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

Three Niggles - Royal Navy Ship Appearance

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,502
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,476 posts
13,838 battles

Hello All,

I felt like having another post roundly ignored so I've saved up some ship model problems I'd like WG to take a look at. Some may take more effort than others, but all are worthwhile in my eyes.

Starting easy.

 

Hood - Misleading Camouflage Sale
Hood's Camouflage here: https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wows/customizations/6539/

K1WjG1Sg.jpg

'Replicating Hood's appearance as she set out on her final mission!'

This replicates Hood's final appearance to the same extent that HMS Monarch is famous and historic... Hood on her final mission wore a uniform overall scheme of Pattern 507B - Dark Grey, see: http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/tips/hoodpaint.htm#AsSunk

No British battleship ever wore that blue, and the turret tops being red are frankly more reminiscent of a USN Standard Type Battleship http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/PearlHarborBatDivMarkings.html

What's even more galling is that WG have actually modeled a historic Hood camouflage, it's only been available in the $100 initial bundle - https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/hood-stuff-with-friends/

Charging $17.35 for a duplicate premium camouflage of purely cosmetic benefit which you market as being historic is dishonest. Change the description, or perhaps offer the historic camo for sale.

 

Cossack's Hull Number - Too Late to Change?
HMS Cossack in game has had a drawn out design history. Initially she was tested as a 6-gun (per Haida) configuration and then later was changed to an earlier historic configuration with 8 guns.

Original, 16 December 2017:

Current, 30 March 2018:

What's the problem here then? Well it's pretty minor. Both these versions seem to have, in large cheerful letters 'G03' written on the side. This is the ships' pennant number, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennant_number although this being the Royal Navy nothing is simple.

Cossack had a pennant number change coinciding with her refit which removed two of her 4.7in guns. If Cossack is delivered in-game with 4 gun mounts then she should bear the Pennant number 'F03'. See evidence in the spoiler here:

Spoiler

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Cossack1.htm

Her Pennant Number for visual signalling purposes was L03 when she commissioned but this was changed in December 1938 to F03.

During the Second Battle of Narvik in 1940 the Cossack was badly damaged by shellfire from German Destroyers and at one point grounded. Following this she went back to the UK for repairs.

May                         Repair arranged at J I Thornycroft shipyard at Southampton. Taken in hand for repair

                                Pennant Number for visual signalling purposes changed to G03.

                               Note: Refit work included:

Installation of Radar Type 286, which was an RAF air/surface equipment modified for naval use and the first radar outfit to be fitted in RN destroyers. For details of the development and use of radar equipment in the Royal Navy see RADAR AT SEA by D Howse.  Twin 4.7in mounting in X position was replaced by twin 4in HA mounting and modifications were made to other ship services.

Here's a picture of 8-gun (well, 6 now...) HMS Eskimo, her sister ship in April 1940 with the 'F' pennant.

9BOsHJ6g.jpg

Imperial War Museum photograph A 25A, HMS Eskimo in a spot of bother after the Second Battle of Narvik, note in this configuration she retains an 'F' pennant as Cossack would have.

One source suggests that the pennant number change may have been a little later but, while that would allow an F03 6-gun, it does not allow a G03 8-gun:

 https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4423.html Pennant numbers:
L 03 May 1938 - December 1938
F 03 January 1939 - Autumn 1940
G 03 Autumn 1940 - October 1941. (i.e. this source has G03 even later and certainly post-refit in May where she went 6-gun).

The pennant numbers drawn onto the RN ships in-game are part of the model, not the camouflage so they remain even if you change the camouflage. This doesn't seem a huge ask, and premiums are marketed as being historic.

 

Edinburgh's Hull - More Armor Please?
In short WG have used the hull of the T7 premium HMS Belfast for her sister ship HMS Edinburgh. The Belfast had a long refit from November 1939 to October 1942 after sustaining mine damage. In that time the major visual change was the addition of a torpedo bulge and armor on the lower hull.

The Edinburgh never received this modification https://www.world-war.co.uk/Edinburgh/edinburgh.php3 yet in game her hull displays it. Here's the ship very shortly before her loss in 1942: https://www.world-war.co.uk/loss_edinburgh.php3

So the model is wrong, note in particular the diagonal slope down from in line with the funnel to the bulge:

gCnTZThg.png

The way to make it right would be to simply smooth out the sides.

Now, there is a logic that the named ship is representative of the class but this isn't a question of visual bridge differences or using an earlier AA fit for a reason. This bulge would give at least some torpedo protection and...

