Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

3,256 Superb

About SireneRacker

  • Rank
    Vice Admiral
  • Birthday August 21
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • 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

8,637 profile views
  1. SireneRacker

    How did they keep this thing from rolling over?

    It's not about where the center of volume is for such a ship but where the center of gravity is. Most of those upper works are Kaga's three hangar decks, which are just large voids. At the same time there are magazines and machinery deep inside the hull, in Kaga's case protected by the 152mm belt plus the deck plus the turtleback and some torpedo bulkheads which push the center of gravity down. Things like fuel oil and feed water you would also usually store below the waterline, adding even more weight. With that the center of gravity is going to be well below the center of volume, unlike with the boats you played with as a kid. That allows them to not capsize.
  2. SireneRacker

    Game design vs real design

    Plunging fire: There were a few navies that based their shells around the idea of having them dunk through horizontal armor. The Americans being the most notable case here. The amazing thing with this being that even at very long battle ranges the shells have an effective means of damaging an opponent, and no increase in range can make the raw penetration part fail (though hit ratios will drop) This game for the most part doesn't have plunging fire. I tested Yamato at 35km, no chance, the shells would bounce from the decks in all cases. Only belt pen matters (which of course benefits certain high velocity guns). What was not really a realistic up- or downside in history was muzzle velocity (unless we go with logistics, because barrel wear). There were computers that did the fire control, so a longer flight time didn't impact the performance nearly as much as it would in-game. The concept of reaction time that doesn't exist in reality in the way it does in-game adds to this. Subdivision: A very rare case since only one example exists that really showcases it. But when one compares Leander to Perth it's noticable that latter has two funnels instead of one. This had a reason in reality as the subclass that Perth belonged to adopted an echolon arrangement for the machinery (so from bow to stern it would be boilers, turbines, boilers, turbines instead of boilers, boilers, turbines, turbines). The spacing between the boilers made two funnels necessary. The advantage would be that a single hit would be way less likely to leave the ship immobilized. Unfortunately in-game it means the citadel hitbox is larger, making Perth more vulnerable to AP hits, and subdivision plays no role.
  3. SireneRacker

    How Did the US Navy Get So Powerful ?

