Jump to content

Fwd 2020-02-10 [1.95.0.109] HMS Tiger - further mistakes to be corrected


HK Reporter
 Share

  • Technical Moderator

Update 1.91 finally fixed the notorious magazine armour mistakes on HMS Tiger. However, with more information recently gathered, I need to report some further mistakes still left to be corrected.

 

Important notes at the beginning (might be confusing, but important):

 

From my visit to the Brass Foundry archieve of NMM back in May, I viewed the complete sets of plans of HMS Tiger. Meanwhile unfortunately, there wasn't any armour protection plan (like Southampton's I used in another report) availible. In fact, the information of Tiger-class is extremely limited due to its less-known (I still remember the curator even told me that it was the first time for him to view Tiger's original plan too).

 

However, we need to keep in mind that Tiger-class is actually a re-armed "modified Swiftsure-class". The original design of Tiger-class was armed with the same gun as previous British 6in cruisers, the only difference from original Swiftsure-class design is the slightly increased beam (1ft wider) to improve its stability (which is a serious problem since Fiji-class design). HMS Superb is the only one which was completed in original Tiger-class configuration (thus it's classified as "Superb-class" in some sources), the rest 3 ships were rearmed with DP 6in quick-firing guns in 1950s, which is the one we have in game.

 

Talking about Swiftsure-class, it's actually a "modified Fiji-class", the main differences from Fiji-class are that Swiftsures removed their X turret from designing phase (While Fijis removed their X turret during refits),  improvement of the crew accomodation (which is notorious on Fijis) and stability (1ft wider from Fiji), and there're also some small changes in superstructures.

 

Fiji-class, which can be considered as the original design of Swiftsure-class, Superb-class (original Tiger design) and 1959 Tiger-class, is effectively the last group of British cruisers:

Spoiler

NxCtiWu.png

John Roberts & National Maritime Musuem: British Warships of the Second World War - detailed in the original builder's plans, Seaforth Publishing, p.102

 

This passage briefly explaines the relations between Fiji and its succeeders. It can be rather confusing but it's important for considering references of Tiger-class.

 

So the relations can be summarized as this:

 

Fiji-class ---------------- Swiftsure-class (optimised accomodation and stability from Fiji) --------------- Superb-class/original Tiger-class design (slightly increased the beam from Swiftsures) ---------------- 1959 Tiger-class (rearmed with 6in DP guns)

 

According to availible sources, the armour scheme of the above 4 classes generally had NO difference.

 

1st reference:

Spoiler

zKFy6JZ.png

Z9pNCRV.png

Dxqqqwb.png

 

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press. p.34-35

You can see their armour scheme is the same.

 

2nd reference:

Spoiler

The 3½in belt (1in thinner than that of Southampton) covered not only the machinery but also the magazines and shell-rooms, as well as the fire-control computer spaces (transmitting stations and HACPs), switchboard room, LP switch rooms (for data transmission), and wireless transmitting and receiving offices, thus covering more of the waterline than in a Southampton. The belt was closed by 2in bulkheads and a 2in deck, the latter superior to that of Southampton over machinery and control spaces but not as good over magazines and shell-rooms. Turret and steering-gear protection matched that of Southampton. A request to protect magazine sides to the level in Belfast could not, apparently, be met.

(Refer to Fiji-class design)

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 7.

 

A 1941 Supplemental programme developed in the autumn of 1941 replaced three of the four 1941 heavy cruisers (weapons for only one of which had been ordered) with three more Fijis: Defence, Superb and Tiger (however, all four heavy cruisers remained in the notional building programme). The three Supplemental ships were built to a further modified design (Tiger class). All seven 1942 cruisers were modified Fijis. Only two were ever named (Blake and Hawke, the latter cancelled). Due to her suspension, Bellerophon was completed to this design (as Tiger), which was heavily reworked after the war and therefore is described in a later chapter......

(Note here Tiger and her sister ships were even classified as "Fijis", given their identity.)

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 8.

