Jump to content

DeliciousFart

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    883

Community Reputation

598 Excellent

2 Followers

About DeliciousFart

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,431 profile views
  1. DeliciousFart

    The "slow" BB61 design scheme, April 1938

    As I was revisiting this topic when sharing it on Secret Projects forums, I did a quick math by subtracting the weight of all the components (except for the hull) from the design full load , and got 21,115 tons for hull weight. So the 2,115 figure in the books is likely a typo or transcription error.
  2. I’ve received a few messages inquiring on how exactly the BB61 system was reinforced over the base design tested in Caisson H, and I think it will be helpful to share here as well. On BB61, the “skins” of the triple bottom structure was thickened, particularly the part right behind the holding bulkhead, as well as the third deck behind the main armor belt; again the inwards folding (“wrinkling”) of these plates was a big reason why the holding bulkhead deflected as much as it did. Additionally, removing the 45 degree brackets between the holding bulkhead also appears to be done to mitigate the wrinkling of the third deck and triple bottom. I’ve circled below in red where the plating analogous in Caisson H wrinkled badly that the plate folded back onto itself. Here is where I’ll opine with some of my own analysis; there is more clarity on why the excessive rigidity of the main armor belt is considered detrimental, based on my interpretation. The force of the explosion ruptured the outer hull plating and the first two bulkheads, while the third bulkhead, which is the Class B lower belt, remained intact but the force of the explosion on it pushed the whole structure (from third deck to triple bottom) back, and caused the traverse plating, namely the third deck and the triple bottom plating to “wrinkle” and essentially crumpling inwards. Rather than elastically deforming and then rupturing to absorb energy, the armor bulkhead essentially transmitted it to the third deck and triple bottom and caved the whole structure back, which contributed to the significant amount of deflection of the holding bulkhead, despite remaining watertight. I believe this is the impetus for the reinforcement of BB61’s triple bottom and third deck, which offered greater strength and resistance in the lateral direction, which would mitigate this “wrinkling”. The closer spacing of the traverse bulkheads in the machinery spaces also helps in this regard, proving more support in this axis.
  3. Modern US aircraft carriers also aren't concerned with economizing the amount of deck armor to remain within WNT/LNT limits and underwater ballistic protection, which was the main driving factor in adopting that protection system. Even though the system succeeded in its caisson tests against the design charge (scaled, of course), it's much more expensive to construct and especially repair. Iowa's system was notably reinforced over the based design in BB57, particularly in the longitudinal spacing of the traverse bulkheads and reinforcement of the third deck and triple bottom where the plating wrinkled in Caisson H.
  4. This isn't about gameplay...
  5. INRO Vol 57, No. 3 provided some interesting information on the caisson tests of the torpedo protection system found on the BB57 and BB61 classes, and I'll try to summarize it to the best of my abilities. As with the BB55 system, the BB57 system was designed to protect against a 700 lb TNT torpedo warhead; where it primarily differed was its use of an internal belt, which tapered and extended down to the triple bottom as the No. 3 bulkhead of the torpedo defense system. Inboard of this was a 25# STS holding bulkhead, and outboard there were two 25# HTS bulkheads. The liquid loading of the compartment was, from outboard to inboard, liquid-liquid-void-void, or as the publication abbreviates it, water-water-air-air (WWAA). The live fire test of the system was Caisson H, which was fired on 28 September 1939. Caisson H was a half scale unit of the midships section of BB57, and tested with a 128 lb charge in accordance with the 2.45 exponent rule that was empirically determined to represent a 700 lb charge. The results of this test was significant deflection of the inner holding bulkhead, 11 inches in the test unit, equivalent to 22 inches in full scale. This was within the 24 inches of clearance for vital engineering equipment, although the margin is rather thin. Notably, the system was "entirely effective in preventing flooding of the machinery spaces... During the two hours which elapsed between the explosion and the docking of the caisson, there was no appreciable leakage into the machinery spaces." (verbatim from the test report). While the system was successful in the Caisson H test, the margins were thin and inspection highlighted some of the weaknesses of the design. Regarding the small margin, although the system succeeded in meeting its goal, the deflection was substantially more than that of the BB55 design, which was tested at half scale in Caisson F. That unit had a deflection of just 3 inches, or 6 inches in full scale. Of note is the substantial deflection of the armor bulkhead; in particular, the buttstrap at the slightly "knuckle" joint between it and the triple bottom failed, although it was stated that the welded seam it self was intact. Nonetheless, the deflection of this armor bulkhead greatly contributed to the deflection of the holding bulkhead especially compared to the BB55 design that was tested in Caisson F. Despite the prevention of flooding, horizontal plating was severely wrinkled, and some brackets were found to not only be ineffective, but actually detrimental, particularly the top and bottom 45 degree brackets on the longitudinal bulkhead inboard of the armor belt beteeen second and third deck, and the lower bracket on the holding bulkhead. LCDR Henry Schade made several recommendations for the torpedo defense system as a result of the Caisson H test, and significant late design changes in BB61 are consistent with those recommendations, such as reinforcement of third deck inboard of the armor belt and elimination of the aforementioned brackets. One problem with the design of this torpedo defense system that can't be remedied is that it's very expensive compared to the system on BB55. After Caisson H, numerous 1/16 scale caisson tests were conduct to test arrangements of stiffeners, brackets, and liquid loading arrangements. The results were found to largely corroborate that from Caisson H. It was also found that WWAA and AWWA were largely identical in terms of effectiveness. Furthermore, tests showed that generally, there should not be liquid against the armor bulkhead, and that for the purposes of counterflooding, starting with WWAA, then WWAW if necessary, and then WWWW if absolutely necessary. The tests also showed that the change from HTS to STS "did not materially affect the results." A final set of 1/16 scale caisson tests were conducted to evaluate the effects of underbottom explosions, and these showed considerably more damage than expected. It was noted that these tests may not be entirely accurate since the shortness of the models didn't allow for the full representation of ship girders. In any case, the underbottom tests were too late to affect the design of BB61. Much has been said about the caisson tests that painted the BB57 torpedo defense system as inferior compared to the BB55 design. I believe that this may primarily be due to the greater deflection of the holding bulkhead of Caisson H compared to Caisson F. Additionally, it appears that initial caisson tests involving internal belts showed greater problems than had been anticipated; these caisson tests may in fact be of Caisson 74 and 75, which represented the initial protection scheme where the upper belt sloped inwards from the shell plating to the main deck, somewhat like a German "turtleback". Of course, this was abandoned in favor of a single sloped armor belt as represented by Caisson H, which met the design goal.
  6. DeliciousFart

