thereddaikon
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by thereddaikon
-
-
On 11/1/2019 at 12:49 PM, Cptbarney said:
However it does greatly reduce the cost and also complexity of the vehicle, plus you don't need to make the tank as thickly armoured as others too.
Plus tanks were quite big even with slopped armour so space is a non-issue, except for really smoll tonks or tanks that are quite close to the ground.
But having the armour boxy can make things roomy i guess, but makes the armour weaker (corners, flat surfaces) and heavier just to get the same material for the same protection.
Its why the T-34 and argueably the panther were such great tanks (if they also had more time develop them that would of helped).
That's not entirely true. Sloped armor does come with a practical real world space penalty. It is a tradeoff and not one to be disregarded. The commonly cited three aspects of a tank, speed, armor and firepower are overly simplistic and don't actually reflect reality. The reality is studies conducted during and after WW2 showed that in almost all cases the first tank to fire would win. The first that could identify the target, aim its weapons and fire had the overwhelming advantage. That means crew performance and situational awareness is probably the most important aspect of a tank.
Case in point, compare the combat performance of early and late T-34s. Early production T-34s fared extremely poorly against their German opponents. Not because the Germans had better guns or armor, in Barbarossa we are talking about Pz3's after all, but because the Germans could see the Russians before the Russians could see them. The Germans had a three man turret, a commander's cupola, decent optics that were clear and had good light accumulation and radios. All of those aspects contributed to raising crew efficiency. The early model T-34s had cramped 2 man turrets, optics that actually seemed better on paper in terms of fov but weren't as bright and usually lacked radios. The later T-34s, especially the 85mm model fixed most of these problems. It had a proper turret. The crew had radios and they had more useful combat optics.
Back to sloped armor. The T-34's armor was actually too sloped if you can believe it. Not only did it have a sloped front but it also had sloped sides. This helped with protection, but the Soviets found in practice that sloping your sides brought too many problems. It limited storage volume for things like ammunition and fuel tanks and the Christie suspension also exacerbated this. In future designs like the T-54/55 they went to straight sides with torsion bar suspension.
-
On 11/2/2019 at 12:17 AM, Hvy-Tiger said:
I have built one ship with 20 inch's of armour, yet when hit by a 14 inch shell at the rear of the superstructure between both towers, it destroyed my coning tower. It might be a good idea to make the central structor separate to the towers to avoid that type of destruction for it is a waist of time to put armour on the tower.
Was it the conning tower or the mast? Historically the conning tower is actually only a small part of the superstructure meant to be a protected bridge to fight the ship from. The majority of the superstructure is either lightly armored or not armored at all. If it was then the ship would have massive stability issues from all of the weight.
Most of the superstructure can be absolutely wrecked by a solid hit from a large caliber gun depending on what type of ammo was used. It's hard to see what is hitting where ingame, but a large caliber HE shell should heavily damage if not destroy the super structure. An AP shell, depending on what type may just pass through if it hits a thin enough spot. This was actually the thinking behind the US cage masts. Turns out they were too weak to be practical and a few collapsed in storms.
-
Glad to help.
-
1
-
-
I just sent an email with the video. Subject is the same as this thread.
-
1
-
-
Not sure if this is an issue with the shaders, shadows or what. Seems to happen fairly frequently but not every time I play the game. Alt+Tab seems to make it worse when it does happen. It will start subtle but then become worse overtime until the ships are flashing between normal and very dark as shown in the screenshot. At the same time certain UI elements such as markers for different weapons ranges will start to shake in time with the flashing. I'm running Win 10 1903, Nvidia GTX 980ti with driver 430.86.
-
Internal belts were a compromise. Iowa had it because they wanted to retain compatibility with the Panama canal and had to be within the limits of the escalator clause of the 2nd London Naval Treaty. The Montanas were going to be launched after the treaty expired in 1942 and at that point it was thought that the Panama canal was too much of a restriction so they cast those limitations to the side as got much bigger and went back to an external belt.
-
The latest patch seems to have fixed the problem. The game is much more stable.
-
1
-
-
This may have been listed elsewhere but, having the barbettes list the range of turret sizes they support would be nice.
-
Things were going pretty smoothly tonight. Finally got a crash a few minutes ago. I just sent the log file. I hope its useful.
-
1
-
-
Started happening this morning. In most battles that aren't short the game will crash to the desktop without warning or an error about mid way through the battle. Windows is logging the crashes. Here is one of the App crash logs:
Faulting application name: build.exe, version: 5.6.7.3267, time stamp: 0x5c73f90d
Faulting module name: d3d11.dll, version: 10.0.18362.387, time stamp: 0x7e72d1cb
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0000000000123368
Faulting process id: 0x49bc
Faulting application start time: 0x01d58796a722f603
Faulting application path: C:\Games\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\default\game\build.exe
Faulting module path: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\d3d11.dll
Report Id: 9262ebdd-cd6b-4b87-a298-5209e40a58e0
Faulting package full name:
Faulting package-relative application ID:
Photos of Battle Damage - SCREENSHOTS WANTED!
in Historical and Maritime Discussions
Posted
Another angle on Houston's torpedo damage.
Battle damage to BB-43 USS Tennessee from a bomb hit during the attack on Pearl Harbor. "C" hoop on gun gouged and cracked.