    Geography played one hell of a role. For a nation except Mexico or Canada to land troops on the mainland there is a huge distance via the ocean to be covered first. This makes the creation of a bridgehead an operation that would take immense efforts and to supply the troops would be a logistical nightmare. That land based aircraft are not going to be of any use unless some NA-country lends some aid adds to this. With the threat to the homelands being so low, the industry can be fully optimizef for about anything. Which is where the second factor comes into play. The US has a lot of resources at their disposal, so stuff doesn't have to get imported from elsewhere, and it's a large nation with in comparison to most European countries a lot of inhabitants. The only worry is moving the stuff within the nation from A to B. Which if there is no threat of air raids and such is about as easy as it sounds. So lots of resources, lots of space, lots of workforce, no disturbance. It can't get any better than that. That's how things like Liberty ships get spammed like mad... TL;DR: Geological Jackpot
  4. More like you only read what you want to read, since I never stated the weapon to not be crap. Hint, these two sentences: " Bismarum ranA" won't call either of those guns anything other than crap" Is this the best counterargument you have to offer? If so, I take that as a compliment.
  5. For that weapon the "questionable" is to be applied. The nonexistent part is on the removal of the .50 Vickers quads on the KGVs in 1939 in favor of some Pompoms. At that point short range defenses were quite literally nonexistent.
  6. This is one hell of a flawed statement... For one I assume that you are comparing a Bismarck May 1941 with Yamato from any later point in the war, ideally July 1945. Those comparisons are not even remotely accurate as AA was increased on almost all ships as the war progressed. Bismarck sinking prevented such modernizations from taking place. If you go with Bismarck May 1941 and Yamato as designed (since she'd only get completed in December 1941) your statement won't hold up. Bismarck's heavy AA battery by far outshines Yamato's, unlike Yamato she does have a medium range AA (even if crappy, it's still better than nothing) and short range wise neither is looking good really... Which somewhat reflects the state of battleship AA in 1941. No battleship at that point had a solid AA in both short, medium and long range. Not North Carolina which still used .50 cals, not Richelieu which had awful AA all-around, not Bismarck with her crap medium range AA, not the Japanese with no medium AA to begin with, not the Italians with disappointing long range AA, and also not the British with non-existant/questionable weaponry. Secondly, the comparison between the 25mm and the hand loaded 37mm also doesn't quite hold up to reality. It's flawed from the get go since you are comparing a medium caliber AA gun with a small caliber one, but fine, let's compare. Both guns have the same mass output towards a target on a per-barrel basis, the 37mm gun has a 700m longer effective range. Now let's add that the 37mm gun is stabilized, the twin mounts always had an integrated fire control unit and that they do not share the bucket list of problems of the 25mm gun. Namely: vibrations, excessive muzzle flash, shell ejection problems at higher altitudes with resulting jammings, poor ring sights and lack of traverse speed (if you are a medium range gun traverse is much less of a problem). I wouldn't call either of those guns anything other than crap, but it's obvious that one of them is worse than the other.
  7. What I read some time ago (don't ask where, I can't give a source since I forgot) was that with manually aimed weapons it is very awkward to fire down at a target. It makes sense if you think of it. Here is a good shot of HMS Rodney's 20mm gun with someone crewing it: The German 20mm is similar in usage, but finding decent pics of that is a bit more work. Now if you tell the gunner to aim down -5°, and this person happens to not be Atilla the Hun, it's easy to see them tiptoe'ing and just trying to get the gun low enough while still having a solid grip of it.
  8. Again, this has no relevance whatsoever regarding your claim that the Bismarck class is an enlarged Bayern class. Do you have anything on that topic to say? Given this is the second reply that doesn't touch that point in the slightest, I am leaning towards no. At least you are being honest... No one here is trying to claim that they are equals. You however critizised a specific event that happened to Bismarck, an event that evidently happened to other ships. Yet you dismiss this happening to other ships for reasons that have no relevance whatsoever regarding this specific event. Congratulations, you have just realized what the point of a fleet in being is. This is a gross oversimplification. The designer creates blueprints for the ships to build. Those blueprints go to the Naval command which then orders/hires either a private or a government-owned shipyard to build a ship with those blueprints. After said ship is launched, Naval command again orders/hires people to fit out the ship. If the Naval Command then decides that fitting out 100% takes too long and to instead sortie with the not-yet-completed ship, the designer has done nothing wrong. Considering the situation under which the Bismarcks were created, this statement is just soaked with