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

2,548
[WOLF9]
Privateers
10,634 posts
4,371 battles
1 hour ago, Dr_Dirt said:

sure -- but wake visibility?  start to finish?  Or at what point can a set of eyes or eyes with binos on a ship make out torpedo wakes?

80G-701882-CV-5-Hit-by-Torpedo-14-45.jpg

That's a great picture!  What is it?  (Coral Sea? Santa Cruz Islands?)

 

Share this post


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

That's a great picture!  What is it?  (Coral Sea? Santa Cruz Islands?)

 

lol -- i was trying to figure it out myself...but the source page had no caption.  I think its Midway and the Yorktown.  During the second wave of attacks she took two torpedoes to the Port side.  That seems to add up given the torpedo wakes and the big explosion on the left side of the ship.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,177
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,260 posts
9,624 battles
2 hours ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

well, DDs get infinite torp reloads because its supposed to "simulate" the group of DDs that would actually be there IRL, cruisers would probably still have ammo left over depending on their RoF, and BBs, iirc BBs carried 100s of rounds for each gun, and we all know how slow the reload is on them, so BBs would probably never even come close to running out of ammo in a 20 minute window

Share this post


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

That does fit.  Thanks.

 

I don't know if this link will work...but this would be the more common picture we are used to seeing for the torpedo strikes on the Yorktown....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Yorktown_(CV-5)_is_hit_by_a_torpedo_on_4_June_1942.jpg

Edited by Dr_Dirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,775
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,682 posts
2,117 battles

I should also like to point out something that has been pretty much missed by most.

 

It's great to say "this ship won't expend it's ammo load until the 20 min mark, or 30 min mark...

 

But ships did not carry universal ammunition. This was typically split between Ammo types. So yeah, a d'Aosta-class light cruiser might be able to unload at maximum RoF for 26 minutes 15 seconds before running dry... but that's all of her 152mm ammunition.

Its you start with one type and switch to another when you run out, you're running dry on HE at the 13 minute, 7.5 second mark, and only have AP left after that.

 

Imagine being stuck running around for half a match with only AP because your destroyer or light cruiser expended all of its HE in the first 10 minutes. Ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,672
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,692 posts
12,113 battles
1 minute ago, Phoenix_jz said:

I should also like to point out something that has been pretty much missed by most.

 

It's great to say "this ship won't expend it's ammo load until the 20 min mark, or 30 min mark...

 

But ships did not carry universal ammunition. This was typically split between Ammo types. So yeah, a d'Aosta-class light cruiser might be able to unload at maximum RoF for 26 minutes 15 seconds before running dry... but that's all of her 152mm ammunition.

Its you start with one type and switch to another when you run out, you're running dry on HE at the 13 minute, 7.5 second mark, and only have AP left after that.

 

Imagine being stuck running around for half a match with only AP because your destroyer or light cruiser expended all of its HE in the first 10 minutes. Ouch.

This is true but if we limit ammunition the damage done by hit would have to be increased particularly for torpedoes. Once those torpedoes are gone the IJN DD's would be mostly useless because of their horrible guns. While it would be more historical this would not be a fun game for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,465
[5BS]
Members
7,877 posts
2 hours ago, Airjellyfish said:

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

Read what I wrote, carefully...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,100 posts
9,864 battles
3 hours ago, MokrieDela said:

you mean it doesnt feel realistic when a 20k ton destroyer shoots 120k tons of torps during a game?

 

 

Sorry just have to pick on you in good fun. Most Destroyers in this game range in size from ~1,200 tons to ~3000 tons. 20,000 tons would be twice the size of most cruisers in the game and nearly as much as some of the early battleships. Most torpedoes weight between 1-3 tons, so shoot 120,000 tons worth would mean a DD fire 40,000 to 120,000 torpedoes in a match. The things I could do with a Destroyer that could fire more torpedoes in match than the entire enemy team could shoot shells back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
345
[TDG]
Members
1,662 posts
8,802 battles
1 hour 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.

The minimum speed the aircraft can fly dictates what their speed.  The speed over the deck at impact is reduced.

I'm sure there is some allowance in the Apparent Wind direction, but that is a level of detail I do not have.  Launch may have less margin, so they may optimize for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,999
Members
23,502 posts
5,945 battles
3 hours ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

 

Probably not. Most, if not all, ships carried enough main gun rounds that we don't fire more in a match than they would have carried historically.

Fuel wouldn't be a concern, since transitting to and from the actual battle is beyond the scope of the game.

Torpedoes, we definitely get way more of those than a real ship would get, but without that, DDs would end up pretty underpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,999
Members
23,502 posts
5,945 battles
3 hours 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.

Wouldn't sub and PT boat tenders have had to do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
724
[TF57]
Members
1,380 posts
4,100 battles

A pretty much irrelevant issue, given the time frames.


