Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

564 Excellent


About DeliciousFart

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,413 profile views
  1. DeliciousFart

    USS Ohio first look

    A “paper ship” should be classified as an overall configuration (or scheme) that has been studied as studied or considered as a whole. Simply mixing and matching elements from various design proposals does not qualify, since that is a retroactively conceived kitbash that wasn’t actually considered, and thus constitute as a “fake design”. In this sense, both Ohio and Georgia are fake ships since they combine parts of different designs into a unique configuration that was never actually considered as a whole.
  2. DeliciousFart

    USS Ohio first look

    No, “Ohio” as currently represented in the game can firmly fall into the “fake ship” category, as this particular configuration, 18”/48 two gun turrets on Montana hull, was never considered. The 18”/48 only advanced to the configuration schemes for “slow” BB61 designs in 1938. To my knowledge, this weapon was not in any Montana (BB65/67) schemes, as it’s absent from all of the schemes listed in Friedman and Garzke & Dulin. As for the ship in-game, some of the stats are pretty absurd. Eight 18” (457 mm) guns should NOT be having “super cruiser” dispersion. Frankly, it shouldn’t have the insane secondaries either. Unlike with Massachusetts, it doesn’t even have anemic ballistics to reign it back, as Montana’s 5”/54 Mark 16 is considerably superior in this regard to the 5”/38 Mark 12.
  3. DeliciousFart

    Conqueror Kremlin

    What information do you have that would suggest that Project 24 is using cemented plates for the weather deck? To my knowledge, horizontal protection of all battleships uses homogeneous (non-cemented) armor. It’s true that STS lends itself better for structural purposes than most homogeneous armor types due to its ductility, but the Germans also used homogeneous Wotan hart for its weather deck, and at thicknesses of up to 80 mm (such as by the turrets). Do you mean “stiff” in the stability context? Montana’s design GM/beam isn’t remarkably different from other battleships, at about 0.0708 at combat displacement.
  4. DeliciousFart

    Conqueror Kremlin

    I’m not sure why you take such issue with Project 24’s weather deck thickness. Even Montana’s weather deck is 2.25” (57 mm) STS (reduced to 38 mm in-game), and I believe Project 24 is actually beamier than Montana.
  5. DeliciousFart

    Let's play a drinking game

    Take a shot for every NTC post on the first page of General Game Discussion. For the record, NTC is an abomination that should never go through.
  6. Yup, this is among the laziest reuse of assets I've seem from WG. Still, seeing actual historical designs take virtual shape is one of the appeals of this game, and I think kitbashing Georgia turrets on Montana hull rather than using a historical design scheme is a wasted opportunity.
  7. I'll share here what I posted on Reddit. It seems like WG is really in the mood to reuse assets recently. It emerged today from the DevBlog that WG essentially kitbashing Georgia's 18" two-gun turrets on Montana's hull to make "Ohio". To be fair, the US Navy is not exactly in need of a high tier premium as it's already reasonably well-represented right now, but what I'm personally very annoyed with is that there is an actual American design that uses 18" guns, while "Ohio" is entirely a WG kitbash with no basis in history. The design that I'm talking about is the "slow" 27.5-knot BB61 design from April 1938. Such a design uses 3x3 18"/48 guns. I've posted a commentary about this design on my own Reddit page, and I'll transcribe it here. 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) 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 three-gun 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, this 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. 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.
  8. DeliciousFart

    ST: Battleship Ohio

    As I've commented on Reddit, WG, you've got to be kidding me. This ranks among the laziest reuse of assets that I've seen, simply popping 18" Mark A two-gun turrets on a Montana hull. What annoys me immensely is that 18" guns were only considered for preliminary "slow" BB61 (Iowa) designs and never for the actual BB65/67 (Montana) designs. If you really want 18" guns on an American battleships, why not use the actual April 1938 "slow" BB61 design instead of this non-historical kitbash?
  9. DeliciousFart

