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

WG You Forgot to Give the Tirp Her Smoke!!

53 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

519
[-N-]
Members
2,147 posts
14,372 battles

I was reading a run fact about the Tirpitz and realized WG forgot...

https://www.navygeneralboard.com/facts-battleship-tirpitz/

"Tirpitz had smoke generators mounted in her stern and also had several smoke canisters littered across her decks and superstructures."

HER SMOKE GENERATORS....

  • Funny 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
875 posts
14,046 battles

All naval vessels could "make smoke" by changing the fuel mix and increasing her funnel smoke. Some just had the generators too to be better at it. What the hell, give every ship smoke and see what the game devolves into.

BBs not getting smoke is a balance issue not a reality issue, but I'm fairly sure you know that and are just wishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
650
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
2,357 posts
6,747 battles

They also forgot the Underwater Torpedo Launchers for other BBs too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,025 posts
7,903 battles

HMS Prince of Wales laid down a smoke screen when disengaging from the Bismarck, so it‘s safe to say that the KGV-class was capable of laying smokescreens.

8 minutes ago, Prothall said:

All naval vessels could "make smoke" by changing the fuel mix and increasing her funnel smoke. Some just had the generators too to be better at it. What the hell, give every ship smoke and see what the game devolves into.

Not all of them.

"A large military disadvantage of the high-pressure-hot-steam-propulsion became appearant later as they were inable to create black smoke for tactical purposes. Even the white-smoking faced severe technical difficulties."

Translated from the section about the Zerstörer 1934 class in the report from the German Skl (Seekriegsleitung = Naval command), dated around 1940.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,292
[WOLF3]
Members
24,802 posts
21,848 battles

You don't realism, "historical authenticity" OP.  You really don't... It won't work out the way you think it would.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,456
[TBW]
Members
9,547 posts
16,311 battles

I want all of the BBs that had front facing torps to get them too, but it will never happen. Mikasa wouldn't be better if she had hers.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[SEOP]
Members
1,555 posts
8,233 battles
19 minutes ago, Prothall said:

All naval vessels could "make smoke" by changing the fuel mix and increasing her funnel smoke. Some just had the generators too to be better at it. What the hell, give every ship smoke and see what the game devolves into.

BBs not getting smoke is a balance issue not a reality issue, but I'm fairly sure you know that and are just wishing.

^ pretty much this...limits on deploying smoke are for game balance, and if every ship could make smoke in the game these tiny little maps would be covered with smoke for entire matches.  Such fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
8,024 battles
52 minutes ago, gcangel82 said:

I was reading a run fact about the Tirpitz and realized WG forgot...

https://www.navygeneralboard.com/facts-battleship-tirpitz/

"Tirpitz had smoke generators mounted in her stern and also had several smoke canisters littered across her decks and superstructures."

HER SMOKE GENERATORS....

All vessels can make smoke, just have to put oil on the boilers, Tirpitz smoke generators were for her "Lonely Queen of the North" phase. Since she was stuck in the fjords her engines were shut down so the smoke generators were added so she could be covered by smoke during RAF air raids.

Also in-game it would be completely useless on a battleship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,853
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles

Let's get that sub-5% hit rate on battleship artillery while we're arguing for realism.

 

And that acceleration is ahistorical, too, slow it down so it takes them 30 minutes to reach top speed.

 

Oh but top speeds all the time are also ahistorical. Make it so going at flank speed for too long causes an engine fire.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,292
[WOLF3]
Members
24,802 posts
21,848 battles
26 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

All vessels can make smoke, just have to put oil on the boilers, Tirpitz smoke generators were for her "Lonely Queen of the North" phase. Since she was stuck in the fjords her engines were shut down so the smoke generators were added so she could be covered by smoke during RAF air raids.

Also in-game it would be completely useless on a battleship. 

To remain in the spirit of history, we can have RN ships get a 1 time consumable per match to use.  It's a chance that a random German ship on the enemy team will receive false naval intelligence and scuttle their own ships at the start of the match.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
519
[-N-]
Members
2,147 posts
14,372 battles
59 minutes ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

All vessels can make smoke, just have to put oil on the boilers, Tirpitz smoke generators were for her "Lonely Queen of the North" phase. Since she was stuck in the fjords her engines were shut down so the smoke generators were added so she could be covered by smoke during RAF air raids.

Also in-game it would be completely useless on a battleship. 

Actually on a ship like the Tirpitz, because of how smoke currently works, you could sit in your smoke screen and use just your secondaries.  I have done it many times since the smoke change.  But I see it as the ship having really just maybe 1 or 2 charges that let you retreat..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
339
[RMRGD]
Members
452 posts
21,497 battles

At current pace everyone will have radar.   So no issues giving everyone smoke.  Smoke is mostly a death trap for DDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,278 battles
3 hours ago, gcangel82 said:

I was reading a run fact about the Tirpitz and realized WG forgot...

https://www.navygeneralboard.com/facts-battleship-tirpitz/

"Tirpitz had smoke generators mounted in her stern and also had several smoke canisters littered across her decks and superstructures."

