sail in reverse

[Razaiakou]

I wish they would make it so you could reverse the directions of the screws so you could slow down faster and back up

Edited November 18, 2019 by Razaiakou

[HusariuS]

Yes, but you know that ships have ability to reverse?

Developers doesn't have reason to add this option because there is no need for that, we are sailing in the middle of ocean.

It would be nice but for now it's just waste of time for them.

I'm sure they add ability for reverse, when they will add some coastal battles, where are many small islands etc.

[Hellstrike]

3 hours ago, HusariuS said:

because there is no need for that, we are sailing in the middle of ocean.

It would be very useful for evading torpedoes.

[Koro]

1 hour ago, Hellstrike said:

It would be very useful for evading torpedoes.

This. Being able to stop the ship faster would be great. 

[rapa pott]

like this?

Sorry, i cant resist. Everytime i hear something like "sailing in reverse", i remember Word of Warships. Half of ships driving backwards and kill the atmosphere. Doesnt looks like a battle rather than rubberducks wich are fooling around.

Edited November 18, 2019 by rapa pott

[Cptbarney]

Yes as this will be vital for any bow tanking ship or ships that focus on bow on armament only.

[Diabolic_Wave]

45 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yes as this will be vital for any bow tanking ship or ships that focus on bow on armament only.

Bowtanking is quite silly, though. In reality, relatively flimsy armour doesn't magically deflect shells, and armouring the bow up to the point that bow tanking is actually viable is a waste. The point of the Nelson class, for example, was more to concentrate the main battery armament of the ship in a more compact and easily armoured area, rather than to try and fire all the guns directly forwards.

[HusariuS]

3 hours ago, Koro said:

This. Being able to stop the ship faster would be great. 

IF setting ship to reverse speed would help stop the ship faster in the game, then yes.

But i hope, going from full forward speed to max reverse speed will take even 10-15 minutes for bigger ships, not just few minutes, especially for something bigger, like BB.

[disc]

The issues of "bow-tanking" and the need for a reverse are fourfold.

First, lots of armor on the front of a ship will imbalance it if there is not sufficient weight aft. Even if balanced in pitch, very heavy weights in the bow may cause the ship to hog (middle goes up, ends go down) in a seaway, because a narrow bow is not very buoyant to start. This can be overcome, to some extent, with a strong structure, but the ship will certainly be heavier and will probably be slower too.

Second, speed is vital. A slow ship is an easy target. Slow ships also can't maneuver -- big ships often have little rudder authority at low speed. Moreover, they can't accelerate very quickly. Battleships indeed could take over thirty minutes to get up to maximum speed. Slowing down or stopping or suddenly accelerating to "dodge" is not practical for such big ships. Nor are reverse speeds very impressive on most ships, the notable exception being US aircraft carriers.

Third, cross-roll can have serious detrimental effects on accuracy. Cross-roll, or trunnion tilt, is when the ship rolls such that "inclination of the deck across the line of sight tilts the gun trunnions out of the horizontal." For example, in a two-gun turret, if the roll brings one gun higher than the the other, it will hit at a different spot. Firing on the broadside minimizes this effect, as most ships don't pitch much. Firing directly forward or directly aft maximizes cross-roll, which is bad. Good fire-control systems can mitigate this issue.

Fourth, gun blast effect over a long bow can be considerable. If the entire main battery fires forward, special construction or reinforcement may be needed.

For these reasons, the belt and deck armor are usually thinner towards a ship's extremities. To protect against end-on shots, strong transverse bulkheads can be used instead -- this is the idea behind all-or-nothing. "Bow-tanking" is real, to the extent that these bulkheads and a highly angled fore-belt offer protection during a chase or approach, but the concept of stopping mid-battle so that only the bow is hit is faintly ridiculous.

A positive justification for reverse is for ramming. Reversing the engines can also help stop a ship, though this is largely immaterial to the game -- if faster stopping is desired, the developers could just increase the deceleration speed when "stop" is selected.