    HP formula applied to modern warships

    As a bonus, here's the HP formula for submarines, based on the Halloween event. Submarine HP formula: 2.7656 x tonnage + 5837.7 Ohio-class SSBN/SSGN: 18,750 metric tons, 57,693 HP. Seawolf-class SSN: 9,284 metric tons, 31,514 HP. Seawolf is pretty damn fast, at least 33 knots submerged.
  10. DeliciousFart

    HP formula applied to modern warships

    I think the aircraft carrier HP formula has been changed since the CV rework. Perhaps someone want to plot HP vs. in-game displacement and do a linear regression?
  11. Well, are we gonna give downvotes their proper due or what?
  12. Is my suggestion here detrimental to your game experience (or the game in general)? Does my suggestion seem to take an unduly large amount of development effort? A simple weapon rename and potentially a slight barrel lengthening (which has been done before on the Des Moines) is all that my "historical" information would change. Regarding AP shell Krupp, I've provided gameplay reasons for why it may change. If you want to be remotely productive, come up with something better than "I don't care" as your argument.
  13. This is a poor excuse; the game draws upon real world designs, and while liberties can be made for the sake of gameplay, historical accuracy shouldn't be thrown out entirely either, especially when the game prides itself on having accurate models of real ships and real designs. Furthermore, what I'm suggesting here isn't even a drastic change, it's simply renaming the weapon and lengthening the barrel just a tiny bit; even the muzzle velocity can remain the same. Furthermore, I've also provided gameplay reasons for why I think the Krupp value is too low and not viable. You've provided zero counterarguments for that. I would suggest giving better feedback than a "who cares" line of argument.
  14. The 0.8.2 test version has been datamined on gamemodels3d, and I took the opportunity to look over the characteristics of "Georgia". It turns out that the gun that WG decided to implement is the 18" (457mm)/47 Mark A prototype rather than a production-level 18"/48 gun. The only reason the prototype Mark A was an L/47 was that the weapon was originally the 18"/48 Mark 1, then relined to the 16"/56 experimental gun, before being converted back to having an 18" liner; the second relining necessitated cutting off the threaded tip, thus shortening the prototype slightly. A production-level 18" (457mm) gun would certainly be L/48, and this is reflected by the characteristics of the April 1938 design scheme which listed the main armament as nine 18"/48 guns1,2. This is also reinforced by Robert Sumrall's book3. In short, there is no indication that a production level 18" gun would be L/47 like in the game, so the weapon should frankly be changed to 18"/48 Mark 2. Now, as for performance, the muzzle velocity for the 1,746 kg (3,850 lb) APC shell is the same 732 m/s (2,400 ft/s) as the 18"/47 prototype, but here I think a case can be made for using this value. While Robert Sumrall's book speculates that a production level 18"/48 would have fired the shell at 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s)3, I've recently spoken with Bill Jurens, and he is of the opinion that a 2,400 ft/s service velocity may have been the target value in order to lower the required chamber pressure, thus allowing for a lighter weapon and potentially closer gun axis separation spacing for the turrets. As it stands, running muzzle energy conversion calculations lends some credence to the 732 m/s muzzle velocity. I think the value that WG used should be fine. Aside from that, the AP shells have drag coefficient of 0.341, comparable to the 16" AP Mark 8, higher than what its real life characteristics would suggest, but probably a balancing decision by WG. However, Krupp is unusually low, 2,390 compared to the 2,520 of the AP Mark 8. Someone ran the numbers in the penetration calculator and as it stands, the guns currently have penetration comparable to Conqueror's 457mm guns. In my opinion, I’m skeptical about the viability of the gun’s current performance on "Georgia", given the low barrel count and 30 second reload. As a side note, based on the datamined values, the main armor deck (2nd deck) thickness of 130 mm on Georgia does not appear to include the STS backing plate (which would be 19 mm for this design scheme), whereas every other American battleship (except for Montana, for some odd reason), does. I believe this should be corrected as it may affect interactions with AP bombs. References: 1. Friedman, U.S. Battleships, an Illustrated Design History, page 308 2. Garzke & Dulin, United States Battleships, 1935-1992, page 111 3. Sumrall, Iowa class Battleships, their Design, Weapons, and Equipment, page 66