Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SeaRaptor00

Battle Report: USS Georgia - "Stuck In The Middle"

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

716
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, WoWS Community Contributors
2,112 posts
9,552 battles

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
458
[HELLS]
Members
2,049 posts
19,514 battles

Nice. We shall see if they leave her in the current condition when it is released. I am not a fan of paper ships in any case, so I shall wait it out before deciding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
716
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, WoWS Community Contributors
2,112 posts
9,552 battles
1 hour ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Nice. We shall see if they leave her in the current condition when it is released. I am not a fan of paper ships in any case, so I shall wait it out before deciding.

I had a conversation on the weekend with @Lambo805, who indicated to me that this design may be among the Tillman battleships that the USN discarded along the way to constructing the SoDaks and Iowas

I remain confused as to why people are so against the game bringing ships to life that were never constructed.  If we held ourselves to only ships that were actually built, the game would be narrow and boring.  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
458
[HELLS]
Members
2,049 posts
19,514 battles
8 hours ago, SeaRaptor00 said:

I had a conversation on the weekend with @Lambo805, who indicated to me that this design may be among the Tillman battleships that the USN discarded along the way to constructing the SoDaks and Iowas

I remain confused as to why people are so against the game bringing ships to life that were never constructed.  If we held ourselves to only ships that were actually built, the game would be narrow and boring.  

A similar design shows up in Friedman's US Battleships: An Illustrated Design History (which I have) as a preliminary design study pre-London Treaty of 1930 that eventually became the North Carolina through three or four design evolutions. The best candidate design is present in the Tillman might-have-been chapter of the same book, as you stated, and there is one of them that, suitably modified, fills the bill after extensive reconstruction aka, like the wartime rebuilds for California and West Virginia. The Tillman design studies are the most likely ones with their size as the NC hull could not take a twin 18-inch turret without exceeding the 35,000 metric ton limit and major redesign work. The USN had complete sets of gun and turret designs for the RN's 18-inch gun systems brought over by Stanley Goodall, a senior constructor with the DNC and future DNC Director during WWII, who liased with the USN during WW I. He also brought over the complete designs for Argus and Hermes to bring the USN up to date on RN CV developments, and those of Hood as well. He got the Lexington and Maryland plans in return. All direct co-operation on technology with the RN stopped after the US Senate pulled the plug by refusing to ratify the various treaties of 1919 after the 1920 US presidential election.

Putting twin 18-inchers on an NC hull would require 5 or 6 feet more beam, 3 feet more freeboard, 2 feet more draft and a wider flare at the bow than the NC hull has to allow the turret roller paths, heavier barbettes, and modified magzines to fit without weakening the hull girder. It would cost about 1.5 knots in speed with the same powerplant. Major redesign that is, and probably not feasible given the weak armor the NCs would have had originally 

More than half of my T10s are paper or postwar ships! Postwar ships designed and started during the war I can swallow but the paper or never built ones I play because i ground the bastards the hard way, not because I like them. Need something for Ranked and Clan battles and variety is the spice of life!

Edited by GrandAdmiral_2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,655
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,457 posts
12,810 battles
On 5/7/2019 at 1:04 PM, SeaRaptor00 said:

I had a conversation on the weekend with @Lambo805, who indicated to me that this design may be among the Tillman battleships that the USN discarded along the way to constructing the SoDaks and Iowas

I remain confused as to why people are so against the game bringing ships to life that were never constructed.  If we held ourselves to only ships that were actually built, the game would be narrow and boring.  

This ship is mostly based on some design studies that lead to the Iowa; in a way it's a proto-Iowa.  It is certainly /not/ a Tillman based design.  The ship is mostly IIRC, Scheme IV.  Scheme IV was originally designed to be armed with 3X3 16"/45 (NC/SoDak guns).  This ship was actually the Alpha T9 from when they tried to make Iowa the USN T10 BB from what I understand.  A fast SoDak really doesn't offer anything interesting over an Iowa.  So, the ship's model was already done.

That's where the frankenstein work comes in.  One of the /slow/ (27 knots) proto-Iowa designs contained 3X2 18"/48 guns.  To make the un-interesting fast SoDak different, they slapped the twin 18-inch guns on it from the slow proto-Iowa design on it.  That gives them a whole new ship, while only having to model the new 18-inch guns.  Ballistics data from the test 18"/47 is out there, so the hard work was already done.  The hardest part for WG is making a 6 gun ship work in a game where barrel count generally trumps barrel size.

As for why people are against the never were ships, is...some of us like history.  One of the reasons I play mostly t5-7, is that's where my historical interest lies.  I like the treaty era ships that fought all war.  The late war and post war crap has no interest for me.  I think we could easily do only ships that were build and still be interesting, but I am not opposed to the never weres.  I don't see any reason not to make ships that people may enjoy.  I might not be interested in them, but if other folks are that's fine with me.

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.

×