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

Help me wrap my head around Normandie, please?

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

SparvieroVV    609

Paging @Phoenix_jz for this one. I will preface this by saying I am willing to admit my understanding is completely incorrect. I've been told Normandie already has Bearn's clipper bow. I'm guessing the 29.4 knots is with speed boost and base is 28 knots?

 

bearnbuilt2.jpg

23215620_1503239159759108_89225128097767

 

As WG modernized above, as planned below.

 

1024px-Normandie_class_battleship.svg.pn

 

My understanding is that Normandie is enjoying a below waterline citadel.

 

Normandie_under_construction.png

 

So now as Phoenix has pointed out the central turret is retained which should restrict the machinery space. The modernized look has everything trunked into one funnel without a flare above the deck.

 

My only guess is this is all done to make up for what I'm told are the less than stellar stats of the 340/45.

 

Quote

340mm HE

OEA Mle 1934

Damage 4700

Muzzle Velocity 921 m/s

Chance of Fire 26%

340mm AP

OPfK Mle 1930

Damage 9500

Muzzle Velocity 780 m/s

Penetration @ 5/10/15 km 496/403/320

 

In essence this all seems reasonable to the Italian refits with speed advantage to the French. However in the case of the Italian rebuild there was machinery space added and the citadel sits above water. Admittedly due to political reasons there was basically a monopoly on machinery in Italy and my understanding is the French where using more efficient engines. However while I am sure I will have great fun with Normandie this is going to be a guilty sort of fun. 

 

e32.gif

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crucis    2,655

Seems like a very significant change between the ship in the line drawing and the WG picture.  The early version has the central turret aimed aft, without much blocking its rearward fire.  But in the modernized WG version, the turret is now normally aimed forward.

Interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tzarevitch    107

 I doubt the French could ever have gotten the real Normandies (had they been completed) up to that speed without a radical redesign.The Italian BBs increased speed significantly by removing midships turrets to get more space for machinery and they added new bows to improve hydrodynamics. This Normandie has a new bow, but the changes to the ship are nowhere near that radical. Even worse, Normandie in the picture picked up two larger (and presumably heavier) spotting towers and the ship is listed being significantly heavier than they were originally planned to be with a planned speed of 21 or so knots.  Bearn (Normandy's sister converted to a CV) didn't have the turrets and magazine spaces and she was nowhere near that fast. Apparently she struggled to maintain 21kts.  Of course Bearn's marchinery (basically the same as for the Normandie BBs) was awful. The French did something silly like have turbines turning the center two shafts and reciprocating engines operating the outer two and it was hugely problematic. I have no idea why they thought that would work well, but I suppose the Normandies could have been a bit faster with turbines powering all the shafts, but I doubt it would have been that much (8knots) faster with the ship 7,000 tons heavier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SparvieroVV    609

I'm sure this all comes from a "If we had a real budget" draft. It's just interesting that it reads like a list of things that play to mechanic advantages in game. Secondary bridge structure being too large for mid turret to clear being about the only draw back. In the end it doesn't really matter as this is a stepping stone ship.

 

The Lyon just takes the same approach and doubles down on it too boot. 4th dimensional machinery space, those dastardly French engineers are the best. :cap_haloween: On a more serious note the Allies do have the French to thank for a lot of technology that would prove useful in the war so no disrespect is intended.

lyon2.jpg?ssl=1

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ValkyrWarframe    1,400
6 hours ago, Crucis said:

Seems like a very significant change between the ship in the line drawing and the WG picture.  The early version has the central turret aimed aft, without much blocking its rearward fire.  But in the modernized WG version, the turret is now normally aimed forward.

Interesting.

It's not unheard of to reverse turrets during a rebuild.  The Japanese did it with Yamashiro - her #3 turret faces backwards, but as-built she was just like Fuso.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SparvieroVV    609
6 hours ago, Kevik70 said:

The French really love 4 gun turrets.....

 

Im pretty sure everyone dabbled with them trying to find the right balance. However the French took it and ran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Venture    1,515

I can't wait to smash these ships with solid German AP.

 

Daddy needs to print the Reichsmark....tier 10 is expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix_jz    1,643

I'd post pictures from GM3D if I could, but unfortunately the internet at my college dislikes imgur and I can't upload pics.

 

Basically, the citadel is underwater. The middle turret's magazine cuts the engine spaces clean in half.

 

The top speed is 28 knots stock, the engine upgrade boosts it to 29.5 knots, the upgrade supposedly going from 107,000 to 112,000 knots, all on a listed displacement of 32,043 tons. The bow is definitely a new one along the lines of Béarn's.

