Jump to content


Lert's problems with Hood


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

Destroyer_Radford #21 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 520
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCruxdei, on 18 May 2017 - 07:27 PM, said:

 

i might be wrong,but most BBs can do that in controlled enviroments.

Heavy cruisers can do it for Pete's sakes.


USS Radford DD-446 "HUK King" | DESRON 21 | 

From Guadalcanal to Luzon, and on to Korea and Vietnam

Spoiler

 


HMS_Formidable #22 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:43 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

OrView PostLert, on 19 May 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

 

To be fair, I believe Hood to be capable of this in controlled environments.

 

But by giving HMS Renown fantasy cruiser-like buffs to her AP, she should have the advantage of  citadelling Yamato at greater angles...

 

Otherwise we could give Renown an "Ise" flavour by fantasy buffing her seaplanes into a major recon role

 

Or we could give her hydroacoustic and radar and spotter planes to make her a smoked DD killer (aplogies to Warspite, but she hasnt been given that historical flavor)

 


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


MaliceA4Thought #23 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:48 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,628
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

-SNIP for brevity--

 

Adding another point of interest..  

1)  Hood, whilst having the same guns as Warspite made use of the Mk2 turrets..  The only RN ship to do so...  these were designed to give an increased elevation, and therefore range over the MK1 turret, and also to speed up reloading as the barrels didn't have to be brought to as low an angle as Warspite et al had to do between each shot.    It appears that the modelled turrets really are the Mk2 ones if you look at Hood and Warspite in port, so where is the increased rate of fire and range for these guns..  after all, the fire directors are at least as high as Nagato

 

 Facts from HMS Hood design and service manuals..

(Hood was completed with two FCD's. One was mounted above the conning tower protected by an armoured hood, and was fitted with a 30-foot (9.1 m) rangefinder The other was fitted in the spotting top above the tripod foremast and equipped with a 15-foot (4.6 m) rangefinder where the radar was also mounted later in addition to keeping the FCD. Each turret was also fitted with a 30-foot (9.1 m) rangefinder.)..

 

   The spotting top optical rangefinder was higher above sea level than the one on Nagato which is why there was no outcry from the Naval staff when the catapult was removed because they already had superior optical ranging without the aircraft being needed.

 

EDIT :-  so we loose the historical range and rate of fire to get a totally a-historical turret traverse...

EDIT the second..  Just for clarity  Hood DID carry 6crh shells, they just had a 4crh Windscreen on them to work with the Mk2 turrets and a higher angle for reload.  the shells for Hood were identical to Warspite when they got there  as you stated but in your summary it might be missed:)

 

M


Edited by MaliceA4Thought, 19 May 2017 - 01:23 AM.

  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


TalonV #24 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:50 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSventex, on 18 May 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

I agree with much of this.  The historical Hood wasn't suited for tier 7 so they had to muck around with her.  I'm just glad they didn't give her the refit she never got, then she'd really would not be the Hood.

Oh gimme a break. Why wouldn't of it been the Hood. Did she actually need to get said refit to actually be the Hood? That's just total nonsense.


 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


Bill_Halsey #25 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 597
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostBattlecruiser_Tiger, on 19 May 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

Simple answer - and the answer I always have defaulted to from the start: Wargaming hates the British.

 

they're no too fond of the USN either. :trollface:

BaronVonTom #26 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:01 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 155
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

View PostBill_Halsey, on 18 May 2017 - 05:54 PM, said:

 

they're no too fond of the USN either. :trollface:

 

Nice write up Lert!!!!

 

I hope your wrong Bill when it comes to the Enterprise.  But somehow I think you are and will be correct!



Mesrith #27 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:09 AM

    Commander

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 3,009
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLert, on 18 May 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

I've talked before about balancing ship lines by gimmicks rather than giving us ships balanced on a base line and then adding gimmicks, and I'm not the only one. And Hood, to me, is the perfect example of exactly this happening. I hope this isn't an indication of the direction WG is going in.

 

It's not an indication of the direction they're going in, so much as the direction they've already gone.

 

I'll be completely honest.  While I still enjoy playing randoms with friends, my enthusiasm for the future of this game has been declining precipitously in the past couple of months.  Despite having finally added clans to the game, it's become apparent that any sort of end-game for tier 10s, clan content, team vs team battles, tournaments, or anything of that sort is not the direction that Wargaming cares to take this game.  Say what you will about World of Tanks, but for at least 4 years that game was built around end-game content that incentivized players to grind the tech trees.  Most long-term players had a few select premium ships to assist their grind, but the game was focused on encouraging people to spend time and money on moving up the tech trees.  World of Warships is, for all intents and purposes, focused primarily on pumping out new premium ships with "interesting" gimmicks, and we seem to have a higher volume of "whale" purchasers (myself included) that have allowed that business model to sustain the game.  Rather than simply adding cool, well-balanced, historical ships to the game, each new premium has to have something flashy to entice the whales to come back up for feeding.

 

I don't think it's a recipe for building an excellent game in the long-term, but it's obviously paying the bills for now.


