Jump to content

DeliciousFart

Members
  • Content Сount

    1,251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    737

Community Reputation

515 Excellent

1 Follower

About DeliciousFart

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Junior Grade
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,120 profile views
  1. Tony DiGiulian, owner of Navweaps, recently obtained sketch drawings of double and triple 18"/48 gun turrets for "slow" Escalator Clause battleship designs of 1938. For a little bit of background, I'll copy and paste what I wrote for Wikipedia a few months back. Work on what would eventually become the Iowa-class battleship began on the first studies in early 1938 following the planned invocation of the "escalator clause" that would permit maximum standard capital ship displacement of 45,000 long tons. Using the additional 10,000 long tons over previous designs, the studies included schemes for 27-knot "slow" battleships that increased armament and protection as well as "fast" battleships capable of 33 knots or more. The "slow" designs carried either twelve 16"/45 cal Mark 6 guns or nine 18"/48 cal guns and with more armor and a power plant large enough to drive the larger ship through the water at the same 27-knot maximum speed as the South Dakotas. The April 1938 "slow" design's characteristics are below, from Friedman page 307. 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"/48 Secondary battery 20 x 5"/38 Belt (19 degrees on 30# STS) 14.75" Heavy deck 5.1" Bomb deck 1.5" Splinter deck 0.63" Barbette, conning tower 21" Turret face 20" Turret, CT roof 10" Traverse bulkheads 16.75" Splinter protection 2.5" Given the hull's outer dimensions, the belt armor would've almost certainly been arranged internally like on South Dakota and Iowa. The heavy deck would presumably be laminated on 1" STS for a combined thickness of some 6". Also, if the ships were completed, the additional AA and electronics alone would have added another 2-3000 tons, based on the displacement figures from the Iowas. While the "fast" studies would result in the Iowa class, the "slow" design studies would eventually settle on twelve 16" guns and evolve into the design for the 60,500-long-ton Montana class after all treaty restrictions were removed following the start of World War II. Side note: The displacement figures for the April 1938 design does seem rather optimistic, so I would like to consult some naval historians on how feasible it would be to actually build this ship to its design displacement values. As you can see, a double 18"/48 turret has a barbette diameter of 34 ft 6 in, while the triple turret has a barbette diameter of 41 ft 0 in. Their respective weights are 3,559,000 lbs and 4,850,000 lbs. For reference, the barbette diameter of a 16"/50 Mark 7 triple turret is 37 ft 3 in and the turret weight is 3,825,920 lbs. So it's perfectly possible to substitute a triple 16"/50 Mark 7 turret with a double 18"/48 turret, though whether that's actually a worthwhile tradeoff is another matter entirely. Link and drawings below. Note that the spacing of the gun axes is 132 inches. This compares to the 16"/50 Mark 7 spacing of 122 inches. If an 18"/48 caliber gun was developed, it would have fired a 3,850 lb (1,746 kg) Superheavy AP shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/s (762 m/s), resulting in a muzzle energy of 507 MJ. This muzzle energy would dwarf even the 474 MJ of the Soviet 457 mm gun (1,410 kg at 820 m/s) and the 444 MJ of the Japanese 460 mm gun. Also keep in mind that the high mass, CRH, and moderate muzzle velocity means better energy retention downrange. The 18"/47 Mark A itself tested a 3,848 lb (1,745 kg) prototype SHS at a muzzle velocity of 2,508 ft/s (764 m/s) at a chamber pressure of 19.91 tons per square inch. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Dahlgren_Centennial/Blog/18_Inch_Gun/
  2. DeliciousFart