 

 In mid-January 1941 First Sea Lord asked the two main fleet commanders (Home and Mediterranean) to comment on three cruisers which might be laid down in the near future: (a) a modified Fiji (nine 6in, 8,650 tons), (b) a heavy 6in cruiser with twelve guns (14,000 tons, 635ft long), and (c) an 8in cruiser (15,000 tons, 650ft long). They could be completed in March 1944, March 1945 and December 1945 respectively. Both of the larger cruisers had the same protection: 4½in belt, 2in deck (4in over magazines); the modified Fiji had a 3½–3¼in side and the same 2in deck over machinery and magazines. It was faster at deep load (clean), 31kts rather than 30.5kts, but endurance at 15kts was 8,000nm rather than the 11,000nm of (b) and the 12,000nm of (c).

(Refer to Swiftsure-class)

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 9.

 

3rd reference:

Spoiler

NqqLsQp.png

B7SUe7j.png

 

Mike.J. Whitney: Cruisers of World War Two - An International Encyclopedia, p.120 - 127

 

4th reference: According to Friedman's narrative in Chapter 10 "Post-War Cruisers" regarding the re-armament project of Tiger-class, Tiger's hull was left unchanged during the re-armament. The primary changes to the orginal design were the heavyly-modified superstructure (for better field of fire) and apparently, new DP gun mounts and fire control units. In fact, the situation in which the completed hull cannot be changed became a serious problem during the rearmament:

Spoiler

DNC considered it necessary to warn ACNS that his hope that the ships might be given useful aircraft-direction facilities was misplaced. He emphasised that the main hull structures of the ships were practically complete, limiting any modernisation. They were nearly as tight as the original Fijis, which had given so much trouble in the past.

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 10.

 

GIven the urgent demand of the ships at that time, there was even a project calling for using osbsolete non-DP 6in mountings to arm Tigers before the DP Mk.26 mounting becoming availible:

Spoiler

Director of Plans therefore proposed emergency rearmament of other cruisers. The Mk 24 triple 6in turret, despite its limited anti-aircraft potential, was attractive because it was suited to RPC. Unfinished Mk 24 turrets left over from the original Tiger programme could be made available more quickly than the new Mk 26. DGD asked for emergency Staff Requirements for a Tiger thus completed. It might have two such mounts in ‘A’ and ‘B’ positions (and four twin 4in [‘X’ and ‘Y’ positions and two waist positions]) instead of the planned combination of two twin Mk 26 and three twin 3in/70. Alternatives were two triple 6in and four (later two) twin 4.5in, each with its own Mk 6M director and Flyplane computer below decks. The 4.5in mountings would go in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ positions, the 6in turrets in ‘A’ and ‘B’. Directors would be sided abreast the foremast. The close-range battery would be the three STAAGs then planned for the full conversion. Another possibility was a secondary battery of six single destroyer-type 4.5in guns: one each in ‘X’ and ‘Y’ positions and four in the waist, with the same two directors. Since nothing had yet been done with her hull, a Tiger could also be completed as planned, with three Mk 24 mounts. DNO rejected all the emergency secondary armaments as inferior to that of HMS Superb.

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 10.

 

From references above I think it's more than enough to prove that 1959 Tiger retained her original hull, which is a succeeded design from Fiji-class.

 

Given the high identity between post Fiji-class cruisers as discussed above, here's the point:

 

In this report, plans and references of Tiger-class will be used for first, however, in case there's impossible to get Tiger's first-hand figures, Superb, Swiftsure or even Fiji's references shall be valid as well.

 

=================================================================================

 

A detailed description of the fix you suggest:

 

I. Side belt

 

Currently the side belt is seperated into two parts, lower part is 89mm and the upper part abreast machinery is 51mm:

Spoiler

8wuQqHr.png

 

However, according to all reliable sources, this is wrong. None of them suggested that there's a 51mm part of the belt. Instead, all of them support 3.25-3.5in (82.6mm-89mm). The belt should have 3.5in thickness at magazine spaces, and tapered to 3.25in at the machinery spaces.