hindsight. The Bismarck class was meant to counter the French Richelieu class under the assumption that Great Britain is not going to interfere (like they didn't when Germany occupied Austria and the Sudetenland). With two Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts the navy would be far from inferior compared to two Richelieus and Dunkerques, especially when one considers how riddled with flaws the Richelieus were. You were the one who wanted to bring the IJN in here. In May 1941 the IJN didn't have any more modern battleships, unless you want to send the far from completed Yamato which wouldn't fare any better than the BBs I already mentioned. However, you should consider two things here. 1. AA is a mostly superficial thing. Especially when it comes to light and medium AA there isn't anything major preventing some modernizations. Even large caliber AA is not that complicated to upgrade to more modern standards. You see the American standard type battleships bristling with AA, their age certainly didn't prevent those moderniziations. To make this even more pronounced, the Germans modernized their pre dreadnoughts in 1944 by removing all secondary armament for 6x1 105mm dp, 9x1 40mm Bofors and a good load of 20mm where I can't quite remember the count. 2. You talk as if the Germans had much shipbuilding experience. They didn't, the Treaty of Versailles ensured that much. The Germans tried to make that leap that they missed within a few ships, but the results were rather mixed. I refer to German high pressure boilers here. Aside from the damaged radar that you are apparently ignoring now, most of Bismarck's issues aside from the list and lack of maneuverability were soft factors. At the point of the engagement the crew had been on their battlestations for four days, they were demoralized when Admiral Lütjens broadcasted to the entire ship that they were going to die soon and following Lindemann's approval they were given free access to the liquor storage, with predictable results given the situation. Compare that to the British crews that were bloodthirsty and well rested and knew that the upcoming engagement could not be lost. Of course a list such as it was reported by Bismarck's survivors can very much impair the combat capabilities of a ship. You can figure out yourself how much list is required to flood your secondaries, and then use your imagination how much fun it must be to move 800kg heavy projectiles around... Or that a ship with such a list is going to have unpredictable movements, which makes accurate gunnery nearly impossible. If you seriously believe that the shellfire from Kirishima is in any way comparable to the shellfire from Rodney and KGV.... oh boy... First of, Kirishima is using much less capable guns than either of the two. Second and more severe, Kirishima entered this engagement believing she would shell Guadalcanal, not fighting some battleship. Thus her hoists were filled with Type 3 Incendiary shells, and the count of shells she fired should be more than indicative of this fact: 356mm Type3 Incendiary: 66 rounds fired 356mm Type0 HE: 22 rounds fired 356mm Type 91 AP: 27 rounds fired Then you move to the shells that have been estimated to hit their target: Two Type0 HE projectiles Two Type3 Incendiary projectiles One Type91 AP shell One Type91 AP cap and windscreen (shell body did not stick to the shell until the impact) And then a few 152mm HE and Common shells, but those would hardly deal relevant damage. Since I can tell what you are trying to do here, here is the source on that one: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis.php If you consider the strategic side 3 however is a highly risky move. Once a battleship has been sunk it's out of the equation. Once no battleships can threaten your convoys you can drastically tone down the defenses, and open up resources for other frontlines. This is precisely why they were so careful with Tirpitz, for as long as she would be afloat the Royal Navy would have to reserve resources well in excess of Tirpitz to prevent a potential breakout. This is not to mention the constant attempts by the British to sink her. Remove Tirpitz and the worst that can happen to your Arctic convoys is a destroyer, so a single Dido class can turn the entire convoy into an impossible target for surface vessels. You also seem to have forgotten something I said already regarding the timeframe in which the ships were used. Outside of the outlier that Admiral Scheer was, surface raiding ceased being a viable move around mid-1941. Look up how much the Scharnhorst sisters did after Bismarck entered service. You'll find... the Channel Dash, Gneisenau suffering a magazine detonation, Scharnhorst and Tirpitz raiding some Allied outpost in Spitzbergen and then Scharnhorst finding her demise at North Cape. Not all that much action now is it..? Just like Bismarck had no business being anywhere outside a dockyard for fitting.... But did it? There are wonderful shell penetration programs out there. You should invest some time into them and check how much of the "armor failure" can be reasonable blamed here. But I shall do that for you: The first hit that would be counted as a critical hit against armor during Bismarck's final hours was a shell hit from Rodney from roughly 15km, which would disable the second turret. At this range the penetration table against KC for a holing hit (all you'd need to knock a turret out) gives ~520mm