extensive modern radar and sensor systems, the ships of the Fletcher Class proved to be the most successful US Navy destroyers in the 2nd World War.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 17

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 3:23:37 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Solved
Frank Fletcher-class Destroyer Fleet Role Designation: Hyperspace-Capable Destroyer (SDDD-1714)
Launch of Class Leader: 2232
Commissioning of Class Leader: 2233
Class Strength: 357
Builder: San Francisco Naval Yard.
Length: 460 meters
Mass: 172,000 tons
Crew: 250 enlisted, 20 officers
Maximum Acceleration: 1050 g
Maximum FTL: 45,000 c
Maximum Duration: 1.5 years
Energy Armament:
6 Rings of 5x15.5 cm X-Ray Laser
4 Rings of 5x7.6cm Laser
Missile Armament:
3 Mass Driver Tubes, 50MT Enhanced-Radiation Fusion Missiles
4 Missile Launch Rails, 10MT Enhanced-Radiation Fusion Missiles
3 16-cell Vertical Launch, 5kT Fusion Missiles
Armor Scheme:
Explosive-Reactive Outer Skin
Void Spaces
Main Armor Belt
Shield Scheme (refit):
2 Light Generators
Four Shield Projectors Overview:
The Fletcher-class Destroyers were a major improvement over the older Spruance. Improvements were made across the board � more missile weapons, stronger powerplant, stronger armor, greater speed and reduced crew requirements all coupled with a smaller and less massive hull. In addition, the design was no more costly than the Spruance to build and cheaper to maintain.
As a result, the Navy purchased a great many of them � over 350. The Space Guard also purchased modified versions of them in large numbers � it is one of the most successful ship designs ever made. Possibly the only disadvantage was that the design was not as sturdy as older ones � a sacrifice made when some 8,000 tons have been shaved off!

OK, is this one a bit of humor or did you just not read it?

BTW, earlier I saw that the .75in you cited was almost dead on to the armor stat used in the game, so I showed you that. I am not interested in arguing about the Fletcher as I am very confident that they got it right. If not, I'm sure you can find enough references to convince the developers.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 18

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 4:08:58 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Solved
Frank Fletcher-class Destroyer Fleet Role Designation: Hyperspace-Capable Destroyer (SDDD-1714)
Launch of Class Leader: 2232
Commissioning of Class Leader: 2233
Class Strength: 357
Builder: San Francisco Naval Yard.
Length: 460 meters
Mass: 172,000 tons
Crew: 250 enlisted, 20 officers
Maximum Acceleration: 1050 g
Maximum FTL: 45,000 c
Maximum Duration: 1.5 years
Energy Armament:
6 Rings of 5x15.5 cm X-Ray Laser
4 Rings of 5x7.6cm Laser
Missile Armament:
3 Mass Driver Tubes, 50MT Enhanced-Radiation Fusion Missiles
4 Missile Launch Rails, 10MT Enhanced-Radiation Fusion Missiles
3 16-cell Vertical Launch, 5kT Fusion Missiles
Armor Scheme:
Explosive-Reactive Outer Skin
Void Spaces
Main Armor Belt
Shield Scheme (refit):
2 Light Generators
Four Shield Projectors Overview:
The Fletcher-class Destroyers were a major improvement over the older Spruance. Improvements were made across the board � more missile weapons, stronger powerplant, stronger armor, greater speed and reduced crew requirements all coupled with a smaller and less massive hull. In addition, the design was no more costly than the Spruance to build and cheaper to maintain.
As a result, the Navy purchased a great many of them � over 350. The Space Guard also purchased modified versions of them in large numbers � it is one of the most successful ship designs ever made. Possibly the only disadvantage was that the design was not as sturdy as older ones � a sacrifice made when some 8,000 tons have been shaved off!

OK, is this one a bit of humor or did you just not read it?

BTW, earlier I saw that the .75in you cited was almost dead on to the armor stat used in the game, so I showed you that. I am not interested in arguing about the Fletcher as I am very confident that they got it right. If not, I'm sure you can find enough references to convince the developers.

Yeah, I'm thick and stupid.

I suppose some need a smiley to show humour is intended, sad.

I'm sure the devs think they got it right, but as in 100 other areas, sometimes they didnt. If it can be proven they got the Fletcher class right, great. Otherwise a second look at it couldnt hurt.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 19

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 4:16:29 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Maybe I gave you too much credit. I was thinking that you were so busy diligently looking for examples that you might not have read through that one and quickly pasted it so you could get back to looking for more. You say that you are thinking "I suppose some need a smiley to show humour is intended, sad."

Merry Christmas.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 20

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 4:21:02 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The more I look the less info about armour on a Fletcher class is available, best comment I find is .75" belt armour, is this better or worse than any other class?

