Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
DeliciousFart

HP formula applied to modern warships

59 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,878
[HINON]
Modder, Privateers
6,796 posts
4,616 battles
39 minutes ago, Lert said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

M1zWIet.jpg

HNLMS Evertsen, F805

 

5atLNWU.jpg

HNLMS HNLMS Tromp, F803

 

9TwamEW.jpg

HNLMS evertsen F805, HNLMS De Zeven Provincien F802 and HNLMS De Ruyter F804

 

iBnBuNr.jpg

HNLMS Evertsen, F805

Click on the pictures for larger format

@Doomlock, you might like these. I'm especially fond of the last one.

 

Oo nice! These shall be saved when I get on my computer later.

 

Is there a particular reason you are fond of the last one if I may ask? (Just curious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27,194
[HINON]
Supertester
21,483 posts
15,244 battles
Just now, Doomlock said:

Is there a particular reason you are fond of the last one if I may ask? (Just curious)

Just the composition of the shot, the people walking, and these sleek and mighty warships looming behind them, dominating the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,878
[HINON]
Modder, Privateers
6,796 posts
4,616 battles
2 minutes ago, Lert said:

Just the composition of the shot, the people walking, and these sleek and mighty warships looming behind them, dominating the background.

Indeed that is good. I have a few that I have tried to get specific shots of, like some destroyers passing the Mo and Arizona, or a carrier passing the memorial with the sailors manning the rails. Some of those shots are just so much more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,025
Members
23,593 posts
5,963 battles
9 hours ago, Kitsunelegend said:

Good mother of christ on a bike the Zumwalt is ugly as all sin. Was the person that designed that thing legally blind or something? Either that or they built the thing upside down.... :Smile_amazed:

 

Heh, let's just say that the driving force behind the design "sees" in a different spectrum....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,025
Members
23,593 posts
5,963 battles
9 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Lol love the HP total on the Modern CV, imagine a CV in Wows with that kind of HP and the top speed of Modern nuclear CVs XD

 

Essex is pretty much as fast as GRF....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
867 battles
14 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

USS Long Beach

38812 HP

I built a model of this thing when I was a kid.  Very weird looking ship.

A funny little story about this ship, she originally did not have any guns.  The story goes that President Kennedy (WWII Navy veteran) visited her and complained why the hell a Cruiser doesn't have any guns.  So the Navy put some 5" guns on her in the middle of the ship.

 

 

Pretty sure the Long Beach bridge is almost the exact same as Enterprise CVN-65 at one point. I thought it was hideous at first sight, and still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
198
[-BMV-]
Members
1,227 posts
5,959 battles
7 hours ago, Lert said:

It's primarily designed as an anti-air and command ship with some ASW and Anti-surface capabilities. Since commissioning the four ships of this class have been mostly used in anti-piracy operations. In terms of styling they take a bit after the Arleigh Burkes, but considerably better looking in my not so humble and probably quite biased opinion.

More pictures:

  Reveal hidden contents

M1zWIet.jpg

HNLMS Evertsen, F805

 

5atLNWU.jpg

HNLMS HNLMS Tromp, F803

 

12XxeRp.jpg

HNLMS De Zeven Provincien [edited]. Mmmmmm.

 

9TwamEW.jpg

HNLMS evertsen F805, HNLMS De Zeven Provincien F802 and HNLMS De Ruyter F804

 

iBnBuNr.jpg

HNLMS Evertsen, F805

Click on the pictures for larger format

@Doomlock, you might like these. I'm especially fond of the last one.

 

That is a very good looking ship, I'd agree that it's better looking than the Burk's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
867 battles

The Provinciëns certainly are pretty good looking and are decently fast as far as frigates goes at 30 knots. Then again, all modern fleet surface combatants have fairly modest speeds, as the Burkes are also rated for 30+ knots.

 

Here's the British Type 45 Darings. A rather ugly ship though (worse than Zumwalt IMO), I don't know why there's almost no bow shear. 8,400 long tons, 41,157 HP.