    Positive Submarine Changes

    Frankly, I'm not convinced about the need for submarines to have acoustic "homing" torpedoes; I would rather they do away with that concept entirely.
  7. Are you seriously suggesting that the T4 CVs are currently balanced in 0.8.8? wth??
  8. DeliciousFart

    The "slow" BB61 design scheme, April 1938

    This plan has a slew of paper ships though, and also doesn't have room for the Standard-type battleships that are still missing, namely the Nevada and Pennsylvania. Perhaps start the split at a higher tier to incorporate those ships? The distinction between "slow" and "fast" doesn't have to manifest until we get to higher tiers. Alternately, rather than distinguishing the lines with speed, how about secondaries? Although that could pose difficulties when it comes to balancing, particularly so that it doesn't encroach too much on German battleships. Here, I'm thinking of the following. Main line Secondary-focused 5 New York 6 New Mexico Nevada (post-PH refit) / Pennsylvania (post-PH refit) 7 Colorado Tennessee (post-PH refit) 8 North Carolina South Dakota 1939 9 Iowa South Dakota 1920 (speed buff) 10 Montana "slow" BB61, April 1938 The secondary-focused line would have longer main battery reloads, and lower sigma for certain ships. Anyways, just an idea I'm throwing around.
  9. DeliciousFart

