Jump to content


3D Size Comparison: USN Treaty Battleships and Iowa


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

iDuckman #21 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:53 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 278
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

Iowa is LONG because length at the waterline has a major effect on SPEED.  The others (NC and SD) weren't designed to be as fast, so could be more compact.

 



Lampshade_M1A2 #22 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:19 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,473
  • Member since:
    10-07-2014

Great views, when you look at this comparison it looks like they could have fit an additional twin 5"/38 on each side of the Iowa class.

 

Also any chance of doing one overhead view including the Montana?


Edited by Lampshade_M1A2, 21 March 2017 - 12:20 AM.


dseehafer #23 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:37 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 6,522
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View PostLampshade_M1A2, on 20 March 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Great views, when you look at this comparison it looks like they could have fit an additional twin 5"/38 on each side of the Iowa class.

 

Also any chance of doing one overhead view including the Montana?

 

its possible, but it wouldn't have any textures. Besides you can just look at the normal size comparisons for overhead views.
CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


hoom #24 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:44 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Huh, TIL.

I always thought NC with its blunt bow was the shorter class, with the length difference to SD being mainly the sharper bow.

Turns out that was totally wrong :hmm:


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.


dseehafer #25 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:03 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 6,522
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View Posthoom, on 20 March 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

Huh, TIL.

I always thought NC with its blunt bow was the shorter class, with the length difference to SD being mainly the sharper bow.

Turns out that was totally wrong :hmm:

 

The normal size comparison also shows the length difference.
CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


CybrSlydr #26 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:30 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View Postdseehafer, on 20 March 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

 

how??

 

Do you disagree?

CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


DeMatt #27 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:09 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 201
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCybrSlydr, on 20 March 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

 

Do you disagree?

 

The Alaska would beat the piss out of a Graf Spee.  It's faster, it's got more and bigger guns, it's got more and better armor, it's got more and better AA, it's got more and better secondaries...  an Alaska at tier 6 would make a mockery of game balance.

 

Following Graf Spee's lead, Alaska would be "a cruiser", probably tier 8, where it can beat on Mogami and Hipper the way Graf Spee gets to beat on Aoba and Cleveland.  In turn, it would fear North Carolina & Bismarck & Amagi the same way Graf Spee fears New Mexico & Bayern & Fuso.



mofton #28 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:10 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,543
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostDeMatt, on 20 March 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

The Alaska would beat the piss out of a Graf Spee.  It's faster, it's got more and bigger guns, it's got more and better armor, it's got more and better AA, it's got more and better secondaries...  an Alaska at tier 6 would make a mockery of game balance.

 

Dunkerque roflstomps Graf Spee too as designed (more, bigger guns, more, better armor, meh on AA, meh on secondaries) and she's a happy T6, pretty well balanced. Just a battleship, and battleships counter cruisers. 

 

As Tzarevitch says she's closest to the Dunkerque of anything in-game. Similar belt (50% thicker than the best armored cruiser which is a huge leap) similar gun punch - though Dunkerque gets fun shell velocities - and ROF if you take the low end. Alaska's a bit problematic with her very good AA but lack of maneuverability and TDS, although USN BB's demonstrate that's not necessarily critical (North Carolina has less TDS than Moskva so whatever...)

 

Alaska might be a 6 or a 7 as a battleship. T7 mostly on AA strength.

 

 


light.png

Iowanna be a rockstar - Salmon - Ctrl-Click-Schiffe - Le Dunkerque  - Grand Old Lady - ~5 Mil in IJN Scrap

Gearings of Poor - Trashcan - Biscuit-tweaker - Tachi-Ali-Baba - Not-quite-Minekaze - Zit-23 - Shinbone - Your-a-gnome

Worst T9 Ever - AbSchorring - Minotaur


dseehafer #29 Posted 21 March 2017 - 06:32 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 6,522
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View PostCybrSlydr, on 20 March 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

 

Do you disagree?