Apart from rtrappaso's anecdote about American shipbuilding prowess, which would improve Durability (Fletcher has the highest Durability rating for a DD) I cant find anything except that the Fletcher class was a superb Destroyer design.

i've read this in at least 2 places - i can locate a passing reference to it in Richard Worth's excellent Fleets of World War II on page 275, but i also read the more detailed original recounting of the incident which included the "crying" incident, and, iirc, the fact that were looking at DD construction... i think i read the historical account somewhere on the web, but i am not sure... i will keep looking.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 21

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 9:37:02 AM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

To really resolve this you will probably need to go to the source material, specifically the bill of materials used in the hull construction drawings.

The construction blueprints for the Fletcher class destroyers are available on the net (for a cost) at: Destroyer History Foundation - Store. This is a CD of the original blueprints scanned from microfilm from the National Archives and Records Administration and saved both as TIFF and Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files.

An index of the drawings is available at: Index of Fletcher-class engineering drawings from Bath Iron Works

The information of interest is probably the bill of materials used in drawing 401183T - Outside Plating Details, though 401260T - Outside Plating Stem to Fr. 72, 401172T - Outside Plating fr. 72 to 148 and 401193T - Outside Plating Fr. 148 to Stern are probably also of interest.

As the source material is in the public domain, some of the drawings have already been posted on the net in places like The Blueprints - Plans for Fletcher-class destroyers. Unfortunately I was unable to find on the web the specific drawings listed above which would have detailed the specifications of the hull plating and the details of any dedicated armour plating installations.

I hope you find this information useful for your discussion.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 22

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 5:39:00 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku
were the Fletchers really the world only armoured DDs?? It seems this give them some sort of invunerability in battles vs. japanese DDs. Japanese DD guns are unable to penetrate either deck armour or belt armour of fletcher. In fact, they can not sink them at all unles they hit them with torpedo (which is highly unlikely). I'm seeing japanese DD forces being cut to peaces by single or a pair of escort Fletchers over and over again. Cause of this is allways the same- japanese DD can not penetrate their armour. So were the Fletchers really so immune to japanese DDs??

The OP is quite incorrect. Fletchers are not immune to Japanese DD guns. Japanese guns can penetrate a Fletcher routinely, at every range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
This is great info, explaining the differences and why its harder to sink a Fletcher than an IJN DD

I am surprised that no other DD rates any level of armour though.

EDIT Gearing class has 5 for both Belt & Deck Armour.
Allen M Sumner which is an improved Fletcher has zero. ??
(Maybe not improved, but "an improvement on", 2 different sites say different things, you just cant trust the internet any more.)

Fletcher was from a BuShips requirement written in 1936, when it was thought desirable to have some protection against small arms fire. The Fletcher belt armor is approximately that of a M2 or M3 halftrack.

Sumner is indeed an improved Fletcher. Improved armament, improved capability, on a similar hull. Beam and length were increased to accommodate the increased topside weight, but by then, people realized armor was useless for a ship of this type, so the frame designations of 17 to 31 went back to regular Ducol, armor plating was removed, and internal welding was extended throughout the midsection.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 23

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 9:38:20 PM

CV Zuikaku

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The OP is quite incorrect. Fletchers are not immune to Japanese DD guns. Japanese guns can penetrate a Fletcher routinely, at every range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
This is great info, explaining the differences and why its harder to sink a Fletcher than an IJN DD

I am surprised that no other DD rates any level of armour though.

EDIT Gearing class has 5 for both Belt & Deck Armour.
Allen M Sumner which is an improved Fletcher has zero. ??
(Maybe not improved, but "an improvement on", 2 different sites say different things, you just cant trust the internet any more.)

Fletcher was from a BuShips requirement written in 1936, when it was thought desirable to have some protection against small arms fire. The Fletcher belt armor is approximately that of a M2 or M3 halftrack.

Sumner is indeed an improved Fletcher. Improved armament, improved capability, on a similar hull. Beam and length were increased to accommodate the increased topside weight, but by then, people realized armor was useless for a ship of this type, so the frame designations of 17 to 31 went back to regular Ducol, armor plating was removed, and internal welding was extended throughout the midsection.

I disagree (and I know this is a rant for you). I've never seen that Japanese DDs "routinely" penetrate armour of the Fletchers at every range. They have a good chanse to penetrate them at ranges below 3000 Yds. I don't remember penetration hits above 3000yds. and I can post a save next time when surface actions happens involving Fletchers and japanese DDs...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Fletcher was from a BuShips requirement written in 1936, when it was thought desirable to have some protection against small arms fire. The Fletcher belt armor is approximately that of a M2 or M3 halftrack.

Sumner is indeed an improved Fletcher. Improved armament, improved capability, on a similar hull. Beam and length were increased to accommodate the increased topside weight, but by then, people realized armor was useless for a ship of this type, so the frame designations of 17 to 31 went back to regular Ducol, armor plating was removed, and internal welding was extended throughout the midsection.

