Jump to content

Murotsu

Members
  • Content count

    848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2410
  • Clan

    [-TI-]

Community Reputation

257 Excellent

About Murotsu

  • Rank
    Ensign
  • Insignia

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

926 profile views
  1. Submarines, and Anti-Submarine Warfare

    Virtually every destroyer above about Tier 3 in the game would carry depth charges in two racks aft and either K or Y guns, variously 2 to 4 per side. The Japanese for example stuck with the Y gun and generally had 2 of these amidships on the stern ahead of the depth charge racks while most other navies used K guns with 2 to 4 per side. USN K guns use black powder charges and can fire to about double the maximum range of RN hydraulically operated ones. This gives the USN a slight advantage in being able to lay a wider pattern. In any case, everybody typically lays a depth charge pattern that is 8 to 14 charges big in three or four parallel lines wide and covering roughly 100 to 200 feet in depth that is intended to box the submarine. This is the USN "master" pattern diagram for depth charges. It shows the "book" laying of a pattern: The picture below gives you an idea of how the pattern would be laid: Thus, the ship using depth charges has to predict where the sub will be when the charges reach its depth accounting for the sub's motion. Another issue is the depth charge sink time. Early ones might sink at around 4 feet a second while the fast sinkers like the USN Mk IX "teardrop" charge will sink up to about 18 feet a second. This is important because the faster sinking charge gives the submarine less time to evade the pattern. Then there's fuzes. The US and RN developed deep firing ones that could be set to upwards of 1000 feet depth to take on deep diving German boats. Most other navies are limited to about 300 feet with their fuze settings. Next, you have to consider other ASW weapons. Will aircraft be able to carry them? What about ahead fired weapons like Hedgehog, or Mousetrap? Or ahead thrown depth charges like Squid and Limbo? The FIDO homing torpedo came out in late 1943. Will it be included? Will the subs get pattern running or homing torpedoes? On the whole it will be a complication that adds little to the game as a submerged submarine will be little more than a very slow moving intelligent sea mine for all intents. That is, it will creep along at maybe 8 knots at best and hope that some ship blunders over its position to give it a shot at torpedoing it. I'd also say it would be patently unfair and unrealistic if subs can scout for other ships as they would have no means to communicate any ship they sighted while submerged to the other ships on their side.
  2. I seriously doubt all that. First you'd have to get a pretty serious dosage to generally get cancer from exposure to radiation. We are exposed to some degree every day just by going outside in the sunlight. Seawater is naturally radioactive due to the presence of tritium and deuterium in it, among other radioactive isotopes. John Wayne on the other hand, got his exposure from being downwind of Nevada above ground nuclear tests, but it's more likely that his heavy smoking habit caused his death than exposure to radiation. Diving Bikini is safe. As little as four to six feet of water between a radioactive source and yourself will shield 90% of the radiation. Additional distance will reduce it further. Almost all of the residual radiation there are alpha and beta emitters that have to be ingested to be dangerous. Now, living on that atoll would potentially be dangerous if you were to be there for years. The low dosages over time would have an affect and could cause problems. Being exposed to those low dosages for a couple of days diving would be less than getting several x-rays.
  3. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    Now, the British K class submarines of WW 1 were an unmitigated disaster. Whoever it was that thought that a steam powered submarine was a good idea, had been spending way too much time at the pub... Yes, those are smoke stacks aft of the conning tower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine One joke that was going around about them at the time was: The Captain of the boat calls the engine room. "This is the Captain. My end is submerging. What's your end of the boat doing?" Out of eighteen (18) built six sank but none due to enemy action. At least one sank due to a wave washing over the boat and flooding it through the low smoke stacks... About the only way you could have made these boats worse was adding screen doors...
  4. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    British armored carriers were another flawed design. First, the armored flight deck coupled with an enclosed hanger made for a deadly combination. The flight deck was too high in the ship to allow for a lot of armor for stability reasons. This meant it could be penetrated by armor piercing bombs of the period pretty easily. The enclosed hanger mean the blast from the resulting explosion did far more damage to the ship. The British solution to this was to lower one or both elevators, creating two large holes in the flight deck armor, to give a means to vent the explosion but defeating the purpose of the flight deck armor to begin with. Then, the other issue with flight deck armor was the high weight again. This also meant the flight deck had to be kept lower to the waterline for stability purposes making the carrier less capable of flight operations in heavy seas, something common in the North Atlantic. On the whole, the British idea for an "armored" carrier was one that was before its time. The USN finally adopted it when carriers got large enough to absorb that weight without compromising other protection or operational requirements.
  5. Japanese DDs dunk by 20mm Fire?