HER SMOKE GENERATORS....

Those smoke generators were not part of the ship and would not have been used at sea. They were there to try and conceal her during RAF bombing raids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,278 battles
1 hour ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Let's get that sub-5% hit rate on battleship artillery while we're arguing for realism.

 

And that acceleration is ahistorical, too, slow it down so it takes them 30 minutes to reach top speed.

 

Oh but top speeds all the time are also ahistorical. Make it so going at flank speed for too long causes an engine fire.

As someone who served on the Iowa I can tell you it did not take 30 minutes to reach top speed. It could also run at flank speed until it ran out of fuel and would not cause an engine fire. The Iowa's steam plant was rated to run safely at 120% for short periods giving her a dash speed slightly in excess of 35kts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,025 posts
7,903 battles
17 hours ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

Since she was stuck in the fjords her engines were shut down so the smoke generators were added so she could be covered by smoke during RAF air raids.

"It took an hour and twenty minutes to build up enough steam to move the Tirpitz. Because of this, the engines were left running almost all the time so the ship would be able to move in an attack/emergency. The amount of precious fuel the Tirpitz ate up doing this was astronomical."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
18 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Not all of them.

Yes. All of them. Every non-Nuclear ship is capable of laying smoke; just inject raw fuel-oil into the stack and you get a thick black smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,896
[PVE]
Members
3,687 posts
15,703 battles

Let's not let reality get in the way of this being a game....

If we did, there'd be no HE spam: because the guns themselves would super-heat and expand the barrel diameter to the point the rifling wouldn't engage the shells......no accuracy.

If we did, there'd be no HE spam:  because the basic load of a CL simply didn't carry the amount of ammunition we see each and every game where a CL shoots for 8 straight minutes.

If we did, there'd be fewer torps:  because, ships did not carry 60+ torpedo's per ship !  (think Shimakazi dropping 15 at a whack.......every look at the size of those LL's?

I we did..........  could go on and on...   Just enjoy the game and have fun !

Edited by Asym_KS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,025 posts
7,903 battles
7 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Yes. All of them. Every non-Nuclear ship is capable of laying smoke; just inject raw fuel-oil into the stack and you get a thick black smoke.

Then i wonder why the German Naval command explicity noted that the 1934 class could not lay black smoke...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
18 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Let's get that sub-5% hit rate on battleship artillery while we're arguing for realism.

Remove the lead indicator while we're at it for torps... oh wait did you forget about that?

18 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

 

And that acceleration is ahistorical, too, slow it down so it takes them 30 minutes to reach top speed.

Acceleration =/= deceleration: most ships with over 100,000 HP can reach their top speed in ~1 nautical mile (this is the standard we design them too) or about 7 minutes. Naval Vessels can do it a little bit faster since their hulls are designed for performance rather than cruising. Deceleration is a bit different: depending on the conditions it can take upwards of 10 nautical miles, or as low as 3, from top speed.

Also, smaller ships don't accelerate faster than large ships. It's a slippage/wave-form thing, but suffice to say, a DD takes ~as long as a BB *in reality* to reach the same 30 knot threshold, since their powerplants are that much weaker, that much smaller props (thus less torque) and typically only had 1-2 shafts vs. a BB's 3-4.

18 hours ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Oh but top speeds all the time are also ahistorical. Make it so going at flank speed for too long causes an engine fire.

That's not how Flank Speed Works or what Flank speed is;

Flank Speed is a *US* Coast Guard (and thus, used by US Flag Carrying Vessels) term for a ships 'true' maximum speed, but this is NOT the same thing as a full speed. Full speed ahead means something different for... any non US Navy really (we use "Full Ahead" for the US's Full *SPEED* ahead, while for the non-US Navies full Speed ahead is something more akin to Emergency ahead).

Let me back up.

For the US:

Full Speed Ahead: Maximum Rated speed. This is the full speed a ship can obtain while operating the shafts at 100% power. This is also known as 'full rated speed' within Nautical Engineering circles. This is the *correct* full speed rated for a vessel, so for example, the Iowa was fully RANKED at 33 knots.

Flank Speed: Maximum Rated Speed without causing damage to propulsion. This is where you are wrong, specifically, as Flank is exceeding 100% power on the shafts, but not exceeding a level that can cause permanent damage to the system. The reason Flank is avoided is that it is WOEFULLY fuel inefficient and nearly impossible to control a ship at that speed, as both the speed will fluctuate (the waveforms will overlap) and rudders lose turning power as a proportion to ship's speed, and thus you get stuck in a straight line. Very rarely used, like most warships never actually hit flank speed. It is illegal for an Engineer to stamp 'Flank Speed' as the 'Full Speed' of a vessel.