    The "slow" BB61 design scheme, April 1938

    Actually, the more accurate answer is that a hull with a beam of 108 ft and goes 33 knots won't be able to fit more than six 18" guns on 45,000 tons standard. That's not quite the case with this scheme; note that the "slow" proposal here has a speed of 27.5 knots, and has the same power output of 130,000 SHP as the SoDak, so the additional 10,000 tons is solely used to increase armament and protection.
  10. I've discussed how the "slow" BB61 from April 1938 could be implemented in the game, so here, I want to talk about the actual design scheme itself. April 1938 design scheme References: Friedman U.S. Battleships, an Illustrated Design History, page 308 Garzke & Dulin United States Battleships, 1935-1992, page 111. Characteristic Value Waterline length 800 ft Beam 108 ft 3 in Draft 35.96 ft Max displacement 56,595 long tons Battle displacement 54,495 long tons Standard displacement 45,495 long tons Speed 27.5 knots SHP 130,000 Range (15 knots) 15,000 nmi Main battery 9 x 18” (457mm)/48 Secondary battery 20 x 5” (127mm)/38 Belt (19 degrees on 30# STS) 14.75” (375mm) Heavy deck (on 30# STS) 5.1” + 0.75" (130mm + 19mm) Bomb deck 1.5” (38mm) Splinter deck 0.63” (16mm) Barbettes, conning tower 21” (533mm) Turret face 20” (508mm) Turret, CT roof 10” (254mm) Traverse bulkheads 16.75” (425mm) Splinter protection 2.5” (64mm) Weight (from Friedman, p. 308.) Weight Tons Hull 2,115 (almost certainly a typo, likely 21,115 based on difference between design full load and all other components) Hull Fittings 1,697 Protection 13,037 Engineering (Wet) 3,500 Armament 3,464 Ammunition 1,638 Equip&Outfit 476 Complement 192 Stores & Fresh Water 322 Aeronautics 54 Reserve Feed Water 650 Fuel Oil 8,000 1/3 Stores & F.W. 350 Designed Full Load 54,495 Belt 6,226 Heavy Deck 4,010 Bomb Deck 1,344 Splinter Deck 454 Torpedo Bulkheads 3,310 Historical background In early 1938, when it became more apparent that Japan and Italy would not sign the Second London Naval Treay, the US Navy began looking into battleship designs with standard displacement of 45,000 long tons, the planned limit of the "Escalator Clause". Compared to the preceding 35,000-ton BB57 South Dakotas, the 45,000-ton BB61 design schemes included both "slow" 27.5-knot schemes that increased firepower and/or protection as well as "fast" 33-knot schemes. The "slow" designs considered a variety of main battery options, including twelve 16" guns or nine 18" guns. Ultimately, the "fast" BB61 designs were prioritized, which would eventually become the Iowa class. The "slow" designs would be early precursors to the BB65/67 Montana class design. My comments The powerplant for this scheme has the same output as the South Dakota (BB57) class which has a 666 ft waterline length. Thus, assuming the same propulsion machinery arrangement, it appears that this design scheme's hull has 134 ft more waterline length to work with to accommodate the 18”/48 triple turrets and increase the fineness ratio. Based on the hull dimensions and displacement values, the ship would have a block coefficient of 0.637 at max load, better than North Carolina (BB55) and South Dakota (BB57) but not as good as Iowa (BB61). During New Jersey's sea trials in 1943, she made 27.92 knots with 126,400 SHP, and for Iowa's sea trials in 1985, she made 28.08 knots with 109,700 SHP. Given that the April 1938 design scheme's fineness ratio is much closer to Iowa's than the South Dakota's, I'm inclined to believe the power and speed figures when the hull is clean (i.e. out of drydock with no bottom fouling). Due to the inclination of 19 degrees, I would certainly expect that the belt to be mounted internally similar to arrangement on the SoDak/Iowa designs, and due to the thickness, likely on 35# or even 40# STS, which is a potential area for weight increase. Similarly, due to the additional length and bending moment, I also wouldn't be surprised if the outer hull side strakes by the belt were increased to 60# STS, and the main armor deck combination is more akin to the Iowa (4.75" Class B on 1.25" STS strength deck) than the SoDak (5-5.3" Class B on 0.75" STS strength deck). There could be some concern about the hull form given that the three-gun 18"/48 turret has a barbette diameter of 41' 0", which is nearly 4 feet wider than the barbette of the three-gun 16"/45 Mark 7 turret which has a diameter of 37' 3". I think the barbette diameter could be an issue at the #1 turret, while #2 and #3 turrets may be fine; looking at the Booklet of General Plans for the SoDaks, there seems to be ample room to play with for the #2 and #3 turret. Even then, with the same machinery arrangement as the SoDaks and 134 ft more waterline length, they may be able to get adequate space and clearance around the #1 turret by making the tapering of the hull near the bow more gradual, though it would no doubt still be a tight fit as on the Iowas. Had this ship actually been built, I would expect that the max load displacement of the ship would creep up by 3,000 tons to the 59,000-60,000 ton range, perhaps even slightly higher, in order to accommodate for potential unforeseen strengthening and also the additional AA guns and electronics that would be mounted. Incidentally, assuming that draft is linearly proportional to displacement, a displacement of ~59,400 long