sRuLe
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by sRuLe
-
-
8 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
hat's really only a weak point when you hit it directly with something particularly powerful.
QuoteTake a look on a deck and belt "connection". Single long range hit, and deck blown into, it just don't lean on a belt upper side, just "hangs" in the air(support structures).
Answer is given.
-
1
-
-
On 11/1/2019 at 4:36 AM, Commodore Sandurz said:
Upwards of 100 fighters and bombers per carrier is "very little firepower"? You cannot be serious.
Yorcktown max is 82 planes, Essex - 85 planes, Enterprise - 80.... okay Midway 95 planes and at least 40 of them is, Hellcats or Bearcats, and only the rest are TBD Devastators(payload max 700kg) or SBD Dauntless(payload max 1080kg). What a Hellcat payload is? Oh dear... 1025kg same as Bearcat, Mark7 16" shell - 1200kg,Yamato's 18,1" shell even heavier - 1460kg.
Max plane in flight operation for a carrier, 42. From which just a half is strike force what means 20 tons max against 22 tons of guaranteed steel from BB. Hit accuracy rate - 11,8% against 18% of an BB's heavy armament.
Plus to that... poor overall protection, high weather dependency, high target detection dependency, high risk of target detection interruption, high chance of weapon deploy interruption in all parts of payload delivery path.
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Lobokai said:
If you don’t allow reloads in combat in mission, you really need to remove the timer. Since we have one, we need the other. But again, the contention isn’t about in combat reloads, it’s about the risk involved in having them aboard while taking damage.
You meant increased rate of "detonation"? Am-I-rite?)))
7 minutes ago, Lobokai said:USN mark14s took about 1/2 hour to reload and were not reloaded in combat. But without a timer, against a slower target, you could pull off and a hour later reengage, racked and ready. We do, however, have a timer
Just pop-out of a combat in safe distance, like about 20km(12 miles), load a pipe and dive again. That's how usually DD's do... and definitely not loading an 600 kilos of explosives under heavy enemy fire. Am-I-rite? Than we need kind a none safe zone circle in game, when you come out of it, your torps began to reload/freezing timer.
-
4 hours ago, Mycophobia said:
Torpedos are often used to finish off already damaged ships, in night battles and like you described, used for fleet disruption.
I mostly agreed with all you said EXCEPT this part. And you know why...
In modern attempts of history review people talking about War on a Pacific, which no doubt have a great naval battles as a part of a naval history. But, it wasn't a Main Part. And wasn't a start at all. Just let's spin the ball and go back where it starts, Atlantic theatre. And the main class of torpedo warfare of an whole XX century - A submarine Warfare. Designed as a stealthy weapon both sub and the torps very fast become an First Encounter Weapon, what means that torpedo is an major naval assault weapon. And often torpedo was used to make one single deadly shot as they actually often DID. And if we dig into earlier examples like Russian-Japanese War, there also torpedo was an first strike/impact weapon.
7 hours ago, Absolute0CA said:I'm averaging between 16.6% to 25% hit rates on torpedoes when historically they were at best 1-3% depending on circumstances.
Simply looking on tonnage sunk by "torpedo fire" historically best effectiveness rate will explosively rise from 2,5% up to 41% or even more. Cause during the war, there is no "civil tonnage" at all.
So unfortunately if you guys will dig deeper you found out that except NERF we need a BUFF. And that would be historically correct.
-
-
4 hours ago, RedParadize said:
Gnevny
Type 7A and Type 7M destroyers actually can, but torpedo reload where mostly manual... and probably only in "out of combat" situation.
If you are looking for arguments to hold your ground take a look on Storozhevoi and later Novik classes, G and V-class German Destroyers and US destroyers Clemson-Class. Due to light and compact torpedoes they had, and where designed to be able reload T-Tubes during combat. Other examples are only Italian and French destroyers since Jaguar/Vauquelin and Le Fantasque class. Oh yeah.... those lads CAN.
-
Before we all continue to gently throw a poo on a fan pointing it at each other... let's firstly make an analysis of a Perfect Torpedo Destroyer in theory and how would it work on practice in all kind of circumstances.
Just let's be honest... tonnage sunk by torpedoes in WW2 are slightly much greater than by any other type of naval weapons including aerial bombardment due massive damage to floatage.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Lobokai said:
When compared with historical data it’s taking us about the same amount of torps fired to bring down targets... in fact, UA:D torps are slightly more lethal than they should be in “safe” mode.
(U KNOW THAT INSTEAD OF WORDS HERE MUST BE WELL KNOWN OWL)
_after_Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal_1942.jpg)
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, SiWi said:
the Shimakaze was a DD
Actually not, it's a torpedo cruiser-destroyer. And never where a DD.
5 hours ago, SiWi said:not a TB or MTB
Difference between TB and MTB is same as between Lamborghini Diablo and Fiat Punto. Torpedo Boat - is a name of mostly Whitehead Torpedo armed destroyers where torpedoes are main armament and which designed to "dive" on a group of ships in open sea to make torpedo soup
. MTB - is just a motor torpedo boat for coastal operation only.
-
1 hour ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
Eyup. ROF was not close to the theoretical maximum for any warship.
We not talking theory... we talking practice, we talking - Jutland, sir.
-
Quote
Mine Warfare
Like submarines, mines will have a special role in campaigns. Mines will need special research to become truly effective but will be a constant threat for ships even at the lowest technological levels.Huh... effectiveness, I think they mean: - Q Quantity. As more as merrier. 🎃
-
35 minutes ago, SiWi said:
I don't quite see what makes a TB different then a MTB.