    Japanese Capital Ship Design from Kawachi to Yamato

    The design scheme that @Big_Spud was referring to is the April 1938 "slow" design. I'll list out the characteristics below from Friedman page 307. 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"/48 Secondary battery 20 x 5"/38 Belt (19 degrees on 30# STS) 14.75" Heavy deck 5.1" Bomb deck 1.5" Splinter deck 0.63" Barbette, conning tower 21" Turret face 20" Turret, CT roof 10" Traverse bulkheads 16.75" Splinter protection 2.5" Given the hull's outer dimensions, the belt armor would've almost certainly been arranged internally like on South Dakota and Iowa. The heavy deck would presumably be laminated on 1" STS for a combined thickness of some 6". I would like to consult some naval historians on how feasible it would be to actually build this ship to its design displacement values. Certainly, based on SoDak and Iowa displacement figures, the additional AA armament and electronics alone would have added another 2-3000 tons. I would also imagine that the backing plate for the belt would be thicker; SoDak and Iowa were 35#.
  3. DeliciousFart

    Montana should get a speed nerf

    I roll my eyes when people whine about Montana’s citadel. It’s currently the second easiest Tier 10 battleship to citadel, easier than Republique, Conqueror, and Grosser Kuerfurst. @Aetreus Regarding the 212,000 SHP on the Montana, that was powerplant for the BB67-2 design before power requirement was reduced for BB67-3 and the final BB67-4. The length didn’t change, but the subdivision of the machinery spaces did; the less powerful plant could be divided in a manner similar to the Lexington, with extensive longitudinal subdivision. If you want to nerf Montana’s speed for historical accuracy, how about giving her the 57 mm weather deck that she was historically designed with? Or the 179-184 mm main armor deck instead of the in-game 150 mm? Or how about the missing 114 mm of turret face armor?
  4. DeliciousFart

    ST cruiser alaska citadel change

    I regret nothing.
  5. DeliciousFart

    What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    "Fact"? How? Show me the data that demonstrates that Tier 10 battleships have an "unfair advantage" in ranked. In terms of win rate, all of the Tier 10 battleships are decidedly average among Tier 10 ships in ranked. In terms of star-saving ability, based on the sampling of all of one player's ranked matches, none of the Tier 10 battleships except for Yamato showed particularly good statistics in that regard. It is true that the sample size may not be sufficient. However, you've presented no evidence or data to support what you're suggesting. You can check the server averages for ranked win rates. https://na.wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ https://wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ https://asia.wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ https://ru.wows-numbers.com/season/id,10/ What is your evidence? You've presented none. Again, the data sample from one of the players who recorded his ranked matches show that none of the battleships other than Yamato demonstrated any kind of advantage in saving stars. What are you even defining as "workload"? Again, with what evidence?
  6. DeliciousFart

    What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    How so? The only battleship that has clearly demonstrated an advantage in terms of star-saving is the Yamato. The other battleships are unremarkable in this regard.
  7. DeliciousFart

    What would constitute as "damage farming"?

    This statement is frankly wrong on several accounts. Firstly, you're assuming that cruisers and destroyers are supposed to match battleships in terms of average damage, which would be a misinterpretation of their roles. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that simply accruing more damage gives Tier 10 battleships an unfair advantage in ranked. For the ship in question, which is the Montana, that is highly unlikely. Currently, sorting Tier 10 ships by XP earned and win rate in random games shows that the Montana is firmly in the middle of the pack. While it's currently not possible to sort ships by XP earned in ranked games, I wouldn't expect that to be very different from randoms in that particular metric. In terms of win rate, the Montana is again firmly in the middle of the pack.
  8. DeliciousFart

    New Midway Movie to Start Filming

    The First Man flag "controversy" is completely ludicrous and needlessly overblown by right-wing media. The American flag is still present in the moon scenes, just the act of planting it was not shown. It wasn't a matter of trying to "avoid insulting anyone", but the director wanting to emphasize something different for narrative purposes.
  9. DeliciousFart