"Realism" issues that bother me more:

Perfect satellite view (i.e. you have picture perfect view of every ship your allies can see; instead of just on minimap)  <- cause of almost every broken mechanic in the game

Ships that can "heal" hull plating in a few seconds

Island-penetrating radar (heck, radar didn't work if a ship was close to a landmass, regardless of the side it was on)

Planes that have less spotting range than ships (and CVs in general)

Showing broadside = massively disadvantageous - why?

To say nothing of how ships sit parked bow-on 50m next to an island for maximum tactical advantage - very 'realistic"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,504
[TBW]
Members
8,122 posts
14,832 battles
3 hours ago, Dr_Dirt said:

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

submarine tender is kind of like a dock though, ship to ship transfer is not always pretty.

It's like a carnival ride.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,182 posts
5,161 battles
4 hours ago, MokrieDela said:

you mean it doesnt feel realistic when a 20k ton destroyer shoots 120k tons of torps during a game?

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, SavageTactical said:

Sorry just have to pick on you in good fun. Most Destroyers in this game range in size from ~1,200 tons to ~3000 tons. 20,000 tons would be twice the size of most cruisers in the game and nearly as much as some of the early battleships. Most torpedoes weight between 1-3 tons, so shoot 120,000 tons worth would mean a DD fire 40,000 to 120,000 torpedoes in a match. The things I could do with a Destroyer that could fire more torpedoes in match than the entire enemy team could shoot shells back.

Aye SavageTactical.

The largest destroyer class ships of WW2 were likely the German Zerstörer 1936A "Mob" and "Narvik", which, fully loaded, displaced between 3,600-3,800 tons. The IJN Akizuki class DDs also displace up to 3,700 tons fully loaded. The largest USN DDs of the war was the Allen M. Sumner class displacing approximately 3,500 tons fully loaded, and towards the end of the war in 1945, the Gearing class, which displaced between 3,400-3,500 tons fully loaded.

As far as the largest cruisers of WW2, not counting battlecruisers, would be the USN heavy cruiser, Baltimore class, which displaced 17,000 tons fully loaded and the German Admiral Hipper class of heavy cruisers, which displaced around 18,500 tons fully loaded.

I looked up the info in my Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2; so, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SEOP]
Members
1,529 posts
8,233 battles
2 hours ago, iDuckman said:

That does fit.  Thanks.

 

ok -- was digging around a bit more on this.  I think that photo is of a diorama commissioned by Life Magazine (and with the help of the US Navy) to detail the Battle of Midway. 

See the following link:

https://www.flightjournal.com/belle-geddes/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,548
[WOLF9]
Privateers
10,634 posts
4,371 battles
24 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

Y'know, I was gonna remark on how shallow the sea looked.

That's an amazing series of dioramas, and should be posted in the Historical forum.  Do you want to do the honors or shall I?

 

Share this post


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

Y'know, I was gonna remark on how shallow the sea looked.

That's an amazing series of dioramas, and should be posted in the Historical forum.  Do you want to do the honors or shall I?

 

go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,056
[DAKI]
Privateers, Members
8,781 posts
7,766 battles
10 hours ago, daVinci761st said:

 

Aye SavageTactical.

The largest destroyer class ships of WW2 were likely the German Zerstörer 1936A "Mob" and "Narvik", which, fully loaded, displaced between 3,600-3,800 tons. The IJN Akizuki class DDs also displace up to 3,700 tons fully loaded. The largest USN DDs of the war was the Allen M. Sumner class displacing approximately 3,500 tons fully loaded, and towards the end of the war in 1945, the Gearing class, which displaced between 3,400-3,500 tons fully loaded.

As far as the largest cruisers of WW2, not counting battlecruisers, would be the USN heavy cruiser, Baltimore class, which displaced 17,000 tons fully loaded and the German Admiral Hipper class of heavy cruisers, which displaced around 18,500 tons fully loaded.

I looked up the info in my Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2; so, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. :Smile_teethhappy:

As for Destroyers, the Italians built a Khabarovsk-like ship with the Capitani Romani class with 5400 tons displacement. There are arguments if that thing was a very large Destroyer or a small Light Cruiser, but I think you get my point here.

Heavy Cruiser wise we have the Moskva (not counting certain Sovjet "Cruisers") that displaces around 30k tons, or the German Hindenburg which I estimate to be somewhere between 25-28k tons. Though the Cruisers were all paper/fiction, so of the completed Cruisers we have none in-game that is heaver than a Baltimore, however there is the Alaska class which did go up to 34k tons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,060
[WOLFB]
Members
2,912 posts
12,151 battles

The game would be unplayable for for many ship, especially DD. IJN DD rely on torps and their detection is already garbage. We have planes able to spot torps, hydro, vigilence, module (even if no one use this), if we also add a limited amount of torps, it's just straight up unplayable. 

 

I'm ok with having limited torps but these torps should only be spotted either by hydro or by a planes that stayed at least 5 sec above the torpedo. Also reduce the detection range and remove that perma spot torps.

