Jump to content

Rotten_Fish

Members
  • Content count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3170
  • Clan

    [LRM]

Community Reputation

58 Good

About Rotten_Fish

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    At Littorio's MFC Director

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

662 profile views
  1. Tier 10 French BB

    No, but those onion rings are making me hungry....
  2. Tier 10 French BB

    There is a world of difference between the French 330mm and 340mm guns; the former was an excellent weapon, with exceptional kinetic energy, and a range second only to the Italian M1934 - which was freakishly powerful for its caliber. The 340mm, on the other hand, was a total dog, both aerodynamically, and ballistically. The 330mm used a windscreen that was close to the ideal Sears-Hack profile (the shape of the Italian Shell, included below; note its long windscreen), whilst the 340 used a windscreen shape known as a Spitzer Ogive. Check the architecturals I sent you on the French 340mm, and the American 380mm shells for Richelieu; you will note that the 340mm's windscreen is far blunter than the 380mm designed by the Americans, and was a greatly inferior shape to the latter. As a result, the 340mm shell would have bled speed at an excessive rate, as it flew through the air. By contrast, the excellent 330mm shell, with its superior windscreen, lost less of its energy to parasitic drag, keeping more of it for the task of armor penetration. Without all the physical constants, I cannot work out each shell's energy for you, but if you get me the MV and mass (not weight, though I guess I could easily convert it) for each shell, given that I know the aerodynamic particulars for both, I could tell you which shell had the better real-life punching power. My bet? The 330mm. However, it's not the power of the guns that was the issue, it was the design of the ship. Regarding the shape of the ship, once again, it would not have worked. The French most likely decided that since they were limited by 250 meters, rather than build the design WG posted, they made the right choice and went with the Dunkerque and Strasbourg designs.
  3. Tier 10 French BB

    The smaller caliber will allow for the cube root of the ratio of necessary spaces, with respect to the dimensions of a larger shell, so the internal volume of the hull can be a bit less with the smaller guns. My main issue with the weight distribution is rooted in the ship's high prismatic coefficient; this ship's cross-sectional area changes very quickly at its bow (it's blunt), which means that it will throw a horrific wash over the forward deck, and create tremendous resistance in any, but particularly, in heavy seas. Combine this with the fact that there is very little bow volume forward of the first turret and barbette, where one would find a large concentration of mass, and this already disadvantageous situation becomes even worse; this design will pivot back and forth around its center of mass, burying the bow into incoming seas as it does. And a speed of 27 knots under these conditions? Highly unlikely. The props would probably be cavitating long before the hull ever reached that speed. Bottom line: the design needs a much longer bow, both for additional volume (buoyancy), and to reduce its prismatic coefficient.
  4. Tier 10 French BB

    It's entirely possible that an order was placed, but the "Lyon" has data listed as of 1944, which confirms my thinking that the info on the website may be a typo. The other design is labeled "Tourville". Further, the Lyon design we see is definitely a post-WWI design, with no wing turrets, and multi-gun secondary turrets, rather than the casemate, or sponson designs that were standard for that era. Last but not least, the ship above is a nautical impossibility; eyeballing its weight distribution vs. dimensions, it looks like it has the prismatic coefficient of a barge, and I'm not trying to be disparaging. Given the realities of four-gun turret dimensions, shell handling, hoisting and magazine space, AND the necessary side and torpedo protection required to keep them safe, this ship needs both more length, and beam. As is, I have no clue how such a design could keep its bow above water in heavy seas; maybe even its forward turret would be awash. Just think of the problems the Germans had with Scharnhorst in heavy seas, due to armor, turret, and machinery weight, and she had a very long forecastle compared to this ship.
  5. Tier 10 French BB

    Yes. The Italians started on a 4x4 design armed with 400mm guns, destined to be named Marcus Aurelius, had it been built. It would have been huge; 65,000 tons, 135-foot beam, and unable to enter 75% of the ports in Europe, let alone Italy. A completely impractical weapon, but it would have had great theoretical potential. The torpedo defense system was probably the best in the world, or at least rivaling Yamato in depth, and thickness, and even if armor wasn't as thick as the latter's, the projected specs on the 400mm guns were incredible....
  6. Tier 10 French BB

    One more thing.... If I didn't know any better, I'd say that we're trading in Russian bias for French bias. *16* 17-inch guns firing away? The DPM would surpass the current leaders by roughly 1/3, which is not trivial. Further, ships with 16 heavy guns would need to be absolutely huge, as, between the space needed for handling and hoisting equipment, and magazine volume to hold almost double the shells and propellant as a typical ship, (they would burn through ammo at a daunting rate) their dimensions would become unmanageable. The Lyon, for example, is impossibly small for her armament; there's no way that a ship that is packing 16 13.4" guns could be so tiny. If we're going to get into uber ships, why not just bring in H-44, with her 20-inch guns, and 150,000 ton displacement? Peace
  7. Tier 10 French BB

