Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Shiki

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About Shiki

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Ballistics, metallurgy, naval warfare, Washington (Treaty / heavy) cruisers in general, Japanese Treaty cruisers and Italian Treaty cruisers in specific

Recent Profile Visitors

83 profile views
  1. This is not entirely true. In the Treaty era, many ships were designed to fight at angles in relation to the target - American cruisers were designed, for example, to fight at 60 degrees (originally 30 degrees, and to 90 degrees - flat broadside - for Baltimore onward) in relation to the target, whether fore or aft. This was done to save weight in light of the broad inclinations at which fast combatants, such as cruisers, tend to fight. The same applies to even battleships such as Scharnhorst, which was designed to fight at 30 degrees inclination with respect to the opponent. This isn't to say
  2. This update has gotten me excited for this game again, honestly. Quadruple turrets and 50-cm guns are nice and all, but... my main hypes are the hull fixes and that more modern French and British medium- and large-calibre turrets are being modeled. Now all we need are a few appropriate hulls to stick those guns on. Super Alsace (12x 43 cm) vs. Original Spec A-150 (9x 51 cm), your day draws near. But more than that: it's La Galissonière's time to shine.
  3. Of course, decisive battle is the only way. It's much more cost-effective to be able to quickly end a conflict with the complete destruction of the enemy's fleet, and obtain peace before they can recover. For ship design to support that doctrine, I prefer the Italian approach: my cruisers are my battleships, and the actual "battleships" are only there to support the cruisers. They need to be fast (35.5 kts minimum, 37.5 kts preferred) in order to force that decisive action and well-armed (eight, nine, or ten 203-mm) to cripple the enemy's own cruisers. Unlike the Italians, however, I arm
  4. The Japanese Chō A-Shiki jun'yōkan (Super 'A'-type cruiser) Shirane steams in formation with her three sisters before accepting battle against four of her American counterparts.
  5. A clear photo of one of the most beautiful cruisers (nominally) built to the terms of the 1922 Washington Naval treaty, Takao, in post-reconstruction configuration. The Chōkai, firing her main battery. Italian battleship Roma, seen from aft. The Aoba, one of the Japanese 'pre-treaty' 20-cm-gun cruisers.
  6. I apologize if I seemed condescending at all during any of my posts. That was not, is not, and will never be the intention, and if you take it that way I'm sorry. I am trying not to make a bad situation worse. That being said... I proved everything I set out to prove. Pr.23 was flawed at the time of design and all four ships laid down showed that, from all credible first- and second-hand accounts. Beyond that, I don't need to prove anything - you're the one making conjecture about how they could have approved and then changed it, or re-iterated and upgraded it. My basis of fact is th
  7. You yourself are being the contradictory one. You ask for proof, then deny it when it comes. We have known examples for the USSR completing things in such poor states - see the Pr.26-class cruisers and most of their destroyers - because they didn't know it was in a poor state. That's in benefit of hindsight, which we have because it happened eighty-three years ago. If I provided working technical drawings of their flaws and the official Soviet reports saying 'this is fine', or if I provided the evidence of the Italian architects which inspected the captured Sovetskaya Ukraina at Nikolaev, you
  8. This is bait. Not only is it bait, but it's prime bait. Whether I play World of Warships or not shouldn't particularly matter, and it doesn't to me - but, you made the insinuation that I wasn't a naval nerd. Now, I'm no naval strategy nerd like you types - I focus on the technical aspects. But that point stands, and so I'm going to accept. On to your points. In answer to 1. - I invite you to view their video on the Project 23-type battleship Sovetskii Soyuz, which is what I was referencing when I spoke of 'Russian propaganda', which could more correctly be termed 'Soviet propaganda'.
  9. Few things fail to outclass Bismarck. But the Project 23-class battleships (Sovetskii Soyuz) happen to be on the list of the things which that German battleship could defeat. They're amazing on paper - most Soviet designs are. But much like the Imperial Japanese Navy, the technology simply isn't there - and furthermore, in the Soviet case, the infrastructure and experience to build and maintain ships of that size is simply nonexistent in the prewar era. The technology to run their turbines at the desired output and the propeller design to withstand that (+70,000 CV per shaft, and the Soviets p
  10. In this update, could we potentially we see a reduction in the minimum belt armour of a CA from 127mm to 25mm or even 0mm? This would allow us to accurately portray Washington cruisers such as the British County class (25mm belt), French Duquesne and first two members of the Suffren class (50mm belt), the Trentos and Japanese pretreaty scout cruisers such as Furutaka and Aoba (70-76mm) and, of course, the various American and Japanese cruisers which had 70-102mm belts. Sacrificing protection to remain within displacement margins and relying on tight subdivision to avoid battle damage was a rea
  11. It does have to be pointed out that there are instances where American battleships were capable of throwing themselves into accelerate - reverse - accelerate, all within a matter of minutes. Though the particular incident's name escapes my mind, one of the Standard-type turbo-electric drive battleships was able to execute an immediate full-power reversal of the screws in order to avoid hitting her predecessor in the line, and apply acceleration again within moments in order to avoid the steam turbine-driven ship behind her (which herself was trying vainly to stop). I don't profess to be an eng
  12. I'd suggest adding the ability to choose the inclination of the belt armour to your list, as well as a tapered armour plate option. Other suggestions to add to the list include - a) Separating the fore and aft extremity belts into two separate sections. They were often not the same, the front section typically being thicker. b) Dividing the turret armour thicknesses more finely. The turret roof and walls in the front were thicker than those in the rear on several designs to optimize weight while remaining within tonnage restrictions (several notable Italian examples). Maybe a d
  13. The 30,000-t small battleship Brünhild. Though her gun calibre is on the small side (9x 305mm), a high speed of 32.5 kts and excellent armour protection coupled with rugged survivability make her capable of withstanding an inordinate amount of punishment. Edit: a more 'period photo' version.
  14. I do have to point out some counterpoints - namely, the fact that what we have is even more limiting. No nation used the exact same guns, like what we have right now, and the European powers and Japan didn't use nice divisors of inches in their metric calculations for artillery. If anything, this makes it more free by allowing you to create more beautiful ships - parts which look like they actually go together since we currently don't get to create the hull, instead of Frankenstein's monster - while also providing maximum flexibility since you can change gun calibres. If you want to be free, t
  15. Now, I do have to point out a couple of things which may be relevant here: - The Conti di Cavour and Andrea Doria classes of Italian Regia Marina did, in fact, have the ability to train their midships triple 305-mm turret through 360 degrees. This is if memory serves me correctly, which I think it does. - It would be interesting for you to note that the deck slope present in Mogami's layout forms a perfect 90-degree angle with the 20-degree sloped belt. - And finally: angling, funnily enough, is a thing. This is probably the kicker for some of you, but it's true. It's not World
×
×
  • Create New...