of armor. As Bismarck was at that point firing at Rodney, I can easily assume that the shell if anything went through the turret face (or the barbette, info is conflicting. I'll be using both anyway) Now, let's hold this against some other battleships shall we? King George V.: Against British Cemented armor the penetration for similar effects is ~470mm. With a 324mm turret face and barbettes that are at max 324mm, she falls right out. Nelson: With 381mm turret faces, this should be clear.. North Carolina: Against Class A armor (actually they used Class B, which would likely fare worse, but the table only gives for Class A) the penetration is roughly 540mm. But since we have angled turret faces, we need a calculation in between. Angle of fall at that range being ~12.5°, the absolute penetration is 553mm. The 45° angled turret face being hit at a slightly normalized angle, we have a relative turret face thickness of 481mm. So a turret penetration will take place. Barbettes being 292-406mm thick a barbette penetration would also take place. South Dakota: For the sake of completion, a 457mm turret face hit by that shell at that angle is 542mm, which would still be below 553mm. SoDak's barbettes get as thick as 440mm, so no comment required here... Richelieu: Unfortunately there is no solid data on French armor, but the assumption that it stands up about as well as German or American armor should be fine. So 520mm or penetration vs 430mm turret faces and 405mm barbettes. Littorio: Italian cemented armor being the strongest, you are looking at only 450mm of penetration here. As there are inclined turret faces, I'll also note the absolute penetration of 460mm. Neither is going to do much against the 350mm barbettes or the 350mm turret faces (which if I assume a 30° angle are ~365mm strong, though I am likely exaggerating the angle here). Yamato: Rougly 550mm of penetration against that sort of armor. It'll be just enough to get through the barbette, though I won't bother with the turret faces. Nothing going through those... I hope it's somewhat clear that under those circumstances no battleship aside from maybe Yamato could've avoided such a hit. I could do this with other hits as well, but given how they all occured at a closer range (in most cases it'd be a pointless calculation. If you penetrate a flat face from 15km the results for 10km are obvious) and because of the effort involved I won't. The trend should be clear here. In case you are wondering, I took all armor values from navypedia from the respective ship pages. Done that already.... But hey, still waiting for you to provide anything with substance about Bismarck being "an enlarged Bayern"...
  9. The wonderful part about your reply here is that it doesn't refute anything of what I said and instead tries to dwell god-knows-where. I take it that you have nothing of value to prove your claim of the Bismarck class being "an enlarged Bayern class". Yet average is more than inferior. This is utterly failing to remain even halfway objective. You attempting to hold up Bismarck's radar malfunction as a bad thing and then dismissing it for other warships for reasons that are not related to the subject at hand is one hell of a double standard. Fact is, both Bismarck-class and South Dakota-class ships damaged their own radars when firing full salvos for the first time. Both classes saw modifications one way or another to do away with this issue, and it was not repeated. To point and judge this for one and not the other is hypocritical. Where the hell is the logic behind blaming the designers for a thing that was well beyond their control? The Bismarck-class was designed to carry four AA fire directors and a uniform AA battery. Naval command decided to send out the warship before those could be installed/arranged. If whoever constructed your house decided to install plastic pipes instead of copper ones as the plans called for, and you have water damage, do you sue the architect? I certainly hope you don't. Also no, Japanese battleships wouldn't have fared any better in that situation. At the time of OpRheinübung the most modern IJN BB would be Nagato, with an AA suite of four 127mm twins and ten 25mm twins. You can also take a Kongou class vessel of your choice, the AA is going to be either identical or worse. With how pathetic the 25mm performed in every single regard, and them still using the older Type91 AA FCS, your claim has no basis. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with Tirpitz' service history, she was underway when the Albacores attacked. Not inside a fjord. So much for that benefit... This is flawed for several reasons: 1. This was not much of a fight. Bismarck had at that point taken three torpedo hits and had been damaged in numerous places. She was no longer capable of maneuvering or doing more than 8kn. To sell Bismarck's final engagement as anything more than a crippled warship getting pummeled to death is delusional. To give some perspective: To take any of those events as indicative without second thought is misrepresenting things. Not to mention that you conveniently left out that Rodney also had KGV and two heavy cruisers by her side... 2. The armor did exactly what it was supposed to do. Despite the large volume of shellfire being directed at Bismarck, the shells that actually went into the vitals can be counted on one hand (one or two managed to damage the machinery compartments). The magazines were not