Jump to content

Trainspite

Supertester
  • Content Сount

    1,585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    16

Community Reputation

511 Excellent

About Trainspite

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Birthday June 3
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Garden of England.

Recent Profile Visitors

3,126 profile views
  1. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    I've forgotten what that looked like in all honesty, but it would be a reasonable guess.
  2. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    Interesting to know, I was doubtful of Tallinn having 180mm guns of the same turrets as Projekt 26. Might be time to apply a fictional tag to it. Nice to see another cyrillic captioned plan view too. I have slacked off updating the historical sections of the RN ships as of recent, so I don't think I could help regarding the wiki.
  3. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    I can certainly dispense some of the images I have. I haven't been as thorough with the Soviet ships in finding differencess between the designs, usually because I can't read Cyrillic and don't have many resources on the matter. Hence I glean from what I come across while scrolling. I don't have anything on Orlan, other than that it is purportedly Projekt 37, and might be a mix of several versions into one (which would make it fictional if it differed significantly from the original designs). Mikoyan is a 1933/34 Kirov-preliminary; Kotovsky uses the same hull as Mikoyan, but swaps out the 6x 180mm for 8x 152mm among other minor superstructure details. I'm unsure if this was meant to be on the same hull dimensions or not, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt for now. Budyonny is a version of Projekt 94 with 9x 152mm guns that apparently was little known about. There are some detail differences but this is the closest I have seen so far. Shchors is Projekt 28, one of the designs that lead into the Chapayev-class / Projekt 68 Lazo is one of the planned Chapayev-class / Projekt 68, the original pre-war design, as opposed to how Chapayev was completed post-war. Tallinn is the former Admiral Hipper-class Lutzow, originally renamed Petropavlovsk. It's received 180mm and 100mm guns to 'Projekt 83K', presumably a potential way of completing the ship postwar, but I have no evidence of this. Ochakov is MЛK Design 8-152. I'm not sure if it shares the same hull as Smolensk, since I believe it is meant to be a few metres shorter. Pyotr Bagration is reported to be a 1950 version of Projekt 65, with 9x 180mm. I have my suspicions however, since the hull is awfully similar to Projekt 68bis (Sverdlov/Kutuzov) in game. I'm not entirely familiar with Projekt 65, but the version below at least has a significantly different bow. Dimitri Donskoi is a combination of Projekt 65 variants apparently, again I don't know too much. Probably a mix of the 12x 152mm version but instead with 180mm instead. That is something I need to update in the list however. Will be fixed soon(TM). Riga is meant to be a 1943/1944 version of Projekt 82. Not much info, but it would probably be one of the designs mentioned in this passage from Rohwer and Monakov's 'Stalin's Ocean-Going Fleet'. Petropavlovsk is meant to be the 1945 version of Projekt 82. Again, not much info, no drawings or stats that can definitively say what Petropavlovsk is. Moskva is Projekt 66. Alexander Nevsky is Projekt 84, but Nevsky has 2x 5 torpedoes in game, whereas Projekt 84 didn't have them from what I have seen. The secondaries have also been replaced, twin 45mm replaced by twin 57mm. Also might be faster than intended by 3 knots. Smolensk is MЛK Design 16-130. Not much to be said here.
  4. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    I have rather specifically excluded torpedoes from cruisers and battleships. I don't really see them as a main armament unlike with destroyers (or Kitakami), however it is worth noting those ships that have had torpedoes added, removed or edited, not counting ships where the torpedoes are anachronistic to the ship's model otherwise. Zara's model is actually just Gorizia with Zara's rangefinders and the torpedoes on it anyway, so it definitely not a good representation of the class. - Taranto B-hull - Svietlana - Karlsruhe B-hull - Furutaka A & B-hulls - Hawkins - Omaha A & B-hulls - Trento - Zara - Myoko - Mogami All of those have an incorrect number or outfit of torpedoes, be it more, less or switching fixed in hull tubes for on deck traverseable launchers.
  5. Trainspite

    List of all the 'Paper' Ships in game.

    I took my sweet time updating this, but I have. A small changelog; - Real ships with fictional armaments* have been classified as 'Semi-Fictional' (Chengan, Hashidate, Tachibana, Chester, Nino Bixio, Romulus, Visby, Ostergotland, Halland). - Zao and Drake have been classed as 'Semi-Fictional' to better represent their respective designs. - Changed Yashima's name to Shikishima. - Added Ludendorff, Rhein, Weser, Loewenhardt, Parseval and Richthofen for Germany. - Added Champagne for France, Zarya Svobody and Mikoyan for Russia. - Removed Gryf. - Updated descriptions for Storozhevoi, Podvoisky, Khabarovsk, Kotovsky, Ochakov, Pyotr Bagration, Knyaz Suvorov, Vasteras and Genova. *= Fictional armaments would be changing the main armament of the ship significantly; number and/or type of the main armament differs. Torpedoes/Guns for DDs, Guns for Cruisers and BBs. Mainz & the Pan-Asian DDs are the exception for now but that will change when I next update it in all likeliness.
  6. Trainspite