Spoiler

E1E22jH.png

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press. p.35

 

image.png.2a8b3ca9eafd47b7a6af4976e6f50b

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press. p.34

 

image.thumb.png.3add0c09bbac5d8a204263f7

 

- John Roberts & National Maritime Musuem: British Warships of the Second World War - detailed in the original builder's plans, Seaforth Publishing, p.102

 

In mid-January 1941 First Sea Lord asked the two main fleet commanders (Home and Mediterranean) to comment on three cruisers which might be laid down in the near future: (a) a modified Fiji (nine 6in, 8,650 tons), (b) a heavy 6in cruiser with twelve guns (14,000 tons, 635ft long), and (c) an 8in cruiser (15,000 tons, 650ft long). They could be completed in March 1944, March 1945 and December 1945 respectively. Both of the larger cruisers had the same protection: 4½in belt, 2in deck (4in over magazines); the modified Fiji had a 3½–3¼in side and the same 2in deck over machinery and magazines. It was faster at deep load (clean), 31kts rather than 30.5kts, but endurance at 15kts was 8,000nm rather than the 11,000nm of (b) and the 12,000nm of (c).

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 9.

 

NqqLsQp.png

B7SUe7j.png

- Mike.J. Whitney: Cruisers of World War Two - An International Encyclopedia, p.120 - 127

 

To portrait this:

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.d058817c3a63f71d6174cd4f

 

Plan taken from rom Norman Friedman's British Cruisers.

 

*UPDATE 1.93: The upper part of side belt at machinery has been changed to 89mm, same as the lower part. This is somewhat "more accurate" than before, but still needs to be fixed as illustrated above.

 

 

Also, the side belt in game doesn't extend downwards enough. From the screenshot you can see the lower part and upper part of the belt have rougly same height:

Spoiler

GVrFNrS.png

 

While in the plan you can see the lower part is "wider" than the upper part:

Spoiler

 

image.thumb.png.5a5e9c0d349328cefa4f1a6b

I actually do some measurements in photoshop. The ratio between the height of the upper part and lower part is approximately 1:1.28, while the in-game ratio is 1.13:1 (the upper part is even "wider" than the lower part!)

 

Another comparison:

Spoiler

bwZB9Rl.png

M7W3JxB.png

 

======================================================================

zkYWCxW.png

oECPtF3.png

 

↑↑↑↑↑You can see the in-game lower part of the belt is significantly "narrower" than the real one. Note the distance from the lower edge of belt at its rear end to the propeller braces and the reference lines I drew to the stern. it can be clearly seen that the ingame belt's lower edge is higher.

 

Also, the front and rear ends of the belt in real life is slightly inclined instead of being verticle as it appears in game:

VI4rkPm.png

dfyP81H.png

 

0gzpmYb.png

LTjQ52B.png

 

This is important. If the belt doesn't extend downwards enough, the ship will be more subject to underwater hits. This is even worse in war thunder because here shells generally have much better ability to travel underwater compare to reality.

 

To fix this you need to extend the lower part of the belt downwards, as per the plan illustrates (the 3D visual model also needs to be fixed):

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.e3e9cedfa23fb04671f20b74

 

II. Deck armour thickness

 

Currently in game, the deck armour at magazine spaces had been mistakenly given 32mm thickness:

Spoiler

5dWq72X.png

 

It should be 2in (51mm), same as the machinery deck:

Spoiler

image.png.b9a0a5621b3db799df98355bf3d52f

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press. p.34

 

Spoiler

image.png.a01554ec78d0b3639ee2f4a5777a49

 

- John Roberts & National Maritime Musuem: British Warships of the Second World War - detailed in the original builder's plans, Seaforth Publishing, p.102

 

Quote

In mid-January 1941 First Sea Lord asked the two main fleet commanders (Home and Mediterranean) to comment on three cruisers which might be laid down in the near future: (a) a modified Fiji (nine 6in, 8,650 tons), (b) a heavy 6in cruiser with twelve guns (14,000 tons, 635ft long), and (c) an 8in cruiser (15,000 tons, 650ft long). They could be completed in March 1944, March 1945 and December 1945 respectively. Both of the larger cruisers had the same protection: 4½in belt, 2in deck (4in over magazines); the modified Fiji had a 3½–3¼in side and the same 2in deck over machinery and magazines. It was faster at deep load (clean), 31kts rather than 30.5kts, but endurance at 15kts was 8,000nm rather than the 11,000nm of (b) and the 12,000nm of (c).

