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

Historical Ammunition Levels

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

549
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,099 posts
6,386 battles
6 minutes ago, C14Alpha said:

Remember that game time is compressed.

Based on WoWs stats, my ships travel an average of 30.98 miles per battle.

This is a arcade game, not a simulator. So everything is compressed. If it wasn't, I'd send a scout two hours SE, spot, one hour back, send bombers three hours, and then attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,506
[TBW]
Members
8,130 posts
14,848 battles

At-sea replenishment of stores and fuel is routine for the United States. However, for all of its power projection capability, the Navy does not practice ordnance resupply. Given the increasing capabilities of the PLAN, and the imperative of Sea Basing, the US Navy must replenish this skillset.

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2015/07/30/vls-at-sea-reloading

In short during WW1 and 2 munitions were not replenished at sea. I have seen people transferred and they more often than not, they get dunked and they weigh nothing compared to a torp.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
863 posts
3 minutes ago, Vangm94 said:

This is a arcade game, not a simulator. So everything is compressed.

Absolutely.  And compression is why discussing the amount of ammo expended in 20 real minutes is pointless when a 20-minute game represents a substantially longer amount of real time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SEOP]
Members
1,529 posts
8,233 battles
16 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

With catapults do modern carriers still have to turn into the wind?

I'd guess yes.  Your looking for the extra lift on the air foil.  But you could prolly touch bases with our friend Mr. Google to verify.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,478 posts
6,358 battles

The topic still comes up from time to time, usually by Battleship captains who can't stand having to dodge Destroyer torpedoes more than once in a battle.

 

However, the cries for 'Historical Accuracy' go away immediately when it is pointed out that for historical accuracy to be applied in this fashion, Battleships would loose their ability to magically materialize new hull plating within minutes and it would take about five minutes (with time compression taken into account) for any Battleship to accelerate or decelerate. Other 'non-historical' aspects of the game would also take similar damage, leaving Battleships completely at the mercy of any CV (which could conduct the entire battle from off-board, safe from counter-attack by anything but another CV), while also unable to fire their main guns unless turned to the side (due to the damage their own muzzle blasts will do to both the structure of the ship and the barrels).

 

'Historical Accuracy' seems to only matter to the historians here if it gives them an advantage in the -game-. Makes you wonder alot about that crowd.

 

edit- note that if this game was 'Historically Accurate', the first hits on a ship would leave it crippled or with many of its systems out of action. Really want that in this game?

Edited by Jakob_Knight
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SEOP]
Members
1,529 posts
8,233 battles
19 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I don't think any one is or was stupid enough to do a ship to ship transfer of torpedoes. Seems like asking for trouble.

I think submarine tenders used to do it routinely.   Dunno if navies still use tenders or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,062
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,983 posts
12,383 battles

There are a few cruisers which could, in theory, at absolute maximum ROF for most of a 15 minute game run out. Historically ROF was lower and firing typically interrupted or in salvoes.

Pretty much all battleships should be fine.

Pretty much all heavy cruisers should be fine, with the exception of the Des Moines which has 15 minutes worth at full historic output, or 13:45 at in-game.

Light cruisers are a bit mixed, there are a few which with in-game ROF could 'in theory' run dry -

  • The Leander's with 150 RPG would run out in about 18:45 of continuous firing. Maybe the Fiji too depending on load.
  • The Konigsberg and Nurnburg would run out after 15 minutes.

Destroyers -

  • Most British destroyers would run dry in about 16 minutes
  • Shimakaze's out in about 14 minutes
  • IJN DD are mixed in general if you take 150 RPG for most of them, Akatsuki does run out in-game but Shinonome at lower ROF does not
  • USN DD's are mixed, the 15 RPM ships have 20 mins supply, a bit less for the 18-20 RPM ships
  • Leberecht Maass shoots herself dry in just 8(!) minutes
  • The 150mm armed German DD go dry in 13-15 minutes
  • The high tier German DD do a bit better but go dry in about 18
  • The 12 RPM Gnevny goes dry in 8 minutes, others in about 15 minutes

Mostly that's pretty theoretical as you'd not shoot 'that much' in a 20 minute game, even if you live that long. The potential problems might be the mid-tier German and Russian ships.

24 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I don't think any one is or was stupid enough to do a ship to ship transfer of torpedoes. Seems like asking for trouble.

http://ww2today.com/26th-august-42-the-strain-of-a-long-u-boat-patrol

German U-boats were sometimes resupplied with torpedoes at sea from 'Milch Cow' supply subs.

I'm not aware of many others doing torpedo transfer at sea, but from submarine tenders moored to submarines, and from destroyer tenders in harbor to destroyers was commonplace.

Edited by mofton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,685
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,733 posts
12,138 battles

Few ships in the game would run through all of their ammo in the length of time a match lasts. Torpedoes would have to be much deadlier to account for no or few reloads. This is not a sim and ammo limits would completely change the game and the new game would appeal only to those that are really interested in history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
485
[SW]
Beta Testers
1,896 posts
9,141 battles

A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool.[1] Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports or games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).

Games are sometimes played purely for entertainment, sometimes for achievement or reward as well. They can be played alone, in teams, or online; by amateurs or by professionals. The players may have an audience of non-players, such as when people are entertained by watching a chess championship. On the other hand, players in a game may constitute their own audience as they take their turn to play. Often, part of the entertainment for children playing a game is deciding who is part of their audience and who is a player.

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[VOP]
Members
402 posts
8,642 battles
58 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

It was done to make DD"s playable: All BB's and most CA's and a few CL's didn't actually carry enough ammo to be fully expended over a 20 minute match, but DD's did. So it was possible to run out of torps (duh) but Main Battery as well. So it was done to make them functional... a lot of things were altered historically to make DD's functional in this game's context.