 

As for guns, well considering how accurate BB are, they would be the less affected by the change. Cruiser on the other hand will greatly suffer since they'll have to save their HE and AP. Fire is a tool to give cruiser the ability to fight against BB, but if it heavily depends on RNG, even a Zao will sometime need to throw 50-100 of shells to start a single fire. And unless the ennemi BB is dumb enough to give you a flat broadside, your AP will do crap damage on him.

 DD would probably never use their guns against BB or even CA unless it's low HP. They would keep every single amunition available to fight against other DD. 

 

The game would be reworked entirely and I don't think I'll like the new WOW. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
189
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,458 posts
8,476 battles
18 hours ago, C_D said:

Does anyone know if having actual amounts of ammo, torpedoes, fuel etc was ever considered for implementation into the game or discussed?

Probably would become too much like a simulation I am thinking therefore was probably rejected. Having endless supplies or torpedoes and shells etc makes the game a little lopsided but again not a sim. Interesting where the line gets drawn as far as that we can fire endless torpedoes but only have so many smoke screens etc.

I would say, it would have been thrashed about during the planning / development stage. Idea kicked before Alpha phase kicked off. " Maybe "

 

Historical ammo load outs :Smile_teethhappy: Very funny indeed. Looked at the game lately ? What part of this game resembles historical to you ?
I know, funny isn't it. Only historical part, is ship model's, for the most part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[GLF]
Beta Testers
650 posts
12,596 battles
18 hours ago, Dr_Dirt said:

I also don't recall that there was any indication from the survivors of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau that their magazines were running low before being deep-sixed.  And this was of course on the heels of Coronel and no opportunity for the German ships to replenish their magazines.  

They had about half of their loadout....used half during the Coronel battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[GLF]
Beta Testers
650 posts
12,596 battles
17 hours ago, mofton said:

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

Also, the Type VII-F, which carried 21 spare Torpedo's for re-supplying other U-boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,703
Supertester, Alpha Tester
6,051 posts


Well I see no reason that the application of history should be limited to ammunition. Let's make a little list:

  1.     Remove torpedo reloads from the game.  In with the exception of the IJN ships the battle would be over before they can be reloaded.
  2.     Remove turret repair from the game. When a turret is taken out, it's out. Nothing but a shipyard can repair it.
  3.     Same with secondaries.  We should add gun jams too. Of course we could treat killed sailors crewing the gun as jams. Lots of sailors on a naval ship.
  4.     Remove 20% repair parties from the game.  Repair parties can repair 0.2% not 20%.  Buoyancy should be considered as a separate mechanic.
  5.     Use historical data for firing accuracy. Of course your hit percentage will drop like a wrench dropped into the Mariana Trench, but it will be more in keeping with history. If radar or range finders are damaged your shells dispersion triples in size.  Oh they will still cluster together, But the center of the pattern will move about the area of an imaginary ellipse. Annie Oakley we are not.
  6.     Remove engine repair from the game.  It takes hours to repair a boiler and a shipyard to repair a turbine.  An up and downer (reciprocating steam engine), well is it a cylinder and piston or the crank shaft?  Either way you won't get it fixed before the battle is over. Fairs fair. Losing an engine only reduces your power to reflect the number of engine rooms you have left. We could be nice and ignore the drag of the non rotating prop. Don't know how many engine rooms your ship has? Count the props. The navy loves redundant systems. Don't worry, the reds will try to take them all out. One at a time.
  7.     Remove rudder repair from the game.  You're not getting that fixed in time either. Fixing your rudder will only give you 1/4 of your rudder travel.  Battle repairs are kluges. You're not swapping out a light bulb. If we were nasty we could randomize which 1/4 of the full arc you have to work with.
  8.     Carriers had to be moving at full speed to launch and recover aircraft.  Into the wind by the way.
  9.     Ships could make smoke pretty much anytime and as long as they want.  Let's have that.
  10.     Game time is way too compressed.  The game plays more like speed boats and machine guns, than Naval Warfare.

 

Sounds like fun.  Let's do it.

 

Paraphrased from an earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,775
[HINON]
Privateers, In AlfaTesters
7,682 posts
2,117 battles
19 minutes ago, Quaffer said:

    Use historical data for firing accuracy. Of course your hit percentage will drop like a wrench dropped into the Mariana Trench, but it will be more in keeping with history. If radar or range finders are damaged your shells dispersion triples in size.  Oh they will still cluster together, But the center of the pattern will move about the area of an imaginary ellipse. Annie Oakley we are not.

You know, I don't wanna be 'that guy', but having your radar (if it's used to aid fire control) and the rangefinders knocked out isn't going to kill your dispersion.... it's only going to affect your aiming ability. If the main rangefinders are KO'd, if there's not a backup for a centralized system you're forced to use turret rangefinders (if you have them), etc. Seeing as the player is the fire control in-game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×