Roland Peacetime duties

MaxxQ wrote:

darrell wrote: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 that is 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"

David Weber is "telling you otherwise" in "A Short Victorious War"

David Weber is "telling you otherwise" in "In Fire Forged"


I recall someone who said "don't trust drawings, they are not always accurate" I recall someone that said that if a drawing and text conflict, the text wins. You apparently created a drawing that has 7 meters between the inner hull and outer hull of the hammerhead. So that is YOU saying that hammerhead armor is 7 meters thick, not RFC.

We both know that there are instances when RFC has not just approved but created drawing that were not correct. In addition, I still have not seen this drawing you claim to have. As it stands now, you claim to have a piece of hearsay evidence that you are not willing to share with the rest of us.

Both SVW and HoS state that bigger, better armed ships DO NOT have more than 2 meters armor on the hammerheads. That is two pieces of HARD evidence that the roland has less than one meter of armor over it's hammerhead.

The only person that can say because I said so is RFC, and he has said so in two different books that the roland does not have 7 meters of hammerhead armor.

Put up or shut up. RFC has not just approved but created drawings with errors in them. Until you can come up with a statement from RFC to the contrary, I will not allow your unsupported guess that is proved wrong in two different books to stand.

I will accept any published statement from RFC, in a book in the pearls, in a forum post, as part of a u-tube video, or any other public source.

http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Resizing

David does change his mind sometimes. The Great Resizing happened between War of Honor and At All Costs, so dimensions given in books prior to that are technically incorrect.

The armour design appendix In Fire Forged is also dated 1906 in-universe. A while before any MDMs, DDMs or Rolands showed up.

munroburton wrote:http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Resizing

David does change his mind sometimes. The Great Resizing happened between War of Honor and At All Costs, so dimensions given in books prior to that are technically incorrect.

The armour design appendix In Fire Forged is also dated 1906 in-universe. A while before any MDMs, DDMs or Rolands showed up.

At all Costs was © in 2005.

Both In fire forged and An Introduction to Modern Starship Armor Design” © 2011

The armor thickness has not had a major change during the great resizing. Before the great resizing: reliant class BC, 877K tons, 1M (100CM) armor over the fusion plants. (© 1994) After the great resizing, Star Knight class CA, 305K tons, 50 CM armor over the fusion plants. (© 2011)

I have not seen anything published by RFC that he has changed armor thickness.

darrell wrote:At all Costs was © in 2005.

Both In fire forged and An Introduction to Modern Starship Armor Design” © 2011

The armor thickness has not had a major change during the great resizing. Before the great resizing: reliant class BC, 877K tons, 1M (100CM) armor over the fusion plants. (© 1994) After the great resizing, Star Knight class CA, 305K tons, 50 CM armor over the fusion plants. (© 2011)

I have not seen anything published by RFC that he has changed armor thickness.

Or perhaps the Roland with its radically new design paradigm has a different armoring scheme than older designs. Given its heavy chase energy armament (2 CA scale grasers fore/aft) and light broadside energy armament (5 DD/CL scale lasers port/starboard less than much smaller smaller DD and CL classes) combined with buckler capable bow and stern walls makes it seem likely that the Roland is designed to primarily use Shrike style slashing attacks with its chasers at energy range making very heavy armor on its hammerheads make sense given how devastating a bow or stern hit has the potential to be.

So maybe, just maybe, MaxxQ is right about the thickness of the armour on the Roland's. After all he is only a BuNine member with direct personal contact with Mr Weber and access to the Honorverse techbible, ie definitive sources that you do not have access to, so he might just have a better understanding of the Roland's design than you.

Grashtel wrote:Or perhaps the Roland with its radically new design paradigm has a different armoring scheme than older designs. Given its heavy chase energy armament (2 CA scale grasers fore/aft) and light broadside energy armament (5 DD/CL scale lasers port/starboard less than much smaller smaller DD and CL classes) combined with buckler capable bow and stern walls makes it seem likely that the Roland is designed to primarily use Shrike style slashing attacks with its chasers at energy range making very heavy armor on its hammerheads make sense given how devastating a bow or stern hit has the potential to be.

I also wonder if a bit of this might be arguing "The torpedo defense system in an Iowa had 12" of armor" vs "No, the torpedo defense system was multiple feet thick". Both were true. The armored bulkhead (#3) was actually a tapered thickness but at least started at 12.1" thick at its top. OTOH it was only one component of a multi compartment (some empty, some filled with oil or seawater) arrangement designed to absorb the blast and fragments of the torpedo warhead without letting water through the final holding bulkhead.

The armor essay seems to be talking about depth of armor "plate" which isn't always the same things as total depth between the surface of the armor and the surface of the pressure bulkhead interior of the armor...

Grashtel wrote:

darrell wrote:At all Costs was © in 2005.

Both In fire forged and An Introduction to Modern Starship Armor Design” © 2011

The armor thickness has not had a major change during the great resizing. Before the great resizing: reliant class BC, 877K tons, 1M (100CM) armor over the fusion plants. (© 1994) After the great resizing, Star Knight class CA, 305K tons, 50 CM armor over the fusion plants. (© 2011)

I have not seen anything published by RFC that he has changed armor thickness.

Or perhaps the Roland with its radically new design paradigm has a different armoring scheme than older designs. Given its heavy chase energy armament (2 CA scale grasers fore/aft) and light broadside energy armament (5 DD/CL scale lasers port/starboard less than much smaller smaller DD and CL classes) combined with buckler capable bow and stern walls makes it seem likely that the Roland is designed to primarily use Shrike style slashing attacks with its chasers at energy range making very heavy armor on its hammerheads make sense given how devastating a bow or stern hit has the potential to be.