("Modified Fiji" refers to Swiftsures and Tigers)

 

- Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition. Chapter 9.

 

Spoiler

NqqLsQp.png

B7SUe7j.png

- Mike.J. Whitney: Cruisers of World War Two - An International Encyclopedia, p.120 - 127

 

III. Steering gear armour box

 

The steering gear armour in 1.91 is incorrect. The most obvious mistake is the missing side armour:

Spoiler

6LeRTbw.png

The steering gear compartment is located above the waterline therefore it definately requires side armour. In my previous PM to KotA I provides some photos of Tiger's steering gear armour drawing on the plan, however devs seems to neglect some details.

Spoiler

jPkw42n.png

This one, the profile view seems to be the reference for devs to model the armour. However, this is incomplete.

If you look at the whole set of views you find that it's more complex:

Spoiler

rfeGVCN.png

qVBvwaa.png

 

As you can see, although in profile view the steering gear armour box is simply rectangular, in other views it's more complex. It shrinks inwards from the stern tip, and the internal part of steering gear has turtleback shape.

 

To portrait this:

Spoiler

GGEdPIX.png

ffbRlaF.png

 

Source of the armour thickness here:

Spoiler

p8zLDq1.png

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press, p.34

 

 

IV. Shape of the bulkheads at the ends of citadel

 

Spoiler

lo6qMBf.png

 

 

In the plan of HMS Tiger you can see they have "V" shape looking from top:

Spoiler

rjD2GKZ.jpg

n4MCsGh.jpg

 

Same structure can be found on Fiji's plan as well:

Spoiler

large.jpg

 

The V shape design was a result of the "over-sized" barbette. From both Tiger and Fiji's plans you can see the barbettes at the ends stand out from the cover of side belt. Therefore the bulkheads have to be salient to "pack" the barbettes inside.

Spoiler

WyncKYX.png

 

 

V. Barbette & ammo elevator armour

 

According to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, the barbette armour should be 1in instead of 2in in game:

Spoiler

fQYVxYQ.png

The description is rather ambiguous. "Ring bulkheads" here actually refers to the "barbette" armour. Note Tiger-class doesn't have conventional barbette which completely covers the ammo handling spaces, the ring armour below the turret only covers the top of the ammo elevator. Instead, the main protection for the elevator is provided by a tapered-cylinder-shaped armour structure which will be discussed later.

 

The tapered-cylinder-shaped armour in game possesses some errors.

 

Firstly, the shape is not quite accurate. It appears slightly smaller in game than it should be. Also, the X-ray models of the ammo elevators are inaccurate too: the radius of the upper cylinders of the elevators are too large, coupled with the undersized tapered-cylinder armour, they actually cross through each other, which is undoubtedly a bug:

Spoiler

EwZ8LVn.jpg

S8xJSqu.jpg

ZD1Gw7s.png

In the third image you can see the upper cylinder of the ammo elevator is exposed from the tapered-cylinder armour.

Same story for the rear mount.

 

Real layouts:

Spoiler

Tiger's plan in 1967:

XMVzy9E.jpg

 

Tiger's plan in 1960:

D6O9Vta.png

As you can see the ammo elevator is completely covered by the tapered-cylinder armour.

 

Also, the X-ray model of ammo elevator in game doesn't extend downwards into the magazine:

Spoiler

r2czRgX.png

tTiGBUX.png

 

The taper-cylinder armour and ammo elevator X-ray model need to be remodelled.