Edited by Mesrith, 19 May 2017 - 01:11 AM.


MaliceA4Thought #28 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:10 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,628
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View PostBattlecruiser_Tiger, on 18 May 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

Simple answer - and the answer I always have defaulted to from the start: Wargaming hates the British.

 

Actually, I think you are wrong  (maybe that should be I hope you are wrong). (although I agree it looks like that sometimes)   I think the issue is that WG got Lesta to build this game and as a studio they have a huge history of doing games which feature the Pacific Theater.  I have to honestly believe that the reason that a lot of this happens is because the people building this game just DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS and don't bother to do the proper research for all this stuff.

 

The Pacific theater was completely different from the Altlantic one and so they are constantly making assumptions based on what they do know and transfer it to what they don't know in the hope it will be fine.  (Unfortunately making assumptions is not a great way forward)

 

Whilst there are MANY groups that would help them, they just don't reach out to them to get the facts and they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

M


Edited by MaliceA4Thought, 19 May 2017 - 01:13 AM.

  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


Khafni #29 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:13 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,258
  • Member since:
    06-01-2015
I constantly learn new things and perspectives from you, Lert. Your commentaries are always welcome.
 

 


HMS_Formidable #30 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:22 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostMaliceA4Thought, on 19 May 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:

 

Actually, I think you are wrong  (maybe that should be I hope you are wrong). (although I agree it looks like that sometimes)   I think the issue is that WG got Lesta to build this game and as a studio they have a huge history of doing games which feature the Pacific Theater.  I have to honestly believe that the reason that a lot of this happens is because the people building this game just DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS and don't bother to do the proper research for all this stuff.

 

The Pacific theater was completely different from the Altlantic one and so they are constantly making assumptions based on what they do know and transfer it to what they don't know in the hope it will be fine.  (Unfortunately making assumptions is not a great way forward)

 

Whilst there are MANY groups that would help them, they just don't reach out to them to get the facts and they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

M

 

That would explain a lot

And I fully agree with your obsevation about the general lack of understanding or knowledge about the Arctic, Atlantic, North Sea and Mediterranean theatres.

Very different from the circumstances of the Pacific

 

I think Wargaming has fallen into the forum-warrior trap

They are fixated on tables of statistics

They have little understanding of contexts


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


TalonV #31 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:26 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMaliceA4Thought, on 18 May 2017 - 08:10 PM, said:

 

Actually, I think you are wrong  (maybe that should be I hope you are wrong). (although I agree it looks like that sometimes)   I think the issue is that WG got Lesta to build this game and as a studio they have a huge history of doing games which feature the Pacific Theater.  I have to honestly believe that the reason that a lot of this happens is because the people building this game just DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS and don't bother to do the proper research for all this stuff.

 

The Pacific theater was completely different from the Altlantic one and so they are constantly making assumptions based on what they do know and transfer it to what they don't know in the hope it will be fine.  (Unfortunately making assumptions is not a great way forward)

 

Whilst there are MANY groups that would help them, they just don't reach out to them to get the facts and they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

M

 

Just ask Prince of Wales how well that went.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


Lert #32 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:29 AM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,477
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostMaliceA4Thought, on 19 May 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

they have lost sight of the "historical" part of all this to try and balance the Atlantic fleets into a Pacific war scenario which will NEVER end well.

 

Just quoting a key part of your post to acknowledge you. You know we've talked about this before and you know that I think your theory has a lot of merit.

(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


dseehafer #33 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:30 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 7,275
  • Member since:
    08-20-2012

I agree with pretty much everything you have said Lert. 

 

What confuses me is why people think she doesn't belong at tier 7? Granted, as you said, her guns arent as good as they should be, but if they were she'd have tier 8 hitpoints and tier 6 guns... tier 7 is a happy medium and the only real place you can balance the Hood. Put her at tier 6 and now you have a ship who has more hitpoints than most tier 8 battleships and nearly the same firepower as the Warspite wrecking absolutely everything... put her at tier 8 and her armament just can't do the job. Hood has always been a tier 7 candidate, WG was right to put her there. 

 

Concerning her AA rockets, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they were ever actually used in combat. For all we know they could have been absolutely devastating in combat. I think WG is playing with the whole "unknown" factor to give them a bit of wiggle room as far as the performance of her rockets are concerned. If, however, they were used in combat and still proved a failure then you can ignore this last paragraph.


Edited by dseehafer, 19 May 2017 - 01:38 AM.

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

 


Sir_Davos_Seaworth #34 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:31 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,552
  • Member since:
    03-17-2016
Thanks! I was missing the Lert box from the otherwise awesome LWM review. I don't have $100 burning a hole in my pocket, and even if I did, the only reason I would buy her is because of her real history. I think I could make her work...but it would be a chore, and I'm here to have fun...That is a lot of coin for a port queen. I'd be more interested in the upcoming RN DD tell you the truth.

