Jump to content

SireneRacker

Privateers
  • Content Сount

    8,975
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7897
  • Clan

    [WG-CC]

Community Reputation

3,174 Superb

About SireneRacker

  • Rank
    Vice Admiral
  • Birthday August 21
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The lonely German corner in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Military history (anything before 1990), no matter where and when. Technical details, strategies and more are always good to know.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,073 profile views
  1. SireneRacker

    ST, Z-35, German aircraft carriers.

    The numbers from Wikipedia actually match, surprisingly. The graphic gives 2x2 37mm and 3x4 + 3x1 (or 2x1) 20mm. Wikipedia states identical numbers, except maybe a single 20mm. The gun on the bow is always a gamble. It's there on many graphics, just like graphics also like to place one beneath the barrel of the fourth gun, but pictures usually tell a different story. Adding those barrels up you get 18 or 19, or the "around 20" that Breyer stated. WG's numbers however are a different story.
  2. SireneRacker

    ST, Z-35, German aircraft carriers.

    They are wrong. From Siegfried Breyer "Marine Arsenal 36 - Die Deutschen Zerstörer 2" Roughly translated that means this: "Although those destroyers were carrying an enhanced AA armament from the beginning (in total around 20 barrels of 37 and 20mm), they were likely looked at for a "Barbara" modification as well; here with a high chance the third 12.7cm SK and the two 3.7cm Flak C/30 would have been replaced by an increased number of 3.7cm Flak M-43. But it didn't come to that: Z-35 and Z-36 were lost in late 1944, and Z-42 reached the front so late that it could not be spared for the foreseeable future." This also matches the entry in Gröner's encyclopedia, in Harald Fock's "Z-Vor!" and in Gerhard Koop's "Die deutschen Zerstörer 1935-1945". Unfortunately WG likes to change the AA armament to make it match whatever, with only a few exceptions being historically accurate (be it according to plans or to what was actually done). Leberecht Maass and Z-23 showcase this in a similar manner, they kept the main gun and still got the 37mm automatic guns in increased numbers.
  3. SireneRacker

    Armada: Mainz

    Except it wasn't. The Kriegsmarine intended to use the more modern 150mm L/55 (the same one that you'll find as a secondary gun on Bismarck, Tirpitz, Graf Spee, Graf Zeppelin, etc) and put them into a new turret that would match both weight and barbette diameter of the 203mm twin turret. As they are right now each of these turrets is 100t too light and the barbettes they are sitting in are 1.5m too wide.
  4. SireneRacker

    ST, German aircraft carriers, Z-35

    The perspective on Hapa's pics does screw up things a bit, since it makes things appear rather tall. But using a caliper on the screen the tube above the searchlights seems to be a tad bit too tall. Not much in total, but around one floor. The distance between the base of the tub and the bottom of the searchlight platform is roundabout the same as from the top of the searchlight platform to the top of the structure (excluding the mast). On the in-game model I end up with that distance ending right below the open platform. Maybe it's perspective, I'll have to see the in-game model on GM3D for that.
  5. SireneRacker

    ST, German aircraft carriers, Z-35

    The T6 one however is realistic. Unlike the other three designs the T6 can easily be identified as the converted Seydlitz, so finding any sort of blueprints is a matter of seconds. And voila:
  6. SireneRacker

    ST, German aircraft carriers, Z-35

    When I looked at Z-35 for a potential German DD line split I deemed her fit to be a T8. Overly simplified and in in-game terms she is Z-23 but with the main armament of Leberecht Maass. That's it. So T8 seemed the logical choice given the competition at that tier. T9 will be.... interesting to watch.
  7. SireneRacker

    Premium Ship Review #142 - Mainz

    Perhaps better that they didn't, because unfortunately WG got so many things wrong about it that it is only loosely related to what Seydlitz and Lützow were meant to be. Main battery, secondary battery, torpedo armament, armor and equipment, WG scored a full house here. Also I appreciate the name Seydlitz being preserved for a certain WW1 capital ship~
  8. SireneRacker

    Mainz is out!

