Jump to content

BB3_Oregon_Steel

Members
  • Content Сount

    2,225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6314
  • Clan

    [LHG]

Community Reputation

862 Excellent

3 Followers

About BB3_Oregon_Steel

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Insignia
    [LHG]

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    West Coast USA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,924 profile views
  1. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Guardian54's Boat Feasibility Checks

    Ok soooo ... 1908 design, 1910 build date. I'm not a naval architect but I have studied enough of the ships of that era to have an idea of what the technology of that time could produce and I believe you have some serious issues with this design. Turbo-electric Drive: Turbo electric drive may be a nifty idea but in 1908 it's science fiction as a usable drive for a warship. The first really useable systems aren't going to become available until around 1913 and even then, they are going to be large and bulky which is going to largely limit their use to LARGE vessels. It's just not a viable system for small vessels until you reach the late 1930's and early 1940's. Even then, such drives really aren't effective in generating the high speeds for small vessels that Destroyers require. Range: You are probably going to be forced to use early direct drive turbine designs on a sub 1,000 ton displacement hull. This is sufficient for operations in the North Sea and probably for operations in areas of the Mediterranean but you are not going to get anything like 6,000 nm using this setup. You're problem is going to be the turbines which are going to suck fuel at a very fast rate in a hull with very limited fuel carrying capacity. You'll be lucky to get half that range from this design. You'd really need to be using technology from about a decade later than the design date you've specified when more efficient turbine designs become available and you'll probably need a larger hull to carry it all in, say, around 1,200 tons. Armor: Destroyers of this period (or any period actually) do not carry armored decks and for good reason. Armor is dense, heavy, not just hull plating and this badly impacts one of the destroyers main attributes, speed. If we assume that your ship has a displacement of less than 1,000 tons and it has a 20mm turtleback armored deck, it's going to be about the size of a 500 - 600 ton vessel without an armored deck. This is going to have a huge effect on the actual size of the vessel, it's ability to carry it's specified gun and torpedo batteries as well as its ability to carry fuel for it's engines. This further decreases its operational range. The Japanese attempted something like this around 1907 with their Mogami class Torpedo Gunboats. They carried turbine propulsion, two 4.7 inch guns, two dual torpedo tubes, an armored deck and a fairly useful operational range. When they were all done, they had a vessel of 2,000 tons displacement capable of reaching around 23 knots. So, you're stuck in 1908, in Canada, trying to design a long range destroyer with four main guns and a speed of at least 27 knots. That's quite a challenge. You're going to need a much larger hull, for fuel bunkerage if nothing else. You have two. rather unpalatable, choices for your powerplant and propulsion. 1) Direct Drive Turbines with a Cruising Turbine: Geared Turbines and Reduction Gear Turbines will not become available for several more years so, if you use Turbines, you'll need to use direct drive turbines which are notoriously fuel inefficient. You can't overcome this problem solely by making the ship larger since as you increase the size of the ship, you need to increase the power of the turbine and hence the fuel needed to operate it. Your best bet here is to add a "Cruising Turbine" which is optimized for cruising speeds and range but which is not used when the ship is to operate at high speeds (and vice versa when long range cruising is needed). This can extend the operating range of the ship, but additional space needs to be made for the cruising turbine itself which increases the size of the vessel needed to mount it. 2) Quadruple Vertical Expansion: This is a technological step backwards to the reciprocating engines of the late 19th and very early 20th Century. The development of these engines reached their zenith in the first few years of the 20th Century and featured either quadruple expansion designs or 4 cylinder triple expansion design. These engines strained to produce enough power for high speed vessels and when operating at full speed, the hammer blow of the rapidly rotating and cycling cylinders would rattle the entire ship which made high speed running very uncomfortable and highly stressful on the equipment. However, that being said, reciprocating engines were far more fuel efficient than direct drive turbines which increased their operating range significantly and the most capable models could push the speed of a smallish vessel into the 25-30 knot range. If you want to build a vessel with the operating characteristics you've specified, without the armored deck, you might be able to get close with either a turbine powered vessel with cruising turbines, or a quad vertical expansion engine. It will need to be larger than what you have planned, maybe 1,200 - 1,300 tons for a quad expansion and 1,500+ tons for a direct drive turbine with cruising turbine, even then a 6,000 nm operating range might be too much to ask. I don't think there is any combination of powerplants from that time which will allow an armored deck without dropping the speed into the 22-24 knot range. Even if you take the step to bring later technology from say around 1917 into the 1908 era, geared turbine and reduction turbines on their own are going to strain to give you a 6,000 nm range unless you increase the size significantly for additional fuel bunkerage and keep the speed down to around 27 knots. Hope that's helpful.
  2. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Since Submarines are on the way...

    Hi Spotted Hyena, I'm in complete agreement with the underwater speed thingee, but as best I can determine, it's the course WG has chosen to make submarines more attractive to their target market which appears to be the pure arcade players and apparently what they want is something that is fast enough to keep up with everyone else while still operating submerged. Once you make that decision, you sort of throw ship fans into the burning barrel and everything else sort of follows from there. I'm particularly looking forward to the Yamato taking out underwater subs with her 18 inch guns which it looney tunes stuff but hey, it's obvious that is exactly what's going to become commonplace in this game. Having made the decisions WG has already committed itself to, there really aren't all that many options available to them other than that. Whatever "feel" this game might have retained to this point is going to be completely nuked by this one decision and all of the other decisions that are going to, as a necessity, spring from it. Oh, glad you like the saying. It's actually something I posted during a community event about which ship girl is your favorite and why. I picked Nelson because of her attitude which that saying sort of sums up. I liked it enough to make it, and her, part of my "signature". Thanks for responding!!!
  3. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    World Of Warships Battlecruisers

    Kongo, Dunkerque, Prinz Eidel Friedrich, Hood, Ishizuchi, Myogi and a couple of the made up Russian BB's. All classed as BB's
  4. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Since Submarines are on the way...

