Jump to content

_RC1138

Members
  • Content Сount

    7,360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [5BS]

Community Reputation

3,062 Superb

3 Followers

About _RC1138

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,246 profile views
  1. Well speaking as one of the main vocal members of the 'Sub-Club' (I can think of better but I'll take it), as far as I'm concerned, you can go [edited] yourself; DD's have been getting away with *exactly* the same gameplay for the last 5 years, where their entire class is designed around doing damage that cannot be reciprocated (smoke firing, OWSF when it was a thing, stealth torps, ect) and everyone else was told to just deal with it, and they screamed BLOODY murder whenever another class got even a small tool to deal with them like radar. Now another class *will* be here that can apply the same rules (although in a more balanced way given that unlike a DD, a sub has a real disadvantage of always being spotable/damageable when it's self is able to do damage (DD's can still fire torps from complete obscurity and stealth)). And BB players will just have to deal, and stop [edited]hiding in the back all the time to leave cruisers to advance and be snipped by the opposing line of cowards.
  2. [edited]hell, that's what Azur Lane is? That's creepy as all [edited].
  3. _RC1138

    why is detonation a mechanic

    Okay I see the problem; a Detonation, specifically, is a *type* of explosion that has nothing to do with warfare or naval magazines or anything like that. Basically there are two types of Explosions: Detonations and Deflagrations. In Engineering, especially Chemical/Process, this is an important part of HACCP and Safety Engineering (and in my case, dealing with LNG Carriers, having started on specifically containment, it came up A LOT; contrary to the misconception, LNG Carriers are not small nukes if punctured, as they are far more likely to undergo a deflagration than a detonation). Now a deflagration is an explosion where you would most likely characterize it as a 'burn.' Gasoline fired explosions used in films? Those are typically deflagrations. Most things (non-Nuclear) assocated with a traditional 'fireball' are also typically (not always, but typically) a deflagration. They typically have minimal overpressure and their primary danger is burns and spreading of fire. Now a Deflagration *can* blow an object apart; even just the air suddenly being super headed by that burning explosion can increase the relative pressure enough to cause structures to burst. And point of fact, a deflagration can *cause* a detonation; that's in fact how *guns* work with older powder concoctions, in a general sense. Old black powders don't really detonate, but when contained inside a small tube, the expansion forces of the super-heated air behind the bullet, as it expands through the barrel, results in a detonation as it exits the barrel (and hence the super-sonic 'crack' of a gunshot). In some ways a deflagration is more dangerous than a detonation as a detonation essentially PUSHES the air out of an area, but it rapidly comes back (obviously) while a deflagration CONSUMES the oxygen during the burn and can result in asphyxiation deaths for a prolonged period while the deflagration continues; this is seen at times during fire-storms or fire-bombings. The laymen's definition difference between a detonation and a deflagration usually has to do with the propagation of a super-sonic shock wave; basically if you feel the explosion before you hear it, it was a detonation, if you hear and see it at the same time, a deflagration. This is not strictly correct however in all situation and the more rigorous definition is the difference is kinetics of the reaction taking place, as related through the Rankine–Hugoniot conditions. In *very* simplistic form, a reaction needs to produce gas at a specific rate in order to impart enough kinetic energy to qualify as a detonation, otherwise it is a deflagration (unless it is too low, and then it is a simple burning like a candle). Now a detonation is different; it's explosive force is so great and rapid thanks to a much faster reaction rate, that the kinetic energy and momentum transferred from the chemical reaction (explosion's) products to the environment overwhelms their inherent static pressure resistance (aka an overpressure) that it expands outward. This is a detonation. Detonations are far more dangerous to structures and solid objects as they essentially blast (hence that term) them apart due to dynamic pressure. Now because that kinetic energy and momentum rate exceed the static pressure of the fluid in the environment (either liquid or gas) it actually propagates at a rate faster than the speed of sound (i.e. super-sonic) HOWEVER, what is often uncommented on/unknown is that the speed of sound is not a constant; it is relative to the fluid/solid it is traveling through. Sound travels faster through water than air. And it it likewise travels faster in water that is 40* C than 20* C. And a pressurized system may have it travel at even different rates. This is a vital detail as simply looking at a video and measuring the 'speed' of the shockwave is *not* adequate in determining if a detonation takes place, as depending on the *size* of the detonation, it may have compressed the air around it so greatly, that the speed of sound is reduce in that localized area. This can result in the appearance of a sub-sonic shock wave, but is in fact SUPER sonic within the actual area of the detonation. And this difference is vital because it can be the determinate in the order of failure of a structure; did it fail first because of the detonation, or due to negative pressure caused by a deflagration? This is important in accident investigation as it is used to produce recommendations to reduce future insidences from happening. Now in this specific case, that is *clearly* a detonation in the scientific sense. Whether or not this or that magazine ALSO exploded is a whole other thing, but insofar as if that is a BLEVE, it is definitely a DETONATION. Now I would say your analysis on whether or not a magazine exploded is also incorrect; that is CLEARLY a magazine explosion. It is likely the 4" magazine, not the 15", but a BLEVE detonation would not result in either soot, as it literally would burn most of that away before it could propagate, and that there is clearly a LACK of an appreciable fire, as BLEVE's, especially high-pressure/high temperature water formed ones, typically ignite the air RAPIDLY and produce a considerable secondary fireball (this is a case where a Detonation can also have a fireball). That clearly does not happen to the Barham. Also, a BLEVE of an Admiralty Type Boiler is not ENOUGH to cause such a large explosion, as they do not contain, nor operate at a high enough temp/pressure, to result in such a massive explosion (several hundred meters above sea level), and BLEVEs do accumulate by a magnitude the way true chemical explosives do, i.e., more Explosives present increase the SIZE of the explosion (as the reaction rate is fast enough to consume the entire reactants before the actual pressure effects are imparted (aka kinetics proceed at an exceedingly high rate)) whereas two BLEVE's happening side by side do not magnify each other (in fact there is a greater chance they will essentially douse each other and reduce the explosive effect. No the post-war Admiralty review got it right; it's pretty obviously a 4" magazine setting off the main magazine.
  4. To be fair there is a precedent of this; HMS Warspite's spotter sank a just getting underway U-Boat at the Battle of Narvik. It is the only example of a BB sinking an SS without ramming. And of COURSE it was Warspite that pulled it off.
  5. That's essentially how I envision it. I'd even argue they should zero until they are ready to fire, to further add a delay.
  6. Easy to balance; can only reload while surfaced. So you can pop and shoot once, but are pretty SOL if you want to do a reload and have to sit on the surface for 15-20 seconds.
  7. _RC1138