[DeiLwynnA]

if you are on the defensive in a ship of similar design to the richelieu class and dunkerque class then yes, being able to reverse should be an option, the front guns just doesnt have that good of firing angles backwards when you are trying to keep a distance in those cases. as for the reversing while in a forward motion should not decelerate you faster, the shafts and gearbox (aka transmission) gears are usually not built to handle the forces of that type of action, not to mention the screws that take the brunt of the force. there is a reason you dont put a car into reverse while driving forward, you will blow your gearbox or sheer your driveshaft from that force.

[Absolute0CA]

Its coming, I mentioned this way back in my fleet review thread.

[disc]

5 hours ago, DeiLwynnA said:

as for the reversing while in a forward motion should not decelerate you faster, the shafts and gearbox (aka transmission) gears are usually not built to handle the forces of that type of action, not to mention the screws that take the brunt of the force. there is a reason you dont put a car into reverse while driving forward, you will blow your gearbox or sheer your driveshaft from that force.

To my knowledge most warships are able to crash stop, which is when the engines are set to full astern when the ship is moving forward at high speed. You are certainly correct that this can be hard on machinery, but they are built to take it in emergencies. I believe the major issue (?) is cavitation of the propellers.

[Absolute0CA]

1 hour ago, disc said:

To my knowledge most warships are able to crash stop, which is when the engines are set to full astern when the ship is moving forward at high speed. You are certainly correct that this can be hard on machinery, but they are built to take it in emergencies. I believe the major issue (?) is cavitation of the propellers.

There's actually 3 different forms of crash stop depending on propulsion and rudder layout.

1. Full reverse as fast as possible, this is for both turbines, and pistons, for both you have to stop the rotation then reverse, which depends on size of reverse turbine/ water resistance. It is notable some turbine powered ships did not have reverse (HMS Dreadnought is a prime example)

2. Turbo Electric full reverse, this is by far the fastest unless combined with number 3 as unlike reverse turbines/reversing pistons you do not wait for the turbines to stop if anything you want them to spin faster to give you all the power possible to your electric motors. You get immediate and instant full reverse power to your electric motors, if you have 150,000 horsepower ahead you got the same in reverse, the biggest limiter here is that you don't twist off your prop shafts. It is also of note that propellers are not as efficient in reverse so even though you have access to full power it does not mean you can use it.

3. Closing the barn doors, this option is only available on 2 rudder ships with the rudders under local damage control stations. This is an extreme method of stopping that will stop a ship faster than any other method mentioned unless combined with 2. When the USS Wisconsin tested this she almost ripped her rudders off, and had chronic rudder issues the rest of her service life. Basically they turn both rudders to full amidship, USS Wisconsin when she tested this went from flank to a full stop in 2/3rds of her length as measured by a crewman who threw a chunk of wood overboard at the bow and by the time the ship stopped it was abreast the number 3 main turret. If you want a ship stopped, there is no way to stop one faster, but you will hello kitty something up in doing so that will require replacing the rudders, the steering gears and the mounts in order to fix properly.

[Steeltrap]

Ships don't stop at sea in the middle of battle. They sure as hell don't go astern; oddly enough, it seems reversing 30,000 tons of ship at any sort of speed and controlling it in open waters is a bit more complicated than doing so in a car on land (and before someone mentions nuke power, please don't bother unless they're going to be in the game).

I'm already unhappy that I've seen the AI stopping, although I suppose that could be a consequence of the 'formation Charlie-Fox' issues.

Mind you, if people can point me to sources showing how often it happened in various naval battles then I suppose I'll be forced to change my view. I'm certainly not aware of any cases, but that doesn't mean I haven't somehow managed to miss all the instances despite my 30+ years of reading.

Thank goodness the game correctly punishes you by giving increasingly large bonuses to anything shooting at you the more slowly you are travelling. Have a look at the detailed modifiers to your gunnery if you were to aim at a stationary or very slowly moving target. I've seen things like a +50% "target slow speed".

The other thing to remember is most capital ships cannot put themselves in reverse in seconds. The forces involved are immense, for starters. @Absolute0CA has covered the topic very nicely above.