tons would increase the design max draft to 37.8 ft, which is almost exactly the same as Iowa's actual max draft during World War 2. In any case, the US Navy ultimately deemed that the 16"/50 rifle was well suited for their needs and chose it over the 18"/48; all of the design schemes for BB65/67 Montana were planned around the 16"/50, with the exception of a few whacky ones that considered 14"/50 rifles. Visual appearance With regards to how this ship would visually look like, one can reasonably postulate that it would look like a 1939 SoDak with a stretched bow and stern, and I can explain the rationale below. For one, the machinery output is 130,000 SHP, the same as the 1939 South Dakota class. As such, the ship may be able to duplicate the machinery used on the SoDaks, thus resulting in the design's superstructure also being largely identical (given that battleship superstructure generally spans the length of the machinery spaces). On the other hand, the design's waterline length is 800 ft compared to SoDak's 666 ft, so the design has 134 additional ft to play with to increase fineness ratio and accommodate the bigger turrets. The beam remains the same at 108.2 ft. Thus, if the design duplicates SoDak's machinery layout, then this additional length would be in the bow and stern sections from the machinery traverse bulkheads onward.
  11. If all else are equal, such as block coefficient (contouring, actually), wetted area, propulsive power, etc. then a ship with better fineness ratio would be faster, but in this case, "slow" BB61 is considerably larger than SoDak, with considerably greater surface area due to that extra length. So while the additional length may have helped by reducing block coefficient and increasing fineness ratio, the increased surface area would negate some of that.
  12. Introduction WG's Ohio is quite disappointing; aside from the fact that the US Navy is already quite well represented in the game and doesn't really need more paper ships, the implementation of the in-game Ohio is extraordinarily lazy, not to mention fake. There was no historical design scheme by the US Navy Bureau of Construction and Repair that has the in-game Ohio's arrangement, which kitbashes two-gun 18" (457mm)/48 turrets (pulled from Georgia) on Montana's hull. Even more irritating is that there is an actual design scheme with 18"/48 guns from 1938 that could have been implemented instead of this kitbashed monstrosity. I'm of course talking about the "slow" BB61 design scheme from April 1938 that I have mentioned before. Based on its characteristics, we even have a reasonably good idea of what its arrangement and appearance would likely have been. Thus, what I present below is a "starting point" on how "slow" BB61 from April 1938 can be implemented in the game. US Navy's actual 18" (457mm)-gunned battleship design: "slow" BB61 design scheme, April 1938 References: Norman Friedman, U.S. Battleships, an Illustrated Design History, page 308 William Garzke & Robert Dulin, United States Battleships, 1935-1992, page 111. Personal correspondence with naval historian Bill Jurens Background In early 1938, when it became more apparent that Japan and Italy would not sign the Second London Naval Treay, the US Navy began looking into battleship designs with standard displacement of 45,000 long tons, the planned limit of the "Escalator Clause". Compared to the preceding 35,000-ton BB57 South Dakotas, the 45,000-ton BB61 design schemes included both "slow" 27.5-knot schemes that increased firepower and/or protection as well as "fast" 33-knot schemes. The "slow" designs considered a variety of main battery options, including twelve 16" guns or nine 18" guns. Ultimately, the "fast" BB61 designs were prioritized, which would eventually become the Iowa class. The "slow" designs would be early precursors to the BB65/67 Montana class design. The characteristics of the "slow" BB61 scheme from April 1938 are listed in the table in Appendix 1 below. It's important to note that none of the actual design schemes for BB65/67 Montana used the 18"/48 gun; consequently, even if the individual components were real and theoretically could have fit together, WG's implementation of the Ohio is a fake ship. Visual appearance With regards to how this ship would visually look like, one can reasonably postulate that it would look like a 1939 SoDak with a stretched bow and stern. Here is approximately what it should like like, after photoshopping a SoDak drawing. And here it is with the two ships next to each other. I'll explain the rationale below. For one, the machinery output is 130,000 SHP, the same as the 1939 South Dakota class. As such, the ship may be able to duplicate the machinery used on the SoDaks, thus resulting in the design's superstructure also being largely identical (given that battleship superstructure generally spans the length of the machinery spaces). I have also moved the turrets a bit further from the superstructure in order to provide full 300 degrees of train (i.e. 30 degrees off of the bow). The SoDaks have their turret traverse limited to 35 degrees off of the bow in order to shorten the citadel and reduce weight. On the other hand, the design's waterline length is 800 ft compared to SoDak's 666 ft, so the design has 134 additional ft to play with to increase fineness ratio and