Belfast: new bulges fitted, breadth rose to 20.2m, deep load rose to 7.06m, displacement rose to 11500/14900t, maximal speed felt to 30.5kts. There was new belt over bulges 102mm thick. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cr_edinburgh.htm

So, who wants Belfast with 102mm of armor, a space and then her 114mm belt? 216mm of total armor thickness?

Probably no one, but it's unfortunate that after being unable to model RN ships on game launch due to problems getting plans they're then not modeled 'correctly'.

  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
Alpha Tester
2,552 posts
11 minutes ago, mofton said:

What's even more galling is that WG have actually modeled a historic Hood camouflage, it's only been available in the $100 initial bundle - https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/hood-stuff-with-friends/

Shame WG is still doing this. It discourages me from buying Hood for doubloons in the tech tree. I know many players prefer the lurid camos that WG keeps churning out. But personally I prefer the historical overall gray camo, even if it's dull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,769
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,170 posts
4,435 battles
Just now, mofton said:

What's even more galling is that WG have actually modeled a historic Hood camouflage, it's only been available in the $100 initial bundle - https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/hood-stuff-with-friends/

As I recall the community had a very bad reaction to that camo when she was first shown.  They said it was too dull and bland for a premium, so WG scrambled to do a more "interesting" camo, then had a backlash from the historical purists and so included the originally intended camo in the top package.

Just now, Wolcott said:

Shame WG is still doing this. It discourages me from buying Hood for doubloons in the tech tree. I know many players prefer the lurid camos that WG keeps churning out. But personally I prefer the historical overall gray camo, even if it's dull.

Yes, as do I, and as an example that it worked (though I really did get full use of all those flags as well) I bought the top package just so that I could have the historical camo scheme and it is the one that I use.  Hood is my most used ship by a factor of almost 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
253 posts
2 hours ago, mofton said:

Belfast: new bulges fitted, breadth rose to 20.2m, deep load rose to 7.06m, displacement rose to 11500/14900t, maximal speed felt to 30.5kts. There was new belt over bulges 102mm thick. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cr_edinburgh.htm

Don't have anything to add about Hood or Cossack, but here I'm unsure if you are correct or not. The text says a new belt and in this case I'd read it as replacing the old belt, not in addition to the old belt. I base my interpretation on two things. First the increase in tonnage is hardly enough for what I'd think would be required to add an entirely new belt of that thickness. After all that tonnage includes the bulge itself as well as a whole suite of radars. The second is how Navypedia writes about one of the Königsberg cruisers:

Quote

Karlsruhe: hull was strengthened by additional plating, original outer belt became inner ones, additional upper outer belt had 14mm thickness, upper deck received 16mm protection. Breadth was increased to 16.8m, displacement to 6730 / 8350t, maximal speed felt to 30kts, endurance to 3340(18)nm.

Note how it more directly calls out that the original belt was retained and that the outer belt (if we can call it that at 14 mm) was in addition to it

Not that I have any specific knowledge about the repair/rebuild of Belfast.

Share this post


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

Hello All,

I felt like having another post roundly ignored so I've saved up some ship model problems I'd like WG to take a look at. Some may take more effort than others, but all are worthwhile in my eyes.

Starting easy.

I'm still waiting for the Iron Duke to be fixed. It's one thing to have ships represent a 'hodge podge' of various members of a class, it's another to drop an entire funnel.

Also.

Where the [edited] is Dreadnought?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,502
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,476 posts
13,838 battles
3 hours ago, Snowyskies said:

The text says a new belt and in this case I'd read it as replacing the old belt, not in addition to the old belt. I base my interpretation on two things. First the increase in tonnage is hardly enough for what I'd think would be required to add an entirely new belt of that thickness. After all that tonnage includes the bulge itself as well as a whole suite of radars. The second is how Navypedia writes about one of the Königsberg cruisers

You might be right, though either way that would mean that the sisters should have a different armor scheme - Edinburgh retaining her original 114mm and Belfast having hers replaced with a 102mm.

I've read through Friedman's British Cruisers and elsewhere and while they talk about the bulges and other changes they don't mention armor at all. The thing that makes me somewhat suspicious is that typically the bulge was added outside the armor, providing enough protection to trigger the torpedo warhead away from the main hull, if you put your only armor belt on the outer edge of the torpedo bulge it wouldn't work. Adding another layer of armor in addition does make a bit of sense.