In 1929 HMS Hood was reckoned to be able to reach 20 knots from a standing start in about 10 minutes if ready with all boilers. To reach her original top speed of 31 knots, however, it was expected to take another 35 minutes. 35 minutes to gain that final 11 knots (on admittedly the largest warship in the world at that time). Nelson and Queen Elizabeth classes would be at about 15 knots in the same 10 minutes, and County Class cruisers at about 25 knots. (I've taken these figures from a chart showing the Royal Navy's own calculations used in their 1929 wargames)

We're not exactly dealing with sports cars, lol.

I'm fine with being limited to putting the engines to stop and using manual rudder for manoeuvring.

p.s. As an aside, the only things realistic about WoWS are the ship models. The rest of it is varying degrees of atrocious rubbish, and I think it's sad lots of people playing it won't know any better. That's not their fault, of course. But it's pretty true to say the more something reminds us of WoWS, the more that's a bad sign in a game we want to be 'more realistic'.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Illya von Einzbern]

By the way.
If your ship is moving forwards and the you try to change to direction of shaft rotation. That would mess up the whole engine. The whole engine would need to be brought to a halt then shifted to reverse....
you could dodge torp or 2... you would also risk your ship being stationary for a while when it accelerates.
Alpha 3 comes with better torp detection indicator. This should help to dodge torps. Personally i noticed that the moment you see the torps you can only try to mitigate the damage....

Revers on ships kinda leaves me in a yes and no situation. Could be integrated as "ship full stop" order and "ship slow down" orders. "Ship full stop" would slow the ship faster where "Ship slow down" will change the gear and allows the water resistance to slow the ship. Reverse speed on big ships would be really slow and some what questionable.
On small ships reverse is a god sent.

 

While at the "ship full stop" order there could also be order for "temporary engine overheat" which would boost acceleration and speed retention but as the name suggests keep it temporary as prolong use will blow the engine and in worst case the ship.

[Angus MacDuff]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

Ships don't stop at sea in the middle of battle. They sure as hell don't go astern; oddly enough, it seems reversing 30,000 tons of ship at any sort of speed and controlling it in open waters is a bit more complicated than doing so in a car on land (and before someone mentions nuke power, please don't bother unless they're going to be in the game).

It's actually not that challenging to reverse a ship.  A modern destroyer with gas turbines and variable pitch propellers can stop in it's own length and begin moving astern (done it).  Going back to our age, merely stopping engines and reversing them will eventually give astern movement (or stop).  Yes, the bigger the ship, the longer it takes (in general).  The question is not can you do it, but why would you do it?  It is far quicker to order hard right rudder and increase speed if you want to change direction.  If you have the ability (and many older ships did), full ahead port and full astern Stbd  (with full right rudder) will spin you like a top.  Stopping your ship in battle (which is mandatory in order to reverse) is not impossible, it's just breathtakingly suicidal.

[Cptbarney]

16 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

Bowtanking is quite silly, though. In reality, relatively flimsy armour doesn't magically deflect shells, and armouring the bow up to the point that bow tanking is actually viable is a waste. The point of the Nelson class, for example, was more to concentrate the main battery armament of the ship in a more compact and easily armoured area, rather than to try and fire all the guns directly forwards.

I don't see how it is. It makes no sense for me to go forward and risk broadside and kite just because i can't slow down the ship and reverse keeping my bow angled to ships which would ricohect a lot of rounds, obviously that depends on the armour profile and thickness plus type but still.

Theres no reason not to add into the game, Armour angling still works regardless, plus presents a smaller profile making it harder to hit you and easier to hit them. Unless they have something similar.

[Cairo1]

19 hours ago, rapa pott said:

like this?

Sorry, i cant resist. Everytime i hear something like "sailing in reverse", i remember Word of Warships. Half of ships driving backwards and kill the atmosphere. Doesnt looks like a battle rather than rubberducks wich are fooling around.

Something like this actually did happen during WWII this is called Kedging, The seapalne tender Akitsushima Kedged in combat to avoid several diver bombs and lived to see another day.