accommodate the bigger turrets (the 3-gun 18"/48 turrets have a 41.0 ft barbette diameter compared to 37.25 ft for the 3-gun 16" turrets). The beam remains the same at 108.2 ft. Thus, if the design duplicates SoDak's machinery layout, then this additional length would be in the bow and stern sections from the machinery traverse bulkheads onward. Survivability In-game HP: 81,000 The "slow" BB61's HP pool of 81,000 is calculated from the standard method of 1.1812 x full displacement + 10837. Note that I'm not using the full load displacement listed in the sources, as that does not include the numerous additional AA mounts that would certainly be added had the ships been built. To determine a hypothetical max displacement of this ship, one can reasonably approximate this value by using draft, which generally increases linearly with displacement outside of edge conditions. Using the SoDak's maximum draft of 37.75 ft, the extrapolated value of "slow" BB61's max displacement is 59,412 long tons, an almost 3,000 ton increase. This actually reflects the displacement increase of the Iowa class quite well, as they displaced a maximum of 59,300 long tons compared to the 56,088 long tons full load of the contract design. Nevertheless, the resulting HP value is quite small for a Tier 10 battleship, so I'm giving "slow" BB61 the rapid-reload (40 seconds with premium consumable) version of the US Navy battleship heal from Tier 3-9, which heals 0.66% of maximum HP per second. Note that even with this enhanced heal, with superintendent and flags, the total available HP of 170,813 will still be lower than Montana's and Ohio's 177,192. Extremity plating: 32mm Superstructure plating: 19mm Main belt: 375mm at 19 degrees, 38mm outer hull plating Upper belt: 38mm Weather deck: 38mm Main armor deck: 149mm Citadel deck: 16-25mm Barbettes: 533mm Turret face: 508mm Traverse bulkheads: 425mm The "slow" BB61 almost certainly has an internal belt due to its inclination and overall beam. Given that the ship's length is closer to the Iowa than SoDak, it may also have a 38mm outer hull strake for structural strength. For citadel placement, I would place it at the third deck, which is roughly at the waterline like on the Iowa. This citadel arrangement should be familiar to most players. Against battleship AP, the "slow" BB61 would be very much like an Iowa with a thicker belt. Keep in mind that the belt thickness is still the second lowest, only beating the Bourgogne, and without a turtleback. This, combined with the citadel placement, means that the ship will be quite vulnerable when caught broadside, and will be among the easiest battleships to citadel. Of course, the 32mm bow and stern would be vulnerable to being overmatched by Yamato guns as well. Against HE, the "slow" BB61 will be very similar to the Iowa, with roughly the same outer hull plating arrangement. The smaller superstructure akin to the SoDak's helps against most non-IFHE cruiser and destroyer guns, although the slower speed would make disengaging more difficult. Of course, 38mm plating is still vulnerable to Henri IV, Hindenburg, IFHE heavy cruisers, and battlecruiser HE. The rapid reload heal does help in this aspect, however, and provides a level of survivability similar to the current Ohio. Given that the 130,000 SHP machinery is assumed to be duplicated from the SoDak, as well as having the same beam, "slow" BB61 would have the same torpedo side-protection system depth of about 5.46m. However, in-game the effectiveness of SoDak-class and Iowa-class vary wildly for no good reason. As such, based only on the depth of the system as well as the use of liquid loading, I'm giving a torpedo damage reduction of 32% base. In short, the survivability of the "slow" BB61 will be something of a cross between the Iowa and Ohio. Angling, then, will be key to survival, even more so than most Tier 10 battleships. Firepower Main battery: 3 x 3 18" (457mm)/48 Mark II Reload: 30 seconds Traverse speed: 4 deg/sec (45 seconds to turn 180 degrees) Base range: 23.6 km Despite the different name, the main battery gun performance is the exact same as the current 18"/47 Mark A that WG has implemented in the game. There is a degree of uncertainty on the muzzle velocity of the hypothetical production 18"/48 Mark II weapon, with some sources stating 2,400 ft/s (701 m/s), and some stating 2,500 ft/s (762 m/s). For the sake "standardizing" the weapons, I'll reuse the 18"/47 Mark A that's currently in the game, although I personally feel that the Krupp on the shells is too low. The turret arrangement is the same as on the North Carolina, SoDaks, and Iowas, with two turrets forward and one aft. As "slow" BB61 is no longer quite as constrained in terms of length, it can have the relatively comfortable turret traverse limits of the other American fast battleships, 31 degrees off of the bow and stern. In terms of dispersion and sigma, I'm giving the main battery the standard American battleship dispersion with 2.0 sigma. Range is slightly higher than the Iowa's, given the similar superstructure and thus rangefinder height. With these guns, "slow" BB61 would have the highest broadside alpha among the big caliber battleships, and the second highest broadside DPM after the Republique. A comparison of broadside alpha and DPM of Tier 10 battleships is in the table below. Ship