Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Woodrow

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Woodrow

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm very curious arkhangelsk can you provide historical examples where shafts had snapped under such maneuvers? When you disagreed with my historical examples posted earlier, you mentioned SHP as the driving factor. I disagree with this, mainly on the premise that properly designed systems will have matched components. That 3000 SHP destroyer will not have a shaft and screw that would be appropriate for say a battleship of a much larger power output. Put into terms of cars, you could drop the clutch with a matched system with say 200 BHP for a quick takeoff (not so great for the transmissi
  2. To arkhangelsk, I easily found two more historical books regarding the use of full reverse from a full head of steam in the direct attempt to avoid torpedoes in war time. One book called "British Destroyer vs German Destroyer:Narkiv 1940" https://books.google.com/books?id=jw5kDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=reverse+engine+to+avoid+torpedoes&source=bl&ots=nopNKsdws0&sig=ACfU3U0ycq9wHcdH2k9AYuzFTq3mWXtcVw&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWwsC70_7nAhVKrZ4KHfyWCOUQ6AEwEXoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=reverse engine to avoid torpedoes&f=false And "Notes o
  3. I don't believe that is correct, a quick search yielded the following: From the book: International Marine Engineering page 365: "A most efficient method of direct reversing is employed by which the engine is automatically slowed down before the reverse action takes place. By thus provided effective cushioning the wear and tear which is likely to occur by reversing is avoided." Next from a business insider article regarding a near collision between a US & a Russian warships in 2019 titled 'Russia blames a US warship for a near collision, but a naval expert is poking holes i
  4. I'm going to agree that this scenario is driving me nuts. I managed to make a BC with 8x2 18" with Heavy Shells (going for gun tech boost) with 40kn speed. What usually happens? These stupid stern pursuits. How absurd are these pursuits? Well, I managed to chase bot the BB and the CA given both extensive damage, they are down to 18kn speed while my speed has been reduced to 35 . I decide to finish of the CA first ( he has a max of 8.5" armor). I literally drive my BC up his stern shooting with %10 acc, scoring hits, and most surprisingly, getting a good amount of deflections too, on a h
  5. Actually, it is no longer representative. On 06-Oct-2019, Nick Thomadis in the thread ">>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<" under the "Shipyard Discussions" said the following: " The Auto-Designer is made in a way that player can easily understand what to do, create his ship fast and send it to combat. Making the system even more detailed, with cut parts (we tried that) would raise so many questions about usability for players, even ourselves the developers, that the game would lose a lot of its playability. We will add several more design options but not cut parts. Much lat
  6. New to this game, very much enjoy it so far, but I've found an oddity that defies physics. When selecting shell weight, the trade off from selecting a heavier shell is reduced muzzle velocity but an increase in range. From a physics perspective (and anyone the reloads and shoots firearms regularly could tell you) weight of the projectile itself does not increase or decrease range. All things being equal, only two factors affect projectiles range: 1) Muzzle Velocity & 2) Ballistic Coefficient (how much drag a projectile has). Again, with small arms and large rifles, your limitations on
×
×
  • Create New...