 

Richelieu is the only French BB with speed boost, so I assume it's a tier VIII+ thing, assuming they keep it

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SparvieroVV    609

So upgraded nearly 30 knots. Machinery split by MCG without a secondary funnel. This seems pretty much like the team lead going "Slow BBs suck, give me anything!"

 

Dev:

 

ngp3GpQ.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AyanoMidori    18

If they are going with completely fictional refits why are American low tier BBs so slow and mostly historically accurate? Why do Wyoming and New York have such crappy turret angles? and poor accuracy?

Oh it's just the power creep. I'm sure Normandie will be pretty good sitting with the 1920s-1940s era battleships despite being built in the same year as New York.

Edited by AyanoMidori
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phoenix_jz said:

I'd post pictures from GM3D if I could, but unfortunately the internet at my college dislikes imgur and I can't upload pics.

 

Basically, the citadel is underwater. The middle turret's magazine cuts the engine spaces clean in half.

 

The top speed is 28 knots stock, the engine upgrade boosts it to 29.5 knots, the upgrade supposedly going from 107,000 to 112,000 knots, all on a listed displacement of 32,043 tons. The bow is definitely a new one along the lines of Béarn's.

 

Richelieu is the only French BB with speed boost, so I assume it's a tier VIII+ thing, assuming they keep it

That makes sense. Boilers forward (there would be less of them, since they would have switched from coal to oil), turbines aft. Basically the same layout as New York's machinery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SparvieroVV said:

So upgraded nearly 30 knots. Machinery split by MCG without a secondary funnel. This seems pretty much like the team lead going "Slow BBs suck, give me anything!"

 

Dev:

 

ngp3GpQ.gif

Machinery spaces need not be one space or require a second funnel. Theoretically you can take your 20 coal boilers and exchange them for 8 oil boilers that make more power and take up less space (so you can jam them all forward under the superstructure), and then run your steam trunks back, around the magazines and barbette, and into the turbine rooms in the rear. Replace the wonky direct drive turbine/recip engine arrangement with geared turbines that are more efficient and make more power and you could get closer to those speeds without needing more boilers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix_jz    1,643
46 minutes ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

That makes sense. Boilers forward (there would be less of them, since they would have switched from coal to oil), turbines aft. Basically the same layout as New York's machinery. 

 

Sure, you'd get a boost. But from a designed 21, hoped to push to 22 knot ship... to 29.5 knots with nothing more than a better bow and a switch to oil-fired boilers? That's an absurdly large jump, 7.5-8.5 knots with a gain of 67,000 hp - these things had only 32,000 hp to being with with plans to boost it to 45,000 (which would've allowed) the move to 22 knots.

 

All that this is just reeks of WG trying to push an artificial speed flavor onto a French line (again), in order to help justify an overtiring of French super-dreadnoughts that will most likely turn out to be vulnerable, fast damage piñatas with horrific AP and meh HE that'll just spend their time spamming HE because it's all they've got, and they've got lots of it.

 

It should speed volumes that Normandie and Lyon are both using upgraded 340mm shells from the WWI versions found on Bretagne, and at tiers VI & VII their penetration is worse than the 320mm guns on the Cesare. The Cesare's guns are good for their caliber, but they're still really only fit for a tier VI ship at the most. The upgraded 340mm AP is something you'd balk at on a tier V ship. The penetration with the older 340mm AP (Bretagne) is solidly beaten at any range with the 305mm AP on König, and Wyoming, and they don't carry less guns.

 

Honestly, I'm not going to be shocked if Lyon herself kicks Colorado out of the spot as worst tier VII BB.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totallamer    5
21 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

 

Sure, you'd get a boost. But from a designed 21, hoped to push to 22 knot ship... to 29.5 knots with nothing more than a better bow and a switch to oil-fired boilers? That's an absurdly large jump, 7.5-8.5 knots with a gain of 67,000 hp - these things had only 32,000 hp to being with with plans to boost it to 45,000 (which would've allowed) the move to 22 knots.

 

All that this is just reeks of WG trying to push an artificial speed flavor onto a French line (again), in order to help justify an overtiring of French super-dreadnoughts that will most likely turn out to be vulnerable, fast damage piñatas with horrific AP and meh HE that'll just spend their time spamming HE because it's all they've got, and they've got lots of it.

 

It should speed volumes that Normandie and Lyon are both using upgraded 340mm shells from the WWI versions found on Bretagne, and at tiers VI & VII their penetration is worse than the 320mm guns on the Cesare. The Cesare's guns are good for their caliber, but they're still really only fit for a tier VI ship at the most. The upgraded 340mm AP is something you'd balk at on a tier V ship. The penetration with the older 340mm AP (Bretagne) is solidly beaten at any range with the 305mm AP on König, and Wyoming, and they don't carry less guns.