Emergency Speed:  aka Red Lining; this is what *you* think 'flank speed' is; Emergency speed would be for, pretty much, running away from a battle or avoiding a collision. This *immediately* starts damaging the engines as your bearings, turbines, bushings, boiler tubes, and shafts will wear IMMEDIATELY at these RPM's/Power/Temperature/Pressure settings. Almost no ships ever use Emergency speed; I can count instances I've even HEARD of ships doing so on a single hand as it is inherently DANGEROUS.

For Everyone Else:

Full Ahead: Maximum rated speed (Max Revolutions, whatever that number is)

Full Speed Ahead: Emergency Speed (aka Red Line)

There is no equivalent to flank speed in other navies as it makes no sense to run the engines so inefficiently for such a small marginal gain, and if it comes to that, full speed ahead (emergency speed) is more appropriate.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
9 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Then i wonder why the German Naval command explicity noted that the 1934 class could not lay black smoke...

Because German naval designers were morons; and I get to say that because *I'm* a nautical Engineer and in my PE carrying, Professional Experience, they were morons.

This is a basic Chemistry thing: Fuel Oil burns black; when you mist oil into the flume exhaust (stacks) it makes black heavy smoke.

But all ships can make smoke. Hell, a TUGBOAT can make smoke. It's just injecting fuel into the stack. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,231
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,025 posts
7,903 battles
6 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

If we did, there'd be no HE spam

Prinz Eugen "spammed" HE at the HMS Hood in the Denmark Strait, and caused two fires with at least two hits. So...

7 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

because the basic load of a CL simply didn't carry the amount of ammunition we see each and every game where a CL shoots for 8 straight minutes.

ehm no...

I'll use Cleveland for example, because she's a big topic right now with her moving to T8. Her guns would carry 200 rounds per barrel. I'll assume that half of that is HE, if you have an accurate number on that, quote it and we'll use that instead. So 100 rounds per gun, eight rounds per minute, Cleveland can keep the left mouse button down for 12 minutes and 30 seconds. This is more than enough for the average game.

10 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

because, ships did not carry 60+ torpedo's per ship !  (think Shimakazi dropping 15 at a whack.......every look at the size of those LL's?

There were also far more Destroyers in comparison. For example the IJN in 1939 had the following numbers:

10 Battleships
18 Heavy Cruisers
17 Light Cruisers
85 + 23 Destroyers
12 Torpedo Boats

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
7 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Prinz Eugen "spammed" HE at the HMS Hood in the Denmark Strait, and caused two fires with at least two hits. So...

Those were AP rounds: ships generally did not fire HE/HC at each other. Contrary to what WoWs has taught you, AP caused fires.

7 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

I'll use Cleveland for example, because she's a big topic right now with her moving to T8. Her guns would carry 200 rounds per barrel. I'll assume that half of that is HE, if you have an accurate number on that, quote it and we'll use that instead. So 100 rounds per gun, eight rounds per minute, Cleveland can keep the left mouse button down for 12 minutes and 30 seconds. This is more than enough for the average game.

Not necessarily; HC/HE rounds were not generally carried in Magazines; those were typically AP only. HC/HE was used almost exclusively for AA or Shore Bombardment. A vessel aiming to do either would typically store said rounds on the deck for immediate use. This includes Battleships who would keep loads of HE shells on the deck for bombardment, because the assumption is that the seas should be clear. Examples of this backfiring is the Hiei at the Battle of Savo Island which had tons of HE/HC shells on deck before running into the US Cruiser force.

 

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,420 posts
6,278 battles
13 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

Because German naval designers were morons; and I get to say that because *I'm* a nautical Engineer and in my PE carrying, Professional Experience, they were morons.

This is a basic Chemistry thing: Fuel Oil burns black; when you mist oil into the flume exhaust (stacks) it makes black heavy smoke.

But all ships can make smoke. Hell, a TUGBOAT can make smoke. It's just injecting fuel into the stack. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh don't poke the bear, the myth of the Super German Engineers is strong in this country lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,171
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
Just now, Belthorian said:

Oh don't poke the bear, the myth of the Super German Engineers is strong in this country lol. 

Anyone that thinks that smoke is anything special for a ship is a moron, plain and simple, as it means they failed to comprehend BASIC chemistry; it's a simple, incomplete Combustion reaction; and what happens when you have incomplete combustion? Carbon deposit. What happens when that incomplete combustion takes place in a GAS and/or aerosolized form? You get carbon despots suspended in air. What is the laymen's term for Suspended carbon deposited? Smoke. This is Primary school stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×