Controversy of the KGV's TDS rating

[RadDisconnect]

As we all know, one of the rather curious things about the KGV is that the TDS is not very deep at 13 ft, but somehow can resist a 1,000 lb TNT charge, and this was supposedly validated through full scale caisson tests too. To compare to some other systems, the 17.9 ft deep liquid loaded system of the South Dakota and Iowa is only rated for 700 lb TNT, while the 17.7 ft deep system of the Bismarck is rated for 550 lb TNT. I believe the Bismarck's substantially lower rating is because there are fewer bulkheads and compartments compared to the US design. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks the KGV's TDS rating looks a tad suspicious. Sure, it also uses liquid loading like American designs, but still, 1,000 lbs TNT just seems way too high for it's lack of depth.

 

Well, after doing some surfing on the Navweaps forums, I found this discussion regarding the caisson tests of the KGV TDS system (known as Job 74).

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/29362/Dreadnoughts-in-Extreme-Stormy-Oceans-Performance?page=9#.WY4ZPIjys_w

Long story short, based on reports of hole size, there's reason to believe that the 1,000 lb TNT charge detonated in low order, i.e. the explosion was not nearly as strong as it normally should be. Comparisons of hole size and charge size shows a roughly linear correlation, but the small hole size for Job 74 is a very glaring anomaly, and the results can be best explained by the British treating a low order detonation testing as the real deal.

 

Naturally the teaboos on the Navweaps forums cried foul (read the thread and you'll see who it is), and it's a bit amusing to see how he tries to spin data to fit his "U.K. is the best evah" world view, but I think this may explain the supposed (and flawed) 1,000 lb TNT rating of the KGV.

 

Now, as for the TDS rating in game, the North Carolina has a deeper TDS than the Bismarck (which the game uses to calculate damage reduction), and a higher TNT rating than Bismarck in real life, yet only has 19% damage reduction compared to Bismarck's 22%. WG, can you please at least explain why this is?

 

EDIT: Oops, wrong forum section, this should go under historical era. Mods please move this.

[Sovereigndawg]

What controversy?

[Big_Spud]

Yeah, the caisson tests and 1000 lb rating for KGV's TDS have long been known to be farcical, the system simply is not deep nor divided effectively enough to resist more than about 600 lb's at best.

 

As for North Carolina's 19%, its a long standing issue that her and Iowa share. By WG's own metrics, North Carolina should have around a 35% TDS, and Iowa a 30% value.

 

 I think the real answer is that Alabama ate the missing TDS values to get her 50%.

[VTAdmiral]

Cripes is there anything about this ship that doesn't get branded as controversial on this forum

[DeliciousFart]

Huh, interesting find, that would explain a lot about the rather questionable TDS rating for the KGV.

18 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

Yeah, the caisson tests and 1000 lb rating for KGV's TDS have long been known to be farcical, the system simply is not deep nor divided effectively enough to resist more than about 600 lb's at best.

 

As for North Carolina's 19%, its a long standing issue that her and Iowa share. By WG's own metrics, North Carolina should have around a 35% TDS, and Iowa a 30% value.

 

 I think the real answer is that Alabama ate the missing TDS values to get her 50%.

 

You're saying Alabama is fat glutton?

[Big_Spud]

10 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

Huh, interesting find, that would explain a lot about the rather questionable TDS rating for the KGV.

 

You're saying Alabama is fat glutton?

 

I mean...

 

 

have you SEEN her?

[Hurlbut]

Hey, she's a fine and stout lady! Not unlike a dwarven maiden.

[DeliciousFart]

I agree, better than USS SkeletorIowa

[Big_Spud]

5 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

I agree, better than USS SkeletorIowa

 

It's like comparing a track and field runner to a mud wrestler.

[Special_Kay]

I'm confused, why are we skirting around naming the so-called teaboo? It's not like using one degree of obfuscation to avoid technically naming someone is going to make things kosher with name'n'shame, and "Andy from Navweaps" isn't exactly a Warships username. Are we supposed to know who that is, or what screenname they allegedly play Warships on?

[Big_Spud]

2 minutes ago, Special_Kay said:

I'm confused, why are we skirting around naming the so-called teaboo? It's not like using one degree of obfuscation to avoid technically naming someone is going to make things kosher with name'n'shame, and "Andy from Navweaps" isn't exactly a Warships username. Are we supposed to know who that is, or what screenname they allegedly play Warships on?

 

Andy01 is a legendary teaboo. He makes the various "x-aboos" here look like ineffectual children.

[RadDisconnect]

54 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

 

Andy01 is a legendary teaboo. He makes the various "x-aboos" here look like ineffectual children.

 

You know, credit where it's due, the guy does produce some very interesting and important historical records and documents. It's just that he tends to (almost deliberately) misinterpret or misuse them to paint the British as the best thing ever.

