draconins
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by draconins
-
-
On 9/21/2020 at 3:11 AM, TsAGI said:
I know Bismarck knocked her radar clean off with the blast of her 15" guns
The search radar specifically, not whole radar set. Other including FCS were intact until the tower being destroyed by direct fire in later action.
On 9/21/2020 at 3:11 AM, TsAGI said:Did Japan have that problem too?
IJN knew the blast effect early on, and many of its equipment placed, hardened, tested, or shielded for this problem. There was a 28 October 1942 Musashi test trial, which include the testing of newly equipped radar, (not september 1942 as some other source says). During the trials the radar display is damaged by gun blast. This was fixed by at least November for second trial on 28 November 1942. No further report of blast damage on radar in Yamato or Musashi after this. Source http://www.combinedfleet.com/musashi.htm
Also most Yamato radar antenna and primary FCS set is very high compared to Bismarck. Bismarck's first and third radar sits relatively low about 3m above and 15m behind turret, while second is approximately 15m above turret. For comparison, Yamato the prominent search radar sits approximately 20 meter above top of turret and 20m behind the turret. Blast pressure measured during trials at Kamegakubi test range was 7.0 kg/cm2 (100 psi) at a point 15 m (50 feet) in front of the muzzle.
-
On 9/20/2020 at 2:19 AM, Steeltrap said:
The performance of capital ships was studied extensively by the navy that built them, including trials on ranges to determine turning circles, rates of advance in turns of varying sharpness of rudder applied as observed in test ranges designed to gather exactly those sorts of numbers, and a whole host of other things besides. It ought not be difficult to apply the generally understood performance characteristics to the various 'historical' hulls that are in the game plus have some general principles based on power plants etc.
Cheers
(source of info re RN war games plus HMS Hood's specific handling characteristics http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs4.htm )
While I generally agree that ships does not have linear acceleration like you said, it can be difficult to actually fully emulate historical values in the game. This is as engine and hull actually have different performance on different speed. Some hull form may not have fully known information.
For example IRL, Yamato, we don't know for example what is the bulbous bow design speed for Yamato, is it in intended for cruising speed or for top speed? This is as bulbous bow generally have specific handling characteristic which make the ship more efficient for specific speed but may be worse for another. Not counting even Musashi which is to my knowledge has even better reported sea keeping than Yamato.
Furthermore various ships which had different characteristic before and after refit of Torpedo protection (which can actually become better or worse). Further, ship with different propeller count, position, and design can have drastically different performance (due to interaction between propeller). For this try to look http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-036.php and see section about triple shaft mainly on German battleship.
I believe to some degree this is actually have been in the game in form of engine efficiency. Though I am don't know whether this have non-linear curve or not. I think UAD can offer various curve option in engine or simply add same curve for all engine, but I think it can complicate things.
-
Can you take screenshot how your ships launched your torpedoes? you will need to attack from multiple direction in this mission
-
On 9/13/2020 at 4:15 AM, Draco said:
OK guys, we gotta talk about the german bias.
Why are german battleship HP pools so ridiculously high? This guy ended up taking 300 pens and another 100 overpens, and when I had shot all 1215 (max ammo) superheavy 16" shells at him and done over 4.5k damage he was still well above half HP. Standard bulkheads, armour scheme 3 so not even turtleback, only 99k displacement so far from as big as they come, and as you can see I had a good 98% hit chance and about 45% pen chance for the most of the engagement, which was mostly fought at 25-17km dist.
300 pens... and how many pens did he need to bring me down to the same 60-ish % of structural integrity? 35...
300 pens vs 35... As you can see in the image that translates to 875 HP on my Iowa style battleship, meanwhile the german H-class I was fighting had taken over 4.5k damage at the end of the fight and was still above 60% integrity, which means that If you measure them directly against each other, that would mean the Iowa style battleship starts out with about 1/6th of the total HP of the H-class it is fighting here when all factors are accounted for, in spite of only being a quarter smaller displacement wise. I mean sure, german ships like bismarck were notoriously hard to sink, but as mentioned this guys isn't even rocking proper turtleback...
I just think this is ridiculous.