The weight is a good argument, although Friedman has Belfast as 11,400t 'light' when tested post-refit, which is about 1,000t more than her seatrials weight. There is possible space for more armor given the bulge is not as high as the main belt and may not be full length.

3 hours ago, Hot_tamale25 said:

Isn’t the quad Pom Pom thing on Edinburgh’s stern inaccurate as well

I believe so, I feel like a bit of 'AA shuffling' is one thing, but that changes to the armor scheme are somewhat of another. In theory Edinburgh could have had a pom-pom dumped back there, it may not have worked well, but a 3-year massive refit to the hull being portrayed? I don't much like that.

I did mention Edinburgh because I think she's quite an extreme example (funnels on Iron Duke aside) but otherwise premiums should be held to a higher standard.

 

I don't really have much hope of change, this is somewhat reminiscent of Gadjah Mada, which appears as she never did in Indonesian service -

 

Then there's Tirpitz...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,296
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,046 posts
9,180 battles

Unfortunately WG already showed that they dont care as much about historical "details" as some of us care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
253 posts
14 hours ago, mofton said:

he weight is a good argument, although Friedman has Belfast as 11,400t 'light' when tested post-refit, which is about 1,000t more than her seatrials weight. There is possible space for more armor given the bulge is not as high as the main belt and may not be full length.

It's hard to fully grasp where all the tongs go from the outside though. Some of the US cruisers for example were a good 3000 ton heavier by 1943 than when first commissioned simply due to added AA and radar equipment. That's without adding any tonnage eating bulges, though of course the Belfast figure you quote is without adding a bunch of 40 mm Bofors guns that the US cruisers got. Maybe there was some additional armor added but you'd have to get more details about it.

You are right anyway in that they aren't identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,580 posts
16 battles
On 01/06/2018 at 7:11 PM, mofton said:

Hello All,

I felt like having another post roundly ignored so I've saved up some ship model problems I'd like WG to take a look at. Some may take more effort than others, but all are worthwhile in my eyes.

Starting easy.

 

Hood - Misleading Camouflage Sale
Hood's Camouflage here: https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wows/customizations/6539/

K1WjG1Sg.jpg

'Replicating Hood's appearance as she set out on her final mission!'

This replicates Hood's final appearance to the same extent that HMS Monarch is famous and historic... Hood on her final mission wore a uniform overall scheme of Pattern 507B - Dark Grey, see: http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/models/tips/hoodpaint.htm#AsSunk

No British battleship ever wore that blue, and the turret tops being red are frankly more reminiscent of a USN Standard Type Battleship http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/PearlHarborBatDivMarkings.html

What's even more galling is that WG have actually modeled a historic Hood camouflage, it's only been available in the $100 initial bundle - https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/hood-stuff-with-friends/

Charging $17.35 for a duplicate premium camouflage of purely cosmetic benefit which you market as being historic is dishonest. Change the description, or perhaps offer the historic camo for sale.

 

Cossack's Hull Number - Too Late to Change?
HMS Cossack in game has had a drawn out design history. Initially she was tested as a 6-gun (per Haida) configuration and then later was changed to an earlier historic configuration with 8 guns.

Original, 16 December 2017:

Current, 30 March 2018:

What's the problem here then? Well it's pretty minor. Both these versions seem to have, in large cheerful letters 'G03' written on the side. This is the ships' pennant number, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennant_number although this being the Royal Navy nothing is simple.

Cossack had a pennant number change coinciding with her refit which removed two of her 4.7in guns. If Cossack is delivered in-game with 4 gun mounts then she should bear the Pennant number 'F03'. See evidence in the spoiler here:

  Reveal hidden contents

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-34Tribal-Cossack1.htm

Her Pennant Number for visual signalling purposes was L03 when she commissioned but this was changed in December 1938 to F03.

During the Second Battle of Narvik in 1940 the Cossack was badly damaged by shellfire from German Destroyers and at one point grounded. Following this she went back to the UK for repairs.

May                         Repair arranged at J I Thornycroft shipyard at Southampton. Taken in hand for repair

                                Pennant Number for visual signalling purposes changed to G03.

                               Note: Refit work included:

Installation of Radar Type 286, which was an RAF air/surface equipment modified for naval use and the first radar outfit to be fitted in RN destroyers. For details of the development and use of radar equipment in the Royal Navy see RADAR AT SEA by D Howse.  Twin 4.7in mounting in X position was replaced by twin 4in HA mounting and modifications were made to other ship services.

Here's a picture of 8-gun (well, 6 now...) HMS Eskimo, her sister ship in April 1940 with the 'F' pennant.