It was a semi common practice for maneuvering in the days of sail, in fact the USS Constitution kedged during the war of 1812 while fighting an English squadron.

I am not saying this is something i want to see in game, its just neat.

[Steeltrap]

24 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I don't see how it is. It makes no sense for me to go forward and risk broadside and kite just because i can't slow down the ship and reverse keeping my bow angled to ships which would ricohect a lot of rounds, obviously that depends on the armour profile and thickness plus type but still.

Theres no reason not to add into the game, Armour angling still works regardless, plus presents a smaller profile making it harder to hit you and easier to hit them. Unless they have something similar.

No ship's captain would ever willingly bring their ship to a stop under fire. They didn't even bring their ships to a stop if they were concerned about the possibility of being under fire, such as from submarines. That was the primary reason given for steaming off to leave the survivors of Bismarck to drown, for example, and there are plenty more. That's not intended as a criticism of the RN ships for leaving, it's an illustration of just how seriously they viewed being stationary with even the hint of a threat. Sailors don't like leaving other sailors to drown.

You'd think if the world's navies pretty much viewed it identically, it's probably for good reason. Equally, if there were an advantage to doing it, navies would have done it as part of their doctrine. Are their any documented cases of it, or any navies training for it?

I certainly hope the devs continue to model the most likely effects of it, including possible steering issues in heavier seas, and the already included very significant bonus to hit any ship doing it. Also means throwing away "own cruise speed" bonus of up to 25% or more in some later ships, and even 18-20% in earlier ones. In other words, all sorts of numbers that simulate "this is some dumb shit we're doing".

I certainly do not want to see the AI doing it.

TL;DR? It's WoWS bullshit. If reverse gets added, please don't ever allow the AI to use it, and please continue to maintain all the gunnery adjustments that apply.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

31 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

It's actually not that challenging to reverse a ship.  A modern destroyer with gas turbines and variable pitch propellers can stop in it's own length and begin moving astern (done it).  Going back to our age, merely stopping engines and reversing them will eventually give astern movement (or stop).  Yes, the bigger the ship, the longer it takes (in general).  The question is not can you do it, but why would you do it?  It is far quicker to order hard right rudder and increase speed if you want to change direction.  If you have the ability (and many older ships did), full ahead port and full astern Stbd  (with full right rudder) will spin you like a top.  Stopping your ship in battle (which is mandatory in order to reverse) is not impossible, it's just breathtakingly suicidal.

Oh, I know. My point was the same as your second half, namely WTF would you do it? The game also applies penalties to you and bonuses to your enemy, as it should.

[Cptbarney]

6 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

No ship's captain would ever willingly bring their ship to a stop under fire. They didn't even bring their ships to a stop if they were concerned about the possibility of being under fire, such as from submarines. That was the primary reason given for steaming off to leave the survivors of Bismarck to drown, for example, and there are plenty more. That's not intended as a criticism of the RN ships for leaving, it's an illustration of just how seriously they viewed being stationary with even the hint of a threat. Sailors don't like leaving other sailors to drown.

You'd think if the world's navies pretty much viewed it identically, it's probably for good reason. Equally, if there were an advantage to doing it, navies would have done it as part of their doctrine. Are their any documented cases of it, or any navies training for it?

I certainly hope the devs continue to model the most likely effects of it, including possible steering issues in heavier seas, and the already included very significant bonus to hit any ship doing it. Also means throwing away "own cruise speed" bonus of up to 25% or more in some later ships, and even 18-20% in earlier ones. In other words, all sorts of numbers that simulate "this is some dumb shit we're doing".

It's WoWS bullshit. I certainly do NOT ever want to see the AI doing it.

Well they can still add it in regardless, just have an option to toggle it off. It would be better if it was just limited to player choice anyways.

Again there is no reason not to add it in. also with bow tanking your never stationary anyways, your either in reverse or going forward but keeping the bow pointed at an angle.

Guess it makes the game more interesting though, but i guess would tax the AI somewhat if you suddenly went to stop then reversed.

