Jump to content

Snowyskies

Members
  • Content count

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

35 Neutral

About Snowyskies

  • Rank
    Master Chief Petty Officer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Tier VIII Brit DD: Lightning

    True, that's also an oddity, though 12 to 10 isn't such a big jump. Here's my estimation of the time-to-distance values. Once again I can't and won't claim they are 100% correct but they should at least be somewhat accurate and give an idea of how they perform.
  2. Tier VIII Brit DD: Lightning

    The ballistics of Lightning's gun should be much closer to the ones on Jutland and Daring than the guns on Jervis are. The older British 120 mm/45 guns have arcs comparable to the US 127 mm/38 at all ranges. Both the 120 mm/50 on Lightning and the 114 mm/45 on Jutland and Daring guns on the other hand are only comparable to the US 127 mm/38 at short ranges while at long range they trend towards being equal or superior to the Japanese 127 mm/50. Well, without being privy to how WG calculates the trajectories I can't of course be entirely certain however that's my estimation at least. Lightning is therefore a very reasonable choice from ballistics perspective. Going from penta to quad torpedo mounts on the other hand isn't as ideal of a transition, even if getting better torpedoes helps.
  3. T10 UK DD Daring

    I can't state it as fact but by my simulation of the shell the 114 mm gun on Daring should at worst equal the US 127 mm/38 below 6 km, start having better time-to-target at ranges above 6 km and equal the Japanese 127 mm/50 around 12 km .
  4. Ah, I only meant the WW1 designs, not any post-war ones. Now granted the smaller cruisers that were under construction also had a turtleback. However from my reading of it, and I may be wrong on this, the planned future (Imperial) German fleet cruisers might not have had any turtleback either. Either way I can't add much more of worth on the subject, I can only look at the plans as found on dreadnoughtproject.org and conclude that at least on them there isn't any turtleback.
  5. The designs of the later battlecruisers and fast battleships (Große Kreuzer and schnelle Großkampfschiffe plans as can be found at http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf/) of the German Empire also lack turtlebacks. It seems only the normal battleship designs continued using a turtleback.
  6. Your cross-section says it is at frame 103 looking towards frame 93 and from your overhead view you can see that it means it starts aft of the machinery space (103-97) and ends at the aft machinery space (97-93). It states that the outer belt ends at frame 99 but the reverse applies to the inner 3½ inch armor as well even though it isn't outright stated. It stops at frame 97 or in other words at the bulkhead to the machinery space. There is a space between the machinery space and the outer belt as well, yes, but it isn't the 3½ inch armored one. It's just another, normal bulkhead.
  7. WG really do like adding new bows, don't they. To be fair the Germans in WW2 also seems to have liked doing that kind of work as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, some of the Torpedoboot 1935 ships, and several of the Zerstörers had their bow reconstructed. A pretty significant percentage of their navy all in all. Maybe WG just wants to keep up the tradition.
  8. Electrical power output of battleships

    Surely the main reason for the much higher electric power generation is the main turrets, period. The North Carolina that you used as an example didn't ship with any radar at all (well, maybe an CXAM radar, the sources I've seen contradict each other as to whether it was added in a refit after commissioning or if it was there already) nor any Bofors mounts. The British Vanguard on the other hand had a bunch of radar sets and Bofors mounts but used hydraulics to power the mounts.
  9. Could the Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions section of the forum be opened up so you don't have to log in to view it? You can view the posts in all the other sections (and I mean all: News and Announcements, Update Notes, Public Test, Surveys, General Game Discussion, Team Play, Support, Discussions about Warships, Historical Discussion and Studies, Player Modifications, Foro en Español, and Fórum Brasileiro are all viewable) without logging in but not Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions. It's a minor issue of course but at the same time I can't see why it couldn't and shouldn't be done. It is a bit frustrating at the moment that you can't really link to any topics in that section on e.g. the European WoWs forum or on reddit because not everyone have NA accounts and are thus unable to view it.
  10. Bois- Nueve de Julio...?