    She has 1/4 HE pen, so she pens 38mm.
  9. SireneRacker

    Mainz is out!

    Can pump out a good amount of damage with all its weapon systems (HE, AP, torpedoes and to an extend AA), but the armor sucks, the concealment sucks, the maneuverability sucks, so fun is debatable.
  10. SireneRacker

    Shell velocity calculation is way off

    As others said, things in-game are compressed for gameplay reasons. Otherwise things would be stretched out like a chewing gum. For example if a ship with a constant 24kn (30kn base and 20% loss due to turning) speed and 800m turning radius would turn without compression, a 360 would take roundabout 417 seconds, or seven minutes. That‘s more than a third of how long a game can last. With the speed compression factor of 5.22 that time for a 360 goes down to 80 seconds, so a bit more than a minute. Much smoother for gameplay~ Shell velocity compression factor I noted at 3, so your observation matches this.
  11. SireneRacker

    WG Explain Yourselves!

    A known thing that the game engine can do weird things, especially when ships perform maneuvers but even if they don‘t do so. I managed to score a SAP citadel on a bot DM in a training room with Venezia, shouldn‘t be possible, but it definitely happened.
  12. SireneRacker

    ST, changes to test ships.

    Plenty I assume. Every navy with ambitions (not meant in a negative sense) would draw up a crap load of designs before deciding on a final design to build. Some with more details, some being mere requirements. For example I know some that are joking about making an entire Tech Tree out of North Carolina class prelim designs... Or the huge table with Japanese BB options that would eventually lead to Yamato. Like 30 different ships?
  13. SireneRacker

    Could Guns Use International Ammo?

    That depends on a lot of things, even factors outside the gun can contribute to it working or not. Wonderful example is USS Wichita. She carried basically the exact same guns in the same turrets as the following Baltimore class, yet she could not use the same ammunition. While the Baltimore class used the 152kg heavy AP shell, Wichita's hoists could not take that weight and thus she used the older, 120kg heavy shells. So say that you take the ex-German cruiser Prinz Eugen, now an American warship, and want to fire American AP shells, you'll likely find that Eugen's hoists won't take those 152kg heavy projectiles. Next point is that the shells need to have the same dimensions. That their diameter matches is desirable of course, though obviously what some people call a 203mm gun can vary from what others call a 203mm gun as well. It depends on what people take as their reference point, because even for a single gun I can think of four different diameters (barrel diameter without rifling, with rifling, diameter of shell body without driving bands, with driving bands). Identical length should not be too important unless the point gets hit where the shells would not fit into the ammo hoist, similar problem to what has been described. A saving grace for larger weapons is that at least you do not have that problem with cartridges, like say for a rifle where both a .308 and a .30-06 have the same bullet diameter but not the same cartridge lengths. With seperate ammunition it should be possible to use (to stick to the example) USN 203mm AP but using the German propellant. Because otherwise the breach design could lead to some interesting results when using those silk bags. So assuming you have shells that fit into the equipment and can be handled by it, with the key measurements being identical, then sure you can fire it. Just remember that suddenly your entire ballistics table will go down the toilet because the projectile may have a different length, weight and has likely been fired at a different velocity as well.
  14. SireneRacker

    No warships were sunk by rocket planes in WW2

    Surface ships? You never said surface ships. You literally said "no russian ships were involved in wwiii". I can of course use their surface units as well, but submarine numbers are far easier to find.
  15. SireneRacker

    No warships were sunk by rocket planes in WW2

    Last time I checked the German torpedoboat T-31 was a German ship, with Germany at that point being at war with the USSR. And I am certain that during the engagement the Soviet MTBs were not firing jelly beans at the Germans. Total kill count of Soviet submarines adds up to 108 merchants and transports and 28 warships of various size, ship kills through mines not included. It's a low result for a war that lasted four years, but it is a result regardless.
×