    why is detonation a mechanic

    You can call it rhetorical but it does demand a comment: Detonations as handled in game are RNG based, meaning no amount of skill on the part of the firer will guarantee or even have a substantial influence on the outcome, whereas Ramming is the total opposite; it has NO RNG elements to it and its effectiveness and use is 100% on the shoulders of the driver. From a gameplay standpoint this is the difference between a competitive game and a laughably non-competitive one. And if they wanted either to be historically valid, then ALL hits to magazines should result in a det and rams should result in major sections of warships being sheered off.
  8. That or had impact triggers already installed as backups and just changed the running depth; the Germans did that in a number of cases.
  9. Those triggers, for all nations, had in excess of a 30% failure rate.
  10. _RC1138

    why is detonation a mechanic

    BLEVEs can be detonations; it depends on how rigid the container is. Also a BLEVE can trigger a magazine explosion (detonation), and in fact I've theorized, written a paper, and have it under review for publication in a journal that it is highly possible that the Hood was in fact a Magazine Detonation initiated by a BLEVE as the ranges/angles present should have rendered even her 4" gun magazines impenetrable, but not her boilers which were already running a highly elevated capacity. Also that is definitely, in the technical sense, a detonation. Not all detonations have a shock condensation cloud around them; the RH% has to be high enough to allow that to form and there is clearly a minor shock front around the hull. You're mistaking that a Deflagration is not a Detonation, but that is clearly not a deflagration; the maximum pressure required to blow plates off the deck of a QE, to say nothing of the belt which also was blown apart, is WELL over the capacity of of the boilers or magazines deflagrating. Yes they are. And they are also sold for real money which is somehow worse as that is straight pay-2-win; you created a RNG problem, and then sell the solution that *100%* negates it.
  11. _RC1138

    ASW is no counter to Subs

    While that is what I wish should be done, and is what should be done, I suspect Wargaming is not, and instead they are going to double up on rogues in this game, although seeing as SS's are likely to be superior in a more gratifying way (more feedback, more recourse if spotted, ect), perhaps a significant portion of DD players will switch, which is what should happen.
  12. _RC1138

    ASW is no counter to Subs

    Lol how do you think a CL/CA feels when a DD outlasts your radar? Welcome to the club [edited].
  13. Well there's been a rise in the 'Easy' Models; those that do not need to be built or painted, basically just dicast representations. The Amercom and Forces of Valor ones are good for people that want model without the whole painting and assembly thing: https://www.amazon.com/HMS-Warspite-1942-Model-Amercom/dp/8373090029/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=HMS+Warspite&link_code=qs&qid=1566493097&s=gateway&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-5 https://www.amazon.com/HMS-Warspite-03-Battleship-British/dp/B06XYV2TLV/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=HMS+Warspite&link_code=qs&qid=1566493097&s=gateway&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-8 I prefer legos/Cobi for my fill, but these are small enough to fit under a monitor. And for what it's worth, the Cobi Models come with premium time.
  14. _RC1138

    ASW is no counter to Subs

    It's a Privately owned company, so the decisions all emanate from 1 person, Victor, who is both in and from Belarus. And adding a class to their second most profitable venture would be something they would run by the owner. It would be like changing the formula of the second biggest seller menu item in a restaurant; they would run that past the owner.
  15. From a 'work' standpoint, it is not. Creating models in game takes a LOT of resources; historians, engineers, coders, mappers, texture artists ect. Balance teams are far smaller. Its more tedious work, but 'easier' work with less hands. From a management side, the initial work is much harder.
×