    New Midway Movie to Start Filming

    I don't think it's constructive to portray the US war effort as "clean". Sure, relative to Germany and Japan (and the USSR), our conduct was considerably better, but atrocities and war crimes were committed on our end, and they're somewhat more widespread and systematic than what is commonly believed, and in some cases we really didn't do enough to hold our own perpetrators accountable. No, this does not make us the moral equivalent of Japan or Germany as some here would want to imply, but it's important that we don't whitewash our own war effort as completely clean either.
  10. I think I've given the reasoning in the last paragraph.
  11. Is it that hard to even make graphics that actually resemble the ships? So much for "infographics".
  12. This is a re-post from my topic under General Discussion, but I've been urged to post it under Feedback to hopefully bring it to the attention of WG developers. The possibility that Alaska's citadel roof, which is the ship's 3rd deck, is modeled too low was first raised by Reddit user u/R_radical. I decided to investigate myself, using an amidship cross section that he linked to, and compared it with the in-game model extracted from gamemodels3d. Alaska's 3rd deck in real life sits at 30 ft 7 in (9.3 m) molded height above the keel plating. The ship's draft at full load displacement is 31 ft 9.25 in (9.7 m), which is only about 1 ft 2 in (0.4 m) higher than the 3rd deck. At normal displacement, the draft is 30 ft 9.25 in (9.3 m), only 2 in (~0.05 m) above the 3rd deck. For all intents and purposes, this should be a waterline citadel, similar to the North Carolina's. However, in-game, it's readily apparent from videos of Alaska when viewing the extracted armor model and looking at the modules and plating that the Alaska's citadel current sits considerably lower than that. In fact, when inspecting the armor model, it appears that WG modeled Alaska's 3rd deck at the height of the armor belt knuckle, where the armor starts tapering from 9 in (229 mm) to 5 in (127 mm). This knuckle is 27 ft 11 in (8.5 m) molded height above the keel; in other words, the in-game model's 3rd deck is too low by 2 ft 8 in (0.8 m). Here are the amidship cross sections with the waterline marked in blue, and WG's incorrect 3rd deck marked in red. Currently, Alaska is unduly forgiving when showing broadside due to an incorrectly modeled citadel height that's 2 ft 8 in (0.8 m) lower than it should be. This problem has actually been recognized by WG, and their remedy was to redistribution HP of the ship's sections in order to make the sections more difficult to saturate, thus taking more damage. However, I think the better solution is to actually correctly model Alaska's citadel height by putting the 3rd deck where it actually is. This consequently should dispense the need for the HP redistribution, which should be undone when the citadel is corrected. This would result in a waterline citadel that's much more punishable than it is currently, while the other ship sections will no longer have the penalty of being more difficult to saturate and are thus more resistant to HE damage. Corresponding Reddit post.
  13. DeliciousFart

    New Midway Movie to Start Filming

    So far in this thread, I haven't seen anyone use the Philippines as an exemplar of American moral conduct. Philippines was only mentioned from a strategic perspective regarding the deterrence Japanese expansion into Asia. It was actually goldeagle1123 who first invoked the morality of the American occupation of the Philippines (including the Spanish-American War) in an attempt to establish some kind of moral equivalence between the Japanese and the United States during World War 2. This is not only a blatant display of Whataboutism, it's also immensely hypocritical considering how much more brutal the Japanese were in their invasion and occupation of the Philippines during World War 2. Again, I haven't actually seen anyone defend the moral conduct of the US during its occupation of the Philippines, but in leading up to World War 2, Japan was very clearly the aggressor.
  14. I edited my post as you replied, but to reiterate, for the Montana I can accept a 50 mm weather deck instead of the historical 57 mm as a compromise, as that would really only affect the Henri IV which recently got a substantial buff in the form of reload booster. However, I really wish WG can give the Montana main armor deck its historical design thickness of 179-187 mm, as that can change interactions with AP bombs.
  15. Not quite true, Montana is missing 19 mm of weather deck (should be 57 mm) and 29-37 mm of main armor deck (should be 179-187 mm). For the purposes of balance I can accept the weather deck being just 50 mm, as that would only affect the Henri IV which recently got a pretty big buff. Howecer, I would really like to see the main armor deck be given its correct thickness. The 3rd deck over the magazines should also be 25 mm. The separate Class B lower belt is also greatly simplified without the taper or the thickness distinctions between the magazines and machinery spaces.
×