Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

419 Excellent

About DeliciousFart

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,801 profile views
  1. Premium Ship Review #108: T-61

    Perhaps this is WG's attempt to curb requests for Tier 6 ranked? Balance can no longer be an argument used in favor competitive Tier 6. That's a shame.
  2. Small Montana Buff

    Montana as a whole is fine right now, but all the missing armor does irritate me. I would be fine with a reduction to 28 knots while improving rudder shift and giving it the missing deck and turret armor. I would even be fine with a slight raise of the citadel over the machinery spaces, but Montana's citadel is perfectly accessible. As a matter of fact, the Montana is currently the second easiest Tier 10 battleship to citadel after the Yamato.
  3. I'm not a naval architect, and in the context of aviation, a common usage of "mold" is the Outer Mold Line (OML) which describes an aircraft's outer surface geometry. The usage in the context of naval architecture may very well be different, I'll accept that. It's true that I'm not being strictly rigorous in my usage of nautical terms, but I don't find this particularly relevant to the point of the thread. I'll concede that the use of molded here likely refers to internal breadth. Even so, I've provided multiple documentation showing that Gearing and Sumner (Yueyang) breadth are nearly identical, whereas its clearly not in-game, with the difference being over a meter. Hull plating thicknesses on these destroyers are usually an inch or so, and simply does not justify in-game Gearing being so much beamier than it actually should be. It's not a matter of "only a few inches", it's over a damn meter. It's not even the same order of magnitude. Every documentation I can find suggest that Gearing and Sumner have beams that are almost identical at ~12 m, while in-game the Gearing is substantially wider than Sumner, and measurements from models extracted from the game suggest a difference on the order of 10%. I've repeatedly emphasized the magnitude of the deviation. I don't know how you managed to interpret this as "only a few inches". Furthermore, the hull plating of these destroyers are usually just an inch thick, so that in no way justifies the in-game Gearing being over a meter off from its design beam. EDIT: No one needs to know where I work.
  4. I think I read a post on Reddit a few months back that summarized why Tier 10 ranked feels frustrating. While the ships themselves are fairly balanced, the intense firepower at Tier 10 means that mistakes are heavily punished, and often times the winning factor is the proper combination of ships as well as good team coordination. Unfortunately the latter two aspects are largely dictated by matchmaking, which makes the result feel much more influenced by RNG rather than individual skill.
  5. Over on Reddit, I've gotten acknowledgement from WG EU staff about the modeling error. His response is below. Essentially, while WG has recognized the mistake, to them fixing Gearing's model is low on the priority list that won't be fixed in "the foreseeable future" because they believe that Gearing's performance is fine, and correcting Gearing's model could make it more survivable particularly against battleship AP penetrations. Personally I disagree, especially since the frequency of battleship AP full penetration damage is one of the rather annoying and un-fun aspects of the Gearing right now. I frankly think that balancing Gearing around its incorrect model is a haphazard band-aid, not to mention that no one thinks Gearing's propensity for taking full damage penetrations is actually fun. However, it is what it is and hopefully on Sub_Octavian's next Q&A I'll bring this to his attention again to see how far down the pipeline it is.
  6. Iowa/Missouri/Montana citadel wasn't me, that was largely due to @Big_Spud and Reddit user AllHailShadow97531. I was however a part of the effort in getting Montana's weather deck buffed to 38 mm (though still short of the historical 57 mm). That said, WG is aware that Yamato's citadel volume consists of an entire deck above the machinery and magazine spaces. However, this time they consciously chose to keep it where it is for balancing purposes. Namely, Yamato is capable of overmatching 32 mm plating on the bows of all battleships sans the Germans, and 32 mm is also the outer plating of French and British battleships. A lowered citadel and overmatch combined would be far too much in my opinion. Balance is also why WG consciously gave Nelson a higher citadel, because its turret arrangement is very advantageous in-game. As far as I know, Yamato and Nelson are the only two "exceptions" to the general rule that a battleship citadel consists of just the machinery and primary magazines. The length difference isn't 14%; rather, Gearing's hull has a 14 ft extension between the funnels compared to the Sumners (which have the same hull length as the Fletchers). In any case, I doubt that it's from simple upscaling. More likely WG accidentally lofted Gearing's hull to the wrong beam value.
  7. You're really going to be picking apart at words? Breadth extreme generally refers so the widest external part of the ship, while molded breadth refers to the inside. I don't know why the document decided to have both on the same line; perhaps nautical definitions for US Navy was a bit different back then. Yet for some reason you're completely insistent that the measure must refer to the internal breadth. So basically, because two seemingly contradictory qualifiers appeared on the same line, you're insisting that the "(molded)" qualifier must be true? "Initially" I was pulling the extreme beam values for both Sumner and Gearing from Sumrall's book, which gave both as 40 ft 10 in. I found an image (from Squadron/Signal's "US Destroyers in Action") that's separate from the book that makes a visual comparison easier. While there is some variation for the extreme beam values from source to source, they're all within inches of each other, nothing like how in-game Gearing is a meter off from Yueyang, and Yueyang is much closer to the literature value of the extreme beam. Yet you seemed to have promptly ignored the fact that even reputable book sources like Sumrall list the extreme beam of both Sumner and Gearing as the same, and picked specifically at my use of a top down image comparison. To further demonstrate that Gearing and Sumner should have the same beam, here's the Booklet of General Plans