Can I have your battle configuration, or is this naval academy mission? Do you know the armor thickness configuration? Your 98.6 is basically for at least 1 hit for all 9 guns, however more than half of your hit is Ricochet (104hit) based on stat on top right, hover on the icon to see the details. Also your enemy is super armored, it has like 10.3 to 50.1 inch armor (with quality), so it would be quite difficult to brought down even when angled correctly. Depending on their armor configuration, you may need to either fight at closer range (if belt is weaker) or longer range (if deck is weaker), in your case very likely you need to fight longer range.
-
Another check to my library, and the one I use did mentioned that the protection on aft steering is considered outside citadel. From Anatomy of The Ship Battleship Iowa, pg 12
I also scanned the armor arrangement scan from later page as part of configuration should be clearer than the one shared by @disc
-
1
-
-
This looks good! Thank you for the update, especially for the formation!
Question in this formation control:
- would player be able to assign location for the subformation? For example assigning some group destroyer on say 45degree forward portside, or assigning it 30 degree portside? or it is more like automatic and fixed?
- whether player can still break ships into different formation in different direction? I mean splitting for example say some group of ships to east some group to west? as the formation changes sounds like you instead controlling big ship formation
- how you control "u-turn" for the formation and large group formation, can you do "one by one" and "simultaneous" turn?
- Will detaching ship from formation would also "unselect" other ship from formation? I mean currently after detaching you need to reselect the ship before assigning command otherwise you still includes original ships in the formation
-
1 hour ago, OochyCoo said:
Thanks for the input Draconins - a long time since I looked at the pacific campaigns - it was good to re-read these two accounts. Not sure if this proves what I mean though - it was only truly effective either from planes, subs or perhaps as in this case when using Japanese long lance torpedoes. The American torpedoes were deemed either defective or launched out of range (not sure if that was ever concluded satisfactorily). If you tried to re-enact either battle in the game chances are pretty much every torpedo from both sides will have caused enormous damage with both sides probably losing over 50% of the ships.
As an example I just completed the torpedo banzai mission by sinking two US battleships (out of a fleet with 3bb 1bc 2cl 9dd) with 7 Japanese destroyers (although I did lose 6 of them).
Torpedoes still effective in certain condition, it is just there are tech to make it less useful or more useful. Even in prior WW1 "destroyer" originally created to counter torpedo boat, as torpedo attack is dangerous to capital ships. It was originally "torpedo boat destroyer".
IJN invested and train heavily for torpedoes hence their torpedoes really powerful. In real life though some aspect is less useful due to technology, for example radar make ambushing using torpedoes difficult. Please do not judge all torpedoes just by WWII US torpedoes, if US torpedoes mishap in the game, you won't hit anything with those torps, or even when hit it would not explode, and this would just cause too much frustration to player akin what happen to US submariner in WW2.
Also do not forget, even large guns are less effective in WW2 in many condition, it would better to just send planes and submarines. However radar did help to improve some aspect of gunnery. I do not know say if IJN press forward with Yagi radar early on, would that making ambush more likely? Or if they managed say to make guided torps?
I have tried torpedoes in the game, honestly I find it is inaccurate and often time I really annoyed with the way of torp launch right now, it is actually very difficult to target general area correctly (ever try hitting circling ship?) and I really want a button to force launch. It does not mean you will not get hit, but simply just more difficult. Torpedo banzai specifically it is supposed to be ambush scenario, and not helped by the way the AI control the fleet, though arguably if the US fleet is controlled by human, this mission become extremely difficult as human know they will be attacked.
My problem with current torps in UAD is basically the modelling, you can make a ship basically array of torps with high reload while real life torps has weight and size. There is discussion already on this. However on other side, right now in UAD destroyers is rather useless without these reloadable torps, due to availability role in UAD.
-
Owari is indeed second named Kii class, however third and fourth planned were Suruga and Omi, though not yet had formal "naming". Both are old provinces of Japan. In english wiki this is not present, but checking japanese wiki, it is there https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/紀伊型戦艦 . Also in https://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_kii.htm.
The name itself indeed used in the future as Minesweeper and Supply ship. Suruga itself is another possible name for the improved Yamato. Other possible names are Harima and Iyo, both to my knowledge never used in Japanese military ship.