Broadside alpha Broadside DPM Montana 162,000 326,000 406mm Großer Kurfürst 154,000 315,310 Conqueror 156,000 312,000 420mm Großer Kurfürst 162,000 303,750 République 116,000 290,000 "Slow" BB61 141,750 283,500 Thunderer 119,200 275,077 Ohio 126,000 274,909 Yamato 133,200 266,400 Kremlin 139,500 253,636 Aside from the ability to overmatch 30mm plating, the main battery of "slow" BB61 will be gimmick-free, and intentionally so. Secondary battery: 10 x 2 5" (127mm)/38 Mark 12 Reload: 4 seconds Base range: 7.5 km For the secondary battery, I would propose giving it the same base range and rate of fire as Massachusetts's, but without the improved accuracy. I intend that the bread and butter of this ship be the main guns. That said, I'm open to the improved accuracy if the ship needs help. Anti-aircraft armament AA guns: 10 x 2 127mm/38 Mark 12, 19 x 4 40mm Bofors, 32 x 2 20mm Oerlikon Short-range AA: 0.1-2 km, 394 DPS continuous, 70% hit probability Mid-range AA: 0.1-3.5 km, 507 DPS continuous, 75% hit probability Long-range AA: 0.1-5.8 km, 184 DPS continuous, 1,680 DPS flak, 8 flak bursts, 75% hit probability I've given "slow" BB61 the exact same AA as the C-hull Iowa. This AA is respectable, but frankly, no longer particularly fearsome especially at Tier 10. I've mulled over whether or not to give this ship dual 3"/50 AA mounts, but for now I would hold off on that. Maneuverability Maximum speed: 27.5 knots Turning circle radius: 850 m Rudder shift time: 15.7 s For now, I'm using "slow" BB61's design speed of 27.5 knots at full power. This is tied with Yamato for being the slowest Tier 10 battleship, so "slow" BB61 does live up to its name. The ship is longer than the SoDak, but not quite as long as the Iowa. As such, the turning circle is simply proportionally increased from the Massachusetts' in-game turning circle. Because of this ship's rather low HP pool, as well as a lack of main battery gimmicks, I'm giving her the same rudder shift as the Massachusetts, 15.7 seconds. In summary, the ship handles like a somewhat clumsier Massachusetts. Concealment Base surface detection range: 16.56 km Base air detection range: 10.9 km Assured detection range: 2.0 km Smoke fire detection range: 17.38 km Given that the "slow" BB61 has the same superstructure as SoDak, I've given the ship the same surface detection value as the Massachusetts, due to the secondary range. For air detection, I interpolated between the in-game values of Alabama and Iowa, as they only vary in length and have the same beam. The smoke fire penalty is the same as Ohio's. When fully spec'ed for concealment, the base surface detection range is 13.0 km, which is very good for Tier 10, though still beaten by Conqueror and Thunderer. The complement of floatplanes will be kept the same as Montana for simplicity and consistency. In conclusion The "slow" BB61 proposed here overall comes across as a squishier and weaker Kremlin especially against burst damage, with lots of concessions given in terms of survivability while not gaining enough in return to offset those concessions. Considering that the Kremlin is quite overtuned at the moment, it may not have been the best point of comparison. Nevertheless, balancing the "slow" BB61 is quite challenging, as it has a small health pool, slow speed, and gimmick-free main guns. Aside from its very good (though not quite excellent) concealment, there doesn't seem to be much going for it (EDIT: if not for the rapid-reload heal). Even if we were to give the secondaries the same base accuracy as the Massachusetts's, the end result would still be a largely inferior Ohio. Perhaps giving it both rapid-reload on its heal and improved secondaries can solve its woes; the ship would then become a super-Massachusetts, which is something that I'm not sure would be good for the game. Then again, that is what the current Ohio tries to be, though the substantially worse concealment means that it's more difficult to position Ohio into effective secondary range. As such, given these characteristics of the "slow" BB61, how would you make it a competitive Tier 10 battleship? I'm open to well reasoned suggestions. I'm expecting many to suggest to just give the secondary battery the improved accuracy of the Massachusetts; perhaps that's viable, but I would prefer to see some more unique and creative suggestions as well. ;) Appendix 1: Characteristics of "slow" BB61 design scheme, April 1938 Characteristic Value Waterline length 800 ft Beam 108 ft 3 in Draft 35.96 ft Max displacement 56,595 long tons Battle displacement 54,495 long tons Standard displacement 45,495 long tons Speed 27.5 knots SHP 130,000 Range (15 knots) 15,000 nmi Main battery 9 x 18” (457mm)/48 Secondary battery 20 x 5” (127mm)/38 Belt (19 degrees on 30# STS) 14.75” (375mm) Heavy deck (on 30# STS) 5.1” + 0.75" (130mm + 19mm) Bomb deck 1.5” (38mm) Splinter deck 0.63” (16mm) Barbettes, conning tower 21” (533mm) Turret face 20” (508mm) Turret, CT roof 10” (254mm) Traverse bulkheads 16.75” (425mm) Splinter protection 2.5” (64mm) Change log Updated image to include sources. Bumped concealment to 16.56 km base, if we want to consider a secondary accuracy buff. Added distinction between main armor deck (usually hidden armor viewer for American battleships) and citadel deck (usually the third deck on American battleships).
  13. DeliciousFart