 

Everyone, stop bodyshaming the battleships, they have feelings.

[DemonicTreerat]

2 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

Yeah, the caisson tests and 1000 lb rating for KGV's TDS have long been known to be farcical, the system simply is not deep nor divided effectively enough to resist more than about 600 lb's at best.

 

As for North Carolina's 19%, its a long standing issue that her and Iowa share. By WG's own metrics, North Carolina should have around a 35% TDS, and Iowa a 30% value.

 

 I think the real answer is that Alabama ate the missing TDS values to get her 50%.

Or Wargaming is letting their bias show through and didn't think anyone would catch on. Its that or another case of massive incompetence reinforced by refusal to admit error - ala Montana's deck - and as much as I believe its well within their ability to be that stupid, that much stupidity can't have happened without raising some red flags at some point unless it was intentional.

[YamatoA150]

11 minutes ago, DemonicTreerat said:

Or Wargaming is letting their bias show through and didn't think anyone would catch on. Its that or another case of massive incompetence reinforced by refusal to admit error - ala Montana's deck - and as much as I believe its well within their ability to be that stupid, that much stupidity can't have happened without raising some red flags at some point unless it was intentional.

 

Montana's deck was already explained as different sources used, and thus not an error.  Players just wanted the source with the thicker deck used, rather than the one WG had used.

[VTAdmiral]

1 minute ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

Montana's deck was already explained as different sources used, and thus not an error.  Players just wanted the source with the thicker deck used, rather than the one WG had used.

And it's still enough to be immune to Enterprise's AP bombs.

[YamatoA150]

11 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

And it's still enough to be immune to Enterprise's AP bombs.

 

The funnier part about it all really was the fact that it was a paper design like some others in-game, but the USN players wanted "that design" over "this design".

 

While the Montana is still immune to Enterprise's AP bombs, I do wonder if she'll be vulnerable to the planned heavier AP bombs for Midway and Essex, and if the deck armor changes (before and after) would have affected anything in that regard.

[DeliciousFart]

23 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

Montana's deck was already explained as different sources used, and thus not an error.  Players just wanted the source with the thicker deck used, rather than the one WG had used.

 

Looking at the past discussions, it's the same damn source, but WG decided to use the one outlier source of 29 mm instead of 38mm+19mm that was listed in the very same book and in several other books too, and then they finally decided to give it 38 mm weather deck and ignore the 19 mm for no apparent reason. And WG gave it 30 knots instead of 28 knots for whatever reason. The final Montana design, BB67-4, was covered quite well in both Garzke and Dulin and Friedman, yet somehow they insist on these weird values.

 

On the other hand, every source points to Yamato having a 35 mm to 50 mm weather deck, with 50 mm being along the centerline, and 35 mm outboard, but WG gave it 57 mm weather deck, again, for no apparent reason.

[Big_Spud]

6 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

 

The funnier part about it all really was the fact that it was a paper design like some others in-game, but the USN players wanted "that design" over "this design".

 

While the Montana is still immune to Enterprise's AP bombs, I do wonder if she'll be vulnerable to the planned heavier AP bombs for Midway and Essex, and if the deck armor changes (before and after) would have affected anything in that regard.

 

The reason people were/are mad about it is because the final Montana design (the one that was selected and ordered by the USN) had a 1.5" + 0.66" bomb deck.

 

Then again, WG also decided we don't get the extra 100 mm of armor that Montana had on her turret faces either, so, you know.

[YamatoA150]

Just now, Big_Spud said:

The reason people were/are mad about it is because the final Montana design (the one that was selected and ordered by the USN) had a 1.5" + 0.66" bomb deck.

 

Then again, WG also decided we don't get the extra 100 mm of armor that Montana had on her turret faces either, so, you know.

 

Fair enough. I would have preferred the turret face armor buff, honestly. She has plenty of AA already making her one of the last targets to perform a bombing run on. Make it harder to KO her turrets when taking some shots at near-brawling ranges. Been experimenting with Montana on the PTS when she's available to R&D rather than locked out by impossible reqs designed to encourage lower to middle tier testing. I got those shot from under me more often than I'd like, but then again, the few times I played her, was hyper aggressive now that she has no above water citadel.

[DeliciousFart]

I'm really wonder what is keeping WG from just fixing the values of the weather deck. It doesn't seem to be that hard. I mean, to be fair, until AP bombs roll out, the Yamato and Montana weather deck corrections won't have a huge impact outside of 203 mm cruisers with IFHE, which is quite rare. You can argue that changing the weather deck from 57 mm to 35mm to 50mm doesn't make much gameplay difference to warrant it, but we've seen WG changing armor values on ships like Tirpitz before for historical purposes that doesn't affect gameplay much (I think Tirpitz turtleback armor got 10 mm thicker in some parts, hardly any gameplay difference), and it doesn't take much effort to change the value anyways and it can placate history/accuracy minded people. There's hardly any reason NOT to do it.