On reusing the name IJN probably can, but likelihood is low given relatively "new" the naming standard at the time, and as I said there are too many names still not yet used, not to mention IJN has some names which is almost being used but cancelled. IJN may even actually planned use Owari for that, but yes this is speculation. However, I believe Shikishima is kind of bad speculation and mainly I do not want confusion in UAD with the old actual class Shikishima, if they somehow make premade library for it. Historical reuse for IJN I can remember were Azuma, Kongou, Fuso, Hiei, Ryujo, but those were ironclads. Those name were reused in completely different vessel and military era, Ryujo and Azuma not even following the convention. Shikishima is also basically still used as training though already stricken but not scrapped until after the war. From available previous name, it would rather make more sense to reuse Asahi (sunk since 1942) as it is another poetic name for Japan, the name itself is now reused twice already by after war Japan .
On the topic of big gun I think while it is nice to have I would rather the main issues (especially formation) fixed and other main features added first. This large gun probably can be added relatively easy as minor update but likely mostly imply increasing cosmetic size and stat. And even prior this, the quad guns.
Nonetheless bigger gun is nice once they begin working into tech higher than 1940, eg 1945.
For the thread starter, sorry for being off-topic.
-
4 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Shikishima
No it isn't. The name has been used before, Japanese BB's are named after provinces or alternate names of japan, i guess you can use mountains as well but those were for battlecruisers and CV's (1943).
Sorry I don't understand what do you mean here? What I am saying is that Shikishima is lead class already existing ships. I had many referring to name of Kii or Omi as possible name either for 4th Yamato or new A-150, and the names were already planned to be used for cancelled ships. Both were old provinces of Japan and does fit into convention.
4 hours ago, Cptbarney said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ship-naming_conventions
Fourth name for the yammy would of been izumo, settsu. if we go by how the ships were named (yamato central province, musashi east sea, shinano east mountain, next probs would of been echigo or wakaza if we go by the order they did it in).
Also reusing names has been thing for a long time now, theres only soo many names you can use before having to reuse them, shikashima is fine, but i prefer settsu or echigo. Fits in nicer.
Based on what Wakaza being suggested? I have heard Echigo but that was mainly fandom, but i read this was suggested as 5th Yamato (Kai Yamato), planned as improved shinano/Yamato, referred as hull 797, this was superseded by A-150 design. Battleship Settsu already used and actually active as "target ship" during world war II, so I doubt it would be using this name. If you use wiki, Kii is even listed as 4th Yamato in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato-class_battleship
Also I am pretty sure that Izumo would not be used, she is active cruiser/training ship (from 1943) at world war II.
For name, I think they can repeat but there are so many old provinces name has not yet been used. Even just old name of japan many has not yet been used, for example
- Oyashima/Yashima
- Akitsukuni
- Mizuho (this actually used even for a seaplane carrier)
- Hinomoto
Also Fujimi made Kii as name for their model for A-150.
-
While I love to have this, I think this should be part of future minor update. However I have complaint if Shikishima name being used, as it is very fictional name for A150, and only used in WoW to my knowledge. This is especially more so for a ship which already lead for the class for pre dreadnought battleship which is covered in timeline of UAD.
Most reference of probable actual name A-150 would be either Omi or Kii. Kii basically a planned lead ship name which is originally planned for other old ship though it was cancelled due to washington treaty. Omi is another name in that class which was cancelled. Kii is also probable name of cancelled fourth Yamato class.
-
2
-
-
Naval ops does not model the heavy armor extending the citadel for protecting underwater stern, it only uses the citadel proper only at waterline, similar how you don't usually use term citadel for the Barbette protection extending upward. For the percentage, I only remembered from the reference mentioning it before, I simply don't remember where, I may be wrong too though in this part I remembered when I read this, I was surprised that the number matched how naval ops model the VP. This is also why I said not to use hardcoded 53%, it is simply limiting and you may want make "monster" ship. And yes, in many definition citadel does include those transverse bulkhead.
Just for fun to I checked diagram of side drawing Yamato, if you just based on side drawing, it would instead yield 47-48%ish, even with extended angled citadel.