    Premium Ship Review #144 - Cheshire

    Perhaps it was the superior rate of fire that made it better for me, lord knows it needed it. I'd probably rate Cheshire over Albemarle on that aspect, though I dislike both. Not to the extent of my dislike for London though. The range was pathetic and got on my nerves even in T6 games. True it's more effort, but at least it's good to state where they come from.
  7. Trainspite

    Premium Ship Review #144 - Cheshire

    Ironically I enjoyed the completely fake Cheshire more than the historical in steel London. Not fun enough to give it a pass, but more fun that the absolutely horrible experience that was London. I can't buy either of the two recent RN CA premiums on principle, London for being garbage and not being a T7, and Cheshire because everything about it is fake/21st Century invention (Wrong guns, wrong shells, wrong hull, wrong turrets, wrong name - there was an existing HMS Cheshire throughout the 1940s to boot). I'm not sure if the Russian cruisers get an A grade for effort. Pyotr Bagration seems to share it's hull with Kutuzov (Combining Projekt 68 hull with Projekt 65 armament?) and Ochakov might share it's hull with with Smolensk (MLK 16-130 to MLK 8-152; same design series, so might be applicable, but I'm not sure). Someone with gamemodels3d could probably compare the models size. The RN CAs get two same hull premiums, or rather one lazy turret swap and a deeply disappointing historical sister ship. The Italian CAs would probably get the best mark since even if Zara is actually Gorizia's model with a few tweaks, at least there isn't a fictional accompanying premium, while Gorizia looks quite accurate. Though I would still prefer her to be a T8 faster firing alternative to Amalfi.
  8. Trainspite

    The royal navies most powerful battleship

    If I am recalling correctly from Innes McCartney's book on the Jutland wrecks the most likely broad indication of Queen Mary's sinking was thus, most eyewitness and survivors accounts recall two explosions; salvos striking the amidships Q-turret and causing a fire, a delay, then an explosion that broke the ships back. A few seconds later the A/B magazines exploded, the cause of that being difficult to determine, either being another salvo scoring hits or a chain reaction from the earlier explosion. I believe the same book also stated that the timeline for Indefatigable's sinking was that the ship had been hit aft (X-turret), hauled out of line to starboard, and was rolling over when A magazine exploded (either from shellfire from Von der Tann or ammunition coming loose). The photo from New Zealand backs this up at least, with Indefatigable rolling onto her port side, while the wreck is near completely obliterated forward (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205086935). I'd say it is probable that a flash fire then explosion is the probable cause of this damage to the stern that sent Indefatigable into her death throes, but it's hard to ascertain that.
  9. Trainspite

    Armored CV vs Unarmored CV?