for FRAM II Sumner. The "breadth extreme (molded)" turns out to be within an inch of the Gearing's. Again, this further demonstrates that Gearing and Sumner (Yueyang) should have beams that are nearly identical, which was the whole point of this topic. I frankly don't know what this whole exercise was, because you seem to make a pretty big deal over something that has negligible impact on the original point of the topic. If the whole point is to correct my methodology because it "lacks rigor" then at least distinguish it from the original point of the topic. And like I said, you didn't even bother addressing the fact that Sumrall's book explicitly lists Sumner and Gearing extreme beam as the same. Your initial response said that you didn't "trust" my sources for the beam figures I gave, but a little searching through the Booklet of General Plans would've shown that Sumner and Gearing have almost identical beams, and could've spared over a page of ultimately inconsequential back-and-forth.
  8. While I agree that the Gearing's beam pay not be the same as Yueyang in particular, the difference in beam in-game is still far too great to not have been the result of a modeling error on the Gearing. Even Fletcher's extreme beam is give as 39.7 ft, which is only little over a foot narrower than Gearing's extreme beam and nowhere near a meter like it is in-game.
  9. We can also use the US Navy's definition of extreme beam. http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/DEFINITION_2.HTML Extreme beam: For ships other than aircraft carriers, the extreme beam is the maximum breadth, in feet, of the ship at or below the main deck to the outside of the hull over blister plating, guards, or armor. Note that the extreme bream for both Gearing and Sumner are given as 40 ft 10 in, or 40.8 ft in Sumrall page 243. When did I claim that waterline beam is identical to the overall beam when viewed from top-down? The top down view comparison is only meant to help visually illustrate that Gearing and Sumner should be of nearly identical width, whereas a top down view of the game models extracted from the game show a much more substantial difference on the order of over a meter. In any case, even with variations in hull form such as the hull sides not being perfectly vertical that kind of deviation is far too much, as the Booklet of General Plans cross sections show. You're nitpicking at details that wouldn't produce a variation on the order of what we're seeing in game. As a matter of fact, I'm not simply basing my argument on the top down view, because I've listed the extreme beam of both Sumner and Gearing to show that they're identical, and the design history of the Gearing even indicates that it's largely a repeat of the Sumners with the principal difference being a 14 ft addition between the smoke stacks for additional endurance.
  10. Eyyyyy, also an aerospace engineer here. I understand that actual engineering drawings for machining and production would have tolerances. However, there's no way in hell you would see the kind of deviation from design value that we're seeing from Gearing's in-game model. The beam is considerably off by a meter or so while the ship itself is only around 12 m in beam. That's on the order of 10% variation. No way that kind of "tolerance" would ever be acceptable even with WW2 manufacturing.
  11. Here's the Booklet of General Plans for a FRAM II Gearing. https://maritime.org/doc/plans/dd765.pdf Note the cross sections of the ship. The curvature of the hull's side near the waterline is nowhere near half a meter in variation to the extent of the difference between standard and loaded displacements. Furthermore, Sumrall specifically gave the extreme beam of both Sumner and Gearing as 40 ft 10 in. As I said, far larger ships had nowhere near as much deviation from the design value. Let's look at all four South Dakotas. Their design beam, like the Iowas, is 108 ft 2 in. Here are the beams of the individual ships, from Garzke & Dulin page 98. South Dakota - 108 ft 1.5 in Indiana - 108 ft 2 in Massachusetts - 108 ft 2.25 in Alabama - 108 ft 1.5 in As with the Iowas, the deviation of the South Dakotas from the design value for the beam is fractions of an inch, and this is a ship with far larger beam and length than a Gearing. On the other hand, you haven't provided any evidence to justify Gearing being so considerably wider in-game than what its design value should be, other than a generalizing statement that individual ships may have slightly different dimensions from design values. Even so, a meter variation for a hull that's only ~12 m is much more than "slightly different". Regardless, I still don't see what the point of this back-and-forth is. Are you saying that the Gearing beam in-game is somehow correct?
  12. I don't see how this is relevant to Sumner (Yueyang) and Gearing having the same beam as designed according to all relevant sources, or how WG seemed to have modeled the Gearing's beam to be too high. As a matter of fact I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That the Gearing model in-game is somehow fine?
  13. The coefficient of thermal expansion of steel is somewhere around 10 to 17 * 10-6 M/(M*K); in other words, the temperature difference between different shipyards can't possibly result in such a large difference in dimensions. In short, I can't see any possible way of a Gearing deviating from its design values this much unless a shipyard produced a ship to the wrong specifications, and somehow that ship's dimensions are used by WG to model the Gearing. But I've yet to see any evidence that this was the case. On the other hand, every source puts Sumner and Gearing at the same beam, with the principal difference being 14 ft worth of additional frames amidship in the Gearing compared to Sumner.
  14. Thank you for pointing this out. When I get back I'll try to scan images directly from Sumrall. Regardless, the beam of the Gearing in-game is still noticeably more than it should be, and even when you've scaled Gearing properly when overlapping your image, the beams of the two ships are still almost identical.
  15. I'm frankly not convinced. You're talking about more than 1.5 ft of difference on either side for ships that are only 40.5 ft wide as designed. Even Iowa (beam of 108 ft 2.063 in) and New Jersey (beam of 108 ft 1.375 in) only deviated from their design beams (108 ft 2 in) by mere fractions of an inch, and that's a far bigger ship. No shipyard would have the kind of deviations that you're talking about.