Most of the information posted so far about ammunition storage contradicts your statement.  Start with Super_Dreadnought's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[-TXT-]
Beta Testers
4,357 posts
13,155 battles

world of tanks have ammo limited.

And its s*cks.

And you need pay for the ammo.

And have gold ammo.

 

Hell no i dont wanna see that in warships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,103
[CHASE]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,946 posts
11,402 battles

Considering most bbs carried 600-900 rounds, and the bbs in this game for the most part can only fire a maximum of 40 salvos assuming they fire every time they reload, even with historical ammo counts they wouldn't run out of ammo. I don't think many ships would actually be able to fire most of their ammo if it was historical. This would only really hurt torpedoes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[FFG33]
Members
420 posts
13,727 battles
1 hour ago, C_D said:

we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

Not really... we are limited by the torpedo reload times. In lower tiers with faster reloads .. it is a little crazier. However the Shim can fire "at most" 150 torps .....

oh never mind :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
22 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

I'd guess yes.  Your looking for the extra lift on the air foil.  But you could prolly touch bases with our friend Mr. Google to verify.  

I know the reason why they did it in WW2, without catapults you needed every bit of lift necessary. I guess my question could be better stated to say do catapults negate the need to turn into the wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,071
[ARGSY]
Members
13,520 posts
8,671 battles
54 minutes ago, MokrieDela said:

Atlantas come stock with a Dillon reloading press.

:Smile_teethhappy: 

Does the Chester come with a Lee Loader? :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,071
[ARGSY]
Members
13,520 posts
8,671 battles
10 minutes ago, Komrade_Rylo said:

Considering most bbs carried 600-900 rounds, and the bbs in this game for the most part can only fire a maximum of 40 salvos assuming they fire every time they reload, even with historical ammo counts they wouldn't run out of ammo. I don't think many ships would actually be able to fire most of their ammo if it was historical. This would only really hurt torpedoes

It's supposed to balance out the fact that you'd normally have many more destroyers around and somewhat more cruisers. The BB's, as already stated, cannot fire their historical loadouts in a 20 minute match (though the Scharnhorst, the Spee and the Ishizuchi probably come close).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[TDG]
Members
1,662 posts
8,807 battles
5 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I know the reason why they did it in WW2, without catapults you needed every bit of lift necessary. I guess my question could be better stated to say do catapults negate the need to turn into the wind.

Air Operations are conducted facing into the wind and with significant way on.

You gain margin which is important at all times.

Also, even if the catapults negate the need for launch, you need to the into the wind for recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,264 battles
1 minute ago, YeOldeTraveller said:

Air Operations are conducted facing into the wind and with significant way on.

You gain margin which is important at all times.

Also, even if the catapults negate the need for launch, you need to the into the wind for recovery.

Turning into the wind for recovery allows the aircraft to fly a bit slower right? Forgive me I was a battleship sailor and have no experience in Naval aviation. Although judging by all the videos I have seen the steam from the catapults is always blowing back. You never see it blowing across the deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,758 posts
4,078 battles

Limited ammo would have to be it's own game mode. Would make for interesting ranked games, maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[BWC]
Beta Testers
1,478 posts
6,358 battles
2 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Turning into the wind for recovery allows the aircraft to fly a bit slower right? Forgive me I was a battleship sailor and have no experience in Naval aviation. Although judging by all the videos I have seen the steam from the catapults is always blowing back. You never see it blowing across the deck.

I believe that's as much for increased safety as for performance. Trying to launch or recover aircraft with a crosswind would be introducing random pushes to one side or the other as well as up or down, making a deck landing that much more of a challenge. Since most carrier ops happen out of direct engagement with the enemy, the CV has the time and area to set up the best conditions for their pilots, rather than having to inject more risk factors that needed.

 

But yeah, lift is relative. A plane in a 120 MPH headwind would be able to stay in the air while hovering in exactly the same way it would travelling at 120 MPH with no wind whatsoever. Similarly, when the plane touches the deck, the speed it travels on-deck will be its own airspeed added or subtracted to by the speed of the Carrier, which will affect stopping distance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SEOP]
Members
1,529 posts
8,233 battles
11 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

Turning into the wind for recovery allows the aircraft to fly a bit slower right? Forgive me I was a battleship sailor and have no experience in Naval aviation. Although judging by all the videos I have seen the steam from the catapults is always blowing back. You never see it blowing across the deck.

dunno how authoritative this article is so take it with grain until someone produces carrier operations field manual for launch\recovery SOP...but it indicates even with steam catapults CVs still turn into the wind for both launch and recovery of aircraft:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier3.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553
[WOLF9]
Privateers
10,667 posts
4,371 battles
2 hours ago, Poharan said:

The torpedo thing alone would absolutely destroy the game's balance.

Basically only the IJN would be able to reload torps, and they'd only do so once.

It would be a totally different game.

Yep.  In order to pose the threat that they historically did, DDs would have to exist in large numbers - something on the order of 6:1 to large ships.  Meaning you'd have to have six DD players to every one BB player.  Just wouldn't happen.

DD drivers should imagine that they're driving a DesRon, rather than one bote.

As for the larger ships, they carried quite a bit of ammo, so expenditures over a battle aren't really an issue.  Although, to be fair, did an Atlanta really carry 12,000 HE shells?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[RUST]
Beta Testers
994 posts
11,220 battles

@Dr_Dirt @Belthorian 

You always turn into the wind to launch an aircraft off the carrier deck because windspeed over the wings of the aircraft is what produce lift. If the ship is already providing 30 kts of wind over deck, that's 30 kts less speed the aircraft + catapult have to generate on its own for takeoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×