Don't know how I never noticed this sooner: all the hulls are american

[Friedrich]

That is to say that they are a bow and stern with a slabsided hull between them. This is a uniquely american design characteristic which was only in place due to restrictions imposed by the panama canal. If one looks at british or german ships you'll see that, lacking this restriction, they have a very different overhead profile to their hulls. Have the devs commented on this yet?

[Bluishdoor76]

They arent, this is mainly down to the elongating hull mechanic. My guess is just an easier way to make this work without weirdly warping the hull to be longer.

[TotalRampage]

Which hulls are you referring to in game? Because historically they got more hydrodynamic is the word I believe. So thinner pointed fronts to cut through the water. You can look at the post 1936ish battleship's all had the standard elongated bow which widened towards the turrets (even the yamato class).  And in terms of keeping the same width throughout the ship the historical picture's I posted once it gets past the initial bow so about the first turret it reaches the max width of the ship. Which it would stay for the remainder of the citadel belt.

 Please see the attached picture which shows approximately the citadel belt (marked in yellow) on a ship in game. Starts thin then increases to max width  then once the citadel ends it thins slightly for hydrodynamics.? (still don't know if that's the proper word for it)

[TsAGI]

On 10/17/2020 at 11:52 AM, Friedrich said:

This is a uniquely american design characteristic which was only in place due to restrictions imposed by the panama canal.

Well not really as Yamato had that design too. Also as Bluishdoor76 said, to increase the tonnage without changing the overall curvature of the lines you really don't have any other option than physically elongating the hull. Imagine how much of a nightmare it would be to increase the entire hull's length and width every time you change the displacement.

Edited October 21, 2020 by TsAGI

[Steeltrap]

The overhead view is really the one that's best for comparison, if one can find any.

The German BBs are the obvious exception to the more "slab sided" general characteristic, as they WERE more teardrop shaped than a relatively equal width down much of their lengths as other BBs tended to have.

Bismarck

Otherwise the more modern designs of most nations were more similar than different due to the inherent characteristics they were balancing.

If you look at the King George V class against say the North Carolina class, they're much more the same than different (USN 'fast' BBs had a somewhat more tapered and longer bow, but even there a significant factor is the nature of the main gun mount you're using dictates the minimum width your hull needs to be at the front turret, and the quad of the KGV means it needs quite a bit) yet they ARE different from Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes.

HMS King George V

USS North Carolina

 

Even so, the shape of the hull will be considerably influenced by how great a top speed you want. One reason for the "exaggerated" shape (large, wide aft 3rd of the ship) of the Iowa class was the gargantuan power plant they needed to achieve those extra ~5 knots of speed. HMS Hood was very long for the armament she carried (bear in mind the Queen Elizabeth class had the same armament although in different mounts yet was ~220ft/66m shorter and some 14,000t lighter at full load) for the same reason, namely a 'stretched' hull (high length:beam ratio) plus large power plant are needed for higher speeds (she originally topped 32 knots).

As others have said, it's more likely a matter of making the ship builder simpler. Others have mentioned wishing to be able to specify beam to length ratios and other such things, which undoubtedly would be great, but I can see why the devs don't see that as a priority and may never.

Reading the design histories of the various ships is really very interesting when it comes to realising how and, more importantly, why they ended up as they did. It's also fascinating to see how the various nations took somewhat different approaches and why.

😀

Edited October 22, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Friedrich]

On 10/21/2020 at 11:30 PM, Steeltrap said:

The overhead view is really the one that's best for comparison, if one can find any.

The German BBs are the obvious exception to the more "slab sided" general characteristic, as they WERE more teardrop shaped than a relatively equal width down much of their lengths as other BBs tended to have.

Bismarck

Otherwise the more modern designs of most nations were more similar than different due to the inherent characteristics they were balancing.

If you look at the King George V class against say the North Carolina class, they're much more the same than different (USN 'fast' BBs had a somewhat more tapered and longer bow, but even there a significant factor is the nature of the main gun mount you're using dictates the minimum width your hull needs to be at the front turret, and the quad of the KGV means it needs quite a bit) yet they ARE different from Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes.

HMS King George V

USS North Carolina

 

Even so, the shape of the hull will be considerably influenced by how great a top speed you want. One reason for the "exaggerated" shape (large, wide aft 3rd of the ship) of the Iowa class was the gargantuan power plant they needed to achieve those extra ~5 knots of speed. HMS Hood was very long for the armament she carried (bear in mind the Queen Elizabeth class had the same armament although in different mounts yet was ~220ft/66m shorter and some 14,000t lighter at full load) for the same reason, namely a 'stretched' hull (high length:beam ratio) plus large power plant are needed for higher speeds (she originally topped 32 knots).

As others have said, it's more likely a matter of making the ship builder simpler. Others have mentioned wishing to be able to specify beam to length ratios and other such things, which undoubtedly would be great, but I can see why the devs don't see that as a priority and may never.

Reading the design histories of the various ships is really very interesting when it comes to realising how and, more importantly, why they ended up as they did. It's also fascinating to see how the various nations took somewhat different approaches and why.

😀

Yeah, basically this. I get why it was done, but it still raises an eyebrow and would ideally not be how displacement worked.