Roland Peacetime duties

darrell wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Not to mention, about seven meters of armor, making internal volume far less than surface calculations could allow. Even then, there's some slight thinning of the armor on the sides of the hammerhead to allow for clearance of the tubes and associated equipment.

Also, there are a pair of grasers packed in there as well, complete with all the armoring and equipment THEY require.

Where in the hell do you get 7 meters of armor on a rolands hammerhead???????????????????

Quote "Short Victorious War": Nike was no wall of battle ship, but leaving her top and bottom unarmored let her flanks carry twelve centimeters of side armor over more critical areas and as much as a meter over her vitals—like her fusion rooms.

Where does it say that a destroyer has 7 times the armor thickness of a reliant class BC 4 1/2 times larger???

Relax wrote:A little untalked about part of the books is that the armor completely changed from early books to late books via Handwavium. IN FIRE FORGED talks about why armor is as it is. Changed to essentially "aero gel" as optimum laser armor. SD's had literally 10's of meters of armor in the mid books. Or was that the pearls? I think DW stated that little tid bit in his pearls around the time of the great resizing.

Anyways... FYI

What he said^^^, although not wholly accurate. Warship armor consists of several layers of differing materials to protect against different types of damage. Even the bunkerage is part of the armor scheme.

Yep, just rechecked my model, and there's seven meters of space between the outer surface of the hull and the inner surface of the holes the tubes shoot through. Maybe that's not all just armor, but I figure anything between the outer surface and the weapons could be considered armor, if it keeps bad energy from reaching the weapons and breaking them.

munroburton wrote:

darrell wrote:Where in the hell do you get 7 meters of armor on a rolands hammerhead???????????????????

Quote "Short Victorious War": Nike was no wall of battle ship, but leaving her top and bottom unarmored let her flanks carry twelve centimeters of side armor over more critical areas and as much as a meter over her vitals—like her fusion rooms.

Where does it say that a destroyer has 7 times the armor thickness of a reliant class BC 4 1/2 times larger???

Hammerheads have always been the toughest part of warships. The Nike description only refers to its broadside armour - obviously, they weren't going to cut the broken fusion plant out through the front of the ship!

Even after bow and stern-walls were added, it's still a good idea to armour up the hammerheads... lest you take a direct hit from directly ahead running parallel to your ship. Without the armour, that kind of a shot is a total killer.

relax wrote:A little untalked about part of the books is that the armor completely changed from early books to late books via Handwavium. IN FIRE FORGED talks about why armor is as it is. Changed to essentially "aero gel" as optimum laser armor. SD's had literally 10's of meters of armor in the mid books. Or was that the pearls? I think DW stated that little tid bit in his pearls around the time of the great resizing.

I sugest that you read before you provide a refrence. Thank you for providing information that the armor on a rolands hammerhead is NOT anywhere near 7 meters thick, but is AT MOST ONE METER THICK.

Quote: "In Fire Forged"

Combat starships are designed to fight their equals or inferiors—not their betters. A heavy cruiser’s armor scheme is perfectly adequate for fighting other heavy cruisers or lighter craft. Yet a battlecruiser would likely shatter it beyond recognition.
... clipped ...
Without benefit of sidewalls, the hammerheads are usually the single most heavily armored portion of a warship’s exterior hull. Unofficial estimates from Jane’s and other open source intelligence indicate that over half of a Star Knight’s armor mass might go to hammerhead armor. External holo inspection indicates an armor depth upwards of a meter in some places,
... clipped ...
Core armor is a universal feature on anything larger than a battlecruiser but less common on smaller ships. The Star Knight’s core armor encloses all vital systems that can fit within its envelope,

1. The bigger the ship the heavier the armor.
2. The core armor for a reliant BC is one meter thick.
3. Hammerhead armor is the thickest armor.
4. The hammerhead armor for a star knight is a maximum of ONE meter thick.
5. Core armor does not go the entire length of a ship.

