Christian

none of those can reload in combat notice the big box right behind the torpedo launcher thats the torpedo reload storage these can be reloaded in 3-30 minutes (completely) ONCE there was only enough for a single complete reload the most the japanese destroyers carried was 3x3 with a complete reload which is 18 torpedoes though the typical japanese torpedo loadout was 2x4 with a single complete reload which is 16 torpedoes the same goes for japanese cruisers often carrying 4x3 or 4x4 having 24 or 32 torpedoes in total (12-16 in reload and 12-16 ready) no other nation than japan had in combat torpedo reload here is the US naval technical mission documenting japanese torpedo reloading gear http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0530-0549 Report 0-01-3.pdf (yes its wows but it showcases the torpedo reloading cases nicely) the japanese also had an earlier torpedo reloading system (again showcased in wows) these were comparatively alot harder to reload in combat and did not have anywhere near the ease of reloading the updated system had (i was unable to find a reload time but this was likely 30-60 minutes if not longer as its clumsy and hard to handle during combat maneuvers and when under fire) no other nation than japan had the ability to reload torpedoes during combat and in battle all other destroyers had to have their torpedo reloads supplied by cargo and munitions ships or by a dock

yeah they dident really have anything better the major problem is that 18 inch guns in game from 1930 penetrate less Iron armor than a 12 inch gun in real life

eh we dont know that it quite likely wasent gonna be something super good and the surface pen traded for underwater pen likely wasent worth it but it does have a higher chance of critical hit our sample size is too low so we cant know for sure its performance and effectiveness

of course for the time period it wasent a particulairly great gun (on top of the ship only having one gun) but it still shows just how much iron plate could be penetrated by a sub par shitty gun firing a shitty shell iron armor is so brittle and easy to dent that bouncing shells off of iron armor is almost impossible as the shell will just dig into the armor unless its at a very high angle the armor is REALLY bad another example is the 12 inch gun on the canopus class bit more modern its from 1890 http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_12-35_mk8.php this also brings into perspective just how shit the 16,25 inch gun was because it actually performed worse than a 12 inch gun made around the same time

depends quad guns firing without delay coils generally have large dispersion (richileu had 560 meter dispersion at 26km range without coils while they had 300 meter dispersion at 26km with delay coils source navyweps 380mm french gun) non individually sleeved guns arent as good as individually sleeved guns in terms of accuracy

does he need sources stating the amount of battles japanese capital ships were in ? THE ONLY instance of type 91 shells being used in a BB vs BB engagement was north carolina vs kirishima where kirishima hit ONCE and in less than 5 minutes was knocked out and reduced to a floating hulk which was sinking thats the ONLY instance of a larger than 8 inch shell hitting anything larger than than a heavy cruiser https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-south-dakota-bb57-war-damage-report-no57.html the simple fact is we have no idea how well these shells performed at their intended role BECAUSE THEY WERE ALMOST NEVER USED

what the hello kitty that makes no sense its SO BOW HEAVY seems like something that needs to get fixed it should not be that bow heavy by standard

good point for example USS franklin almost sunk due to the amount of water she had taken on from firefighting and developed a hefty list due to it she was actually at risk of sinking once the fires were put out https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-franklin-cv-13-war-damage-report-no-56.html

yeah its quite hard to find pictures of them invidually elevated (probably because half the time they are half destroyed at the same elevation) though from what i have seen the only 2 quad guns for battleships are Individual sleeved the 130mm french quad gun has 2 cradles each with 2 guns small quad guns with individual sleeving just arent worth it because it takes up too much space in width for the very very slight advantage individual sleeving is but it probably wouldnt make much of a diffrence in game

AP is quite useless yes 12 inches of krupp iv is 24 inches of effective armor and 15 inches is 30 inches maximum pen achievable AT POINT BLANK is 36 inches with best powder + super heavy shells made a thread on AP performance

normal fires should not have near enough power to ruin the temper on battleship armor not only because steel is an excellent heat conducter and heat obsorber so it would take very long for it to happend but you also need very high temperatures as far as i know (dont quote me on this) oil and so on dont burn hot enough to be a problem for the armor also i assume a nuclear blast has significantly more thermal energy than fires especially since these results likely came from the bikini atoll tests where they detonated bombs as close as 400 meters to ships other examples are akagi and kaga and so on despite having fires rage in them for several hours the ships did not flood and had to be scuttled or torpedoed by their own forces

french quad turrets are also pure quads but the only diffrence is there is a 40 or 45mm devider between the gunhouses which means if the turret takes a penetrating hit it can keep operating it is still by all means a quad gun turret so the french quad turret is not a twin mount quad turret but a quad gun turret the french gun has 4 gun cradles for the 4 guns and each are individually sleeved each gun can elevate indivudually and work individually in the turret its a 4 cradle 4 gun turret if the guns were mounted on 2 twin cradles aka each cradle held 2 guns the turret would not be able to individually elevate each gun neither would it be able to have one gun installed at a time as can be seen the number 2 turret has one of its guns elevated over the others