So maybe, just maybe, MaxxQ is right about the thickness of the armour on the Roland's. After all he is only a BuNine member with direct personal contact with Mr Weber and access to the Honorverse techbible, ie definitive sources that you do not have access to, so he might just have a better understanding of the Roland's design than you.

and yet he is saying MY DRAWING is the proof. he either can't or won't supply where he came up with the 7 meters that he put into a drawing that I have not seen.

since he refuses to share the drawing that has the 7 meters that he claims is the rolands armament, I choose to believe that the correct answer is that he CAN'T, because David didn't specify the armor thickness and he guessed wrongly.

darrell wrote:...I choose to believe that the correct answer is that he CAN'T, ...

That's probably true. You see, there are these things called non-disclosure agreements....

darrell wrote:
and yet he is saying MY DRAWING is the proof. he either can't or won't supply where he came up with the 7 meters that he put into a drawing that I have not seen.

since he refuses to share the drawing that has the 7 meters that he claims is the rolands armament, I choose to believe that the correct answer is that he CAN'T, because David didn't specify the armor thickness and he guessed wrongly.

Cite? You won't find one. Not "my drawing". "My model" is what I've said. And what difference will it make if I post a wireframe of my model (it would have to be a wireframe, since otherwise you won't be able to see it)? You won't believe it anyway, by your own admission, since it's not directly from David.

And no, I'm not going to call him or drive 20 minutes just to ask him personally, "Pretty please could you settle a dispute?" Not for something this petty.

As for "refusing" to release or post a wireframe, nothing requires me to do that, and due to an NDA, I *AM* required to get permission to do so. I've been given blanket permission for externals, and limited internals for the Star Knight, but other than that? No. And I'm not going to ask, because it's not necessary. The other members of BuNine have their own projects to work on, as well as real life, and I'm not going to bother them either. They trust me to release or discuss what I've been given permission for, and what I can discuss otherwise.

Because my MODELS are based on drawings from other BuNine members, any release of those drawings is up to those who made them, not me.

Since Duckk is *ALSO* a BuNine member, I'm sure he's seen this "discussion" since it started. If he felt it was necessary to get ahold of Tom or anyone else who knows about the armor to settle this, I'd think he already would have. Not that it would matter to you - see last sentence of first paragraph.

Edit to add: Weird Harold mentioned it before I did...

Edit #2: I don't "guess" anything with these models. They are based as closely as possible on the drawings I am given, and in cases where a 3D version of something doesn't fit because a 2D drawing is missing a D, we have discussions about it and make appropriate changes - either to the model, the drawing, or both.

Yup, I've been here since the beginning. No need for me to repeat what MaxxQ has said, so I'll just add this: David reviews a lot of what we do. Not to speak for him, but his past comments have been very clear about our work. He's seen many of the models MaxxQ has done, and he gives his full support. He fully recognizes that some of his descriptions in the early books simply don't work, and that the stuff that we have compiled ever since the BuNine was created is a damn sight better than what he had in mind. If you have a problem with that, that's your prerogative.

MaxxQ wrote:

darrell wrote:
and yet he is saying MY DRAWING is the proof. he either can't or won't supply where he came up with the 7 meters that he put into a drawing that I have not seen.

since he refuses to share the drawing that has the 7 meters that he claims is the rolands armament, I choose to believe that the correct answer is that he CAN'T, because David didn't specify the armor thickness and he guessed wrongly.

Cite? You won't find one. Not "my drawing". "My model" is what I've said. And what difference will it make if I post a wireframe of my model (it would have to be a wireframe, since otherwise you won't be able to see it)? You won't believe it anyway, by your own admission, since it's not directly from David.

And no, I'm not going to call him or drive 20 minutes just to ask him personally, "Pretty please could you settle a dispute?" Not for something this petty.

As for "refusing" to release or post a wireframe, nothing requires me to do that, and due to an NDA, I *AM* required to get permission to do so. I've been given blanket permission for externals, and limited internals for the Star Knight, but other than that? No. And I'm not going to ask, because it's not necessary. The other members of BuNine have their own projects to work on, as well as real life, and I'm not going to bother them either. They trust me to release or discuss what I've been given permission for, and what I can discuss otherwise.

Because my MODELS are based on drawings from other BuNine members, any release of those drawings is up to those who made them, not me.

Since Duckk is *ALSO* a BuNine member, I'm sure he's seen this "discussion" since it started. If he felt it was necessary to get ahold of Tom or anyone else who knows about the armor to settle this, I'd think he already would have. Not that it would matter to you - see last sentence of first paragraph.

Edit to add: Weird Harold mentioned it before I did...

Edit #2: I don't "guess" anything with these models. They are based as closely as possible on the drawings I am given, and in cases where a 3D version of something doesn't fit because a 2D drawing is missing a D, we have discussions about it and make appropriate changes - either to the model, the drawing, or both.

I will accept that for non-disclosure reasons you can't share the detailed drawing.

In all your statements you have not said that RFS said the roland chase armor is 7 meters.

When you were creating the drawing of the roland did RFC specifically state to you that the rolands chase armor is 7 meters thick?

From what you say you do have direct contact with RFC when needed. I would not expect you to "drive 20 miles" to resolve a dispute, but the next time you talk or email RFC, it should be easy enough to add a question something on the lines of:

There is a dispute on armor thickness. How thick is the chase armor on the roland.

For now though, I am content to let it go until you or someone else can get a specific answer from RFC if you are.