Nope, a roland DD, designed to fight other DD's & CL's, is not going to have enough armor to protect against SD scale weapons. The chance that the roland has A DN's hammerhead armor thickness is the same chance that a porter class destroyer (USN) has the same armor thickness as an Iowa class battleship.

Based on ship size, I suspect that a rolands hammerhead armor is about 50CM thick at it's thickest.

Because I said so does not work, particularly when you quote a source that says the exact opposite. Unless you can find the quote that says that a roland has 7 meters of hammerhead armor, I will call you on it and expose your error.

Note: Once the implications of the Bow/stern walls and bucklers are fully realized, it wouldn't surprise me if in the future hammerhead armor might shrink and in the future #3 might change.

MaxxQ wrote:Yep, just rechecked my model, and there's seven meters of space between the outer surface of the hull and the inner surface of the holes the tubes shoot through. Maybe that's not all just armor, but I figure anything between the outer surface and the weapons could be considered armor, if it keeps bad energy from reaching the weapons and breaking them.

We are not speaking of armoring scheme, but armor.

First, all we have is your word that there is 7 meters of space between the outer and inner hull. Because I said so does not work for anyone except RFC when it contradicts multiple books and will not be accepted. PROVE YOUR STATEMENT. Where is your model published.

Second, even you do not say that there is 7 meters of armor, just 7 meters of space.

Third, what proof do you have that your model is the official and correct model of a roland.

Again, prove that the roland has 7 times more armor than the bigger star knight heavy cruiser. Let me see your model AND prove that the 7 meters is armor AND that your model is the official one.

Unless you can prove all three, you are talking opinion, not fact. Where is the quote from RFC that the roland has 7 meters of hammerhead armor, either in a book at pearls of webber, elsewhere on the web, or some pamplet he published?

darrell wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Yep, just rechecked my model, and there's seven meters of space between the outer surface of the hull and the inner surface of the holes the tubes shoot through. Maybe that's not all just armor, but I figure anything between the outer surface and the weapons could be considered armor, if it keeps bad energy from reaching the weapons and breaking them.

We are not speaking of armoring scheme, but armor.

First, all we have is your word that there is 7 meters of space between the outer and inner hull. Because I said so does not work for anyone except RFC when it contradicts multiple books and will not be accepted. PROVE YOUR STATEMENT. Where is your model published.

Second, even you do not say that there is 7 meters of armor, just 7 meters of space.

Third, what proof do you have that your model is the official and correct model of a roland.

Again, prove that the roland has 7 times more armor than the bigger star knight heavy cruiser. Let me see your model AND prove that the 7 meters is armor AND that your model is the official one.

Unless you can prove all three, you are talking opinion, not fact. Where is the quote from RFC that the roland has 7 meters of hammerhead armor, either in a book at pearls of webber, elsewhere on the web, or some pamplet he published?

Um, you realize you're going off on the member of David Weber's BuNine technical advisors responsible for ship modeling and rendering? For figuring out how David's stuff fits into the guts of the ships?

Yes, Maxxq can get overruled by David if the needs of the story overrule the "logical" design. But in general since BuNine has access to part of the shared tech bible that aren't public they have a presumption of correctness. (Sure like anybody they can misremember or misstate, but I've seen David do the same)


Anyway in case you're interested you could have found the BuNine renderings of the Roland with the rest of the renders, by following the links to deviantart in Maxxq's signature.

But here's direct links to the Roland renders
RolandClassDD 001
RolandClassDD 002
RolandClassDD 003
RolandClassDD 004

Jonathan_S wrote:

darrell wrote:We are not speaking of armoring scheme, but armor.

First, all we have is your word that there is 7 meters of space between the outer and inner hull. Because I said so does not work for anyone except RFC when it contradicts multiple books and will not be accepted. PROVE YOUR STATEMENT. Where is your model published.

Second, even you do not say that there is 7 meters of armor, just 7 meters of space.