And probably the correct term what we refer as turtleback is incremental armor,as usually turtleback only protected top, not adding belt armor.
-
On 8/27/2020 at 5:51 AM, Steeltrap said:
First up, Damage Model and Damage Control
(more topics to come when I gather materials etc)
I and many others have been on about the crazy level of protection afforded simply by loading up MAX bulkheads for close to a year, but I'll point it out again just to be sure nobody has any doubts about the nature of the problem.
Witness our favourite, the Zombie Tranport:
So, there it is with flooding IN EVERY SINGLE COMPARTMENT. The damage log is limited in size but I assure you there were more hits (I drove up to it at about 1.3km with 3 x 2x6" guns firing at it).
I stopped firing so as to capture the issue. Here it is a few minutes later:
Floatation is now up to 56% (an increase of 19 on 37, or a 50% RELATIVE improvement in a matter of minutes).
During what can only be imagined as an exciting time for the crew, they ALSO managed to repair Engine 1.
Do I need to explain WHY I have issues with this?
While I generally agree that the damage modelling can be more realistic, I disagree in your specific battle screenshot, as you basically over pen nearly everything, in close range where trajectory is almost flat. I don't believe this is simply issue of of damage modelling nor about bulkheads. You are shooting above waterline. If you are shooting from farther away, I think it is more believable.
This is a good reason to use even smaller guns with low angle capability, especially in the larger warship you use. Of course in real life the warship supposed to hit the waterline with smaller gun as bigger gun does not have low enough depression usually, so some guns in real life do have minimum range. Even in smaller gun, elevation of 2 degrees can have 4 km range with near flat trajectory. This is also why small gun often put on "pedestal" or on outer edge of the ship. Otherwise also smaller gun is useless.
Of course in real life there is of case of spalling, or dead crew, or electrical damage, or something important above waterline damaged, or even some flamable cargo/fuel, but I think this is too much to ask for current stage of game. And even in real world, over penetration is real issue. To be fair, in real life most transport ship would generally surrender, and even then warship would keep distance and instead send boarding party (as suicide bombing/ramming can be issue).
-
On 8/31/2020 at 9:38 AM, OochyCoo said:
Generally I think there is an issue with torpedoes - the gunnery side of things mostly works quite well - but torpedoes just seem to be overly accurate and too damaging in comparison. And i mean from both sides of the coin here - you can use them and sink a ton of enemy ships and you can also fall victim to the same. I'm not aware of any major sea battle where torpedoes were so decisive, except where aircraft were involved.
Battle of Savo Island and Battle of Tassafaronga
On 9/3/2020 at 7:42 PM, shieldy44 said:well I only have 2 Naval Academy missions left and one of them is Dreadnought vs Modern Cruisers and im the only one that voted on it lol. So if anyone that has gotten past it has some advice i would love to hear what you did.
Pay attention to your gun size "Mk xx" the higher the better your accuracy is, in that mission I would recommend boost tech, and try to use 13 and 14 inch guns (10+ guns recommended) with best accuracy possible, so you want best stereo rangefinder, but you do not need best bridge towers. Increasing shell weight can help. Make sure at least you prep your armor against 12-14 inch guns. Initially try to "kite away", try to maintain long range battle initially (15km-25 km) but keeping accuracy level above 5% (in fact set to save) and damage the BCs as much as possible. The BCs will slow down due to damage and basically fall behind formation (switch when needed), if you are lucky they would even sunk in this long range. Once the BCs fall behind then you would want to be a bit closer to CAs but not too close (10-15km, make sure your armor would protect you against the CA, but maintain relatively higher accuracy). Your guns should be able to finish off the CA due to higher accuracy and bigger guns. You do need to occasionally change direction if CA launched torpedoes. Then you can pick one by one of the enemy BC, sometimes they even do not have ammo for their big gun anymore by this point. In general, target whichever ship which your guns accuracy is higher and low richochet probability.
In most engagement you want to be face away and ahead of enemy ships. Enemy ships in this mission mostly not that accurate, and sometimes can't even target you beyond 20 km. If you do it right you don't need anti torpedo. I can even afford not using secondary guns and use increased ammo count instead. You will be hit by BC's larger gun occasionally but maintaining long range should reduce damage as fighting long range force lower accuracy on their side.
