Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Shiki

  • Rank

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

95 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. But what about Super Alsace No.2 with a standard arrangement of 3x3 431mm instead?
  5. That's only if we're able to place guns on the rear, which it doesn't look like we'll be able to. Judging from the way it was presented, if we had been offered an Alsace-type hull as well, it would have been shown off along with the all-forward Richelieu model.
  6. Well, we have Yamato, Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina, Bismarck, and now Richelieu... that leaves just King George V, Sovetskii Soyuz, and Littorio for our cadre of modern battleships.
  7. I hope that the weight increase isn't by too much, as the primary historical advantages of the concentration of the armament was that it didn't weigh as much as something like four or five twin turrets, since one could shorten the length of the armoured citadel drastically.
  8. I'll say the last Friday of next month.
  9. 1. It is not a shortsighted tactical consideration in the context of a short war fought with on-hand resources, centred on a single decisive outcome between surface fleets. 2. It is both practical and feasible to go for the larger calibres in the case of the Japanese. As you've pointed out before, Japan's industrial base and resources aren't as sufficiently advanced as the Americans (the product of going from medieval to modern in the span of a decade) so they need the calibre gap to make up the disparity. Additionally, you never once mentioned 46 cm / 18 in. You said explicitly to go to
  10. I'm not attempting to argue whether or not the Japanese were doomed as a result of their decision to go to war with the United States - that's a subject that's been beaten to death and beyond, right into Asphodel. However, the concept of their plan - which you're saying is short-sighted - is a tactical opinion. Unless you've switched tack from the 'decisive battle' to the overall conduct of the war, grand strategy is not in the purview of the discussion. The entire point is, from a technical and tactical point of view, there's no reason to not go for the larger calibre gun if it's feasible.
  11. The range advantage they calculated they had was based on the superiority of their optical equipment and the known ranges of the American Standard-type battleships, which they had been able to observe discreetly during the USN's 'Fleet Problems' of the 1930s. Colorado was the basis of their assumptions, since at that time the North Carolina hadn't been constructed yet (and even during the earliest phases of her design process, was slated to receive 356 mm rather than 406 mm). Even if the U.S. decided to construct new 406-mm-armed battleships - which they knew would become a reality as soon as
  12. You're speaking from the benefit of hindsight, which isn't a good place to start when you're trying to say "from the perspective of the 1930s." In 1936, when the initial requirements for the Yamato class were drafted, the Japanese plan was in no way shortsighted or flawed. The 'decisive combat between surface fleets' was the fundamental doctrine of every major navy going into the late 1930s and early 1940s- and it's worth noting that, had the Americans followed War Plan Orange as they had intended prior to the destruction of their major surface elements at Pearl Harbour, we might well have see
  13. I think the term you're looking for is 'chasing salvoes', a method to frustrate accurate shooting in the days of analogue fire control. As nearly as I remember, it works on the principle that most mechanical FC tables used 'Up' or 'Down' rates, based on visual spotting of the fall of shot; the manoeuvring target would therefore 'chase' the last salvo fired, turning in that direction. If the salvo landed beyond the target, a 'Down' spot would be applied: the ship would then close with the last salvo fired, causing the next salvo to be short and an 'Up' spot applied, and then so on and so forth.
  14. Lacroix & Wells mention it under "Torpedo Ordnance" in Appendix H of Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, p.779-780. As for your other suggestions... yes, I want all of those things too. I'm also a perfectionist and I want everything to be as minutely detailed as possible so that I can build ships the way I want to, right down to the number of lands and twists in a gun barrel.
  15. I mostly want QoL changes. Unsurprisingly, most of them are Ship Designer-oriented, since that's the main selling point to me (and quite possibly a lot of other people). - Options for torpedoes larger than 61-cm / 24in. The Japanese were developing a 72-cm torpedo (11.5 m long, weight 5mt, 850 kg warhead, rated for 54,000 m @ 40 kts) when war broke out and I don't want to be restricted to merely mauling battleships- I want my underwater tactical nukes. - Options to set the loading angle. You could have it be as simple as three: "Semi-fixed", "Fixed", and "All-Angle". The first would
  • Create New...