detonated, like say it happened when HMS Hood hit Bretagne or what should've happened when Massachusetts hit Jean Bart (lucky for her her magazine was empty at that point). No battleship could've taken those hits and come out in a shape less FUBAR than Bismarck except maybe Yamato. None. This doesn't give remotely accurate results for various reasons, especially when one fails to consider things like circumstances. First of, it heavily favors the victor. Once things go south the battleships have only few options, of which none can be considered optimal: 1. Go out in a desperate final battle (see Yamato) 2. "Fleet-in-Being" approach (see Tirpitz) 3. Risky Hit and Run operations (see Scharnhorst) In your book, Second of, especially in this case, it heavily favors those Axis units that had the opportunity to act early in the war. The Scharnhorst sisters had the opportunity to do some convoy raiding in the first year of the war, a time in which British countermeasures and support from the US outside of supplies were rare. By the time the Bismarcks came around this was different. Third, especially with how few units there are in a battleship class and how many factors are involved, events can turn ugly extremely fast. Bismarck saw this when a torpedo hit her aft. Prince of Wales saw this when a torpedo hit her shaft tunnel. Roma saw this when an AP bomb hit her. To now take these unfortunate singular events and try to sell them for more than what they are is grossly misrepresenting things. The same logic would indicate that a somewhat healthy Bismarck can sink a battleship of her size with five salvos. She did that, and you know that. But it sounds stupid. And if you believe so as well, then you know how you just sound.
  10. As a battleship she would hardly see much use starting midwar. But that was the case for battleships around the globe. Usual work would be either defending themselves against air attacks or shelling ground targets. Since any battleship can do coastal bombardment (hell, the Germans used pre-dreadnoughts for that purpose and it worked) it only leaves the question if you can use the ship for AA defenses. There the Bismarck-class rates decently, assuming they get an AA refit similar to those of other German warships (but couldn't get, since they'd get sunk before getting a chance). If the Germans were all too happy to refit the pre-dreadnoughts with a full dp secondary battery and plenty of 40mm Bofors plus 20mm weaponry, then it's not outlandish to assume that the Bismarcks would at least get the latter two. Singling you out, though also meant for those that had this message underlying in their posts. 1. Bismarck was an enlarged Bayern class She wasn't. The only things she shares with those WW1 ships is having a 4x2 380mm battery and a triple shaft arrangement. And to clarify that part, they weren't even intended to carry 380mm guns at first. The design called for 330mm weaponry until it became clear that the Richelieus, the ships that the Bismarck-class were meant to counter, would carry 380mm guns. So not even the caliber part can be reasonably upheld as a "copy from Bayern class". In contrast her armor scheme differed drastically in both purpose and execution, her structure is drastically different and the range of operations is drastically different. 2. Inferior firepower Depends on who you want to use as measuring stick. For a European battleship her firepower was average. 3. FCS blown apart by her own guns firing for the first time This is a horse beaten to death, and it's so annoying because people treat it like it was something soooooo outlandish. If disabling the own radar once is enough to talk down to a ship like tat, then you better throw USS Massachusetts right next to her because at Casablanca she did just that: disable both of her gunnery radars due to firing full charges for the first time. What matters is if measures were taken to prevent such incidents, or at least minimizing their impact. The Germans removed those radars eventually from all warships and installed more capable versions, and I have yet to hear of Tirpitz knocking out her radars after firing her main guns at ground targets or aircraft. 4. AA Bismarck vs the Swordfish is just like the gunnery radar a gross misrepresentation that is getting blown out of proportion by the internet. It should be obvious that a warship which is missing half of her AA fire directors and with a mixed AA battery would have issues against aircraft. But hey, not like those were scheduled to be fixed for both and fixed for Tirpitz, which had no troubles downing Albacores when coming under air attack. Or German AA, using the exact same guns, downing Swordfish during Operation Cerberus. But nope, people only see the two air attacks on Bismarck and that must be the true performance! 5. Obsolete armor scheme The logic behind the Bismarck's armor scheme is a bit too complex for a short forum reply, but to keep it short. For the engagement ranges envisioned (and that would ultimately be the norm for the Germans during the war) the armor scheme is the only logical solution, unless you consider a belt too thin with nothing behind to be a viable option. I have written that logic in particular up some time ago, here: The only other way of going with 2. would be to make a decapping system like it was found on the Littorios (Krupp was the one doing a lot of research on this method, so the knowledge was there).
  11. SireneRacker