Let's start with":
a) Amount of torpedoes in salvo
b) Operational range
c) ...see IJN Shimakaze 🎃
-
On 11/1/2019 at 9:05 PM, Mycophobia said:
Regarding Bow-tanking. WoWs auto bounce is just a gamey mechanic, and shouldn't translate into this game. Angling can have some benefit in deflecting shots if those comes in close range(and thus have a more horizontal trajectory)
1st... in WoWS despite their "balancing" mechanics U still can pent through the "roof" tried on all levels. But about "how" I'll shush.
Angling can benefit but... most of your ship structure made from just constructive hardened steel from 20 to 50mm, which just don't stop even 11" APC/CPC shell due shell's weight, speed (sum of it called - "shell drag", don't know does it correct name on english). Otherways made whole ship from one solid peace of steel, or angling just don't work. Plus to that AP shell entering an constructive steel just literally "fix&hold" it's angle... and start "bitching around" inside of ship internals.
-
17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Subs will most likely be automated and will either get limited design construction
Hope not, we already got limited design in DD/TB and CL. I'm not talking about such "weirdos"like i-400. But, actually fine ocean going sub with tremendous fire power can and must be allowed to be done.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
in theory, most WW2 battleships could fire 1.5-3 rounds per minute.
HMS Lion, HMS Tiger, SMS Derflinger, SMS Seydlitz, SMS Moltke.... and finally HMS Hood and KMS Bismark got ROF 2,1-2,8 shots per minute.
On practice... first engagement shots probably ll'be around 1 shot/min due fire correction issues... but that, hell brakes loose. Totally, IRL, I mean it!
-
9 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
Costal forts will probs will be the same you just design some, build those designs and place them at key locations/places
- No one shall pass!
-
1
-
-
- More funds mean more battleships! (c) Pentagon
-
1
-
-
On 11/1/2019 at 9:06 PM, Diabolic_Wave said:
but looking at Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Yamato (Janusz Skulski) you can see both of these armour schemes implemented in one ship at once.
+ To you. Btw Yamato is the WORST examp of armoring the ship.
From the side, looks cool... but it's side view. And what we have... Take a look on a deck and belt "connection". Single long range hit, and deck blown into, it just don't lean on a belt upper side, just "hangs" in the air(support structures). For the close range encounters main belt are just too high, asking for penetration.
-
1
-
-
On 11/1/2019 at 1:59 AM, sarrumac said:
hit rate data from Campell’s tome ‘Jutland’. It has just emerged with the following information on heavy calibre shooting:
Germany
1st Scout Group - 1,670 shots, 65 hits (3.89% hit rate),
HSF Battleships - 1,900 shots, 45 hits (2.37% hit rate),
Total - 3,570 shots fired, 110 hits (3.08% hit rate).
(excludes shots fired at HMS Black Prince)
Great Britain
1st & 2nd BCS - 1,469 shots, 21 hits (1.43% hit rate),
3rd BCS - 373 shots, 16 hits (4.29% hit rate),
5th BS - 1,099 shots, 29 hits (2.64% hit rate),
Rest of GF - 1,593 shots, 57 hits (3.58% hit rate),
Total - 4,534 shots fired, 123 hits (2.71% hit rate).
Overall, not that good by modern standards. Also, 3rd BCS appears to have the best results – probably due to their recent gunnery practise up at Scapa Flow just prior to the battle.Nice statistics...but,can we see an amount of hits, and hit "by what" on both sides capital ships? Cause I got serious doubts about Campell's calculation.
-
2 hours ago, WafflesToo said:
I'm gonna have to side with Lobokai here; fires should not sink ships, fires should disable, damage, and destroy equipment in ships through various effects (a flooded magazine is kind of useless for the gun it services). I can only think of two ships that were nearly sunk solely by fire (or rather, by the copious amounts of water being pumped onboard fighting those fires); USS Forestall and USS Franklin.
What happened to the SMS Seydlitz looks to be more the exception than the rule for turn-of-the-century capital ships; and even then she weathered it and lived to fight another day.
SMS Derflinger than or SMS Moltke... there is so many exceptions that "rule" look more exceptions as real so called "exceptions".
-
Sloped armor on the ships is bit different than on tanks... due to difference of an ballistic ark, on ships it's more steeper.
-
14 hours ago, Ishtar said:
In exchange, long range gunnery should receive a nerf to accuracy and all guns
Man, can't tell HOW I Agree with ya. What ever you have, radar, sonar, satellite dish popping out of a butt... all over 16-18 miles are just the same as shooting down the Moon with a firework.
14 hours ago, Ishtar said:and all guns should have a nerf to damage
Depends on a shell weight. If its Heavy APC/CPC, the ballistic arc mostly land a shell into a poor armored deck... and 'ere we go.
-
2 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:
More rapid, less accurate high calibre
HMS Warspite disagree with ya... ad there I see a nose of KMS Bismarck popping around the corner to get ya an chew.
Actually there is the web is some USS New Mexico and Nevada exercise schemes of a shots landing, dispersion an range to target. And these "ladies" hardly can be called - Inaccurate. If I found, I'll post em.
-
7 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Ye, even for non-historical this would be fine and since this game is clearly going for a more realistic route it makes more sense for the devs to try and be historical as possible even with split modes.
Actually we need to split some WWl and WWII, at least not allowing throwing an pre-dreadnought against Yamato. Or might be not...
-
1
-
Submarines, Coastal Forts, MTB’s?
in General Discussions
Posted
TB is a same... a destroyer. But earlier era, WW1 and pre-WW1.