 

 

 

 

SOURCES:

 

Plan - HMS Tiger (as fitted), 1960

Plan - HMS Tiger (as fitted), 1967

Plan - HMS Fiji (as fitted), 1940

Norman Friedman: British Cruisers Two World Wars and After. Kindle Edition.

John Roberts & National Maritime Musuem: British Warships of the Second World War - detailed in the original builder's plans, Seaforth Publishing.

Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946, Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-146-7

Mike.J. Whitney: Cruisers of World War Two - An International Encyclopedia

Edited by HK_Reporter
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator

@Templar_

qnKHZlK.png

r0Sssa5.png

xwiPk5t.jpg

AZIEDfp.png

 

 

National Maritime Museum Object ID of the original plans I used:

 

HMS Tiger

image.png.3a135e46072bf7983a10adee0a9223

 

HMS Fiji

image.png.1e7262c4155d5e98e6b633f1ecad2a

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator

@Templar_ BTW, this report is related to another one.

 

I understand the 1 issue 1 thread rule, but I believe the issue I covered in this report is of one global issue. It just presents on different parts of a single ship. That's how I (and other forum users as well) reported armour layout mistakes for ships before and they were all approved without question. Yes I know the topic looks overstaffed but it's because the armour layout of this ship in game is so inaccurate that errors present on literally everywhere, thus I have to seperate them into different sections to make it more logical.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @HK_Reporter,

 

Such broad reports are difficult for us to forward concisely, we have to break them up anyway, and it takes us longer to process them. Regardless, can you provide some clarification concerning the deck and steering box changes, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The decks above the magazines and main machinery rooms should be changed to 2"; and the current armour on № 3 deck at the stern should be removed and replaced with a new steering box?

Kind regards,
Templar_

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
7 minutes ago, Templar_ said:

The decks above the magazines and main machinery rooms should be changed to 2"

The current deck armour in game is: 51mm over machinery (the higher part in the middle), 32mm over magazine (the two lower parts front and aft)

 

It needs to be changed to: 2" (51mm) over the entire belt, so the 32mm parts need to be changed to 51mm and the current 51mm part should be left unchanged.

 

7 minutes ago, Templar_ said:

and the current armour on № 3 deck at the stern should be removed and replaced with a new steering box?

Yes. The current armour astern is quite wrong so it would be best to remove it and re-model a new armour box according to the plan illustrates.

 

Edited by HK_Reporter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator

@Templar_

 

Nope. The bulkheads at the ends of citadel should be verticle, it just have V shape when looking from above.

Spoiler

6afxyGx.png

rjD2GKZ.jpg

 

I believe the outer edge of the bulkhead should be aligned with the upper corner of the belt ending, like this:

Spoiler

3GzB3ZC.png

OL5HDsD.png

The bulkheads should be slightly "taller" than the height of the belt.

 

Edit: Bulkheads should extends down to the floor of lower magazines (lowest deck):

Spoiler

8rjkkhd.jpg

x4f6Yfs.jpg

 

Edited by HK_Reporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @HK_Reporter,

 

Final part, the lifts and barbette armour. The 2" barbette should be reduced to 1". The upper lift section should be reduced in radius (or is the armour covering it too small?), and the missing lower section added.


Kind regards,
Templar_

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Technical Moderator
9 minutes ago, Templar_ said:

Final part, the lifts and barbette armour. The 2" barbette should be reduced to 1". The upper lift section should be reduced in radius (or is the armour covering it too small?), and the missing lower section added.

@Templar_ Yes, the upper ammo elevator section should be reduced in radius and the armour covering it needs to be slightly bigger, both of them need fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @HK_Reporter,

Your bug reports are submitted to the developers for their consideration.

This thread will now be archived. If you wish to amend the report please message a Technical Moderator. In the event that we or the developers require additional information we will contact you.

Thank you for helping us improve the game.

Kind regards,
Templar_

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Templar_ changed the title to Fwd 2020-02-10 [1.95.0.109] HMS Tiger - further mistakes to be corrected
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...