HMS Daring in 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
215
[CROOK]
Beta Testers
477 posts
4,305 battles

If WG ever does an anime collab with Zipang, they cold create a scenario battle involving the fictional ship JDS Mirai.
She supposedly weighs in at full load 9,998 tons. Which would give her an in-game HP pool of around 48,400.
fdgczsare.thumb.jpg.3c2dfd7756839b86271d111cd906fead.jpg

(If you are unfamiliar with this anime/manga, the JDS Mirai, a japanese destroyer, while on escort duties in modern day japan is suddenly transported through time to WW2, landing right in the middle of the imperial japanese fleet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,249 posts
2,399 battles

Collecting data for AW on water?

 

@Lert was that first SS from one of the anno games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
412
[LEGIT]
Members
1,912 posts
26,691 battles
On 10/16/2017 at 10:16 PM, CaucasianReroll said:

Erm. You are so wrong. Purpose is sexy and that thing is purposeful as heck. 

I don't know...Box trucks are functional and as sexy as the Zumwalt is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,143
[XBRTC]
Members
2,888 posts
9,194 battles
On 10/16/2017 at 10:16 PM, CaucasianReroll said:

Erm. You are so wrong. Purpose is sexy and that thing is purposeful as heck. 

No, actually, it's pretty much pointless.

It's got 2 really spiffy guns... whose ammunition program was canceled.

It's got a lot of neato tubes for launching missiles... and no 3D radar.

It's got tons of stealth technology... but it's the size of a WWI battleship and intended to operate right snug up against a coastline within range of the Mk1 Mod0 eyeball.

Etc.

Oh, and for a special bonus round, the superstructure is made of balsa wood.

 

On 10/16/2017 at 10:23 PM, DeliciousFart said:

Wave-piercing tumblehome hull meant to be much stealthier than even the reduced-RCS Arleigh Burkes. Carries a pretty mean armament package too, eighty Mk.57 AVLS.

"wave piercing"

uh-huh.

You should maybe consider why wave piercing bows and tumblehome hull forms aren't seen on any other ships these days.

 

 

On 10/16/2017 at 11:54 PM, HazeGrayUnderway said:

USS Long Beach

38812 HP

 

Oddly enough, you're the only contestant so far that's correctly calculated the HP for a cruiser... because LONG BEACH was the last ship which was actually built to the same standards and specifications that had been traditionally used for cruisers. Everything since then has been built off the standard frame spacing, hull plating, etc., for destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
412
[LEGIT]
Members
1,912 posts
26,691 battles

     I just read that a Rand think tank study figures the US gets its [edited]handed to it in a two front war against the Ruskies and Chicoms. 

     I think the US is following Germany's WW2 lead and spending a lot of money on top of the line gear, but not having a lot of it.  Unlike the US which mass produced some mediocre stuff (ahem the Sherman) and also many superior weapons in mass quantities to win the war.

     And I really think today's CV's are like BB's at the start of WW2.  Soon to be supplanted.  A CV battle group's defenses can be saturated by missiles very quickly and that's the end of that.

     But that's a whole 'nother thread.

 P.S.    And I think the rail gun will make a big time appearance, but fielded from a semi submersible high speed skitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,629
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,794 posts
3,992 battles

HOLY NECRO. But whatev; inb4 lock.

Based on the official 65,000 Tons, the Queen Elizabeth CV would have 75,445 HP Stock. More if the estimated weight of all aircraft is added to the tonnage (if it isn't already).

dDCrmkZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
567
[WMD]
Members
997 posts
7,546 battles
17 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

     I just read that a Rand think tank study figures the US gets its [edited]handed to it in a two front war against the Ruskies and Chicoms. 

     I think the US is following Germany's WW2 lead and spending a lot of money on top of the line gear, but not having a lot of it.  Unlike the US which mass produced some mediocre stuff (ahem the Sherman) and also many superior weapons in mass quantities to win the war.

     And I really think today's CV's are like BB's at the start of WW2.  Soon to be supplanted.  A CV battle group's defenses can be saturated by missiles very quickly and that's the end of that.

     But that's a whole 'nother thread.

 P.S.    And I think the rail gun will make a big time appearance, but fielded from a semi submersible high speed skitter.

The problem with comparing the strength of modern navies is we haven't had a peer on peer naval fight since WWII, and the most recent "near peer" fight was in 1982. 