Third, what proof do you have that your model is the official and correct model of a roland.

Again, prove that the roland has 7 times more armor than the bigger star knight heavy cruiser. Let me see your model AND prove that the 7 meters is armor AND that your model is the official one.

Unless you can prove all three, you are talking opinion, not fact. Where is the quote from RFC that the roland has 7 meters of hammerhead armor, either in a book at pearls of webber, elsewhere on the web, or some pamplet he published?

Um, you realize you're going off on the member of David Weber's BuNine technical advisors responsible for ship modeling and rendering? For figuring out how David's stuff fits into the guts of the ships?

Yes, Maxxq can get overruled by David if the needs of the story overrule the "logical" design. But in general since BuNine has access to part of the shared tech bible that aren't public they have a presumption of correctness. (Sure like anybody they can misremember or misstate, but I've seen David do the same)


Anyway in case you're interested you could have found the BuNine renderings of the Roland with the rest of the renders, by following the links to deviantart in Maxxq's signature.

But here's direct links to the Roland renders
RolandClassDD 001
RolandClassDD 002
RolandClassDD 003
RolandClassDD 004

I notice that none of those 4 show 7 meters between the outer hull and the inner hull.

MaxQ has been overruled by david in 2 different books.

At 877,500 tons the reliant BC is more that 4 times bigger than the roland and is designed to fight other BC's. In "The Short Victorious War" Nike has the following armor:
A. her flanks carry twelve centimeters of side armor
B. as much as a meter over her vitals—like her fusion rooms.

At 305,250 tons the Star Knight CA is 60% bigger than the Roland, and is deigned to fight other heavy cruisers. In "In Fire Forged" a Star Knight has the following armor:
External holo inspection indicates an armor depth upwards of a meter in some places, though the sloping portions probably have less thickness than the vertical faces. /i]

So the maximum thickness of a Star Knights hammerhead armor is between 1M-1.5M. The roland is designed to fight other destroyers and light cruisers, not CA's or BC's. When it comes to bigger shis, it is supposed to fire off it's missiles at extreme range and retreat without coming into the bigger ships range. I would be surprised if the rolands actual hammerhead armor was more than a meter thick, and probbably less.

In bringing up IFF again to post the quotes again I came across something that may shed some light on the subject. On the Star Knight: [i]The outer hull is generally fifteen or twenty meters from the vital systems in the core hull.

That could mean that there is 50-100 CM of armor on the hammerhead, but the armor is separated from the hull by 7 meters of empty space. I would accept that as part of the armoring scheme there is a 7 meter gap between the armor and the main hull, but unless he can come up with a quote from RFC, I will not accept that the actual armor of a roland is more than a meter.

Star Knights and Reliants were also built in the age before the first functional bow/stern-walls were built. Thus their hammerheads were much more exposed than a Roland.

Add in being larger, and larger ships having the mass to armor their hammerheads, while the textev shows that "lighter" ships may not have even armored at all...


if a Roland has even a foot of actual hammerhead armor, when she's got bow/stern-walls the earlier BC's didn't, I'd be surprised. Excluding anything else that's designed to help shed hostile fire, but is not actual armor plating, designated and built as such.

Any unusual excesses in the Roland's hammerhead armouring scheme may be due to the fragility of its missile arrangements. Having accepted these vulnerabilities, the Roland's designer then decided it had to be better protected in those areas.

The Reliant started to use a new armouring material that was substantially tougher. There's a lot of hoo-ha over the stuff in SVW and how it affected normal engineering procedures. According to everything I've read, they continued to use and improve that material on everything they subsequently built.

To the extent that a 2.5 MT Nike is said to be as tough as a pre-war SD in virtually every category.

munroburton wrote:Any unusual excesses in the Roland's hammerhead armouring scheme may be due to the fragility of its missile arrangements. Having accepted these vulnerabilities, the Roland's designer then decided it had to be better protected in those areas.

