Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dseehafer

3D Size Comparison: USN Treaty Battleships and Iowa

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

55 posts in this topic

 

Greetings all,

 

 

I've decided to take my size comparisons to a whole new level. In fact, a whole new dimension... a third dimension. I've imported the game models and textures into 3D Builder and this allows for extremely accurate measurements of the ships. Unfortunately, there's only so many ships you can put in the same file without the program lagging out. Because of this, I'll have to do only a few ships at a time. I'll also only be doing ships that existed in real life to further reduce the size of the groups.

 

As requested, here is Iowa, North Carolina and Alabama

 

Note: The red shadow boxes under the ships represent the most extreme viewable dimensions

 

Length

 

RsVqMug.png?1

 

iLvllUa.png?1

 

Width

 

Ksmv6fb.png?1

 

snHnLHM.png?1

 

qqFqMzf.png?1

 

Height

(Note: Ships are arranged by height from the bottom of the hull to the highest point on the mast and not from the bottom of the hull to the deck, although this point certainly still viewable in the picture)

 

iYoySlT.png?1

 

Random views

(Note: Just like in game, these views arent entirely accurate because of camera favoritism. However, the red boxes under the ships remain accurate regardless so be sure to use them as a reference)

 

L1qljSa.png?1

 

5RIdRLS.png?1

 

yTGeyUu.png?1

 

DcnkgCQ.png?1

 

GndxGjW.png?1

 

TVuVs46.png?1

 

6eDc6Q3.png?1

 

3OlNT6A.png?1

 


9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

What about the Alabama and Alaska?

 

Alabama is in there, Alaska is not in game so I don't have her model... she's also not a battleship. Edited by dseehafer

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alabama is in there, Alaska is not in game so I don't have her model... she's also not a battleship.

 

Battlecruiser so it would be interesting to see her size. But she's not in game so yeah.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the Alabama and Alaska?

 

Alabama is 680' Alaska is 808'. Width is 108' for Bama, 91' for Alaska.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, thank you! Also, is the Alabama a bit wider than the Iowa? I thought they should have the exact same width.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alaska (top), alongside Missouri (bottom)

MdOkgaC.jpg


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Battlecruiser so it would be interesting to see her size. But she's not in game so yeah.

 

Large cruiser. US Navy designation. In game she'd likely be a battleship around T7 but she is still a cruiser.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, so the NC's just a trace wider then the Iowa, I remember the Iowa's width was restricted by what would fit through the Panama Canal, (or rather all of our bb's were.)

Edited by Viscount

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, so the NC's just a trace wider then the Iowa, I remember the Iowa's width was restricted by what would fit through the Panama Canal but the NC fit through too.

 

The width difference between the three is less than an inch. They're all 108 feet and point something inches.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome, thank you! Also, is the Alabama a bit wider than the Iowa? I thought they should have the exact same width.

 

the red shadow shows the maximum width on any point of the model so if there's an overhanging railing or lifeboats or a wide mast it will include it in the shadow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Large cruiser. US Navy designation. In game she'd likely be a battleship around T7 but she is still a cruiser.

 

There are official navy documents where she is referred to as a battlecruiser so either designation is correct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are official navy documents where she is referred to as a battlecruiser so either designation is correct.

 

Huh didn't know that, thanks. I guess even they couldn't make up their minds.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Large cruiser. US Navy designation. In game she'd likely be a battleship around T7 but she is still a cruiser.

 

​I doubt even that high. They were really only designed to withstand cruiser gunfire (10" I believe). Battleship-wise its tier 6 at best.  Her closest cousin is Dunkerque, but with more modern guns (and more of them), better AA and much worse torpedo defense. I don't think they could go any higher.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the official designation was "CB," so I prefer to go with Lert's interpretation;

 

 Cattlebruiser.

 

On a more serious note, awesome job! It's really cool to look at all the ship models in 3D


4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​I doubt even that high. They were really only designed to withstand cruiser gunfire (10" I believe). Battleship-wise its tier 6 at best.  Her closest cousin is Dunkerque, but with more modern guns (and more of them), better AA and much worse torpedo defense. I don't think they could go any higher.

 

shes comparable to Scharnhorst... Less armor but more hitpoints, no torpedoes but bigger guns, worse secondary battery but better AA, worse turning circle but higher top speed, ECT, ECT..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

shes comparable to Scharnhorst... Less armor but more hitpoints, no torpedoes but bigger guns, worse secondary battery but better AA, worse turning circle but higher top speed, ECT, ECT..

 

I'd says Alaska is more comparable to the Graf Spee. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd says Alaska is more comparable to the Graf Spee. 

 

how??

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how??

 

Because the Alaska is nowhere near as tough as the Scharnhorst.  9" belt vs 13.8" belt.  Yes, it's guns are 1" larger in size and the same in number, but the Alaska is not a Battleship and, like the Spee, if treated like one, it will get annihilated.

 

Yes, the Alaska has 3 more guns and 3x the belt armor but it's not going to stand toe-to-toe with Nagatos, Amagis, Bismarcks, etc.  (I cannot see them giving the Alaska the 12" guns it had - they had the same penetrating power as the older 14" and fired 2.4-3rpm)

 

So my guess is that when they create the Alaska, it'll be like this:  It'll have the guns from the Wyoming with the trajectory of the North Carolina, the belt close to the New York (it was 10" at it's thinnest) the speed and turning circle of the Iowa and the AA of the North Carolina.

 

There is no way a ship with slightly less armor than the New York will stand up to the punishment of tier 9 BBs - so it'll play like a more armored Graf Spee.

Edited by CybrSlydr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iowa is LONG because length at the waterline has a major effect on SPEED.  The others (NC and SD) weren't designed to be as fast, so could be more compact.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great views, when you look at this comparison it looks like they could have fit an additional twin 5"/38 on each side of the Iowa class.

 

Also any chance of doing one overhead view including the Montana?

Edited by Lampshade_M1A2

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great views, when you look at this comparison it looks like they could have fit an additional twin 5"/38 on each side of the Iowa class.

 

Also any chance of doing one overhead view including the Montana?

 

its possible, but it wouldn't have any textures. Besides you can just look at the normal size comparisons for overhead views.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, TIL.

I always thought NC with its blunt bow was the shorter class, with the length difference to SD being mainly the sharper bow.

Turns out that was totally wrong :hmm:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, TIL.

I always thought NC with its blunt bow was the shorter class, with the length difference to SD being mainly the sharper bow.

Turns out that was totally wrong :hmm:

 

The normal size comparison also shows the length difference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.