 

Yes, I disagree. The only advantages Spee would have would be her torpedoes and her smaller size and the benefits that come with it.  Alaska weighed twice as much as Spee, that means twice as many hitpoints. Alaska had more than twice as much armor as Spee. So Spee cannot compete in terms of survivability. Spee has torpedoes but at the cost of having smaller main battery guns and 3 fewer of them. Both ships can fire 8 secondary guns to a broadside. Alaska roflstomps Spee in the AA department and also in the speed department.

 

She might be a tier 6 battleship, but she's definitely not a tier 6 cruiser alongside Spee.


CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


icyplanetnhc #30 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:22 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 225
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostViscount, on 20 March 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

hmm, so the NC's just a trace wider then the Iowa, I remember the Iowa's width was restricted by what would fit through the Panama Canal, (or rather all of our bb's were.)

 

The Iowa and South Dakota-class battleships are just a tad wider, with a 108' beam compared to the North Carolina-class' 105'. (108' overall, actually)

 

Technically, as designed, the Iowa is still a treaty battleship, as it's bound by the "escalator clause" of the Second London Naval Treaty, which limits battleships to 45000 tons and 16" guns. The USN battleship that's truly freed of any treaty restrictions is the Montana-class.

 

EDIT: Mistakenly attributed the North Carolina's waterline beam with overall beam. Overall she is indeed 108' in the beam.

 


Edited by icyplanetnhc, 21 March 2017 - 08:14 AM.


dseehafer #31 Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:43 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 6,522
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View Posticyplanetnhc, on 21 March 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

 

The Iowa and South Dakota-class battleships are just a tad wider, with a 108' beam compared to the North Carolina-class' 105'.

 

Technically, as designed, the Iowa is still a treaty battleship, as it's bound by the "escalator clause" of the Second London Naval Treaty, which limits battleships to 45000 tons and 16" guns. The USN battleship that's truly freed of any treaty restrictions is the Montana-class.

 

According to navypedia all three classes were 33m (108') in breadth. Even Wikipedia states as much.
CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


icyplanetnhc #32 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:12 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 225
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postdseehafer, on 20 March 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

 

According to navypedia all three classes were 33m (108') in breadth. Even Wikipedia states as much.

 

Actually you're right, I saw the waterline beam and mistakenly attributed that to the overall beam. Yes, all three classes have 108' beam, with the North Carolina-class having a narrower waterline beam due to the inclined external belt.

CybrSlydr #33 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

No, that's not what I'm saying.

 

I'm saying it would play more like a Spee than a Scharnhorst.  The Alaska wouldn't be charging in to brawl and tank, it would be a second-line support ship that would need to pick and choose it's engagements.


CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


Battlecruiser_Guam #34 Posted 25 March 2017 - 08:29 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 16
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postdseehafer, on 20 March 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

 

shes comparable to Scharnhorst... Less armor but more hitpoints, no torpedoes but bigger guns, worse secondary battery but better AA, worse turning circle but higher top speed, ECT, ECT..

 

her turning radius is better than Scharnhorst at 731m compared to the Shcarn's 800m

dseehafer #35 Posted 25 March 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 6,522
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

View PostBattlecruiser_Guam, on 25 March 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

 

her turning radius is better than Scharnhorst at 731m compared to the Shcarn's 800m

 

Turning radius's in-game are not based off of real life turning radius's. They are completely made up and implemented for balance purposes. Scharnhorst's real life turning radius was 634m as recorded by her sister Gneisenau.

 

 


CREATOR OF THE "A DETAILED LOOK AT" AND THE "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE??" SERIES!! 

KlnDiJZ.gif

"The whole strategy of the war turns at this period to this ship (the Tirpitz), which is holding four times the number of British capital ships paralyzed, to say nothing of the two new American battleships retained in the Atlantic."

- Winston Churchill

 


Battlecruiser_Guam #36 Posted 26 March 2017 - 10:44 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 16
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postdseehafer, on 25 March 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

 

Turning radius's in-game are not based off of real life turning radius's. They are completely made up and implemented for balance purposes. Scharnhorst's real life turning radius was 634m as recorded by her sister Gneisenau.

 

 

 

looking at these charts of the Gneisenau's turn circle i dont know which one WG base their turning radius on whether it be at full speed or reduced. 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users