Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About SpardaSon21

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Another thing to keep in mind is that overall effectiveness of secondary guns is well below what it was IRL. The ancient US 5"/51 got a rate of fire of 8-9 rounds a minute, or a 7.5 second reload rate, and a range of 17km. The 5"/54 introduced in 1945 had a four second reload time, and a maximum naval engagement range of 23.7~ kilometers. The short-barreled 5"/38 reached out to a 16km horizontal engagement range, and looking at the stats in Custom Battle a 5" Mark 5 has a maximum range of 12.7km and a fire rate You can, with a single barrel, triple-base propellant, autoloading, and light a
  2. Agreed. I've seen some very odd effects when firing pure HE against heavy armor in custom battles. Apparently you completely destroy a ship's machinery rooms with nothing but HE impacts to the belt... and somehow not a single lick of water will have been let inside the ship at the same time!
  3. There are two issues. First, speed by itself is a hefty accuracy penalty when you're trying to target a ship, when in reality going fast in a straight line just made you no more difficult of a target, only the ability to rapidly shift direction and throw off the gunners would be important. As a result a destroyer is safer moving in a straight line than it would be IRL. Secondly, torpedoes need a significant aiming time no different from gunfire, with even tighter demands on accuracy since you're not going to be able to correct your aim for a second volley. I don't believe that last part is
  4. Oh, I'm somewhat familiar with them, but they were purely paper concepts even less realistic than the American Maximum Battleship plans submitted at the request of Sen. Tillman since those at least had some restrictions on their size as a result of the Panamax limits. As far as I'm concerned the H-class designs are the naval equivalent of the Ratte, and should be treated with as much seriousness. But hey, why not go all the way and let the USA lay down 80,000 ton hulls with six-gun turrets in 1917 if the Germans get to build the H-44? Same reasoning, right? EDIT:
  5. I'm sorry. I must be the only person here who's seen AI-made ships in custom battle with 4x4 18" or larger guns then. For Christ's sake man, anything over 80,000 tons at full load is over the top. Even the Yamatos and their nine 18.1" guns only topped out at 73k metric tons. EDIT: Am I the only one who thinks its utterly ridiculous that 130k metric ton hulls even exist for a game that's supposed to end in the 1940's? That's a full third again what a modern-day Gerald R. Ford CVN displaces.
  6. Yeah, its funny how despite having "Dreadnoughts" in the name of the game the Devs are strangely reluctant to touch that time period, or anything sooner.
  7. That's fair. I still want them to do something about the deck pen, as well as resistance. Those seem to be the two major complaints right now.
  8. What the hell sort of 1930 design is this?12" guns, 8" secondary turrets, 7" casemates, a lone 4" turret in the middle on a barbette, and 2" guns shoved in tight as can be next to the barbettes.
  9. That frequently happened IRL, actually. The steeper the relative angle, the much greater the chances the AP cap would failingly fail (as opposed to successfully failing as intended). The 16"/50 got very, very close with 53.3, and the US 6"/47 was over that at 58, the 8"/55 at 54.3 when using SHAP. Regardless, both ranges and velocities in-game are well below what they should be. A 16" Mark 3 gun with Triple Base, TNT IV, and Super-Heavy has a range of 32.2km (34,995 yards) and a muzzle velocity of 719 m/sec (2,358 FPS), or far lower than the 16"/50 or even the 16"/45. And the USA wa
  10. Sure, and I'm not arguing specifically against that. What I am arguing is that the developers have made dubious decisions extrapolating hulls under evaluation for the IRL threat level to the greatly expanded one in UAD. The closest one came IRL to the amount of shell weight being chucked around in 1940 in UAD would be the US Maximum Battleships, the biggest of which were 72,600 tonne proposals in 1917, and equipped with 16" of belt armor, 15 18" guns, and a top speed of 25.2 knots. Frankly the fact the USN thought they could get that level of firepower, speed, and armor in under 80,000 metr
  11. Again, an 11% detonation chance, and only on one specific rack. I'll give you that I should have been more specific, but since the official word is that even just stacking the shells a certain way prevents a full ammo detonation, it should arguably have a reduced detonation chance over TNT. Especially since Explosive D is less explosive than TNT in the first place. God, I love NavWeaps.
  12. I didn't even mention Iowa for the reason it was so late to roll out of the slipways. I was primarily thinking about the North Carolinas and their successors in the South Dakota class. The Nagatos had been extensively and expensively modernized, and the Yamatos were assumed to have 16" guns (of course they didn't, but the Japanese had done a very, very good at keeping everything about them secret). Also, @Nick ThomadisI hope you don't mind the ping, but I have another document for you on US Explosive D shells: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-093.pdf Testing in the 8
  13. I'd argue that a major reason resistance is the biggest factor with modern ships is because of the preponderance of 18"+ cannons. It is very difficult to impossible to armor against those, even using ZoI. We have realistic hulls (to an extent...) but unrealistic firepower. The pride of the Kriegsmarine in the 1940's were a couple of 15" armed battleships with armor schemes older than Jutland. Italy's Littorios? 3x3 15" guns. The Dunkerques? 8 13" guns. We have modern hulls designed to stop gun calibers that were on their way out the door even before WW1 ended. Except of course, the pu
  14. That's because you can't put 5" guns in those top casemates, IIRC. Only 4" guns, and so the AI maximizes its firepower. Not like there's no reason to do that since there's no such thing as splash confusion, unlike IRL. Errmm.... Granted its far, far heavier than the South Carolinas themselves were, but its also far faster and has better armament. Keep in mind that in 1911 only the USN had switched over to an all-centerline, superfiring armament for their BB's. The German Helgoland had four wing turrets (two per side) and only two centerlines, and even the British St. Vincent class
  15. I would like to point out that Bismarck only lasted so long because Rodney and her 16" guns closed to point-blank range and raked Bismarck with HE, intending to cripple, not sink her. KGV and her 14"s hung back at range, firing plunging shots of AP that were again, intended to cripple and debilitate, not sink her. By the time of her final battle she was a limping, wounded beast, and the British wanted vengeance, not just victory, after Hood was sunk, which is why they did the naval equivalent of slowly beating a wounded lion to death with wooden clubs. Given that Yamato's 18.1
  • Create New...