 

On the other hand, various people, myself included, have pointed out KGV and Lion weather deck issues that does have a noticeable impact on gameplay, and I'd really like WG to at least give their thoughts on this.

[StoneRhino]

6 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

Yeah, the caisson tests and 1000 lb rating for KGV's TDS have long been known to be farcical, the system simply is not deep nor divided effectively enough to resist more than about 600 lb's at best.

 

As for North Carolina's 19%, its a long standing issue that her and Iowa share. By WG's own metrics, North Carolina should have around a 35% TDS, and Iowa a 30% value.

 

 I think the real answer is that Alabama ate the missing TDS values to get her 50%.

A little known fact. If you sideswipe an allied NC at the beginning of a match in an Alabama, your TDS goes up to 55%.

[RadDisconnect]

If anything I'm curious how Yamato's TDS is rated at 400 kg (880 lb) TNT, when the system doesn't seem particularly deep either, and using my ruler it looks to be about 16-18 ft or so. Even without taking into account the flawed joint, the rating doesn't make sense to me.

[DemonicTreerat]

13 hours ago, RadDisconnect said:

If anything I'm curious how Yamato's TDS is rated at 400 kg (880 lb) TNT, when the system doesn't seem particularly deep either, and using my ruler it looks to be about 16-18 ft or so. Even without taking into account the flawed joint, the rating doesn't make sense to me.

Wargaming "Logic" - if its Japanese or Russian its good despite the actual stuff being crap. Case in point - while 10 torpedoes hit Yamato, it only took 7 to actually cause the captain to order the ship abandoned due to an uncontrollable list. The other three were for all intents adding insult to a lethal injury. And a bit of comparison. It took 6 (and possibly 7) torpedoes to sink West Virginia a Pearl Harbor. And WV was 20 years older (being designed while WW1 was still in progress), less than half Yamato's displacement, and had been at peacetime conditions (ie hatches inside the TDS opened to allow cleaning and inspection) at the time. So a ship with over 10 years more wear and tear, where each ton of water shipped was a greater percent of total bouyancy lost, and not even at its best standing took the same amount of abuse to sink as the so-called "greatest battleship ever". But in the mind of Wargaming that doesn't matter because they prefer "alternate facts" when it fits their narrative. Nor is it about "balance", otherwise there would be consistent application of that rule.

[RadDisconnect]

1 hour ago, DemonicTreerat said:

Wargaming "Logic" - if its Japanese or Russian its good despite the actual stuff being crap. Case in point - while 10 torpedoes hit Yamato, it only took 7 to actually cause the captain to order the ship abandoned due to an uncontrollable list. The other three were for all intents adding insult to a lethal injury. And a bit of comparison. It took 6 (and possibly 7) torpedoes to sink West Virginia a Pearl Harbor. And WV was 20 years older (being designed while WW1 was still in progress), less than half Yamato's displacement, and had been at peacetime conditions (ie hatches inside the TDS opened to allow cleaning and inspection) at the time. So a ship with over 10 years more wear and tear, where each ton of water shipped was a greater percent of total bouyancy lost, and not even at its best standing took the same amount of abuse to sink as the so-called "greatest battleship ever". But in the mind of Wargaming that doesn't matter because they prefer "alternate facts" when it fits their narrative. Nor is it about "balance", otherwise there would be consistent application of that rule.

 

Actually I was talking about real life TDS rating, not what it is in game, though the two are broadly correlated. Even then, a game needs to take some breaks from reality to make sure that it's balanced. Otherwise, USN ships would be stupidly OP in many cases, and there wouldn't be much of a game. And I really doubt WG is peddling "alternate facts", I think some have pointed it out, they're just lazy or careless mistakes.

[Lampshade_M1A2]

58 minutes ago, RadDisconnect said:

 

Actually I was talking about real life TDS rating, not what it is in game, though the two are broadly correlated. Even then, a game needs to take some breaks from reality to make sure that it's balanced. Otherwise, USN ships would be stupidly OP in many cases, and there wouldn't be much of a game. And I really doubt WG is peddling "alternate facts", I think some have pointed it out, they're just lazy or careless mistakes.

Yeah but Yamato gets so many other benefits besides for the absolute highest TDS rating there is clearly some favoritism going on there to appease the "best battleship evah" crowd.

 

- Gameplay mechanics that enable her 18.1" guns to overmatch the common 32mm hull plating while 18" guns cannot (HOW DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER?)

- 2.1 sigma which is a greater rating than any other BB in the game plus minimal dispersion

- Secondary 5"/40 caliber guns with a greater range than the US 5"/54 caliber guns on the Montana

- 57mm weather deck versus the 35-50mm it should have