    Can you say "none?" Of course, that doesn't include the LOX plant aboard to produce the liquid oxygen, or the plumbing that carried it to the torpedoes for charging... All in all, it was a recipe for disaster. The British tried LOX torpedoes in the late 20's and early 30's too. They abandoned them as far too dangerous for shipboard use.
  6. Books or Manuals on Naval Tactics

    I suggest this book: https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Tactics-Practice-Wayne-Hughes/dp/0870215582
  7. If you think of Yubari more as a destroyer than a cruiser it plays reasonably well. Yes the torpedo arcs are horrid and the number you have is next to nonexistent, but the guns and AA are decent-- for a destroyer. Think of Yubari as a destroyer leader. That is, a large destroyer that supports other destroyers. On that note, maybe WoW will add a Porter or Sumner class US 1850 ton leader to the game. That'd be the USN counterpart to Yubari. The RN equivalent would be a Tribal class destroyer.
  8. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    The worst offenders for the US were the Bagley class. 16 torpedo tubes. These ships proved to have the least stability of any 1500 ton class and as the war progressed they lost half their torpedo tubes, then there was serious discussion of taking the #3 mount and replacing it with a 40mm twin. They got just 6 20mm because of weight issues. All the ship's boats were removed, one anchor with its chain, and they were gone through to remove old wiring, fittings, anything that could reduce weight.
  9. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    Shinano was under tow to a different shipyard for continued construction. The Japanese were moving her because of threat of air attack. The ship didn't have any watertight doors fitted at the time it went down and there was a skeleton crew aboard to handle the tow lines and such. Kind of unfair to claim it was a "warship" when it went down. It was more like a half-finished carrier hull.
  10. Worst design flaw you can think of?

    The dynamite cruiser USS Vesuvius would definitely be in the running here. A ship fitted with an all but useless weapon system that was quickly rendered obsolete by development of new explosives. Even as designed, the ship was unlikely to hit anything in a naval contest with its three fixed pneumatic dynamite guns.
  11. Japanese DDs dunk by 20mm Fire?

    Given that the explosives in torpedoes of that era were filled with (variously) amatol, torpex, or TNT, simply hitting them with a few .50 bullets would not cause them to explode. You need a detonator that delivers a much greater shock to the explosive for that to happen. Now, if the plane was loaded with armor piercing rounds, it would penetrate the hull and superstructure at firing ranges, but with ball, that is a more iffy proposition as most ship's hulls are at least 1/4" plate. Now, in the SWPA, A 20's and B-25 did carry this ammunition and it would generally perforate a merchant ship or destroyer's hull, but this was above the waterline so it wouldn't sink the ship outright by itself. Instead, the .50's made lots of small holes that let in water after the ship was hit by 500 lbs. bombs skipped into its side. The small holes were difficult to patch in a damage control situation as they'd be everywhere and finding all of them wasn't going to be easy. This is why USAAF pilots engaged in anti-shipping strikes preferred a mass of .50 over the 75mm gun. The later would make just a few moderately large holes the crew could plug or patch, whereas a mass of .50's not only would reduce AA fire from strafing but would make lots of small holes. One .50 sized hole just a few feet below the waterline would let in tens of gallons of water a minute into the ship. When you are talking a couple dozen, it becomes a serious flooding issue. But, you need those large bomb hits to get the ship to settle and get the .50 holes underwater to begin with.
  12. Japanese DDs dunk by 20mm Fire?

    Didn't happen. There were several that were skip bombed and sunk by B-25 or B-17 aircraft, and they likely were strafed as well, but the sinking was accomplished by multiple bomb hits. That was going through Jenschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945 and checking for details on sites like pacificwrecks.com
  13. The US has better alternatives to the C-47. For example, the C-54 It could carry 4.5 tons of cargo 3,000 miles so it could make a transatlantic flight without stopping theoretically. Then there's the Boeing C-75. This is a cargo plane fuselage with B-17 wings and tail. While Boeing historically only built a handful, production could have been greatly expanded if necessary. The C-75 was used regularly on transatlantic flights during the war, mostly for passenger service. The fuselage was pressurized and the plane normally operated at around 20,000 feet. An unpressurized version for cargo would be able to haul around 4 tons. It could make the flight non-stop too. Curtiss' C-46 was another available type. It could haul around 3 tons of cargo but like the C-47 would have required refueling stops between the US and Britain.
  14. First space force vessel

    Maybe go with a more international force like this:
  15. First space force vessel

    I'm disappointed! Why not the Space Battleship Yamato first...?
×