The Onion Knight demands trial by World of Warships

Fleet in Being at Put-In-Bay Ohio: Brig, Niagara. Ironclad, Michigan (latter Wolverine)

 

 

 


Battlecruiser_Tiger #35 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:32 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,329
  • Member since:
    08-10-2016

View PostHMS_Formidable, on 19 May 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

 

But by giving HMS Renown fantasy cruiser-like buffs to her AP, she should have the advantage of  citadelling Yamato at greater angles...

 

Otherwise we could give Renown an "Ise" flavour by fantasy buffing her seaplanes into a major recon role

 

Or we could give her hydroacoustic and radar and spotter planes to make her a smoked DD killer (aplogies to Warspite, but she hasnt been given that historical flavor)

 

 

Renown will be fine for a number of reasons: her speed, her AA, her lower tier, and her better secondary. I expect her to be quite excellent (superb, even) at tier 6. A Warspite minus a turret, with a bit less armor, a lot more AA, and a full 7-8 knots more speed? Yes please.

[KNMSU] is seeking new members. Please PM me before applying! Thank you!

"Semi-notorious forum twit"


goldeagle1123 #36 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:35 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,175
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015

View PostTalonV, on 18 May 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

 

Just ask Prince of Wales how well that went.

 

Underrated comment.

 

 

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"


HMS_Formidable #37 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:36 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,012
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012

View PostBattlecruiser_Tiger, on 19 May 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

 

Renown will be fine for a number of reasons: her speed, her AA, her lower tier, and her better secondary. I expect her to be quite excellent (superb, even) at tier 6. A Warspite minus a turret, with a bit less armor, a lot more AA, and a full 7-8 knots more speed? Yes please.

 

based on experience, this will never happen.

An Ise-Renown is far more likely based on current form


http://www.armouredcarriers.com/title/

 

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable:
this cannot be correct since the new capital ship, the carrier, was far more vulnerable.
The battleship died because it had very little capability for damaging the enemy.

— Brown, D. K: Nelson to Vanguard: Warship Design and Development 


TalonV #38 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:37 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postgoldeagle1123, on 18 May 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

 

Underrated comment.

 

Umm, I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. Sarcasm meter currently broken. Please advise.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


MaliceA4Thought #39 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:38 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,628
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

View Postdseehafer, on 18 May 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

I agree with pretty much everything you have said Lert. 

 

What confuses me is why people think she doesn't belong at tier 7? Granted, as you said, her guns arent as good as they should be, but if they were she'd have tier 8 hitpoints and tier 6 guns... tier 7 is a happy medium and the only real place you can balance the Hood. Put her at tier 6 and now you have a ship who has more hitpints than most tier 8 battleships and nearly the same firepower as the Warspite wrecking absolutely everything... put her at tier 8 and her armament just can't do the job. Hood has always been a tier 7 candidate, WG was right to put her there. 

 

Concerning her AA rockets, correct me if I'm wrong, butt I don't think they were ever actually used in combat. For all we know they could have been absolutely devastating in combat. I think WG is playing with the whole "unknown" factor to give them a bit of wiggle room as far as the performance of her rockets are concerned.

 

UP stands for "Unrotated Projector." "Unrotated" meant that the barrel did not have any rifling, i.e., the projectile was not spin-stabilized. Each emplacement was a set of twenty smooth-bore tubes, usually fired ten at a time. Cordite was used to ignite ("Project") a 3-inch (7.62 cm) rocket motor which propelled a fin-stabilized 7-inch (17.8 cm) diameter Parachute and Cable (PAC) rocket which carried a 8.4 oz (238 g) mine. When the rocket reached approximately 1,000 feet (330 m), it exploded and put out the mine which was attached to three parachutes by 400 feet (122 m) of wire. The design concept was that if a plane hit the parachutes or the wire, it would then pull the mine into itself.

 

The first test fire of these weapons with dummy charges ended in disaster with ALL of the projectiles wrapped round the rigging of Admiral Toveys flagship.

 

These UP projectiles were kept in ready lockers close to the projectors. The sinking of HMS Hood showed that these stored weapons were rather flammable. They were also found to be an almost totally ineffective weapon, as the barrage took too long to establish (3 minutes for the rockets to get to height and deploy)  and was easily avoided. In addition, reloading was slow (> 5 minutes in ideal circumstances) and the mines showed an alarming tendency to drift back onto the firing ship. For these reasons, the UP was quickly replaced on surviving ships with either the British 2-pdr or the Bofors 40mm heavy AA machine gun.

 

They were so unreliable and the on deck stowage of the ammunition was so flammable that standing instructions in the RN prohibited them from use except in dire circumstances and were never used in action.

 

Hood was due for replacement when the Battle of Denmark Straight happened and never fired them even under test.

 

M


Edited by MaliceA4Thought, 19 May 2017 - 01:42 AM.

  

 

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, whilst defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win
(Sun Tzu)

A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "My Country" for an amount of "up to and including my life."


Kanzler_Bismarck #40 Posted 19 May 2017 - 01:38 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 973
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012

 

Agreed, Hood was never an AA platform and her shells should be closer to Spite. I would have had a historical Hood at tier 6 (would have been WoWS version of TogII with her huge displacement) then the super AA of a failed concept. But... I'll take what I can get.

 

Ventis Secundus 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users