Krupp and harvey nickel steel is actually quite comparable at thinner thicknesses but krupp becomes better at thicker thicknesses (mostly due to the hardening process of krupp having less of a deep hardening advantage on a thin plate) also as pointed out Iron Plate armor is pretty trash a gun from 1888 firing a non capped shitty ap shell http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_162-30_mk1.php can penetrate also yes that means currently out 18 inch gun which has 36 inches pen maximum at point blank is comparable to a 1888 16,25 inch gun

well thats one thing but when you actually realize how powerfull late game armor is you realize there is almost no point in shooting AP most armor in game is overperforming by 2x compared to real life iron should be 50% as effective as it is thick but here we are at 100% Krupp IV should be just as effective as it is thick (100%) while here we are at 200% thats when we assume Krupp IV is 1940s armor and iron armor is iron armor from the 1860s most battleships in the late missions have 12-15 inches of kruppIV which is 24-30 inches of effective armor which means unless you are point blank with a 16-18 inch gun you will not pen maximum pen i have gotten at point blank range is 36 inches with 18 inch guns super heavy shells and best penning powder

Belt armor is almost always NON curved because making curved plates takes significantly more effort and money casting curved shapes is ALOT easier than rolling them like ship armor is this is also why you notice thicker plates on ships are usually always straight

yes 100% torp reload should be from 3-5 minutes which is roughly what the japanese achieved irl (for a full quad launcher reload) http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0530-0549 Report 0-01-3.pdf do keep in mind its americans trying to reload captured japanese torpedoes so the amount of training they have recieved with the reloading device is probably low also there is NO WAY a destroyer can carry more than 1 full reload per torpedo launcher

no (reffered to as 15"/47 but thats an error on the writers part its 15"/51,66) (notice deck pen difference at long range)

im well aware dreadnought tapers dreadnoughts belt armor tapers sideways at the front from 11 inches to 9 inches well less tapers but more varies in thickness which is also why i made this statement i should have said belt coverage should only taper sideways on aon ships instead of only taper which is a mistake more correct statement would have been belt coverage should only taper sideways and down on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships never claimed that tapering happends more often on older ships in fact as AON ships need an equal belt thickness over water or there are weakspots in the armor which compromise the armor layout this is why aon belt armor tapers downwards and not sideways

the problem in game is the base quality modifier for Iron Plate in game is 1 when in reality armor quality 1 means it has a thickness to effective thickness modifier of 1 the standard which sets said quality modifier is RHA (rolled homogenous armor) and is almost the same quality wise as american class B armor from 1945 Iron plate should have a 0.5 quality modifier instead of a 1 quality modifier and krupp 1 should have 0.8 and so on this means 1 inch of iron plate should be 0.5 inches effective armor the problem we have is Krupp IV armor gets a quality modifier of 2 aka its TWICE AS GOOD as ww2 armor most armor overperforms by 2x of what it actually should further link to my current discoveries this also means 18 inches of Krupp IV is 36 inches of effective thickness

since when did HMS dreadnought become an AON protected ship ? if dreadnought was to be an AON ship she would have to look like this (uss nevada) unlike dreadnought navada has no armor outside of her main citadel protection while dreadnought has both ends covered by 4 inches of KC armor (rear section of armor is rudder protection which is technically part of the citadel as it only protects the rudder) also please read what i wrote dreadnoughts belt tapers sideways something which AON SHIPS DO NOT HMS dreadnought is NOT protected with the AON scheme even then i said the first AON scheme ship was the USS Nevada in 1911

belt coverage should ONLY taper on non AON ships and should only taper downwards on AON ships (aka it begins tapering at the waterline and gets thinner below the waterline) ships with non AON do have sideways taper currently citadels dont seem to be modeled correctly which is something they have said they are working on generally speaking no 3-5 inch guns are destroyer guns and in some cases 6 inch guns light cruisers heavy cruisers armored and protected cruisers can have from 6-11 inch guns battleships are from 10-18 inch planes in ww1 were next to useless floatplanes had to almost travel around landed in order to launch the torpedo their payload was extremely limited too often at most a 100kg bomb (which does nothing to a BB increased elevation for guns was not because of planes but the need to shoot further many non dp destroyer guns had high elevation while not being dp same goes for cruisers or bbs

the stationary bbs were hit by level bombing attacks with quite heavy bombs (800kg bombs or 1700 lbs) which results in more penetration which might be why the damage was so high in addition to that the bombs were substantially heavier than usual japanese bombs granted the bombs did not have large fillers and as far as i know unreliable hitrate being lower is almost certainly due to the fact that the 800kg bombs were not dropped by dive-bombing but were level bombing and thus accuracy was not high https://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/o/Bombs.htm the shallow running of the japanese torpedoes might also have an effect on their damage as they hit high and closer to the belt than they normally would i believe this would mean for their payload less damage would be caused as there was less pressure to compress the torpedo explosions http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-047.php it seems that torpedo protection did not actually improve much beyond the 1915 Tennessee class in terms of design while alot of other designs were tried they did not end up as effective for the depth (though i believe tds depth was increased during the 40s on ships) best i could find regarding USS Tennessee TDS layout last article is a really good read regarding TDS and the effectiveness of different schemes

was thinking it was a bit too small since the smallest anti ship guns currently are 2" guns so i was thinking the 57mm would count going into aa guns gets a bit funky once the sextuple and octuple mounts begin to show up

historically ships did use quad guns in small calibers though very few quad mount types of small caliber existed (mostly because its usually better to just plonk down a triple 152mm instead of a quad 130mm or a twin 203mm instead of a quad 130mm the smallest i can think of the is the french 130mm gun on dunkerque and Strassbourg soviets made a 57mm quad turret but im not sure if it counts since its from the mid 50s and its more anti air than anti ship (though it was used as main guns on a few dds) also its a 57mm

yeah it would probably take quite a bit of time currently they are working hard on getting the game ready visible bulges is something i hope to see somewhere in the future