9BOsHJ6g.jpg

Imperial War Museum photograph A 25A, HMS Eskimo in a spot of bother after the Second Battle of Narvik, note in this configuration she retains an 'F' pennant as Cossack would have.

One source suggests that the pennant number change may have been a little later but, while that would allow an F03 6-gun, it does not allow a G03 8-gun:

 https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4423.html Pennant numbers:
L 03 May 1938 - December 1938
F 03 January 1939 - Autumn 1940
G 03 Autumn 1940 - October 1941. (i.e. this source has G03 even later and certainly post-refit in May where she went 6-gun).

The pennant numbers drawn onto the RN ships in-game are part of the model, not the camouflage so they remain even if you change the camouflage. This doesn't seem a huge ask, and premiums are marketed as being historic.

 

Edinburgh's Hull - More Armor Please?
In short WG have used the hull of the T7 premium HMS Belfast for her sister ship HMS Edinburgh. The Belfast had a long refit from November 1939 to October 1942 after sustaining mine damage. In that time the major visual change was the addition of a torpedo bulge and armor on the lower hull.

The Edinburgh never received this modification https://www.world-war.co.uk/Edinburgh/edinburgh.php3 yet in game her hull displays it. Here's the ship very shortly before her loss in 1942: https://www.world-war.co.uk/loss_edinburgh.php3

So the model is wrong, note in particular the diagonal slope down from in line with the funnel to the bulge:

gCnTZThg.png

The way to make it right would be to simply smooth out the sides.

Now, there is a logic that the named ship is representative of the class but this isn't a question of visual bridge differences or using an earlier AA fit for a reason. This bulge would give at least some torpedo protection and...

Belfast: new bulges fitted, breadth rose to 20.2m, deep load rose to 7.06m, displacement rose to 11500/14900t, maximal speed felt to 30.5kts. There was new belt over bulges 102mm thick. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/uk/brit_cr_edinburgh.htm

So, who wants Belfast with 102mm of armor, a space and then her 114mm belt? 216mm of total armor thickness?

Probably no one, but it's unfortunate that after being unable to model RN ships on game launch due to problems getting plans they're then not modeled 'correctly'.

I know I have more than 3 niggles, I have been dutifully going through the RN ships on the WG wiki pointing out the historical inaccuracies where and when they are found. Only Black Swan, Weymouth and Campbeltown are left to go over the list of inaccuracies. Though I would like to refresh some of the writing in the history section too for some others. Not sure how many people read the section at the bottom of those pages though, perhaps there should be a master thread with these listed in the hopes that perhaps they might be fixed.

Hood's camouflage is an annoyance. Seeing the historical grey get replaced with the Repulse-esque and Arizona style camouflages, and then the historical one locked away behind a pay wall is quite disappointing. 

L03 would also be an appropriate pennant number alongside F03 for 8 gun Cossack. She has mugged HMS Matabele for her camouflage, in the same way Gallant took over Grenade's, but I would like to see a historical option, and while the greys that Cossack wore might be regarded as boring, her pre-war Mediterranean near white scheme with a red funnel band is unique and stand-out enough from the greys, while also being gorgeous. 

Image result for hms matabele

 

As for Edinburgh, the A-hull represents Belfast from mid 43 to 44 accurately, with the exception of the octuple pompom on the stern. Removing it wouldn't make too much difference. The B-hull is late war Belfast on crack AA. Extra-armour would definitely be appreciated I think. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
Alpha Tester
2,552 posts
14 hours ago, Trainspite said:

Not sure how many people read the section at the bottom of those pages though, perhaps there should be a master thread with these listed in the hopes that perhaps they might be fixed.

I'd suggest a "Historical Accuracy Errata" section like what WoT currently has. Just don't know who to contact about it though. Still it's a nice contribution even if hardly anyone sees it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
1,580 posts
16 battles
2 hours ago, Wolcott said:

I'd suggest a "Historical Accuracy Errata" section like what WoT currently has. Just don't know who to contact about it though. Still it's a nice contribution even if hardly anyone sees it.

Yeah, making it it's own section visible from the start instead of scrolling to the bottom of the Historical info section would help make issues more visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,276 posts

It's still strange to me that Hood's 'Hunt for the Bismarck' camouflage is still stated by WG as being the one she carried during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. As you said in the OP, she never carried a paint scheme like that at Denmark Strait or at any point of her service career. Being interested in naval paint schemes, especially those of the Royal Navy it does bother me.

Edited by zFireWyvern

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.

×