    USS Iowa

    The last paragraphs of the article stated this. The intelligence assessment for these ships as of the time of Yamato's "Final Sortie" may be judged by the following paragraph taken from Morison's "History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II," Volume XIV: Regardless of the exact gun caliber, the actual engagement ranges of Yamato and Iowa are actually very similar. As I said, the winner of the engagement would most likely be the one that lands the first hit, and outside of calm and clear conditions, Iowa's superior computers, stable vertical, and RPC makes her more likely to land hits.
  14. DeliciousFart

    USS Iowa

    That's wrong. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-084.php The US Navy had a pretty good idea by 1944 and especially by 1945. You're literally judging Yamato's entire armor and "immune zone" just based on the turret face? What the hell? The winner of any engagement will most likely come down to which side lands the first hit, as that would more likely degrade the opponent's fighting capability. In this regard, the superior quality of the American stable vertical, computers, and RPC would ensure greater likelihood of hits in a greater variety of weather conditions; the exception being calm and clear, where much of these advantages would minimized.
  15. A thought came to my mind regarding the few ships that use diesel engines rather than steam turbine propulsion. One of the advantages of diesel compared to steam turbines is that a diesel engine is much more responsive to throttle inputs than steam turbines. Germany is notable in they have several ships in-game with diesel engines, namely the H-39 Friedrich der Grosse, Z-52, Graf Spee, and Battlecruiser “O” Siegfried, and perhaps Grosser Kurfuerst (hybrid diesel and steam turbine propulsion). Incidentally, these ships are also some of the ones that are in need of some help, so I think it could be an interesting buff to give these diesel ships the built-in effect of Propulsion Modification 2 (50% faster transition to full power, better slow speed acceleration). Similarly, I think turboelectric drive ships can also use this benefit, namely the Langley, Colorado, West Virginia, and Lexington. Note that New Mexico had her turboelectric drive replaced by geared steam turbines after her refit. As a useful historical side note, Germany put quite a lot of investment into marine diesels for their warships due to superior thermal efficiency compared to steam propulsion. This would enable considerably longer endurance, which was especially important for Germany because they lacked the large number of overseas naval bases that the British had. As a result, range was a much bigger design driver in German warships. I believe the very high pressure boilers on the Admiral Hipper-class cruisers were also the result of that, though these boilers were notoriously unreliable. The downside of marine diesels at that time is that the power-to-space density is considerably worse than steam turbines, i.e. diesel propulsion takes up much more space than a steam turbine system of the same power output.
×