    Somebody should point out to WG that their 16-gun "Lyon" was more likely a pre-WWII design, not WWI. They probably made a typo, but somebody should have recognized that this is obviously a post-Dreadnought ship, and Dreadnought was a "pre-WWI" vessel. Just sayin'.....
  8. I never said it did, and I did recognize that dispersion is not "natural" in this game, but is subject to program parameters. However, regardless of what happens in the interval from zero to max range, the fact remains that, geometrically speaking, if one ship's dispersion will never exceed 313 meters, and its max range is 25.3 km, the angular size of that shot pattern is 12.4 milliradians, with the given numbers, regardless of anything else. Compare this to a ship with a dispersion of 243 meters at 18.1 km, which works out to a pattern with an angular measurement of 13.4 mils. This means that, at their maximum ranges, the first ship is shooting a better pattern. Dispersion is not measured linearly, it's measured angularly; WG chose to use linear measurements because they were more easily understood by the majority of people, and I guess that my efforts could be described as an attempt to "reverse engineer" their construct, into real world gunnery parameters. Please rest assured that I have witnessed shells leaving the barrels of my guns at directions that must have been 15 degrees off from where they were pointing, so I know about WoWS' decision to turn highly accurate naval rifles into sawed-off shotguns at short range. However, as you pointed out, that tendency drops off and eventually gives way to RNGod past a certain range, within established parameters. That is the domain I'm talking about; at some point, there has to be SOME degree of consistency, and repeatability when you press the LMB. Peace
  9. Not really. I realize that dispersion is not linear in WOWS, but it must follow some logical construct. I tried to apply a real life situation to this game, and while I know it isn't an exact fit, I know that max dispersion divided by max range still gives maximum dispersion values in milliradians, which is what counts. Please see here:
  10. Oops, I forgot the Amagi! I take that back; the Richelieu has the *2nd best* dispersion numbers at tier 8, second only to Amagi's excellent 10.6 milliradians. My bad!
  11. Regardless of what happens with Roma, let's not forget about WG's new Uber ship that has it all; Richelieu! They gave it almost exactly the same punching power as Roma All its guns are up front so angling is easier It's got solid turret armor Dispersion is best at T8 Turret rotation speed is just as good as Bismarck it's almost as fast as the Iowa (32 knots) It's torp protection is almost as good as Roma's (32.5% reduction) And somebody decided that only one ship in the game will out-range it! Check out these top 5 gun range stats: Ship Tier Range Yamato X 26.6 km Richelieu VIII 25.3 km Conqueror X 24.3 km Montana X 23.6 km Iowa IX 23.6 km And WG is supposedly worried about nerfing Roma's dispersion because, as is, it renders the ship "unbalanced" compared to other T8s?? I have to laugh!!!! Anybody who looks at Richelieu's specs, compares them to Roma's (a ship which one must pay for, BTW), and then says; "...oh yeah, Roma's the baddest T8 ship around, and it's going to become my T8 "go-to" ship when it comes out...", is most likely trying to help WG sell ships. While such an action is hardly a crime, it's also a bit on the disingenuous side. Sure, some people can say; "...it's numbers are still a bit inferior to those of some other ships....!" , which may be true, just like it's true that a .357 Magnum is a bit inferior to a .44 Magnum, but they'll both still blow your head off..... Bottom line; the ship has such a collection of positive attributes with so few negative factors, that it pretty much defines "OP". For this game, if I want to win, I'll take the collection of binary data labelled "Richelieu", please.
  12. >> While on the subject of calibration, the case of the 380/45 guns of Richelieu , with characteristics and performance similar to those of the Littorio class, is emblematic: << But the performance of the guns on the Richelieu were NOT similar to the guns on the Littorio; ballisticaly, they were much closer to the guns on the Bismarck class. The only gun that was "similar" in performance to the M1934, was the exceptional US 16"/50 gun.
  13. You're right, my apologies, as Roma never saw combat; that would have been Littorio.
  14. What was he trying to showcase in that video? That the guns fire a pattern more akin to those of a sawed-off, 10-gauge shotgun, than the grouping of the best shooting BB in Europe? No thanks. I'll wait for someone I know and trust to review it, before spending my money on this ship.
  15. Whatever. I doubt that anyone would boast about the ship being a poor performer, and personally, all I wanted was something that was a reasonable performer relative to how it stacked up against contemporaries in WWII. You know what the real issue might be? WG probably has a MUCH bigger following in France than it does in Italy, and both countries have an excessive amount of national pride in their cultures. In this game, Richelieu will most likely trounce Roma, and go on to become the Go-To ship for many players at T8. Think of it; point your nose at somebody from 25km, and leisurely start lobbing HE until your AP can have some effect - if range is closing. Your frontal turret armor beats all others at T8, and you've got the speed to maneuver respectfully. Your only possible weakness is if you get outflanked, but then that's a universal issue. The Richelieu will most likely be the WoWS Uber ship at T-8, and who knows, maybe even T9. Fellow fans of the Vittorio Veneto class; let's accept the fact that Roma will stack up to nowhere hear how its performance, relative to other units, worked in real life. As I predicted long ago, this will just be a T8 ship that says "Roma" on the side, so let's just deal with it, and get on with matters. If you're into graphics, I'm sure WG will do a fine job with her rendering.
×