Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Shiki

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

112 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

111 profile views
  1. What I would like to see from any hotfix patch in the coming days is to also include the French experimental battlecruiser hull - suitably downscaled - to the heavy cruiser category, from 10,500 to 14,000 tons. It's a clear candidate for re-creating classes like the C5 A3 and C5 SA1 proposals, as well as being a better hull for France's cruisers as opposed to something like, say, the downscaled Bismarck and Yamato hulls we have in that category right now.
  2. It's my belief that the average quality of the armour plates may help to explain the difference. The Americans and British simply had higher-quality armour than the Germans were capable of manufacturing (though not the Italians, as Terni Variable-Face-Thickness Cemented was the best shipboard armour to ever go to sea). The reasons for this difference are numerous but we can point out two main factors: the relatively long hiatus in the production of cemented naval armour post-World War I, and Krupp's testing procedures, which appear to have used uncapped AP projectiles. As for the Japanese
  3. 'Questions have been raised as to the wisdom of providing a vertical side belt less than the traditional standard—thickness equal to the bore of the main battery. Gunnery tests of the new composition KC n/A 320-mm armour plate showed that its thickness and resistance capabilities equaled an optimum thickness of 360 mm, but as thickness was increased, little was gained (the point of diminishing return). Krupp considered the thickness of 320 mm to be optimum and 400 mm neared the limit of effective production.' —Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II, Garzke & Duilin (section on t
  4. I believe the penetration table already accounts for angle of fall. They didn't want to move away from the distributed armour scheme because they were concerned with medium-calibre shell holes as well as containing the damage of large calibre shells (see Lützow at the Skagerrak battle). I won't deny that you might have the displacement left over to up-armour the turrets, but it would probably be reinvested back into hull protection (such as in KGV, which also left her turrets and barbettes woefully underprotected). However, I can't necessarily agree with being able to reinvest that weight sole
  5. This isn't exactly true. At the ranges they encountered - the ranges they expected to fight at - no normal belt can be expected to keep out shells. Using German penetration curves, you're looking at a 460 mm cemented belt to break up a 38 cm shell at 15,000 metres, with a target inclination of 20 degrees (385 mm at 30 degrees). The turtleback (böschung in the Kaiserliche Marine- I am uncertain if this designation carried over into the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine) of German battleships like Bayern isn't in any way comparable to - or even remotely used for the same purpose as - the turtleback
  6. Admiral Scheer wants to know your location.
  7. If you're talking hills to die on... There's a joke here - Japanese 'A'-class (i.e. in excess of 7,000 tons prior to 30 May 1931) cruisers were named for mountains. It's funny. Laugh.
  8. Yes and no? Japanese optical (i.e. rangefinders, binoculars, etc.) equipment was sufficiently advanced for its time and almost on par with German optical systems; certainly a bit ahead of Italian, British, and American optical-directed fire control systems, the former being plagued by certain details with regards to cleaning and glare treatment and the latter two for their small size. The primary problem wasn't with the optics, it was with the lack of a stable vertical and the decentralization of the fire process. You could say that - taking the two Pacific juggernauts as the example - that th
  9. Double/triple bottoms don't seem to add oil fuel capacity and neither do the higher levels of SPS (side protection system; the fancy name for torpedo protection), so be sure to include those in your thread.
  10. As before, last Friday of November. Possibly the last Friday of December. Perhaps even the last Friday of January next year. The point is, I'm not holding out for it dropping any time soon.
  11. Modeling interference of shells in flight would require some incredibly complex computing, that would have to take into account a lot of real-world factors (barrel temperature, atmospheric pressure and temperature, humidity, windspeed and direction, etc.). It's much simpler and more efficient to apply an arbitrary percentage reduction, that you can modify as you like.
  12. I have become extraordinarily jaded towards any and all promises of 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' from any game that promises it. We might ask for things, but ultimately, the only way to get something is to do it yourself - hence, I think, the continued insistence on mod support. If they won't give us realistic parameters, we'll just have to make them ourselves.
  13. Not exactly? World of Warships bases a lot of their stuff - well, a lot of the old stuff - on actual designs and ships that existed. Now, the refits they give them (stares hard at Lyon & Normandie) are not always up to the same snuff, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that for at least most of their lines, they have some historical basis. That's what I want, personally. More historical ships, more historical options- give me something that Wargaming can't. Give me the ability to employ ships as they were used, instead of fighting tank battles on the ocean. And by historic
  14. I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically. takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA
  15. But what about Super Alsace No.2 with a standard arrangement of 3x3 431mm instead?
×
×
  • Create New...