I prefer fewer superships (and mostly use only 1 ship) than many small ships due to how bad the formation in this game, however that can also work but likely you want fighting at closer range, less deck armor. In that case choose more funds and smaller ships. This can work especially if the enemy has no torps.
-
I think the changing difficult mode is not yet implemented, that is what it mean by "it does not change anything". I believe you can change difficulty in the future for individual mission hence button is there for each mission. At the moment, it does not matter.
-
On 8/27/2020 at 8:09 AM, Entropy Avatar said:
It seems like it would relatively simple for the game to change how it calculates which sections are covered by main belt and deck. Instead of the main belt always being the central 3 and the extended being the outer 4, you say that any segment with a primary turret or an engine is covered with main belt and deck. If you decide to cover your entire ship with primary turrets, congrats, everything is covered by main belt and deck (and you pay the cost in terms of weight and dollars).
I also support this, though I would like UAD to use similar concept used by game Naval Ops warship gunner, in which the length of citadel should basically determined by furthest weapon which need to pierce the deck, this includes main gun, however this is not limited to main gun, some large sized secondary should be part of this. This is visualized in Naval Ops as "Vital Points/Percentage", which determines length of the "citadel" compared to length of the ship. That game calculates whether you have All of Nothing or Turtleback based on how high you VP. If it is 53% or lower it is basically AON (described as core armor) with hit on bow and stern causing more status damage but you get 20% lighter armor. If VP is higher, it is basically turtleback (described as full length armor). I once read somewhere that the highest VP for historical AON ship is 53%, the Yamato, so i believe this is based on that. Do remember there is no "pure" AON ship as pure AON would basically vulnerable to small arms fire or even blast for your own gun.
I think using this concept probably better than citadel always in central 3, though I would not recommend the measure of using 53% as hardcoded value between AON and full length. UAD should use existing separation between main armor and extended armor. I do expect, when you choose AON, if you set same value of main and extended armor, the weight and protection level should be basically similar with turtleback.
-
I voted for "Something in between, enemies should follow a certain rule of design that does not variate so much. "
Don't make it completely random, that would make your the mission description useless, which is what already happen. Some randomness needed not only for replayability but also give some challenge, however complete random make it hard for many player to design ship matching the situation. Theoretically you can make "fixed" design historical mission in easy/normal mode, while some randomness in harder mode (current setting is already hard mode).
Current randomness can make some mission extremely hard if you are unlucky, simply because of RNG giving say 20 km torps CA/DD escorting 16+inch guns BB with anti 16+inch plating (belt/deck), with extreme accuracy, with player ship practical design limit of say 12-14 incher. This is while at other time your enemy is 14incher, thin armor, with escort DD with 5km torps. In fact the easiest way to differentiate between easy, normal, and hard probably range of design allowed with enemy ship.
Additionally, you may be able to even add mode where the enemy is picking from "design library", this may even useful for historical mode.
-
2 hours ago, SonicB said:
I'm not trying to ram, I'm simply trying to get ships to maintain formation and not get stupidly out of place because of over-sensitive collision avoidance.
Example: on the 'Prove your Might' mission I just played, I get two destroyers which spawn in the middle of the convoy. I immediately order them to head towards the enemy. The first one heads in the right direction... the second would have passed just behind a merchant ship if it maintained course, but instead turned into the merchant trying to pass ahead of it. This caused a completely avoidable collision and the second DD to turn in a full circle until I took control of it manually. Meanwhile any chance of a co-ordinated torpedo attack from both DDs is gone.
I think you may be talking about a different bug which I haven't personally encountered, but which sounds equally annoying in a different way.I see, yes it is different problem. Yeah I think they kind of always trying to pass ahead and often caused some collision/confusion that way, and indeed seems more prevalent in this version.
-
15 hours ago, SonicB said:
I've found myself having to use manual rudder so much more since this update, because ships are far too sensitive about collision avoidance.