    Odin Buff

    Improve (read: buff) Odin for what purpose? Is she underperforming?
  12. SireneRacker

    Are Italian cruisers really that bad?

    At lower tiers they struggle, since a lot of battleships have distributed armor schemes which result in SAP shells being rather lacking. So they can't reliably damage a good portion of the ships they will face. Starting with Tier 6/7/8 this gradually changes, as a lot of BBs become softer against SAP (Lyon->Richelieu, Iron Duke->QE->KGV, Gneisenau is a lonely ship with weak upper belt, Nagato and Izumo+) so you can more reliably damage them. Add to that that starting at Tier 8 they have both good durability and good speed (Zara is rather slow, the ones below very soft skinned ships), and you'll have a line that only starts shining with Amalfi.
  13. Unfortunately, none of those are even close to being Atlanta equivalents. To know what an Atlanta equivalent would be you have to look at more than just if it's a boat with lots of dp guns (otherwise you might as well call the Fletcher class Atlanta-equivalents). You need to look at what the ship can be used for. In Atlanta's case (and the case of this thread) it's about a cruiser (read: a ship capable of independent operations with a wide variety of applications) with enhanced (read: well above average compared to other ships of their navy) AA capabilities for fleet defense (that's what they were used for in the end. Their initial purpose was being a DD leader but that was not what they became known for). Now keeping that in mind one can go through what you propose as "Atlanta equivalents": This is completely out of era. The need for dedicated AA vessels died long before the Deutschland class entered service. Deutschland is not even an AA ship to begin with. She could engage aircraft, but she was a training ship by design and throughout her entire service career. Undine and Ariadne are about as far away as being AA cruisers as you could be. What was left of their machinery post refit was solely for power generation, and movement could only happen when using tugboats. You might as well try to sell those as AA cruisers: They were floating AA batteries. Not AA cruisers. And most definitely not equivalents to the Atlanta-class. They lack the ability to act independently. While Niobe (as well as Nymphe and Thetis) could move under their own power, they were mainly used as stationary AA batteries. Even then, they are no equivalents of AA cruisers, most definitely not of the Atlanta class. They lack the fleet defense element that coined the Atlanta class. They are too slow and too short ranged to be considered cruisers. And the Germans also didn't consider them as cruisers. They referred to them as "floating flak batteries".
  14. SireneRacker

    Why was Odin criticized when it first launched?

    The efficiency of the design depends drastically on what you set as intention. The Bismarck-class was built to counter the threat posed by the French Richelieu-class. For this purpose Bismarck's design is infinitely superior to what Odin could've been (reminder that in-game Odin would not be possible if you tried to build her as Bismarck, as her secondaries minus the turret only entered service in 1942, at which point the Bismarck class was long completed) as it features a main armament that can actually pose a threat against those battleships at reasonable combat ranges and conditions. Odin might be able to handle Strasbourg, but against the Richelieu class she would stand little chance. As such, she'd fail to meet the requirements that resulted in the Bismarck class. If you wish to disrupt merchant traffic neither battleship can be called "effective". Though given the tendency of the Royal Navy to use older battleships for escorting convoys the Bismarck-class would stand a good chance of getting through those defenses, though she would likely take damage in the process that'd require her to return home afterwards. Odin, just like the Scharnhorst-class, would not stand any favorable chance against a Revenge- or Queen Elizabeth-class battleship and would have to look for smaller, less protected targets.
  15. SireneRacker

    Oklahoma - DOA

    Assuming an overall balanced state, slow speed doesn't have to confuse at all. On the contrary, it can be an opportunity. I still at times fancy the fantasy of placing West Virginia in her 1945 state at T8. While her 21kn speed might sound like a serious issue (it surely is), it can at the same time serve as a blank check when looking at other stats. No speed loss during a turn (Colorado btw has this)? Absurd accuracy for the main guns? Gimmicked secondaries? All upgrade slots (like Arkansas)? 38mm midship plating? It's like the Golden Ticket into the chocolate factory. Not some cookie cutter "try to keep stat X somwhat similar to the competition", but instead diversity that knows few limits.