China and Russia can claim their missiles will do anything they want, but they know that they will not be tested against NATO/Western forces any time soon. Also, the USN will not be fighting alone in any theatre of operations on the planet, so while the USN alone might not prevail the USN, RN, RAN, RCN, RNZN, MN, JMSDF, etc... will win.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
412
[LEGIT]
Members
1,912 posts
26,691 battles
7 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

The problem with comparing the strength of modern navies is we haven't had a peer on peer naval fight since WWII, and the most recent "near peer" fight was in 1982. 

China and Russia can claim their missiles will do anything they want, but they know that they will not be tested against NATO/Western forces any time soon. Also, the USN will not be fighting alone in any theatre of operations on the planet, so while the USN alone might not prevail the USN, RN, RAN, RCN, RNZN, MN, JMSDF, etc... will win.   

I hope you're right.  And I didn't consider allies contributions.   I really don't see Russia siding with the Chicoms.  They should have enough sense to know that if America's lights go out, they'd be next on the menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,143
[XBRTC]
Members
2,888 posts
9,194 battles
42 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

The problem with comparing the strength of modern navies is we haven't had a peer on peer naval fight since WWII, and the most recent "near peer" fight was in 1982. 

 

1988, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[P-V-E]
Members
1,231 posts
1 hour ago, YamatoA150 said:

HOLY NECRO. But whatev; inb4 lock.

Based on the official 65,000 Tons, the Queen Elizabeth CV would have 75,445 HP Stock. More if the estimated weight of all aircraft is added to the tonnage (if it isn't already).

dDCrmkZ.jpg

65,000 tonnes is the old empty displacement predicted before building, and The Royal Institution of Naval Architects projects it to be closer to 70,600 tonnes now, with full load displacement being even higher.

 

the MoD confirm via FOI's that the 65,000 tonnes is empty displacement, and that doesn't include people, stores, aircraft, ordinance, fuels etc etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691861/2018-01338.pdf

 

Edited by b101uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,143
[XBRTC]
Members
2,888 posts
9,194 battles
2 minutes ago, b101uk said:

65,000 tonnes is the old empty displacement predicted before building, and The Royal Institution of Naval Architects projects it to be closer to 70,600 tonnes now, with full load displacement being even higher.

 

the MoD confirm via FOI's that the empty displacement is 65,000 tonnes is empty displacement, and that doesn't include people, stores, aircraft, ordinance, fuels etc etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691861/2018-01338.pdf

 

 

Seems a waste to have a VTOL carrier that big... there's plenty of size for CATOBAR with an actually useful air wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45
[REALY]
Members
175 posts
1,762 battles

If I did it right, the formula indicates HMCS Iroquois and her sisters would have a little under 27,000 hp, while the Halifax class frigates (if they were counted as destroyers) would have  a hair under 25,000. It'd be interesting to see how they would fit into the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,629
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,794 posts
3,992 battles
5 minutes ago, b101uk said:

65,000 tonnes is the old empty displacement predicted before building, and The Royal Institution of Naval Architects projects it to be closer to 70,600 tonnes now, with full load displacement being even higher.

 

the MoD confirm via FOI's that the 65,000 tonnes is empty displacement, and that doesn't include people, stores, aircraft, ordinance, fuels etc etc.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691861/2018-01338.pdf

I'll go with a low-ball 71,000 base and maybe 75,000 max. 34 F-35Bs are roughly 1020 tons (not sure if that was in long or FREEDOM tons; a quick Google search says the F-35B is in the 60,000 lb max takeoff range), then just adding in random tonnage to cover for any other aircraft, personnel, and equipment/ammo.

That's 80161 HP stock and 83086 HP max. On something with less armor than a WWII Destroyer (that goes for most modern ships listed though; not including any surviving WWII refits still sailing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
867 battles

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,296 posts
867 battles

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.

USS_Louisiana_(SSBN-743).jpg

Seawolf-class SSN: 9,284 metric tons, 31,514 HP.

960916-V-0000B-009_USS_Seawolf_at_Sea.jp

Seawolf is pretty damn fast, at least 33 knots submerged.

Edited by DeliciousFart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×