I think your use case is different, are you trying to ram or something? My problem was some ship (especially DDs), after long play, basically circling forever, and no matter what direction of command I set (including both direction command and go to location command) did not work (in formation or detached), even when my rudder is not damaged. This is unless I manually set rudder, and even then f I set the rudder manually for a while, if I return it to "automatic" it will go back to circling forever.
I kind of understand that you need manual control if you are trying to tell to ram, but yes using rudder for this purpose might not be helpful. Nonetheless I actually now have less circling compared to before.
-
I would say I think I like this Alpha v76, as it reduced instances of crippling forever circling destroyer, which need manual rudder set, which usually plague once mission time goes few hours. Circling itself still happening but seems it is no longer require me to set rudder manually, instead I can detach, set some command, then attach it back later usually solve this. It is tedious but there at least it is workable.
Previously it is game breaking as setting rudder on many ships is very annoying, especially when I already in the game for few hours. This helped me complete remaining academy missions, especially last 2 missions which I had so many instances of it happening in alpha v74 and 75.
-
1
-
-
I just realized in some academy mission, when you sink some number of ships (quite a lot), retreat (or set retreat path) and wait till timeout in some mission which requires x% enemy ship sunk, sometimes you are considered winning. This is instead game immediately ends once required number of enemy sunk (usually). I notice this behavior for "Contest in the black sea", "Torpedo Banzai" and a few other.
- Is this correct behavior of the game? I mean sink some number of ships then retreat, instead of continue playing until mission screen ends
- If this is correct behavior, is there and indication in mission screen that you can retreat instead of continue sinking? I thought this is for "keep alive x% of allies", but "Battle of destroyers", where I sunk the CL and many DD, then game ends instead requiring me to retreat. I know there is still few other DD out there.
- As I have difficulties to keep track on how many ships since there is no after screen/mission report, so I guess I would like at least to have some kind of mission summary, will we have mission report in future? I think the basic screen is fine at least in current stage.
- Also probably need to have in game screen displaying how many I actually sunk, even when the ship is unidentified.
I notice this especially in some destroyer mission where I have difficulties tracking remaining target ships, then when finding the last ship, I managed to win even before destroying this last ship. Usually I would just restart battle before timeout, if I say lack of ammo/torps, no way to fight.
Additionally I think Alpha v76 reduced instances of crippling forever circling destroyer, which need manual rudder set, which usually plague once mission time goes few hours. Some circling still happening but seems it is no longer forcing me to set rudder manually, detaching can help even when it is tedious, previously it is game breaking as setting rudder on many ships are very annoying. Usually when it happened I basically just restart. This helped me completed the 47/47 academy missions, especially last 2 missions, so happy about it!
-
Enemy BB had thick armor but you can beat them on close range, 5-10 km is close enough for 12 inch to hit and penetrate often, arming your ship with 10" is too small in my opinion, and all reported working design above uses 12 inch.
You need bulkhead to shrug torpedoes, all designs above use "many" bulkhead.
For tactic, I assume the tactics were turning to the left I gave in picture? The cruiser indeed very fast but it is a convoy with the battleship as lead, and they would mostly stay behind the battleship in my tests if you turn left/west+northwest (not so if you turn right/northeast). The torps should not reach you if you are turning the way I described, as it is not a straight line path, direct line path would be torpedoed easily. By the end of your turn, you would be about side to side with enemy BB (I prefer slightly ahead). I don't need "super-fast" battleship since I timed my turn so I am slightly ahead. Before the enemy battleship slowed down by the damage, torpedo launch should come behind you and should be easier to evade and you can sacrifice the DD for detecting the torps from behind or as shield. As you can see already the torpedoes from several miles, you should be able to avoid it. Additionally, Darth Glorious actually screenshot the tactic step by step, albeit the turn ended slightly behind, which is not a problem for Darth Glorious' superfast ship. The goal is splitting enemy battleship from the escorts.
As mentioned above, I found allied BB is useless as it is often very underarmored and undergunned, It can beat the CAs but not going toe to toe with enemy BB, but feel free to try. Try also Darth Glorious' design, especially Darth Glorious' as the design uses faster ship which may be easier for you. My design uses slower ship but harder to sink, it can absorb a few torpedoes, which indeed will occasionally hit you, especially once you slow the battleship down.