    And yet Illustrious survived where an equivalent carrier could have easily ended up incapacitated and scuttled/sunk after failing to leave the combat area. Not many carriers were subjected to that amount of bomb damage, and there aren't many good comparisons to be made (Franklin or Kaga perhaps?). With no Essex-spam to make up for any losses taken, I'm quite sure that surviving to fight again a year later is preferable to the Admiralty than the option that has far more risk of the ship being lost for good. Given the aforementioned relative ineffectiveness of the RN's CAP and the theater of operations, it's the right call to have 3+1 Illustrious' instead of 4 more Ark Royals or Yorktown type carriers.
  10. Smallest calibre, but more main guns overall. There is something to be said for that. Prince of Wales landed the first hits at Denmark Strait, she was performing reasonably before the quadruple turrets started having troubles. On a very fresh ship, it may not be unexpected, though there is something to be said for the drill and mechanical errors persisting in the quadruple turrets for some time. They effected the performance of KGV against Bismarck and DoY against Scharnhorst somewhat too. At the same time, you can find faults with the other contemporary battleships that hamper combat performance. Richelieu's dispersion, or the vibration issues on North Carolina. Design-wise, the KGV's accomplished a decent enough result while being closest to being treaty compliant with displacement. The DNC reportedly wrote to the First Lord of the Admiralty that given the facilities and displacement that Bismarck had, he could have designed a better ship. Though that point is more about Bismarck being overweight. I have made the case for KGV at T8 for ages. Since WoWs is an arcade game with an increasingly dilapidated historical facade, there isn't any reason why KGV should be replaced with the fake-bastard-schiffe Mongrel, which makes little effective difference in game. The challenges that the game throws at a 356mm armed ship at T8 can be worked around to create balance, I've seen and experienced enough to know that.
  11. Equal credit should be given between Rodney and KGV really, since only few of the hits can be accurately attributed. Given the ranges, Rodney and KGV both had the capability to demolish Bismarck, and duly did that. As for calling the KGV's inferior, that potentially could be the damage of WG placing them at T7 in game, they were perfectly capable of matching up to their contemporaries.
  12. I'm glad you made your point more concise then. Past a certain point in Hood's design you can say that Hood becomes unacceptably too heavy, Friedman states that to be 41,200t, which the design had reached by December 1916. There is a certain amount of leeway in the design, so increasing the main belt from 8” to 12” was a change that could be (and was) accommodated, but continual changes, mostly to the magazine protection further increased the strain, and Hood ended up over 42,000t standard. I do not believe that this makes the ship a battlecruiser at heart though, considering the armour scheme overall, while not seen as completely adequate (limitations through the design heritage), was effective for the time, and certainly impressed the USN when they learned of it. Designs evolve, and Hood ticks the boxes for a fast BB for me. There were certain minds in the Admiralty that refused to call Hood and the Admiral-class a battleship, despite minds at the time differing in that regard. The ships were considered to be better protected than the previous QE and Revenge-classes of 1912 vintage, and there were some minds that wanted the up-armoured 12” ships as new ships opposed to the original Admiral-class battlecruiser design. This depends on what you consider makes a full battleship, or not. Opinions differed then, as they differ now. Obviously Hood being compared to Bismarck is in Bismarck’s favour, that comes with the Bismarck being 20 years Hood’s junior. It’s a comparison with a lot more bias/significant factors in it than Hood being compared to a late 1910s design.
  13. I think there is a certain difference between a tank that has been designed and built, and then had applique armour applied to it, and a ship which was designed and laid down before a battle, suspended and then re-designed and re-laid down a few months after. The iteration of Hood's design that was completed was post-Jutland. As I said before, and as mr3awsome as has succinctly put, Hood incorporates a lot of the design elements that were in the original design. The design wasn't completely thrown out, and indeed I mentioned that initially few changes were made to it post-Jutland. However, that battle was the catalyst for the re-design. It really seems as if you are trying to pick out certain words with that. There is no guarantee Hood would be redesigned without the results of Jutland. That circles around to something you yourself said earlier when referring to Alaska and if a cruiser was up-scaled to the point of having 20", would it still be a "large cruiser". Obviously I agree that it wouldn't be a large cruiser given said upscaling would result in a ship comparable to what is called a Battleship or Battlecruiser, if not something else entirely. The internals would still resemble that cruiser, like how Hood displays a lot of her battlecruiser ancestry. I view the changes in Hood's design to be sufficiently transformative in her specifications to be called a fast battleship. Apparently you differ, so be it.
  14. Quoting wikipedia doesn't show the entire story/saga behind the genesis of Hood and Admiral-class. The rather vague and unsubstantiated statement of "design limitations" on the intro for Hood's wiki page is particularly confusing for understanding what it is referring to. The design obviously has it's roots in earlier battlecruiser designs, even if some of the first designs more resembled a Queen Elizabeth with a 10" belt and a speed of 26 to 27 knots. However Hood as completed is very distinctly post-Jutland. Otherwise you would have a smaller ship by a fair few thousand tons with a much less impressive armour scheme. A lot of the design was carried over past Jutland before it was found that the ship could be up-armoured significantly for comparatively little cost in displacement. There is a family evolution and resemblance, but that doesn't change what Hood ended up as. As for German BCs, they are a different family lineage altogether. Hood's reputation was made in the interwar period at least, her world cruise and such. That is about as good as you can do in peacetime. Her initial enemy is gone, but there were potentials, as unlikely as it may seem nowadays.
  15. History has happened, but a conflict is not the ideal crucible to base all that is on. The climax of Hood's career is overshadowing, as conflict would be, but you cannot forget or override the periods before that. Hood may be commonly remembered as a battlecruiser with a tragic end, but the ship herself and her design was more fast battleship than ships like QE could ever claim to be (at least given the inefficiencies in QE's design). The other 3 Admirals were cancelled for budgetary reasons, if there were the resources to spare to have another three of these powerful ships, they would be completed, but wartime circumstances and the needs of the RN differed from that. I should note that Hood as she was completed was a post-Jutland design, since the Admirals were originally Battlecruisers through and through (36,500t, 8x 15", 32 knots, 8"+1.5" belt), and even after Jutland the fast battleship Hood didn't emerge until late July until Hood was restarted on the 1st September. The increases in armour meant she was considered better protected than a Revenge or QE, despite her flaws and the calculations during construction that showed that the ship needed to be much larger to be considered fully protected. The original modifications did little in the way of modification to the ships armour scheme.
×