The Reliant started to use a new armouring material that was substantially tougher. There's a lot of hoo-ha over the stuff in SVW and how it affected normal engineering procedures. According to everything I've read, they continued to use and improve that material on everything they subsequently built.

To the extent that a 2.5 MT Nike is said to be as tough as a pre-war SD in virtually every category.

The Nike class BCL is 1/3 the size of a prewar SD and is said to be as tough as a pre-war SD. The rolands are 2/9 the size of the reliant BC. Ignoring the fact that DD's traditionally have little to no armor, That should indicate that the roland should have armor about 2/3 as thick.

with the reliant being 100 CM over the fusion rooms, the star knight being 50 CM over fusion rooms and approximatly 125 CM maximum over the front face of the hammerhead, That should make the roland maximum hammerhead armor thickness 55CM. The fact that the roland has a bow wall and a buckler would mean that the armor wouldn't need to be as thick.

even if we double the hammerhead armor thickness because we need to protect the missile tubes, which are NOT vital systems, you are still looking at just over a meter actual armor, not anywhere near 7 meters.

darrell wrote:

munroburton wrote:Any unusual excesses in the Roland's hammerhead armouring scheme may be due to the fragility of its missile arrangements. Having accepted these vulnerabilities, the Roland's designer then decided it had to be better protected in those areas.

The Reliant started to use a new armouring material that was substantially tougher. There's a lot of hoo-ha over the stuff in SVW and how it affected normal engineering procedures. According to everything I've read, they continued to use and improve that material on everything they subsequently built.

To the extent that a 2.5 MT Nike is said to be as tough as a pre-war SD in virtually every category.

The Nike class BCL is 1/3 the size of a prewar SD and is said to be as tough as a pre-war SD. The rolands are 2/9 the size of the reliant BC. Ignoring the fact that DD's traditionally have little to no armor, That should indicate that the roland should have armor about 2/3 as thick.

with the reliant being 100 CM over the fusion rooms, the star knight being 50 CM over fusion rooms and approximatly 125 CM maximum over the front face of the hammerhead, That should make the roland maximum hammerhead armor thickness 55CM. The fact that the roland has a bow wall and a buckler would mean that the armor wouldn't need to be as thick.

even if we double the hammerhead armor thickness because we need to protect the missile tubes, which are NOT vital systems, you are still looking at just over a meter actual armor, not anywhere near 7 meters.

Whatever. Believe what you want. All I know is that until I'm told otherwise, by David himself or Tom Pope, I will maintain the armor is 7 meters thick, or at least, there's 7 meters of space between the outer surface and the inner, most of which is armor. Hell, the weapons port hatches are a meter thick by themselves - this is standard on ALL ships "built" (modeled) so far - maybe thicker on larger ships - haven't gotten that far yet. My Fearless model has hammerhead faces at 3.5 meters thick, and the hatches there are 1 meter thick, as well as recessed 50cm (again, standard on all RMN ships).

Don't like it? Oh well. David pretty much approves everything we release, with only the occasional override, and if he doesn't do it personally, then Tom approves it after much discussion. David trusts Tom, and I trust Tom. /"discussion"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Star Knight discussion in the anthology IFF, was a printing of a write up/discussion panel put forth in an Honorcon many many many years ago that had simply never been published.

In other words the actual physical armor thickness numbers may have never been updated... Be still my beating heart, an editing goober.

PS. Can we please not forget the penultimate armor every ship carries are its sidewalls/buckler/radiation shielding... The rest is there more for damage control.

Relax wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Star Knight discussion in the anthology IFF, was a printing of a write up/discussion panel put forth in an Honorcon many many many years ago that had simply never been published.

In other words the actual physical armor thickness numbers may have never been updated... Be still my beating heart, an editing goober.

PS. Can we please not forget the penultimate armor every ship carries are its sidewalls/buckler/radiation shielding... The rest is there more for damage control.

I don't know about the panel, but it was published in Sits shipbook #3 several years prior to IFF.