-
Definite example for actual reload by IJN ship is at least Battle of Kolombangara by Yukikaze's group under Captain Yoshima Shimai
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy-c21.html
QuoteThe Japanese account of the action says that their destroyers ‘withdrew for a while’ to the northwestward and, after reloading their torpedo-tubes in the remarkably short space of eighteen minutes, they ‘reversed course and proceeded to the scene of the action’.
Same account in Breaking the Bismarck Barrier page 187, and this also reference previous battle of Kula Gulf:
QuoteNevertheless, all the "bastards" except Jintsu were doing very well. The destroyer transports had retired unseen along Kolombangara shore. Mikazuki seems to have stood by the cruiser for a few minutes then tried to catch up with the other destroyers of the support group. These, under the command of Captain Shimai in Yukikaze, scampered up the slot as soon as they had emptied their torpedo tubes. There, in a convenient rain squall, they reloaded their tubes in the remarkably fast time of 18 minutes. At Kula Gulf, as we have seen, their sister ships had taken over an hour to reload.
Be also aware the Kula gulf battle referenced in quote above is basically the Mutsukis and Fubukis, which only have first version of torpedo reload equipment. There is significant upgrade in Akatsuki then another upgrade on Hatsuharu. In Battle of Kolombangara, Shimai's group (Yukikaze, Hamakaze, Kiyonami and Yugure) are basically later destroyer. Mikazuki did not reload.
I think there is another battle which IJN specifically report that they reloaded their torpedo as a group but I don't remember which one.
On doctrine there is reference on change of doctrine http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-067.php:
QuoteFor example, up until about half-way through the Solomons Campaign, Japanese doctrine was to fire half of their ready torpedoes in one salvo, empty the tubes with the next and then withdraw to reload. About mid-1943, they appear to have abandoned this doctrine in favor of flushing the tubes on the first salvo, then withdrawing to reload.
-
2
-
-
Agree, most if not all ships except IJN WW2 ships store reload torpedoes exposed (either completely or with some weather protection), depending on "plan/situation/availability" they can differ in practice on how many actually carried, even within IJN. Specific to Leningrad, I don't really know whether they stopped the practice on wartime, though I think I read that it can carry full reload instead of just half.
I think we should agree that reload is not something should be prevented entirely, but need to be managed somehow, and best way is to make it a rendered component which has
- Weight, and space according to size of torpedoes .
- Reload time and armor based on whether you have dedicated armored reload equipment or just simple rack.
To make even more complex you can even make version of the reload equipment with varying reload time and cost, mostly without changing "assets", as IRL IJN had several version of reload equipment which is mostly enclosed and armored hence they can use same asset.
Of course the reload equipment cost, space and weight need to be reasonable enough to encourage their use.
-
2
-
I was playing in Alpha 75 (basically current version at time of writing), and I just checked again.
Just to make sure, are you using "Balanced tech" , with:
- cheap towers (modern tower I and rear tower VII),
- two of tall funnel II with balanced boiler
- No acoustics or radio
- Basic hydraulic turret
For your benefit I screenshot the other part, try to compare the weight and cost on right side to quickly find where you overshoot.
Also this design is very optimized to weight and cost limit, so if there is balancing in future there might be need some adjustment however the concept should work well if gameplay still similar. For example, radar honestly does not really matter much
Japanese 20inch (510mm) guns
in General Discussions
Posted
I assume positioning of radar? If you have correctly scaled drawing of Yamato and Bismarck, and know the positions of the radars you can measure its position. The search radars actually prominent enough. You can use anatomy of the ship book for both of them (Anatomy of the ship : Janusz Skulski and Bismarck: Stefan Draminski and Anatomy of the ship: Battleship Bismarck by Stefan Draminski). The Yamato one has new edition with some additional (and some removed) called Battleships Yamato and Musashi (Anatomy of The Ship).
Both are physical books, and not really lengthy as it is mostly drawings. For Yamato drawing though, I prefer "Super Illustration: Imperial Japanese Navy Battleship Yamato". The scale drawing for external look is larger and more detailed. However if your interest is on internal layout, the anatomy of the ship series would be much better.
If you mean about blast pressure of Yamato guns, you can see http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php.