 

Honestly, I'm not going to be shocked if Lyon herself kicks Colorado out of the spot as worst tier VII BB.

 

 

 

You forgot the conversion from triple-expansion reciprocating steam engines to turbine propulsion.

As for Lyon's guns... they HAVE to be bad.  Or at least not good... the thing's got 16 guns!  If they were good the thing would be ridiculous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tzarevitch    107
12 minutes ago, DeliciousFart said:

Seriously, the refit speeds for some of the French battleships border on fantasy.

Trans-warp drive. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neighbor_Kid    30

I thought when I was looking at drawings for the Lyon it was 2 forward and 2 rear quad turrets, not this turrets though out the ship deal like Okt Rev, or Imperator.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix_jz    1,643
1 hour ago, Totallamer said:

You forgot the conversion from triple-expansion reciprocating steam engines to turbine propulsion.

As for Lyon's guns... they HAVE to be bad.  Or at least not good... the thing's got 16 guns!  If they were good the thing would be ridiculous.

 

 

That's still not making up the difference.

 

As of the guns... she has 16, but the firing arcs are so all over the place you have to go broadside to get all to bear - and with her AP, that would still not be a massive terror on a tier VI, not with tier IV's protected MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronMike11B4O    144
21 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

 I doubt the French could ever have gotten the real Normandies (had they been completed) up to that speed without a radical redesign.The Italian BBs increased speed significantly by removing midships turrets to get more space for machinery and they added new bows to improve hydrodynamics. This Normandie has a new bow, but the changes to the ship are nowhere near that radical. Even worse, Normandie in the picture picked up two larger (and presumably heavier) spotting towers and the ship is listed being significantly heavier than they were originally planned to be with a planned speed of 21 or so knots.  Bearn (Normandy's sister converted to a CV) didn't have the turrets and magazine spaces and she was nowhere near that fast. Apparently she struggled to maintain 21kts.  Of course Bearn's marchinery (basically the same as for the Normandie BBs) was awful. The French did something silly like have turbines turning the center two shafts and reciprocating engines operating the outer two and it was hugely problematic. I have no idea why they thought that would work well, but I suppose the Normandies could have been a bit faster with turbines powering all the shafts, but I doubt it would have been that much (8knots) faster with the ship 7,000 tons heavier.

I read the French had constant problems with there turbines as well as fuel and fuel economy being far different between the 2. I'm pretty sure the reciprocating engines were used for standard cruising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IronMike11B4O said:

I read the French had constant problems with there turbines as well as fuel and fuel economy being far different between the 2. I'm pretty sure the reciprocating engines were used for standard cruising.

They had the same problems everyone else did with direct drive turbines. Direct drive turbines were horrible, because in order to be efficient, a turbine needs to run as close to its optimal design speed as possible. This can't be done with direct drive turbines, because turbine speed = shaft speed. So when you're going slow, it's essentially lugging the turbine and you need to push a lot of steam through it to keep it turning. With the advent of geared turbines, you can run the turbines at a much higher speed than the shaft speed with reduction gears and keep them in the sweet spot between power and efficiency. A lot of older warships with DD turbines were refit at some point with geared turbines if they could be because of how much less fuel they ended up burning. 

 

Had any of the class been built, the plan was to use the recips for cruising and reversing, and the turbines for high speed. But none of these ships actually were completed or sailed in that configuration (the one that became a CV used 4x turbines and ditched the recips) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crzyhawk    2,914
On 11/12/2017 at 10:45 PM, Tzarevitch said:

 I doubt the French could ever have gotten the real Normandies (had they been completed) up to that speed without a radical redesign.The Italian BBs increased speed significantly by removing midships turrets to get more space for machinery and they added new bows to improve hydrodynamics. This Normandie has a new bow, but the changes to the ship are nowhere near that radical. Even worse, Normandie in the picture picked up two larger (and presumably heavier) spotting towers and the ship is listed being significantly heavier than they were originally planned to be with a planned speed of 21 or so knots.  Bearn (Normandy's sister converted to a CV) didn't have the turrets and magazine spaces and she was nowhere near that fast. Apparently she struggled to maintain 21kts.  Of course Bearn's marchinery (basically the same as for the Normandie BBs) was awful. The French did something silly like have turbines turning the center two shafts and reciprocating engines operating the outer two and it was hugely problematic. I have no idea why they thought that would work well, but I suppose the Normandies could have been a bit faster with turbines powering all the shafts, but I doubt it would have been that much (8knots) faster with the ship 7,000 tons heavier.

This.  The German and French get fictitious speed, and the USN is stuck with the real life standards at 21 knots.  They should be stuck with the same garbage speed the USN and RN get, since it's what the ships were actually capable of.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×