I fail to understand the difference between "hull" and "armour" on DDs and merchants. the hulls of all those ships were made of steel, right?? So they shoul'd all have some armour value. 5mm or 7mm. Armour value of 0 means that hull plates are of standard tickness (whatever that value is) then? And all above that is "armour"?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 24

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/19/2010 11:49:07 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I disagree (and I know this is a rant for you). I've never seen that Japanese DDs "routinely" penetrate armour of the Fletchers at every range. They have a good chanse to penetrate them at ranges below 3000 Yds. I don't remember penetration hits above 3000yds. and I can post a save next time when surface actions happens involving Fletchers and japanese DDs...

Yeah, anecdotally 10mm or so of armour seems to be a very significant survivability boost over 0 in daytime. I mostly play the Ironman scenarios (which are...stupid, but in a good way) and the 'new' Japanese and German AMCs (10mm belt/deck/tower) can just about stand up to anything up to and including the older British light cruisers (so ~100mm pen on guns?) at long ranges - I guess that's enough (particularly deck armour, which seems to carry a lot more 'weight' than you'd guess at long ranges - my understanding was always that the gunnery model was built around short-range night fights and started to get a little bit weird at LR, which I guess fits) to at least mitigate most of the damage where rounds occasionally do penetrate. Night-time and/or at short ranges it's less useful (though presumably better than nothing - 4" and below aren't reliable penetrators, but anything above that mostly works)

(incidentally the AMCs are terrifying up close, too, but that's less to do with armour and more with the dozens of torpedoes they puke out)

quote:

I fail to understand the difference between "hull" and "armour" on DDs and merchants. the hulls of all those ships were made of steel, right?? So they shoul'd all have some armour value. 5mm or 7mm. Armour value of 0 means that hull plates are of standard tickness (whatever that value is) then? And all above that is "armour"?

Well, there's steel and there's steel - there's a whole range in terms of combinations of how brittle/hard/soft/flexible the stuff is that you can go through; your average merchant is going to be made out of pretty soft (ie cheap) stuff, your average battleship not so much.

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 25

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/20/2010 11:22:10 PM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I disagree (and I know this is a rant for you). I've never seen that Japanese DDs "routinely" penetrate armour of the Fletchers at every range. They have a good chanse to penetrate them at ranges below 3000 Yds. I don't remember penetration hits above 3000yds. and I can post a save next time when surface actions happens involving Fletchers and japanese DDs...

Here's a perfect example of why I love these threads.

Leaving all this, "my winky is bigger" stuff aside, I think the various posters have provided enough historical documentation that the Fletchers did have "thicker skin" however you'd like to call it, be it armor, hull or whatever else.

So since you have a point to make, please do everyone a favor and spend some time with the DB editor, play some test combats and post the results. Then you will have some actual data on whether or not a Japanese DD will penetrate a Fletcher's armor outside of 3000m. If they do not, then I'm sure that most of these folks will agree that we do, indeed have a problem. Then we can stop all this back and forth and discuss actual test results.

< Message edited by Onime No Kyo -- 12/20/2010 11:24:36 PM >

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)

Post #: 26

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/21/2010 1:07:09 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I disagree (and I know this is a rant for you). I've never seen that Japanese DDs "routinely" penetrate armour of the Fletchers at every range. They have a good chanse to penetrate them at ranges below 3000 Yds. I don't remember penetration hits above 3000yds. and I can post a save next time when surface actions happens involving Fletchers and japanese DDs...

Here's a perfect example of why I love these threads.

Leaving all this, "my winky is bigger" stuff aside, I think the various posters have provided enough historical documentation that the Fletchers did have "thicker skin" however you'd like to call it, be it armor, hull or whatever else.

So since you have a point to make, please do everyone a favor and spend some time with the DB editor, play some test combats and post the results. Then you will have some actual data on whether or not a Japanese DD will penetrate a Fletcher's armor outside of 3000m. If they do not, then I'm sure that most of these folks will agree that we do, indeed have a problem. Then we can stop all this back and forth and discuss actual test results.

Well mine is.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 27

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/21/2010 1:10:36 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

[Well mine is.

Prove it.

Ok, well, don't.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 28

RE: Fletcher class DD armored?? - 12/21/2010 1:25:00 AM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

I disagree (and I know this is a rant for you). I've never seen that Japanese DDs "routinely" penetrate armour of the Fletchers at every range. They have a good chanse to penetrate them at ranges below 3000 Yds. I don't remember penetration hits above 3000yds. and I can post a save next time when surface actions happens involving Fletchers and japanese DDs...

Here's a perfect example of why I love these threads.

Leaving all this, "my winky is bigger" stuff aside, I think the various posters have provided enough historical documentation that the Fletchers did have "thicker skin" however you'd like to call it, be it armor, hull or whatever else.

So since you have a point to make, please do everyone a favor and spend some time with the DB editor, play some test combats and post the results. Then you will have some actual data on whether or not a Japanese DD will penetrate a Fletcher's armor outside of 3000m. If they do not, then I'm sure that most of these folks will agree that we do, indeed have a problem. Then we can stop all this back and forth and discuss actual test results.

Well mine is.