    Which is an amusing example as Albany was originally ordered by Brazil and though Albany herself was never in Brazilian service the lead ship Almirante Barroso did. The almost identical and a few months older Ministro Zenteno (slightly different armament, could technically still be considered the lead ship instead of Almirante Barroso) was in the Chilean navy. It's not the same situation as Boise/Nueve de Julio but it is an example of a premium which very well could have been in the Pan-American tree instead.
  11. Possible Solution to Radar

    Considering the topics at hand in the forum I'd assume you are mainly thinking about radar jammers, but if you truly ask about electronic warfare overall then the question becomes pretty far reaching. Electronic warfare by my reading of it doesn't just involve the "offensive" parts such as jamming. Radar and radio communication simply on its own without anything interfering would already be considered EW. With such a wide net we'd be talking about the consumable Radar, the (presumably) radio communication between ships which allows sharing of enemy positions/own position/aircraft position, and the Radio Position Finding skill. Especially the (presumably) communication between friendly ships is pretty core to the game so I couldn't really answer anything but "Yes" to the question from that point of view. Now if you go with a more narrow interpretation of EW and only consider the RFD skill or a radar jammer consumable to be EW, well... then I'm more hesitant to answer yes or no. Specifically to the question about a radar jammer it would have to be shorter duration than the radar for sure and/or be a choice between it and another consumable, say, smoke.
  12. Underwhelmed by Cleveland

    I could certainly be wrong as I'm simply assuming that it isn't arbitrary. I'm at least not aware of them changing the drag modifier on any real life shell/gun combo as a balancing tweak. They did change it on Henri IV during testing, but that's a made up gun firing made up shells with made up performance. I won't claim to have compared the flight times on different real guns/shells compared to the ingame counterparts either but I'd be surprised if they weren't more or less compressed by the same amount. The only reason I say more or less instead of exactly is simply due to the fact that drag in real life isn't a simple constant. The game compression values has actually been given Quoting the relevant answer So a ship will travel 2,61 times faster than it should when compared to the ship meter (which I assume they use for distance travelled) and is thus pretty close to the 2,5 you guessed.
  13. Underwhelmed by Cleveland

    WG has stated that they attempt to match the shell trajectory of the real shells. As you already mentioned they make use of the real life shell velocities, it follows that the drag should be roughly correct as well as getting a correct trajectory is dependant on it. Therefore I believe you are incorrect in stating that WG freely tweaks the drag. At least when dealing with a built gun and real shell once they've gotten the right trajectory the drag value should be set in stone. The main torpedo body was above deck but the warheads could be stored separately below deck. The warhead would obviously have to be attached before launch tough. Anyway setting that aside the only cruisers which suffered from their own torpedoes, to my knowledge, were Japanese. None of the British, German, Italian, French, Dutch or US cruisers in the war with torpedoes shared the same fate. Having torpedoes launchers is also a drawback in that they take up space and weight which could have otherwise been used by other equipment or weapons. Most notably anti-aircraft guns. Now in World of Warships you may prefer torpedoes but saying there is no drawback isn't in my opinion strictly correct. Some people even prefer e.g. the C-hull Nürnberg to get more AA despite losing half of the torpedoes.
  14. Ah, okay, sorry about that. I read "Designs" as in "some of the built Mitschers were armed differently" for whatever reason and I'm now left scratching my head as to why I do so.
  15. It is doubtlessly awkward to place. Not only because it has no torpedoes but also because it doesn't jell with the rest of the US destroyers. A stand alone premium is probably the best idea for it, perhaps as a FXP ship as mentioned. My understanding is that the Mitscher only had fixed 533 mm tubes, two to each side presumably. Fixed tubes are not seen in the game. The one exception is Furutaka which originally carried fixed tubes while in game it gets rotating mounts on the stock hull. Although in that case at least a real life refit also gave it rotating torpedo mounts. Mitscher was also a bigger ship than Forrest Sherman (even larger than Yūbari) yet it had only two thirds of the firepower. So you get more hitpoints but pay for it with a rather horrendous turning circle and less firepower. I'd consider it a tier below Forrest Sherman rather than a tier above it.
×