At least have a stop option to suddenly stop the ship even if it causes problems.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Cptbarney

[Angus MacDuff]

3 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

and the already included very significant bonus to hit any ship doing it

^^this is the important point in the conversation.  Yes, you should be able to stop your ship and manoeuvre it in place.  But doing so should come with a severe penalty in the likelihood of being hit.  You increase your vulnerability significantly, by staying in the same range bucket.  Go ahead and slow down...even stop....makes my fire control solution so much simpler. 

[Cairo1]

1 minute ago, Steeltrap said:

No ship's captain would ever willingly bring their ship to a stop under fire. They didn't even bring their ships to a stop if they were concerned about the possibility of being under fire, such as from submarines. That was the primary reason given for steaming off to leave the survivors of Bismarck to drown, for example, and there are plenty more. That's not intended as a criticism of the RN ships for leaving, it's an illustration of just how seriously they viewed being stationary with even the hint of a threat. Sailors don't like leaving other sailors to drown.

You'd think if the world's navies pretty much viewed it identically, it's probably for good reason. Equally, if there were an advantage to doing it, navies would have done it as part of their doctrine. Are their any documented cases of it, or any navies training for it?

I certainly hope the devs continue to model the most likely effects of it, including possible steering issues in heavier seas, and the already included very significant bonus to hit any ship doing it. Also means throwing away "own cruise speed" bonus of up to 25% or more in some later ships, and even 18-20% in earlier ones. In other words, all sorts of numbers that simulate "this is some dumb shit we're doing".

It's WoWS bullshit. I certainly do NOT ever want to see the AI doing it.

Wrong. I can off the top of my head think of at least one example of a ship stopping under fire with submarines present. light cruiser Isuzu was sunk in 45 while taking on survivors from another ship transporting hundreds of IJA personnel. This was also after she was hit and had her boilers exposed to the open sea, she was able to keep pressure though and contuined untill an additional torpedo struck her.

I am not saying Stopping under fire ends well, but it dose happen. 

Come to think of it that was not the first time Isuzu stoped under fire to take on survivors, or have you forgotten the great rescue of the Ozawa distraction force?

[Steeltrap]

8 minutes ago, Cairo1 said:

Wrong. I can off the top of my head think of at least one example of a ship stopping under fire with submarines present. light cruiser Isuzu was sunk in 45 while taking on survivors from another ship transporting hundreds of IJA personnel. This was also after she was hit and had her boilers exposed to the open sea, she was able to keep pressure though and contuined untill an additional torpedo struck her.

I am not saying Stopping under fire ends well, but it dose happen. 

Come to think of it that was not the first time Isuzu stoped under fire to take on survivors, or have you forgotten the great rescue of the Ozawa distraction force?

 

I think, for understandable reasons, you've mistaken the bit where I said "find me examples" to mean stopping under risk of fire.

That was sort of a second part of a discussion. The examples for which I was asking was in reference to this whole "bow tanking/coming to a stop and slowly backing" absurdity so rife in WoWS.

Which is why I said navies didn't add it to doctrine, and I certainly haven't ever found an example of it. So I was referring to an open sea battle where enemy ships are exchanging fire.

As I said, I can see the reason for why you viewed it as you did, however. Of course there are cases of ships going alongside others, such as at Midway etc, and perhaps I could've been a little clearer about the general doctrine matter v instances of exceptional need.

Cheers

Edited November 19, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Cairo1]

I will fill in the information when i find where i read the story but this one is pretty good.

Did you know the Japanese navy  trained crews and performed experiments with High speed reverse maneuvering? The Japanese had concerns about their precious carriers taking catostrphic damage to the bow and thus taking in great water in the event of withdraw, thus trials began to be conducted and speeds clocked with Carriers, destroyers, and light cruisers in reverse. these trials actually saved the destroyer Amatsukaze who had her bow ahead of her bridge entirely blown away by a torpedo, she sailed away in reverse to prevent taking on greater water, and later had a temp bow affixed.