Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

disc

Members
  • Content Count

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

About disc

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You're right, only a few others with >127mm -- Brooklyn / St. Louis, Worcester, Duca degli Abruzzi, and Mogami (prior to rebuild). I'd still like the choice. It would be nice to try heavily armored small ships. Instead of a hard stop, I think there should be escalating costs for heavier armor, though.
  2. I think we're going about this the wrong direction, personally. I think "towers" should be subdivided into separate parts. Right now it's two big blocks that limit turret and funnel placement. We're beholden to these monoliths, and thus on the superstructures the devs have introduced and are planning on. Makes designs look the same. I think it should have a Lego-like approach. We could have different blocks: deckhouses, bridges, conning towers, masts, fire control tops, secondary directors, and searchlight supports. You slot them together and get a custom result. Want an heavier fire control top? Use a stronger mast or place it lower, where its field of vision is worse. Or, have a light one atop the mast and a heavier one on the conning tower. Want a better bridge? Build up a bunch of platforms on the mast and make your own pagoda, or start from scratch with a big block like the King George V class. Crucially, blocks could overlap to some extent. No more "wrong-size" barbettes -- just slot in a different one instead. On those hulls with cut down quarterdecks, the barbette could overlap with the hull structure, so no awkward squeezes there either. Issue is that this would take a lot of work.
  3. I think the desire for new destroyer hulls is long-standing, so hopefully a couple are in the works. I agree that IJN cruiser hulls would be good. I think DE hulls make sense if submarines are also implemented -- if only in abstract would be fine. I think your last point would be best in a pure sandbox mode, where there are no restrictions whatsoever. Custom battles have been a half step in that direction.
  4. I think hydrophones of the style installed on Yamato and the heavy cruisers would be omnidirectional, with phase-cancelling used to find a bearing. So that would be nice against torpedoes. I may be mistaken on that account, but that's my interpretation of E-10. Active sonars would be searchlight types with a narrow sound beam. Bad for search (ironically) but good for tracking contacts. Possibly they could be operated in a passive manner without echo-ranging, depending on receiver directionality. I would question their utility against a torpedo spread. The US evaluators found Japanese hydrophones and sonars to be pretty modern and effective. Seems the big downfall was translating effectiveness into a coherent submarine tracking and attack system. Do you know of instances where Japanese ships heard torpedoes during an attack? I am by no means denying it happened -- I just don't personally know of examples. @Shaftoe I am sorry if I said something foolish or offensive. As E-10 says, Japanese hydrophones were stationary and the sonars had nonretractable domes. So the devices theoretically could be operated at any speed. But increasing noise at higher speeds likely would make this less feasible.
  5. I do not know how the Type 0 or the similar Type 93 would usually perform, or if they were particularly useful at picking up incoming torpedoes, but I think they didn't help as much as might be hoped. It does appear they were regularly operated at sea, but I don't know if they were reliable, if they were operable at high speed, or if the operators were competent. Many Japanese cruisers used the Type 93, but many of these were torpedoed and sunk. Obviously hydrophones are of little avail against aerial torpedoes or point-blank submarine shots, but at least Haguro was sunk by surface torpedoes. Maya was sunk by multiple submarine torpedo hits at about a range of ~1.5 nautical miles (~2.8km), after having witnessed Takao and Atago get hit ~24 minutes prior -- ie obvious forewarning of submarines was there.
  6. @HusariuS was very faithful to the source material. From Skulski, Anatomy of the Ship Yamato: "Yamato was equipped with Type 0 sonar arrays which could detect a submarine when the ship was dead in the water or proceeding at low speed." The diagrams Skulski provides show the apparatus was placed in the forefoot, in the ship's bulbous bow. That's it, unfortunately. No other information that I know of on Yamato's particular setup or its usefulness during various actions. Lengerer and Ahlberg's book on Yamato does not mention the sonar -- though I reckon this is due to its more narrow scope. We do have more information on the Type 0 installation. https://pacificwararchive.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/reports-of-the-u-s-naval-technical-mission-to-japan-1945-1946/ See E-10, Japanese Sonar and ASDIC. The Type 0 was a passive (ie hydrophone) 30-element double-ellipse (4m across the long axis) array using moving-coil receivers (I have not seen a picture of the hydrophone array, but my impression is it might look like two nested ellipses of individual receivers set around the bottom). It had an accuracy of 3 degrees and a sensitivity of 35db. Detection ranges are not specified, but the broadly similar Type 4 could detect a slow moving submerged submarine at 1000 meters, or a torpedo at 6000 meters, the scanning ship sailing at 12 knots in either case. The Type 93 was a very similar device to the Type 0, more common, with 16 elements in an ellipse array using moving-coil receivers, with an accuracy of 5 degrees and a sensitivity of 35db.