    I can certainly see that. If I could get past the whole "these things act nothing like subs" thingee and didn't care to have some kind of approximation of actual submarine warfare then yes I could agree that the game feel isn't all that horrible. But honestly, if you don't have vessels that actually act like subs, how can you get a feel for what sub hunting was all about. You're not going to get that regardless with a 30 knot underwater sub because it's speed is so vastly different from actual performance characteristics of an actual sub that even if you have more realistic sub hunting game play, you really wouldn't be able to use it since that doctrine would be "how you hunt an 8 knot submerged sub" not a 30 knot one. The warp speed underwater subs are so grossly unrealistic they not only change and fictionalize the whole sub experience, they also force the ships which have to deal with them to behave in completely unrealistic ways as well. You don't get a feel for sub warfare nor the feel for what it might have been like to hunt them. Basically you could have made them fly for all the "feel" you're going to get from them (imagine that, carriers and subs all in one handy package. Come on WG we're on to something here) regardless of whether you are operating them or attempting to counter them. Sad really, this is a pretty neat game and I've invested a lot of time in it, it'll be sad to go looking elsewhere but WG has their decisions to make and I have mine. Shame though anyway.
  5. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Since Submarines are on the way...

    You know, it would be way cool if what was coming were actually submarines, but I guess they think underwater DD's are what everyone wants. That being said Das Boot was a great movie but I thought U-571 was awfully good as well.
  6. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Part 2 Of Submarine Beta Test

    Yes I know sleepy emoji. I wish I too could sleep through this moving nightmare and wake up to realize it was just all a bad dream too. Oh what the heck, worth a shot.
  7. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Part 2 Of Submarine Beta Test

    Far Far FAR too soon.
  8. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Can we hurry up with the Subs please?

    Sooooo ... an attempt to solve one problem by unleashing an even worse one. Good thinking, it is after all all the WG way.
  9. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Submarines...........

    Yep, I saw a Mighty jingles replay where shell fire at subs at periscope depth were simply wasted effort. I figured that that was how they were going to "fix" it. Complete and utter fiction but they again their are dealing with little underwater fictions so it makes sense that they'd need to further degrade the game to create an equally unrealistic response. Yep, this is gonna work out just great. So all you sub supporters out there, how do you feel about having battleships able to exploderate you with shell fire? I mean, tell me honestly, is that what you signed on for? I mean ... you did want to drive submarines right?? You have been clamoring for years now to get submarines right? Is that what you think you're really getting?
  10. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Help me choose my main ship for Ranked Sprint Tier VIII

    Bismark but for some reason only when she's wearing her "back from the bottom" cammo and then the Baltimore. These two tend to end up being my best performers at T8 in Ranked. Have two newer ships I'll be testing out there as well, the Witchita and the Mogami and see how they fare.
  11. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Submarines...........

    Ya think?? Should honestly change the name to World of Whatever the Blink I Think the Arcade Players Want Them to Be. I understand the next phase for WOWS development is to be this ... Definitely at least Tier 11, I mean the game has to grow somewhere once they run out of skins or stuff they drew up on napkins right? But they still need to get this beauty into the game before they go there. Btw, the yellow one flies. Submarines and Carriers all in the same handy package!!! Rush right out ... But yes to answer your second question, WG will have to come up with some type of capability for Cruisers and Battleships that will allow them to hunt and kill submerged subs. Chances are WG will come up with a totally fictional capability that will allow surface guns to destroy submerged submarines. That's probably the easiest most straight forward approach. And I thought people were unhinged about carriers. This is going to be entertaining to watch at least.
  12. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Submarines...........

    Nope, the Atlanta's were classed and Light Cruisers but their intended function was to operate as essentially fire support vessels for the destroyer screens in a fleet action that could also be used effectively in anti air actions. Unfortunately for them, they did have to fill the role of a light cruiser and both the Atlanta and Juneau were lost in battles with IJN cruisers while acting in that role. You really should study up on the use of Battleships as one of the principle anti-submarine warfare types during ... pretty much every phase of their existence. Yep, ASW battleships, big thing coming to a WOWS tech tree near you soon (still like the idea of underwater trained dolphin cannons better but BB depth charges fits right in there so tomatoe, tomato). Personally, I'm waiting for the Seaview to be released as a premium especially with that yellow flying sub thingee, its going to be awesome.
  13. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Submarines...........

    Well they really are more overgrown destroyers than cruisers and were intended to operate with them, so that would make some sense. I'm just waiting for the depth charges on the Yamato to make this game complete.
  14. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Submarines...........

    I watched a replay done by The Mighty Jingles. As it stands now, DD's are good against subs, aircraft of GREAT against subs, cruiser and battleships are practically helpless against them unless they are scooting around on the surface. With these highly a-historical subs, WG may have completely unintentionally created an actual historical reality (I know, shocking isn't it). Cruisers and Battleships were helpless against subs and needed aircraft and dd's to deal with the little menaces for them. I wonder what fictitious game mechanic WG is going to come up with to solve this one. Oh, I know, we need the Battleship Yamato with a Wave Motion Gun, or perhaps a main underwater battery firing trained dolphins or something equally realistic.
  15. BB3_Oregon_Steel

    Submarines...........

    Dreadnought is the only battleship confirmed as having rammed and sunk a submarine.
×