  7. No, I never have. I think many of the issues people post about trace back to the primitive damage model in place. I've been wondering how to rework it into something more realistic and accessible.
  8. @Steeltrap Is this the damage model you are referring to? What did you find valuable about it? Any glaring deficiencies? I agree with the spirit of @baltic1284 's post. Should be able to give light cruisers additional armor, if so desired. US 6in-gun light cruisers from Brooklyn to Worcester had 6.5in turret faces -- not possible in the game. I would go the "opposite" way for battleships. Several pre-Dreadnought classes had only 6in belts, as their thin Harveyized and Krupp-style armors were so much better than thicker compound belts. We should be allowed to use minimal armor ourselves.
  9. The question is whether a 17% increase in weight is justification for the damage scaling. I think we need to see damage numbers to know.
  10. This page specifically has details on powders by nation. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php I posted the passage from Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War here.
  11. From Lacroix and Wells, Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, Appendix H. Covers the major powders used by the IJN from inception to 1945. Page 767: Page 768: Page 769:
  12. I like the idea, and I've been working on a system myself. Might add it once I've come up with a mutually approved arrangement. I think a key element is individualizing compartments per ship.
  13. Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War by Lacroix and Wells is superb. Appendix H gives a fine history of Japanese propellants, from black powder to 1945. Campbell's Naval Weapons of World War Two has great information on propellants of the seven major navies: UK, US, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and Russia.
  14. It certainly did occur, though I do not think it was particularly common. It seems that big vessels and those with good torpedo protection were fairly safe. I am aware of the following carriers, battleships, and cruisers which very likely experienced a magazine or fuel detonation or deflagration immediately after being torpedoed or mined. All sank, almost universally with heavy loss of life, except for USS New Orleans. I have not included any destroyers or other types of ships. Note the relative lack of heavy fleet carriers, Dreadnoughts, and super-Dreadnoughts. Carriers: Unryu, fuel tanks and suicide plane warheads detonated. Shinyo, massive fuel deflagration. Taiyo, fuel deflagration. USS Wasp, fuel deflagration with possible magazine deflagration. USS Liscome Bay, titanic magazine detonation. Battleships: Hatsuse, pre-Dreadnought, mine detonated forward magazine, sank in 90 seconds. Petropavlovsk, pre-Dreadnought, mine detonated magazines and probably forward torpedo tube, sank within two minutes. Suffren, pre-Dreadnought, sank in seconds with no survivors. HMS Royal Oak, super-Dreadnought, cordite deflagrated. Cruisers: Pallada, detonated immediately with no survivors. Zhemchug Takasago, mined SMS Prinz Adalbert, sank immediately with three survivors Armando Diaz Java, rear magazine detonated HMS Pathfinder USS Juneau USS New Orleans, survived. Apparently the black powder magazine detonated -- probably the same mechanism behind USS Arizona's loss. The following ships may have experienced magazine detonation (most likely several did), but it is unclear. Akitsu Maru, amphibious assault carrier, huge loss of life but unclear if detonation occurred. Fuso, Dreadnought battleship, not clear if magazine was detonated or if bow separated during sinking. HMS Majestic, battleship, sunk by "huge" explosion with torpedo hit -- but with few killed. Tama, cruiser, split in half with no survivors Cesare Rossarol, cruiser, split in half by mine. Amiral Charner, cruiser, sank in two minutes with one survivor. Takachiho, cruiser, three survivors. SMS Bremen, cruiser Nachi, cruiser, forward magazines detonated, but exact cause (ie bomb, torpedo, or fire) is unclear due to big number of hits. Naka, cruiser, broke in two, either a bomb or torpedo. Here's a painting of HMS Pathfinder blowing up after torpedo hit.
  15. For more context, claimed firing cycle for the Japanese 16in gun on Nagato was 21.5 seconds, and that was a conventional screw-breech bag gun.
×
×
  • Create New...